Constructing an Ethical Policy Debate System for a Multicultural Democracy

During our fall retreat, the week before school, we delivered a series of lectures to our students discussing the justification for, the components of, and the necessary preparation required to embark on a very different debate journey than the last eight years.  The powerpoint presentation from the retreat entitled (Introducing an Ethical Policy Debate System for a Multicultural Democracy) emphasizes the following issues: how to win an ethcial policy debate, what the format should look like, the evaluation of these debates, and what constitutes unethical behavior within such a debate system.  We will get to these issues momentarily.  But let’s start in a different place: the definition of a debate “impact” and how interscolastic debate trains participants to caclulate “impacts” in the current evaluation process.  To understand the need for the new system, one must recognize why the old system prevents quality debate over a policy controversy.  Contrary to perception and stereotype, it’s not inherently speed or style: those are but symptoms of a larger problem as the core issue manifests itself around those phenomena. 

The Case for a Counter-System?

Consideration of an Ethical Policy Debate System for a Multicultural Democracy

Any objective reading of contemporary interscholastic policy tournament debate history must acknowledge that the creation and development of the current tournament norms and conventions occurred in an extremely homogenous environment.  The evolution from audience to tournament debating, the subtle turn away from interracial debates, and the growth of the NDT as a debate organization are all part of the foundation for today’s contemporary debate theory and practice.  Accepting this premise, one can consider the following hypothesis, that an effective policy debate system for a multicultural society needs to be developed in a multicultural environment. 

Would I have done it all again?

In a letter of support for Shanara Reid-Brinkley and bill shanahan written to their administrations at Pittsburgh and Fort Hays, I admit some personal responsibility for the 2008 quarterfinals debate that has created pain, suffering, and death (bill’s job) in the CEDA/NDT debate community.  Part of that responsibility is accepting the “shame” dagger thrown in a series of edebateposts over the weekend, with one explicitly targeting me by name, while others certainly imply that Louisville has been part of the problem.  The anonymous post, signed “Tom Tavegia“, suggests that I was wrong for ever wanting to become the first black judge in the history of the NDT to sit on the panel in the final round.  To “Tom”, my race doesn’t matter, only merit does (I think he concedes that I have merit, but that is unclear).  “Tom” believes that my use of racial rhetoric and racial stories is part of the problem.  Moreover, he suggests that the growing number of “debates about debate” ran him away from the activity, even when he found large amounts of competitive success.  He feels that the growing number of attacks alleging racism, sexism, and other “isms” destroyed the value and meaning and enjoyment for an activity that held the promise of debating policy considerations.  Finally, “Tom” feels that debate squad “projects” are an ineffective tool to approach these issues.

Grief, Pain, Blame, and the Warmth of the Sun

Friday, August 22nd, was an extremely dark day in the world of academic debate.  On that day, we lost one of our most innovative and thought-provoking voices when bill shanahan (he chooses not to capitalize his name) was fired from Fort Hays State University.  Moreover, Dr. Ed Hammond, president of Fort Hays and a life-long supporter and former debater, turned his back on academic debate.  In his press release announcing bill’s termination, Dr. Hammond indefinitely suspended the Fort Hays program after suggesting that the educational value of debate has been lost.  This action illustrates the internal chasms and divisions that exist within academic policy intercolleigate NDT/CEDA debate, chasms that continue to deepen like an infected wound that fails to get treatment.  Eventually, death results when an infection goes untreated long enough. 

Our Name, Our Mission

Welcome to the new blog for the University of Louisville Malcolm X Debate Society. 

The evolution of our debate team closely resembles the life, growth, and development of the most reknowned black debater in history, Malcolm X.  Early in his career, Malcolm debated on behalf of the needs and interests of black Americans as part of a larger black humanization effort to challenge the remaining ills of slavery and the consequences of segregation.  Malcolm’s approach to life, however, was drastically altered after a trip to MECCA, where he developed compassion for the world.  We believe this compassion would have reformed and refined his debate approach, but he was killed before he was able to incorporate it into his advocacy.