Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SoonerDebate

Racist Shooting At Debate Tournament?

Recommended Posts

From my understanding, this was not the one instance where anti-blackness reared its head at a very important and symbolic "debate" tournament. Black judges were almost systematically struck and removed from debates. I mean, from my understanding, there were nil or very few black judges in Policy Debate at the tournament. That seems to be a problem for those who are reading this here also.

 

This also. We gotta deal with this. I know of at least one highly qualified black judge who got zero rounds. It looks like this was a trend and not an exception to the rule. We can't just target PF without reflecting on our own practices as well. Policy debate is no daisy when it comes to the question of meaningful black participation. Once again, if you remove the role models and authority figures from their position as involved members of the community (i.e. from the role as decision makers) the students who look up to them will lose faith in the system's ability to represent their interests. Why are these students going to participate if they can't see a place for them in the community...or that place in the community can be compromised by a strike sheet or at the whim of a tournament official. I know that when I was a student I could easily see the path to become a coach and judge...is the same true for minority debaters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll say this: while I think the fact that there were so few black folks judging at the tournament that the vast majority of them were able to be pushed out of the pool by way of strikes is certainly a problem and an indication of the privilege that permeates the activity, I don't know that I'm willing to swallow the argument that the striking of those judges is an instance of privilege or racism. There are, I'm sure, legitimate strategic reasons for those strikes, just as I'm almost positive that Fort Hays did not strike Shanara Reid-Brinkley because of racism or privilege. From the frame of the competitor, it seems to me that the most effective use of your strike or mpj card is to minimize the risk that you'll be judged by folks who you disagree with philosophically, or have a history of losses in front of for whatever reason. It goes without saying that I don't believe that kind of strategic decision making is explicitly or implicitly linked to race, though I, again, believe that the small minority population that allows for the result to stick out like that is certainly a problem.

 

That said, what happened in round that caused everything to go down the way it did? CJ seems to give a pretty coherent explanation of what happened at the operations level, but that story lacks context.

 

Shame on OP for being completely unhelpful in setting a frame of reference.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mister Sulu, in round facts are a he said/they said account. There was an accusation made that the judge verbally gave the other team arguments DURING the debate. I have known this judge for over 15 years. Feel pretty good about siding with him based on his word alone, that he did no such thing (which is what he told the tab staff). The tab staff choose the word of 2 white males (whose intrest was only to benefit from a double bye since they lost) over the word of a coach of over 25 years in this activity. Pretty clear. I don't think there needs to be much more "cointext" given to the inround. This judge was accused of an action that he said DID NOT happen at all.

 

cjc

 

The absurdity of the claim makes it seem even more likely. That the judge literally told the other team during the debates what arguments to make verbally just... (loss of words to describe stupidity of claim).

 

Last thing, in response to Ben. I think "what happened in round" question is largely irrelevant because of the above. I think the context of the decisions at the admin level are should be what the focus is here. For what its worth. Either this happened or it did not, and I have ZERO reason in 15 years of experience to believe that anything resembling it happened.

 

cjc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Feel pretty good about siding with him based on his word alone, that he did no such thing

 

Wat? This is the basis for your attempt to destroy a man's reputation? I thought you said you were actually in the round.

 

One man's word is no where near enough evidence to attack the tournament directors, especially when that man may potentially have flawed motives.

 

Seriously, shame on you. This is an absolutely horrible thing to do and it shows that you're being controlled by your ideology.

 

I read over all of your examples. I just thought it was kind of clear, and did not feel your response warranted the need to line by line break down your examples. I used debate terminology becuase I felt that you did not understand the point that was being made, so I was attempting to relate it to you in language that you might understand. I was clearly wrong, maybe there is not a way to explain this to you that you will understand because you prefer that system of privlidge? I don't know, but I can't understand other motives.

 

You're making me upset because you decided to insult me instead of responding to a completely reasonable request.

