[eDebate] Time to Review the Merger

Josh Hoe jbhdb8
Fri Jun 9 13:20:48 CDT 2006


I am not sure but I think this supports my argument....the question of PRICE
and the decline of University support generally call the tune.  There are
other reasons.  But I think it would be very dangerous to say "the merger
has caused the decline in debate."  Debate and CEDA debate was declining
BEFORE the merger,

Josh


On 6/9/06, matt stannard <stannardmatt at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> If I may offer a non-scientific preview of the survey responses I have
> processed:
>
> Programs have left for four main reasons:
>
> 1. Perceived budgetary expenses of NDT/CEDA debate as opposed to
> parliamentary debate.
> 2. Decline of regional travel opportunities, feeding #1.
> 3. Simple lack of interest on the part of their students, tied to the
> perception that the work requirements of NDT/CEDA debate are next to
> impossible for students who either work or are involved in other academic
> activities.
> 4. Theoretical/ideological opposition to the communication practices of
> NDT/CEDA debate (this was not listed nearly as much as the other three;
> the
> majority of directors who have abandoned NDT/CEDA say they love it and
> wished they could have kept doing it).
>
> stannard
>
>
> >From: "Josh Hoe" <jbhdb8 at gmail.com>
> >To: "Darren Elliott" <delliott at kckcc.edu>
> >CC: edebate at ndtceda.com, Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu
> >Subject: Re: [eDebate] Time to Review the Merger
> >Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 13:40:59 -0400
> >
> >The only disagreement I can see in the Cheif's post is the one I
> pre-empted
> >about the merger causing the decline of regional debate.
> >
> >CEDA was moving toward an entirely NDT style prior to the merger....The
> >merger did NOT cause the decline in programs...Programs were dying and
> >regional circuits were dying in CEDA PRIOR to the merger....One of the
> >major
> >arguments for the merger at the time was to ARREST decline.  The
> >Mid-America
> >region was the CEDA version of the Emory/Wake/West Ga/Kentucky etc region
> -
> >if you didnt travel to the Mid America district in the last 7 years of
> CEDA
> >qua CEDA you had NO chance at CEDA nationals.
> >
> >I was one of the last people to make the transition (ASU did an entirely
> >CEDA schedule the first pseudo merger year) and I was a CEDA officer and
> >was
> >VERY active through this whole period.  It is just patently false to
> >suggest
> >that prior to the merger CEDA was this idyllic romantic past you suggest.
> >
> >I have suggested this before...Most, if not all, of the reasons debate is
> >dying is not a result of the merger...It is the result first and foremost
> >of
> >increased travel costs.  In addition, many programs left entirely or did
> >Parli because they hated the style of debate that was becoming prominant
> in
> >CEDA PRIOR to the merger.  The style popularized by schools such as
> Emporia
> >(you), UCO (me), SIU at the end (Jack) etc.
> >
> >Finally, I have gotten a crash course in the last four years of just how
> >hard it is to keep a debate program running without University support.
> >The
> >major problems across the board for most schools who try to debate is
> >DECLINING UNIVERSITY FUNDS FROM STATE BUDGETS.  Its easier to bemoan how
> >terrible debate is and how many programs we are losing but many of the
> >problems we all face are created externally.  My fear is, in our haste to
> >do
> >something radical to return to a past that no longer exists, we will make
> >the problems worse not better.
> >
> >I know I am somehwat of a muckraker in this forum but please realize that
> >the one thing we do have is each other...If we start choosing sides and
> >dividing up again we are only going to have two seperate, smaller, and
> more
> >rapidly dying groups of college debaters.
> >
> >The best thing we can do is SHARE our success stories....How did Dr.
> Warner
> >generate University support, how did the teams with lots of money get to
> be
> >teams with lots of money, how does Jack get support at OU, etc etc
> >etc.....How can you justify what we do to administrators
