[eDebate] Recent 'pie' controversy

Andy Ellis andy.edebate
Wed Mar 19 14:22:45 CDT 2008


I think that gordons call to not use this forum is a dangerous one...this is
the largest broadcast forum we have and risks the most eyes seeing
it...hiding and sequestering the conversation on different forums allows
what appears to be an archetypal display of privilege protecting a system of
racial ordering to avoid scrutiny. This seems to be one of the hallmarks of
contemporary debate practices, the sealing off of rounds as if they occurred
in a laboratory isolated from society around them, gives the space for those
operating as beneficiaries of an unjust order to distance themselves from
their actions...i respect grodons call for balance but think in this
instance it might server the purpose of protecting a form of symbolic
violence that ideal and neutral discussions cannot account for.

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Gordon Stables <stables at usc.edu> wrote:

>  I will apologize for the brevity of these comments, but I scheduled to
> leave for CEDA shortly.
>
>
>
> From the accounts so far made available, it does appear as though an
> incident last weekend has created hard feelings and left many of us looking
> for more information. Justin has provided some information and I echo Tuna's
> call for additional details before folks provide public judgments on the
> individuals and the specific activity.
>
>
>
> The numerous sarcastic postings of the last few days do little to help
> this situation and ignore the human beings involved. Megan's email should
> remind everyone that careless comments or actions can be very hurtful. I
> commend those who have taken the higher road in discussing the matter with a
> needed respect for all involved.
>
>
>
> I would caution those involved in a more extensive discussion of this, or
> any serious matter, to minimize using this forum, especially as the primary
> means of consideration. The nature of this space tends to generally
> encourage those who are least familiar with the details and most interested
> in inflammatory commentary.
>
>
>
> Justin provided an important frame for the event when he first posted. He
> asked questions about the nature and acceptability of such satirical
> practices. David engaged in a line of conversation that I believe Tuna and
> others reinforced ? satire is an element of political commentary that has
> plenty of value  in specific settings, but physical conduct in a debate
> setting appears unnecessary and harmful.
>
>
>
> The question that Justin opened with, and seems relevant today, is the
> nature of satire that crosses into the physical and demeaning conduct of an
> opponent. The references to the CEDA constitution speak to the importance of
> providing an environment where competitors respect each other.
>
>
>
> It is undeniable that when debaters engage questions of class and
> privilege that debaters will feel a great deal of personal accountability in
> those debates. Indeed I would imagine that coaches supporting these
> arguments seek to have a conversation about these issues. We should all be
> aware of the significance and complexity of these matters as we discuss this
> issue. It is not easy to confront an opponent that contends you are in some
> way involved in class or structural bias, especially if you also feel
> aggrieved.
>
>
>
> This should not, however,  encourage students to cross the line into
> physical conduct against other students. I have tried to learn more about
> this incident, but I also acknowledge my very limited grasp of the details.
>
>
>
> At this point I would just encourage students and coaches alike to
> seriously consider the problems of such approaches. A variety of personal
> and professional ethical norms should cause great caution when encouraging a
> student to physically confront another in any form.
>
>
>
> I know some have already made claims that this line between speech and
> conduct isn't very meaningful. It is hard to dispute that some forms of
> language can, and does, create such harm to others. None of this, however,
> should be read as a rationale to simply ignore the question of dissuading
> individuals from engaging in physical forms of conduct.
>
>
>
> The basic unit of our activity is the ability to provide a political space
> for students to engage each other. We are passionate in the ways that we
> feel that space should be evaluated. We must remember, however, that without
> a common willingness to share that space we don't have much of community.
>
>
>
> Many of our community understand this fragile trust and work to protect
> it. This conversation stems from a single, yet important, debate and ideally
> the reflection posed by this conversation allows folks to look at it as a
> means of appreciating the boundaries of our activity.
>
>
>
> It is not to dismiss or belittle to issue to say that the individual
> incident should be further discussed and also that coaches and students
> consider these boundaries in their arguments and performances.  I am very
> eager to continue this discussion both with folks at CEDA and those who are
> not attending. Just please heed the call of the many voices in this
> conversation who encourage everyone to see the real people involved in this
> matter.
>
>
>
> Travel safely to Wichita.
>
> Gordon
>
>
>
> Gordon Stables, Ph.D.
> Director of Debate and Forensics
> Annenberg School for Communication
> University of Southern California
> Office: 213 740 2759               Fax: 213 740 3913
> http://usctrojandebate.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080319/d9a3a497/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list