 

I will go further that the edit to your post has undermined ALL credibility to any position you might have had.

 

Why? I put in a disclaimer specifically so that I would not offend you or make people think I was insulting you.

That seems like a good kind of thing to do.

 

Are you just looking for easy excuses, or do you really have such low and absurd thresholds for credibility?

 

really, this is where you are going. "Racism is dead", so no risk that these actions were a result of a racist system of white privilege. I am done, having this conversation with you. Go and read about these issues, then come back to me. you are losing credbility with every post and everyone one becomes more offensive than the next.

 

I did not contend that racism is dead or that there is no risk this incident was racist. I have read the same theories you have, the difference is that you seek to use them to explain literally everything as overt or covert racism whereas I still attempt to distinguish between covert racism and other things.

 

I believe with high confidence that roughly 90% of the people who come here will be convinced by my arguments.

If you end the conversation and refuse to reply then that will suit my interests because it will result in an action that reflects the evidence.

 

I generally support people on issues like this, I generally like project affirmatives and attempts to expose hypocrisy and covert racism.

But your arguments are pathetic and I feel ashamed that you actually seem to believe them.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mister Sulu, in round facts are a he said/they said account. There was an accusation made that the judge verbally gave the other team arguments DURING the debate. I have known this judge for over 15 years. Feel pretty good about siding with him based on his word alone, that he did no such thing (which is what he told the tab staff). The tab staff choose the word of 2 white males (whose intrest was only to benefit from a double bye since they lost) over the word of a coach of over 25 years in this activity. Pretty clear. I don't think there needs to be much more "cointext" given to the inround. This judge was accused of an action that he said DID NOT happen at all.

 

cjc

 

The absurdity of the claim makes it seem even more likely. That the judge literally told the other team during the debates what arguments to make verbally just... (loss of words to describe stupidity of claim).

 

Last thing, in response to Ben. I think "what happened in round" question is largely irrelevant because of the above. I think the context of the decisions at the admin level are should be what the focus is here. For what its worth. Either this happened or it did not, and I have ZERO reason in 15 years of experience to believe that anything resembling it happened.

 

cjc

 

Yeah, that sounds pretty nuts. To be clear, we're in agreement with how this was handled.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're making me upset because you decided to insult me instead of responding to a completely reasonable request.

 

 

 

I am sorry if you feel insulted, I just thought it was clear. Allow me to clarify for you. Your responses is an attempt to justify the system. You have attempted to remove race from the conversation completely to attempt to explain away the actions. That attempt is what a system of white privilege does.

 

 

Why? I put in a disclaimer specifically so that I would not offend you or make people think I was insulting you.

That seems like a good kind of thing to do.

 

Are you just looking for easy excuses, or do you really have such low and absurd thresholds for credibility?

 

I did not contend that racism is dead or that there is no risk this incident was racist. Stop lying.

 

I have read the same theories you have, the difference is that you seek to use them to explain literally everything as overt or covert racism whereas I still attempt to distinguish between covert racism and other things.

 

I am done here because I believe with high confidence that roughly 90% of the people who come here will be convinced by my arguments.

 

Chaos, here is your extact quote: "Given the very few number of racists who exist in the US, and correlations between education and debate judging and racism, I would say that it's much more probable that they disliked the judge for non race related personal reasons, or that one of the other things I mentioned happened"

 

I am not sure what is unclear about my interpretation of your argument. You have deduced that becuase there are very few actual racist that exist in america (demonstrating that you don't know the distinction discussed previously between overt and covert and a system of white supremacy/privilege) and thier clearly superior intellect, that it is impossible for them to have race played a role in thier decision. Yes I equate your argument to "racism is dead, so they can't be racist". Be convinced from your tower of privilege all you want.

cjc

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I will say, that a more productive use of your time would be to respond to the incident rather than neg repping all of my posts. If you don't like the facts, then speak up instead of hiding behind this blind system of response. My name is in the upper left of this post. I will neg rep your post and respond inkind, I encourage those to do the same.