> >successfully.....How can you create revenue streams outside the
> University
> >budgeting process.  We may not agree on how debate should look but we are
> >resources for each others continued survival.  Cutting off whole sections
> >of
> >such resources seems to me, at best, short sighted.
> >
> >Josh
> >
> >
> >
> >On 6/9/06, Darren Elliott <delliott at kckcc.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>I am working on the wordings that Tim presented as per the Topic Cmte
> >>deliberations and dont have time for a long dive into this but Andy's
> post
> >>was an outgrowth of a conversation at the CEDA summer meetings.  I think
> >>it
> >>has merit.  I do want to comment on a couple things Josh says below.  We
> >>have different perspectives I think that are worth noting.
> >>
> >> >>> "Josh Hoe" <jbhdb8 at gmail.com> 06/08/06 11:17 PM >>>
> >>JH:  Sure, I suspect it would be easy to make sure the NDT no longer
> >>debated the
> >>CEDA topic...just go back to two value topics a year.  That would do it
> >>for
> >>sure.
> >>
> >>ME:  I agree.  Hypothetically if programs would flood back to evidence
> >>based debate would it be worth it?
> >>
> >>JH:  Not really sure what Andy's argument is....A team can still travel
> >>exclusively a CEDA schedule, still attend CEDA nationals only, still set
> >>CEDA regional or overall points championships as the squad goal.  What
> >>exactly are you saying?  No program is forced to debate at traditionally
> >>NDT
> >>tournaments or at the NDT.  Any program still has exactly the same
> choices
> >>open to them as they did when I debated CEDA.
> >>
> >>ME:  Depends on the team doesnt it?  For some the "CEDA schedule" they
> >>once knew is a thing of the past.  As regional debate died in parts of
> the
> >>country the ability to travel a CEDA schedule dies as well.  Some
> programs
> >>have the same choices available--not all do.  And I would wager to say
> >>MOST
> >>of the CEDA programs that existed when you debated CEDA have gone the
> way
> >>of
> >>the T-Rex.
> >>
> >>JH:  So, whats left, if the above is true, is the topic...and that is
> >>voted for
> >>by the CEDA membership and written by elected CEDA leadership members.
> >>
> >>ME:  Not that simple.  The topic is the one thing that unified the two
> >>mostly, I agree with Gary on that point and with you on that point.
> >>However
> >>that was a major factor in many schools leaving.  That led to a decline
> in
> >>Regional debate in many regions.  So others had to choose between
> leaving
> >>or
> >>changing their squad focus entirely.  The merger didnt just change the
> >>topic
> >>process.  There are many things it allowed/caused/led to.  The topic
> >>change
> >>came first.  And the topics are certainly different.  From my
> perspective
> >>they are better.  But others disagree.  And instead if hearing those
> >>voices
> >>we just keep pushing them to the margins.
> >>
> >>JH:  Guess I am being somewhat purposefully obtuse but for a
> >>point...rarely was
> >>there really an ideal romantic past and hardly ever can it be returned
> to.
> >>
> >>ME:  If losing over 100 programs in the past 15 years isnt romantic
> enough
> >>then maybe nothing can convince folks that we have an obligation to look
> >>at
> >>where we were and where we are now.  Gary is right, institutionally we
> >>really should do this from time to time.
> >>
> >>JH:  What you are really arguing, I suspect, is that you wish more
> people
> >>supported a less national circuit approach so that there was more viable
> >>regional debate all over the country.  The lack of this is NOT the fault
> >>of
> >>the merger...It was happening at the end of traditional CEDA before the
> >>merger.
> >>
> >>ME:  Was it happening on the same scale?  Really?  That isnt my
> >>recollection.  Even if it was, CEDA's Natl circuit tournaments are now
> >>barely able to make it as Regional tournaments.  CEDA's natl.
> tournaments
> >>were the Jesuit qualifiers.  Now S. Carolina and UMSL are gone.  Emporia
> >>and
> >>UCO are Regional tournaments.  The Pacific Northwest is down to 2-3
> >>programs
> >>total much less a large Natl tournament drawing many teams.
> >>
> >>I will conclude with my example from CEDA Mid-American Region/NDT
