[eDebate] A way forward on the NDT rules discussion
Mon Apr 24 14:56:31 CDT 2006
Forgive me for cross-posting this to edebate and ceda-l. There has been
a reasonable amount of discussion and although I am not going to
directly engage the merits of the controversy, I wanted to provide a way
to encourage further deliberation that reached a large segment of our
As much as some decry lack of transparency, from the standpoint of those
involved in these decisions, we often suffer from lack of input. The
recent controversy about the NDT worker rule is a great example of how
for a period of time there is quite a dust-up about an issue, but as
personal responsibilities (finals, grading, other jobs, families, etc)
take over the issue disappears. This can be especially troubling when
the calendar of events requires certain actions at certain times. As
productive as this conversation has been, I would invite everyone to pay
close attention to the topic process because it is the immediate action
item facing our community. Without attempting to ignore the very real
discussion on the rules issue, the CEDA topic ballots are due in exactly
two weeks. Please read the topic papers and ask questions and provide
your perspectives. We need your input.
In the context of the worker rule we need a way to move forward. I would
like to encourage everyone who feels passionately about the NDT worker
rule to make their voice heard to their representative. Before we voted
at the NDT, the chair asked for a sense of the committee, that is, what
their districts had encouraged them to support or reject. This effort
produced a great deal of support for change. I am confident that at
least three of the four no votes supported other reform legislation.
This should give you a sense that the discussion in this forum has been
only partially representative of the discussion we considered. I
appreciate the effort by Eber and others who recently began a line of
conversation that specifically relate to making the reform best match
community preference. We need that next stage of community input before
we move ahead.
The next stage in the process is the November meeting at the National
Communication Association conference. This may seem like a long way off,
but it gives every school and every region time to meet at tournaments
in the fall and conduct electronic correspondence about this matter. It
is also the transparent process by which we function. I am including
below the same template that I am going to be using for feedback among
my district. This can certainly be improved, but something along these
lines can help us learn from you.
1) Do you support the general principle of regulating who performs
research related tasks at the NDT?
2) Do you support the current rule as passed at the March 06 meeting?
3) Do you support restricting the number of coaches and staff who
research at the NDT?
4) Do you support allowing non-competing students to research at the NDT?
5) Do you favor numerical limits on the number of people (all
participants) who can research at the NDT?
a) Do you favor limits on staff researchers?
b) Do you favor limits on student researchers?
6) If you answered yes to any part of question 5, what limits do you prefer?
a) for staff?
b) for students?
You each have two people that are responsible to hear your concerns. The
first group below are the committee members who represent the American
Forensics Association. They divide the country into four regions that
Karla Leeper, Baylor University, Chair, AFA Western
<mailto:partsara at isu.EDU>Karla_Leeper at baylor.edu
<mailto:Karla_Leeper at baylor.edu>
Tim O'Donnell, Mary Washington College, AFA Eastern todonnel at mwc.edu
<mailto:todonnel at mwc.edu>Joe Zompetti, Mercer University, AFA Midwest,
Zompetti at aol.com
<mailto:Zompetti at aol.com>Ed Lee, University of Alabama, AFA South,
bamadebate at yahoo.com <mailto:bamadebate at yahoo.com>
<mailto:Zompetti at aol.com> <mailto:Zompetti at aol.com>
You also each have a regional representative. We are elected to two-year
terms so you always have the chance to find someone else if you don't
like how we do our jobs.
Gordon Stables, District 1 stables at usc.edu <mailto:stables at usc.edu>
Glen Frappier, Gonzaga Univ., District II frappier at calvin.gonzaga.edu
<mailto:frappier at calvin.gonzaga.edu>Joel Rollins, Univ. Texas-Austin,
District III jd.rollins at mail.utexas.edu
<mailto:jd.rollins at mail.utexas.edu>Fred Sternhagen, Concordia College
sternhag at CORD.EDU <mailto:sternhag at CORD.EDU>
Dick Lesicko, Macalester College, District IV lesicko at macalester.edu
<mailto:lesicko at macalester.edu>Mike Eber , Michigan State University,
District V eber at msu.edu <mailto:eber at msu.edu>
<mailto:Bbrossmann at jcu.edu>Ryan Galloway, Samford University, District VI
<mailto:smithr at wfu.edu>Warren Decker, George Mason University, District
VII wdecker at OSF1.GMU.EDU <mailto:wdecker at OSF1.GMU.EDU>
<mailto:parcherj at mindspring.com>Dallas Perkins, Harvard University,
District VIII dperkins at fas.harvard.edu
<mailto:dperkins at fas.harvard.edu>Omar Guevara, Weber State University,
District IX, oguevara at weber.edu <mailto:oguevara at weber.edu>
<mailto:stannardmatt at hotmail.com>
I am excited that this gives us the chance to hear more from you and
that you can better be involved in the process.
In the interim, please read the topic papers and provide feedback.
Gordon Stables, Ph.D.
Director of Debate
Annenberg School for Communication
University of Southern California
Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913
More information about the Mailman