 

I don't really care about the reputation, I just disagree with the decision to not respond with an argument publically. The sad thing is that there are very few people involved in this conversation. that is probably worse.

I feel as though you're not considering what I am saying. I gave plausible not-racist explanations.

 

I am not the one who neg repped you, and I was not referencing you when I mentioned "overeager activists". You jump to conclusions too easily.

 

I don't want to insult you, your motives seem pure. I'm just concerned with the lack of reflection and with the absolute certainty that you seem to have.

 

Everyone realizes that we can see who reps us now, right? You just click on the red or green number, and it says who gave the post what kind of rep. We're living in the future!

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, i will refer you back to your post in which you question reading comprehension. I never said that I was in the round. I simply informed you of the facts given to me while I was at the tournament. I think it is simple. If there is a "logical" explanation then they would have given one, they did not.

 

Oh, yes, and please tell me more about being "controlled by my ideology" this intrigues me. your lack of context with the person that you having this discussion with is telling of your motivations.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone realizes that we can see who reps us now, right? You just click on the red or green number, and it says who gave the post what kind of rep. We're living in the future!

 

fair, I am just not up on this system, don't pay enough attention, only went to the old method, which I probably still would not be able to figure out...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry if you feel insulted, I just thought it was clear. Allow me to clarify for you. Your responses is an attempt to justify the system. You have attempted to remove race from the conversation completely to attempt to explain away the actions. That attempt is what a system of white privilege does.

 

No, sometimes there are times when talking about race doesn't make sense. Like, if we're talking about a math problem, then race would be irrelevant.

 

If I give justifications for the system, that is not in itself racist if the system is justified.

 

Racism does not always need to be analyzed because sometimes there is no racism to be analyzed.

 

Chaos, here is your extact quote: "Given the very few number of racists who exist in the US, and correlations between education and debate judging and racism, I would say that it's much more probable that they disliked the judge for non race related personal reasons, or that one of the other things I mentioned happened"

 

I am not sure what is unclear about my interpretation of your argument. You have deduced that becuase there are very few actual racist that exist in america (demonstrating that you don't know the distinction discussed previously between overt and covert and a system of white supremacy/privilege) and thier clearly superior intellect,

 

The fact that covert racism exists is not enough for me to throw out my beliefs about correlations between racism and education.

 

Most debate tournament directors do not seem to me to be either covert or overt racists.

 

In what way was the decision covertly racist? Specifying this might improve the quality of this discussion. However, note that just because something bad happens to a black person that does not mean there is covert racism. You will need better proof than that to convince me that you are correct. Neither you or I have a magic 8 ball that allows us to automatically detect covert racism, so we need to look to evidence and discuss things in terms of probabilities and justified responses.

 

that it is impossible for them to have race played a role in thier decision. Yes I equate your argument to "racism is dead, so they can't be racist". Be convinced from your tower of privilege all you want.

cjc

 

I don't want to say that it is impossible, you're misrepresenting my views.

 

Ad hominems aren't arguments, they just make me respect you less as a person and hurt your credibility.

 

Um, i will refer you back to your post in which you question reading comprehension. I never said that I was in the round.

 

Agreed, this was a misinterpretation on my part.

 

I simply informed you of the facts given to me while I was at the tournament.

 

You can't treat it as a fact unless you saw it happen or have lots of evidence to believe in it, like how I believe it is a fact that the Earth orbits the Sun.

 

I think it is simple. If there is a "logical" explanation then they would have given one, they did not.

 

This part intrigues me. It is the only piece of evidence you have though, and it does not distinguish between racism and the possibility of personal dislike. It also has very little weight.

 

I would like to hear more about this part.

 

Oh, yes, and please tell me more about being "controlled by my ideology" this intrigues me. your lack of context with the person that you having this discussion with is telling of your motivations.

 

That was out of line. I'm sorry.

