[tpeters]

I'm going to tread on eggshells and go out on a limb (to mix a metaphor).

The manner in which this author discussed what happened was deplorable. His choice of language was loaded and incendiary. He was insulting. He had no right to make such accusations about the judges or the CEDA organization. He went way out of bounds.

But . . .

Some of the observations he made were not too far from some other folks have made, even on this forum. And I'm talking about credible debate discussions.

1) I personally don't get the issue of racism as inherent in debate. Let me explain. I understand that there is racism, probably much of it subconscious, throughout society. I'm not convinced that debate is a place of greater or more racism than general society. We continue to fight racism in all its forms and all its venues. This topic came up last summer and I remember noting a number of students of African decent receive trophies at Nationals in CX, LD, PF, and Student Congress (as well as the non-debate events). I can't think of anything specificallly racist about what we do, some policy or belief that states or implies that kids of color cannot do what we do.

2) I do understand the financial strains top-notch debate can demand of students. Camps, evidence packages, out-of-state travel, etc. can add up. But it can be (and is) outside of the realm of possibility for white kids as well as those of other ethnic decent. Perhaps I am sensitive to this distinction because of the school where I teach. We have kids from million dollar+ homes and kids from run-down trailer parks at our 88% white suburban high school. I have had white kids on my team who couldn't afford to go to Goodwill to get competition clothes, so I did for them. Black, white, brown, purple or green -- poverty limits opportunities. Lack of family funds will keep any kid from competing effectively, especially on the national circuit. A poor neighborhood won't be able to fund such a program, regardless of whether those neighbors are white, black, Hispanic, etc. I can see debate, especially at the TOC level, being called "elitist" because of the financial considerations that could come into play.

3) The claim that debate is not accessible to young African Americans because of the language also perplexes me. Even my white students from million dollar+ homes don't come in talking about Foucault, counterplans, political capital, etc. It seems that the Towson debaters are actually using the language of youth: music, rap, "spoken word" are more the communication choices of YOUTH. Even rap is generally accepted by my predominantly white students as "cool" or "sick." Yes, rap was created by balck artists, but its appeal has broadened significantly. If we as a nation believe that ALL kids can learn, then surely students of a variety of racial, ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds can learn the scholarly language of debate. I am becoming more intrigued with the integration of less scholarly language, and I see that as a positive; all youth should have the opportunity to experiment with different types of "proof" and "argumentation." But the fact that we have expected young people to speak like Masters candidates had nothing to do with race. (Just a side note: my neices (Irish-German decent) complained that they couldn't understand everything I said in my eulogy for their great grandmother because of my choice of vocabulary. Not understanding scholarly vocabulary is a "problem" of lots of white kids, too!)

4) There are many of us old-schoolers on this forum who have bemoaned some of the changes that have happened in CX debate over, say, the past 10 years. One reason some folks (I think of my father here, especially -- a coach for 40+ years) hate kritical debates is because they CAN diverge SO far from the original topic. The actual topic has become, seemingly, in some cases, an excuse to debate everything else. That, I supposed, is part of what disturbs me a bit about the approach of Towson, Long Beach Jordan, and the Louisville Project. The arguments about the state of debate have no connection (and don't even try to create a link) to the topic at hand. (I have to admit, though, that the Long Beach Jordan team in Resolved did connect the topic to their racism kritik fairly effectively -- from what I saw in the film).

I am not defending the method in which this author chose to make these points. A more civilized discussion could have been done. But, underneath the vitriolic rhetoric, this author brought up some issues very close to the bone in our community.

P. S.: I looked around the site to find out if it really is a White Supremacist Website. I found very little regarding specifically white supremacy, but the stated purpose of this site is to discuss issues regarding immigration. By the site's own criteria, this article should not have been published in that forum as it has nothing to do with the current issue of immigration.