Jump to content
CentralHighAnalytico

Racial Profiling Affirmative

Recommended Posts

THIS IS A LITTLE OVER MY HEAD

 

CAN SOMEONE DECIPHER THIS FOR ME

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Here's the big problem with all of the neg args I hear. The reverse racism idea won't work, maybe in general, but not in my particular case, and for the simple reason that I'm not addressing profiling as a matter of labeling or responsibility of a particular race, nor am I further dividing by addressing it. The matter isn't about profiling BLACK people or profiling ARAB people or profiling SOUTH ASIAN people, its about profiling people. Racism isn't a white problem, its a human problem. It doesn't matter who its against, profiling is wrong on a social and politcal spectrum. I'm not saying its wrong to discriminate exclusively against blacks, its wrong to discriminate exclusively against anyone , and because thats the way I address it, I could rip those reverse-racism/labeling ads apart.

 

 

Good idea, I like the Kritikal Aff more, but your idea works well in round.

 

But most importantly, I'm black. I pity the fool who runs a racism kritik on me, as there is not a single other negro debater that runs kritiks in this state, and I'll smoke any majority on a kritikal racism arg. made against me.

 

Minorites can discriminate too......I'm not sure how far this gets you, being black doesn't get you a link out of the unique racism K.....That's a little arrogant to think a judge will pick you up because a white kid ran a racism K on you, and you are black......after all your case could potentially discriminate and essentially marginalize others. It doesn't seem like your case does, but you need GOOD answers to the K. Trust me you will hear it A LOT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a novice and I was planning on running profiling as my aff next year. (Both gender and racial profiling will be abolished.) All of the Kritikal stuff is a tad over my head. Especially the reverse racism K. Could someone please explain it?

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm a novice and I was planning on running profiling as my aff next year. (Both gender and racial profiling will be abolished.) All of the Kritikal stuff is a tad over my head. Especially the reverse racism K. Could someone please explain it?

 

Thanks

 

I've never heard of sppecific reverse racism K. There are some kritiks out there which say, basically, if you talk about people as blacks and whites or whatever, you're actually reentrenching a racist mindset. The underlying principle is the idea that it's best to be colorblind, and to stay away from talking about people as being from one race or another. This is a very easy argument to beat. We have usually used some cards from a book about racism by Paul Kivel, but Barndt would work to, as woould a host of other authors.

 

The basic counter argument is that colorblindness is a luxury of white privilege. Because of institutional racism -- which is clearly quantified in racial profiling stats -- blacks, Hisppanics, Arabs etc. are forced to see society from a completely different perspective -- that of inequality based on race.

 

I think some of the earlier posts about reverse racism were in reaction to the evidence I posted which suggests that racism is essentially a white problem, and whites have to own up to it. I'm not exactly sure how this equates to racial discrimination. It's just calling on whites to recognize that we enjoy certain privileges because of the color of our skin and that only when we recognize this that we can act to eliminate racism. The cards are basically saying that it's not enough to simply not be racist. You have to be anti-racist. That requires action. On a K level, that means affirming the ideas of the affirmative case by casting the ballot that way.

 

It goes a little deeper than that, but hopefully that's enough for you to get started in preparing for your novice season. If you need any help with more specific annswers, I'd be happy to share any knowledge I might have.

 

PS As far as the reaction to the good folks from Arkansas is concerned, I do think that being black can and should be an advantage in this argument. Debate is a game of many ideas and points of view. There is currently quite a bit of discussion going on about making the game more diverse. Too often these efforts toward diversity focus only on skin color and not on a diversity of voices and points of view. As Aristotle said, a debaters most effective tool of persuasion is his or her character. I think that one's perspective with regard to the issues we are discussing are valid not only in a competitive sense, but also in the educational sense. It is important that debaters are exposed to a wide variety of perspectives, as well as become comfortable sharing their own perspective.