 

However, I do wish to make a general point about this: you feel completely certain what happened, despite no substantive evidence of covert racism. That's somewhat disturbing.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one here that understands the difference between racial and racist? The judge was black, but why does that automatically mean what happened was because of racism? This is the paradigm of the new CRT that makes no sense to me. The very paradigm you have instituted necessitates seeing all negative actions against people of color as motivated by abject racism. That's essentialist and far too simple. If a black man is fired, does it necessarily HAVE TO BE because he is black? I submit that it does not, but the paradigm you have created MUST call me a racist simply for being SKEPTICAL of the racial motivations of an action. I am certain that by virtue of this paragraph alone you will call me a white-power advocating racist because I am trying to "paper over racism" or "legitimize the system." But that not need be the case. Bad things happen to people, it's not always because of race.

 

I am not the biggest fan of Chaos, and mostly I think he's kinda dumb, but he's making a whole hell of a lot of sense here. There are tons of possible reasons that this event played out as it did, and yet there is not a single warrant from anyone for why it MUST be racist. You have pointed out that the judge was black and that something unfair happened, and then with no other inputs decided it must be racism. This does not pass the litmus test of an argument. PF is a stupid format run by mostly stupid people, we should all be aware of that. Multiple times I have judged PF and then been cussed out, called out, or threatened to lose my contract because I asked for evidence or asked a question in grand cross-fire or any number of other things (once it was for flowing), but I have never declared the motivation of that hostility to be because of my Mexican heritage, and it would be asinine for me to do so without proof.

 

The worst part of the establish paradigm is that I agree with OP and CJ that what happened was wrong. But the issue need not be framed in terms of race to make that clear. Watch:

 

"A judge with 25 years of experience had his ballot overturned by the assertion of 2 high school kids (who had lost the debate) despite lacking evidence to their claim."

 

We can all agree with no one would think this was a good thing, and most of the debate community would be upset at this practice for all sorts of reasons. The facts of this issue (i.e., the things that can be tested and seen, not just asserted or inducted) are such: the judge is highly qualified and has decades of experience in this activity. The students lobbying for the overturn of the ballot lost the debate and could not possibly prove their accusations on the judge. The high school students won and as a punitive measure the judge had potential rounds taken away from him.

That framing of the issue alone is sufficient to provide outrage, and I'm rightfully pissed that this happened. You have, instead, taken the issue into a controversial position with no evidence yourself of foul play being motivated by racism. It's not like the tab room released an official document that said "we'd really rather not have coloreds judging our dee-bait tournament". Instead your logic is this:

Bad thing + person of color = GOTTA BE RACISM AND I REFUSE TO CONSIDER ANY POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION AND YOU ARE RACIST FOR EVEN SUGGESTING SOMETHING ELSE COULD BE THE CULPRIT.

 

This is my problem with the taint of racism. It blinds us. It's too easy and too simple to proclaim "racism!" and wash our hands of more complex factors involved. It's too easy to say Trayvon was killed because he was black and not because of anything else involved. It's too simple to say this judge was punished for the color of his skin instead of the dozens of other possible explanations without even CONSIDERING the merits of those alterantive narratives.

 

This became a racial issue because you wanted it to be, with no warrant for why that must be the case. When my father was fired after 20 years of service did we decide it was because he has tanned skin, a luscious mustache, and speaks with an accent? No. Would you have? Maybe. That's my problem. Racism is bad, obviously, but that doesn't make it the explanation for everything.