> >>D3.  Prior to the merger CEDA's top programs in this area of the world
> >>were
> >>SMS, ESU, UMKC, UCO, and K-State.  They all held big tournaments too.
> >>None
> >>of us really had to travel out of the Region even though a few did but
> on
> >>occasion.  Not to the extent they do now.  The merger brought into the
> >>fold
> >>some NDT powerhouses we never encountered before.  It brought us face to
> >>face with KU, Baylor, Texas, and N. Texas.  KU and Baylor also had huge
> >>tournaments.  But then the chase was on.  To keep up at districts we had
> >>to
> >>go where those schools were going all year.  So the bid chase was on.
> >>Folks
> >>flocked from the District.  As a result all of those big tournaments
> >>decreased in size.  The burdens mounted and yes a year long topic also
> >>brought burdens.   Regional programs disappeared.  Gone were NEMO, MOSO,
> >>UMSL, Webster, SLU, CMSU, SMU, Central Methodist, Cameron, NOC, WJC and
> >>who
> >>knows how many more I cant remember off the top of my head.  All those
> >>schools leaving meant even more teams now not coming to the Regional
> >>tournaments.  And the cycle goes on and on.  Was the merger the sole
> >>reason?  Not likely.  Did we do what was necessary to preserve identity
> >>and
> >>preserve programs?  Absolutely not.  Shame on us.  A look back is not
> only
> >>necessary but prudent and hopefully not too late.
> >>
> >>chief
> >>
> >>Darren Elliott
> >>Director of Debate--KCKCC
> >>CEDA 2nd VP
> >>
> >>Josh
> >>
> >>
> >>On 6/8/06, Gary Larson <Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >  Andy's call to evaluate the effects of the "merger" between CEDA and
> >>NDT
> >> > is an important call do something that is a necessary part of
> >>institutional
> >> > decision-making. If we're not self-reflective about the impact of
> >>decisions
> >> > we make, we will inevitably evolve in directions that are less than
> >>ideal.
> >> >
> >> > But the final paragraph of Andy's post deserves comment.  He asks
> >> > presumably the historically CEDA part of his audience,
> >> >
> >> > "Do we still want to be a part of the NDT process? Has it paid off
> for
> >> > us?"
> >> >
> >> >  The irony here is that the "merger" such as it is was not a CEDA
> >>decision
> >> > to be part of the NDT process.  It was rather an NDT decision to be
> >>part
> >>of
> >> > the CEDA process.  The watershed moment was a decision by the NDT
> >>community
> >> > to adopt the CEDA topic.  The conditions for that decision - that the
> >>topic
> >> > be worded as a policy resolution and that there only be one topic per
> >>year -
> >> > had both been essentially already adopted by the CEDA community
> >>independent
> >> > of any possibility that the NDT would adopt the CEDA topic.
> >> >
> >> > As a result, the topic selection process remains uniquely a CEDA
> >> > constitutional function, even if some fret that it has been
> >>co-opted.  If
> >> > CEDA were to decide that Andy's concern is warranted and that CEDA no
> >>longer
> >> > wanted to be part of the NDT process, it would discover that
> unilateral
> >> > disengagement is impossible.  The question is not whether CEDA adopts
> >>the
> >> > NDT topic - it's whether the NDT adopts the CEDA topic.  Besides
> topic
> >> > construction there really is no merger (other than that defined by
> >>travel
> >> > patterns and choices to attend one or both of the national
> tournaments
> >>-
> >>but
> >> > a number of schools played on both sides of the street long before
> >>there
> >>was
> >> > talk of a merger).
> >> >
> >> > Given a somewhat popular narrative that says that CEDA lost programs
> to
> >> > Parli because it capitulated to NDT, the real story is perhaps even
> >>more
> >> > interesting.
> >> >
> >> > GARY
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > eDebate mailing list
> >> > eDebate at ndtceda.com
> >> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
>
>
> >_______________________________________________
> >eDebate mailing list
> >eDebate at ndtceda.com
> >http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060609/b6c90603/attachment.html 



More information about the Mailman mailing list