[eDebate] Time to Review the Merger
Fri Jun 9 14:07:14 CDT 2006
Josh and I are closer to agreement then I think is realized. Part of your post suggests that I am in the "split" camp. Hopefully that doesnt turn people off because it simply is not true. Check the archives. From day one I defended the merger and still do. Some practices I do not support and will talk more about those in the future. When I ran for CEDA 2nd VP I spoke to this in my declaration letter. I think the big tent of us all playing together made debate better stylistically. And you are wrong when you imply "we may not agree on how debate should look". I think we do agree on that. I think we also agree that practices could be reformed. My argument has never been about style. But I think the financial argument you make goes hand in hand with travel patterns. And the merger and the bid chase has directly led to travel patterns that makes it impossible for some folks to keep up financially. Stannards research will speak more to this I think but in the meantime what do we do? We cannot continue down the path of least resistance for the fear that what we may uncover will lead to a split and 2 small groups that risk even further death. We need to work and uncover and make changes. Idyllic past or not the truth is there are about 100 less programs doing policy debate today then there were in the late 80's and early to mid 90's. Finally I will conclude with this thought: will the NDT committee seriously consider changes to the pre-bid system in the spirit of reviving Regional Debate? Many others have already backchanneled me about this issue in the last 2 days. Folks on both sides of the fence pre-merger have spoken to this. As an organization CEDA needs to ask that question and gauge the response. Because, as Ermo pointed out, we are 2 organizations both of us need to work together if the common goal is viability and as you suggest arrested decline.
Darren Elliott (the other Elliott)
Director of Debate--KCKCC
CEDA 2nd VP
>>> "Josh Hoe" <jbhdb8 at gmail.com> 06/09/06 12:40 PM >>>
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.
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
> 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
> 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
> the merger...It was happening at the end of traditional CEDA before the
> 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.
> Darren Elliott
> Director of Debate--KCKCC
> CEDA 2nd VP
> 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
> > is an important call do something that is a necessary part of
> > decision-making. If we're not self-reflective about the impact of
> > we make, we will inevitably evolve in directions that are less than
> > 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
> > to be part of the NDT process. It was rather an NDT decision to be part
> > the CEDA process. The watershed moment was a decision by the NDT
> > to adopt the CEDA topic. The conditions for that decision - that the
> > 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
> > 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
> > wanted to be part of the NDT process, it would discover that unilateral
> > disengagement is impossible. The question is not whether CEDA adopts
> > NDT topic - it's whether the NDT adopts the CEDA topic. Besides topic
> > construction there really is no merger (other than that defined by
> > patterns and choices to attend one or both of the national tournaments -
> > a number of schools played on both sides of the street long before there
> > 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
More information about the Mailman