  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will reply in more detail later. I think the issue of race is inherent in the discussion. I don't know how else to frame it. Muray i am usually one to side with you on it. But this instance seems to real of the ideal of white privilege. I agree there is a distinction between racial and racist. I don't think that excludes questioning privilege in this instance. And based on the reaction by the judge and several other people like myself who would usually be on yours a chaos' side of this question. The request for explicit racism seems ridiculous. Yes i think that race had a role.what that role is and to what degree i don't know. Fair point on your point. What i will certainly defend is the idea that we should question their motives for their decision. Based on their response i am not sure where else that leaves me. I don't think they are racist. But i certainly think their actions were in so much as they supported a system of white privilege that they prefer. again others have made this point more elegantly than i will hope to.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are things that i can not express in words about the way these discussions were had that make it difficult for people to understand the fact wish context. The portrayal of me a s a defender of the liberal establishedment is laughable at best. Which for this who know me the fact that i am coming down on this side of the argument i would hope make this people be willing to question what happened. On my phone again will have more later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) The problem with systemic/institutional/unconscious racism is that individual anecdotes don't establish its existence. Do those biases exist in debate? Since participation levels of blacks in debate are below the percentage enrolled in high school, or teaching in high school, yes. Can we argue this event is evidence of it? Probably not to the satisfaction of skeptics.

 

2) The alternative explanations are persuasive, perhaps even to those who are versed in Black Studies. If my decision were "overturned" to award a double win because there was a dispute over how I performed as a judge (I fell asleep, I stared into nowhere, I made visible or audible my displeasure with one team's arguments, etc.), I would assume that it's because the tab room had no way to verify any claims, and that this was the path of least resistance. What is gained by challenging the account of high schoolers? Or of judges? If I were running the tab room, especially if the result of the round had no bearing on the results of the tournament, I would have made a decision, in the face of a complaint, that appeased the complainants that I saw had no negative ramifications for anyone else. The tab room is obviously mistaken in this circumstance, as the judge in question has made his or her personal harm known.

 

3) Though counterfactuals prove nothing, what if one of the complaining debaters had been non-white? What if the judge had been a white woman? What if the judge and the complaining debaters had all been black? What if the other team had been composed of one white woman and one asian male? The selective nature of reportage in the example invites skepticism. Also, I know for a fact similar complaints have been made of white judges in the past at other tournaments, and tab rooms have awarded double wins in those circumstances. What is to explain those instances?

 

I do not want to deny that the judge in question and his or her defenders see race in play in this decision. I also do not want to deny the skepticism that such personal (and anonymous) accounts invite. Personally (and anonymously), I do think the more persuasive arguments rest on the low representation of non-white, non-male debaters at elite levels of policy, LD, and PF debate. If debate at the elite level is a valuable activity, perhaps attempts to explain and remedy the dominance of white males in the activity, as coaches, judges, and participants, is more useful than discourses on whether X event concerning Y participants is evidence of privilege or racism. The truth of this particular event probably evades us, while the truth of the privilege of debate as an activity at the elite level is not evasive. When we start with non-controversial facts, we are more likely to form opinions that could actually remedy what is at issue.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Race, Racism, White Supremacy and Privilege.

Sometimes these terms are woven together. Why are people afraid of admitting they do racist things. I do. I try to acknowledge it as a problem and acknowledge my role or participation in the problem. I used to justify striking black judges as a justification for competitive reasons.

This is ironic. If 2 black debaters debate 2 white debaters, we see it fair if its a white judge.

If 2 black debaters debate 2 white debaters it becomes unfair if their is a black judge.

I have a team that go a full year and only have 1-2 black judges. Many coaches set back and justify removing the black from the room by using more subtle tactics and terminology such as competition, or preference or style. The speed, the dialect, the culture, the lingo...all of this is cultural privilege that most people take for granted..."norms of whiteness - what is good and preferred for and by white people -

My original post says those coaches who pushed the changing of the decision need to understand their privilege and their role in abusing that privilege to not accept what we all accept every time we go to a tournament, a loss. Swallow it.

 

There is no reason or justification that african american students are very rarely represented in outrounds at national level tournaments, at the same tournaments most people who read this thread attend, and this says something about all of us.

Nobody is excluded. Racism is not out there. It's in here. Just like its in college debate and just likes its permeating public forum debate.

 

The counterfactual should be - What if 2 students of any color challenged the decision of any non-black judge would they just give a double win? No, My proof - History - This was the first time a double win has ever been given at the TOC in any event.

 

Judges being struck in public forum...hmm...and the qualifications for judging this event are?.....

 

The initial response to this post of "my movement" proves how people desire to, as Malcolm Once said, "Agree with your goals, just disagree with your methods"...

You are the movement. And either yo move one way or the other.

 

The appeal to be "non-controversial" is laughable somewhat. People need to be shook. They need to almost repent, not have their egos stroked as good deliberators.

The non controversial method has failed us. We have all failed to be honest. And the remedy is not out there with some collective action, its in your mind and heart where you actually try and acknowledge that a problem exists and you play a role in that problem and until we/you are proactive, the problem will continue in more effective and covert ways.

 

Thanks CJ

 

Massey

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to avoid the racial element of this discussion, but I will say that I was judged by the individual in question while I was still debating in high school, several years ago. To the best of my memory, he is VERY expressive with his nonverbals. In one round, I had a 1AR in front of him where I answered T and extended a dropped reasonability argument at the very top. I was about to make a few more arguments, but he stared straight at me, shook his head, and very expressively placed his T flow on the floor. He was clearly signaling that I didn't need to spend any more ink there, even though I was about to.

 

Obviously, there's a huge leap between nonverbals and outright prompting arguments. I highly doubt the latter occurred, and regardless, it was unacceptable for the tournament to modify the outcome of the round without consulting him first, let alone reduce his commitment. But this is the TOC—the pressure and the stakes are high, and it would not surprise me if the complaining team wrongly interpreted his nonverbals as bias.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i will address the racism... in the history of national circuit debate i'm pretty sure this is either the only time or one of few times where the tab room has ever changed a decision and it just so happens to of been the only black judge in PF. the fact that they'd trust a spoiled teenager who was upset about losing over a longtime successful (respected) debate coach from a more than respectable school is absurd.

 

the whole PF side of this tournament was a joke, you have some kids brother judging them, and a horrible system for calling and dealing with ethics violations.

 

WTF TOCPF?

Edited by Brian D. Gonzaba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Example: In the whole thread here, the most positive rep goes to the post that says "Im going to avoid the racial element of this discussion"

 

So I understand if your in high school and you dont understand whiteness, white supremacy, privilege or racism. You can't leave the racial element aside, thats the point.

It is cold in the middle of the incident.

 

Proves my point as far as the relatedness of this thread to this community.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Example: In the whole thread here, the most positive rep goes to the post that says "Im going to avoid the racial element of this discussion"

 

So I understand if your in high school and you dont understand whiteness, white supremacy, privilege or racism. You can't leave the racial element aside, thats the point.

It is cold in the middle of the incident.

 

Proves my point as far as the relatedness of this thread to this community.

 

Sorry, but I'm not going to apologize for declining to speculate about the motivations of the actors involved in this incident, particularly when said actors (DD excepted) are individuals I do not personally know and the reconstruction of said incident in this thread has thus far been based entirely on secondary or tertiary sources of information.

 

I am a college senior. I am well informed of the white/male/etc. hegemony that exists within the debate community, having witnessed some of it firsthand. Please do not insinuate that I don't care about these things. My post was simply an attempt to provide more substantive context for participants in this thread.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you understand. This is not a "debate" and you can't separate the incident. You said some good things, but what I am saying is that you can't separate racial issues from the other issues in this incident. Impossible. A lot of people are really afraid to talk about racism. They are afraid to identify friends and people in the community as racists. So then it gets buried under the guise of "it had to be something else". So though you think you engaged in an innocent act of trying to be fair, what's fair isnt really fair....if you can understand that.....Race was an issue, because it was a non-white individual in a predominately white activity. First time ever. My point is not to demonize you, but rather try to explain how we can't cover stuff like this up in colorblindness.

 

Massey

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think that race was a factor here? I agree that this is not a debate and I would definitely change my mind and want to help you if you gave good reasons.

 

Or do you think that race is always a factor everywhere? And if you think that race is always a factor, why do you think it was a reason for this specific outcome?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you understand. This is not a "debate" and you can't separate the incident. You said some good things, but what I am saying is that you can't separate racial issues from the other issues in this incident. Impossible. A lot of people are really afraid to talk about racism. They are afraid to identify friends and people in the community as racists. So then it gets buried under the guise of "it had to be something else". So though you think you engaged in an innocent act of trying to be fair, what's fair isnt really fair....if you can understand that.....Race was an issue, because it was a non-white individual in a predominately white activity. First time ever. My point is not to demonize you, but rather try to explain how we can't cover stuff like this up in colorblindness.

 

Massey

 

 

Jesus Christ.

 

Sure, the judge was African-American, and so there's a possibility this was a racial issue. I have brown skin, I live in California, and have never experienced racism firsthand. I have no fear of racism. I have no compunctions with exposing any friend, coworker, or debate community member of being a racist if they are. I understand that California is a relatively progressive state that was never very racist in the first place and that there are pockets of racism still floating around out there in the USA. I don't know what things are like in Kentucky or Alabama. I'd like to believe decisions are no longer motivated by racial factors, but I also know that's not always the case.

 

 

The point is: You can Absolutely separate the racial issues from the core issue of this topic:

 

Pretend the Judge was white and this happened-- I would be equally as outraged by the situation as I am now. The core issue is this:The words of high school competitors should never overturn the legitimacy of any judge's decision. 99% of the time, TAB ERRORS are not reversed. It shows a fundamental lack of respect for that judge and the judge pool as a whole. It's also a situation without precedent whatsoever.

 

I really hope race had nothing to do with this. But I also need something more substantive than "he was the only black judge, and also the only judge to have a decision overturned" to hang my hat on to believe this was racism. To me, this is no more than the intersection of nearsightedness in Tab and high pressure at the TOC.

 

The fact that he was the only black judge and the only one to have his decision overturned leads me to QUESTION whether race was a factor, sure. But I think that has taken the discussion away from the real issue and potential discussion here-- SHOULD TAB BE ABLE TO REVERSE A JUDGE BASED ON THE WORDS OF 2 KIDS?

 

My answer is a categorical NO. The race factor should be an ancillary part of this discussion, not its writhing, seething core. I'm sure even Chaos would agree that there are elements of white privilege here. There's elements of white privilege everywhere in the USA. I think we're all willing to grant that. What i'm not willing to grant is that White Privilege made up the entirety of this situation--not without evidence.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not the biggest fan of Chaos, and mostly I think he's kinda dumb, but he's making a whole hell of a lot of sense here. There are tons of possible reasons that this event played out as it did, and yet there is not a single warrant from anyone for why it MUST be racist. You have pointed out that the judge was black and that something unfair happened, and then with no other inputs decided it must be racism. This does not pass the litmus test of an argument. PF is a stupid format run by mostly stupid people, we should all be aware of that. Multiple times I have judged PF and then been cussed out, called out, or threatened to lose my contract because I asked for evidence or asked a question in grand cross-fire or any number of other things (once it was for flowing), but I have never declared the motivation of that hostility to be because of my Mexican heritage, and it would be asinine for me to do so without proof.

 

The worst part of the establish paradigm is that I agree with OP and CJ that what happened was wrong. But the issue need not be framed in terms of race to make that clear. Watch:

 

"A judge with 25 years of experience had his ballot overturned by the assertion of 2 high school kids (who had lost the debate) despite lacking evidence to their claim."

 

We can all agree with no one would think this was a good thing, and most of the debate community would be upset at this practice for all sorts of reasons.

 

Also, This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whew...I'm glad we figured out our little academic community is so progressive we're immune to racism....yep, and this guy got 41% of the vote b/c of Obama's coal policies...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...