 

Also, as a guy who coaches black debaters who are totally into racism arguments, I can say coonfidently it's harder to beat us because we've got it down. I mean, our students live this stuff. We've actually been profiled as a debate squad on our way to tournaments -- twice when I was present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i suppose a reverse racism argument could entail things like minority racism towards majority. reciprocity on racism and whatnot. i mean if you go into asian, black, hispanic, jewish, middle eastern communities, interracial marriage is still a huge no-no... and in some cases, enough to get you excommunicated from family or religious establishment... people in many communities openly talk about the "lack of moral fiber" in the majority, and in other minorities, citing things like the divorce rate, adultery, crime etc. and all of these negative stereotypes are propogated primarily by media who plays a huge hand in the development of public perception.

 

i think the idea behind reverse racism is basically that by targeting white oppression of minority groups, be it race, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation, age or whatever, reverse discrimination IS present and by not attacking all racism, your actions are inherently based in the power struggle between individuals and exists to overturn the imbalance in the opposing fashion, not to balance the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've never heard of sppecific reverse racism K. There are some kritiks out there which say, basically, if you talk about people as blacks and whites or whatever, you're actually reentrenching a racist mindset. The underlying principle is the idea that it's best to be colorblind, and to stay away from talking about people as being from one race or another. This is a very easy argument to beat. We have usually used some cards from a book about racism by Paul Kivel, but Barndt would work to, as woould a host of other authors.

 

Okay, cool so it's a bit like what my partner and I ran this year. Gender Deconstruction was our Kritikal Aff, and our coach wouldn't let us use gender biased terms in round or in our tags, which was suprisingly difficult.

I was planning on doing something about that issue anyway. Not really sure what yet. Probably follow last year's pattern only add racial terms into the mix.

 

The basic counter argument is that colorblindness is a luxury of white privilege. Because of institutional racism -- which is clearly quantified in racial profiling stats -- blacks, Hisppanics, Arabs etc. are forced to see society from a completely different perspective -- that of inequality based on race.

 

Okay, this I don't get so much. Why are you not entrenching the mindset by using racial terms just b/c everyone else uses them?

 

It goes a little deeper than that, but hopefully that's enough for you to get started in preparing for your novice season. If you need any help with more specific annswers, I'd be happy to share any knowledge I might have.

 

Thanks for being so willing to help, but I think you miss-interpreted what I ment by this being my novice year. I was a novice during the PKO topic, our season is done here and I'm headed to camp this summer. (Just clarifying. Sorry if it sounded rude.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good idea, I like the Kritikal Aff more, but your idea works well in round.

 

 

 

Minorites can discriminate too......I'm not sure how far this gets you, being black doesn't get you a link out of the unique racism K.....That's a little arrogant to think a judge will pick you up because a white kid ran a racism K on you, and you are black......after all your case could potentially discriminate and essentially marginalize others. It doesn't seem like your case does, but you need GOOD answers to the K. Trust me you will hear it A LOT.

 

Hmm. Perhaps I was misunderstood.

 

Well-I'm not expecting race itself to push me far in a round any more than the color of my socks--I just meant I'd use it to spike out of the more common convictions made in those types of K's, like speaking for the minority instead of letting them speak for themselves. On top of that, even if discrimination against different groups is a factor (which it realistically is), then the argument is that racism/discrimination is at its most potent when one side is given greater power/influence than the other. Since we take steps towards equality, we can eliminate that as well. But even so, I wouldn't count solely on that to win myself a K battle.

 

Though also, saying that 'race won't get you far' or 'the value of character is best' in a debate round, while mostly true, bypasses a simple fact. Race does matter, its one of the first things people notice, and unfortunately, whether or not its a valid judgement, people tend to consciously or subconsciously formulate opinions in their head based on that. And race making no impact in the round is theory that isn't always lined up with practice--it is something the judge will definiately notice whether they attempt to or not. However, I never said this was going to be the basis of my offense, as I never relied on anything besides skill, knowledge, and delivery to pick up a ballot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, this I don't get so much. Why are you not entrenching the mindset by using racial terms just b/c everyone else uses them?

 

It's not just the terms, but the oppression based on race, which is, for the oppressed, as plain to see as sunlight. Only those who are not oppressed in an institutionally racist system can adhere to a colorblind paradigm. That's because, frankly, it doesn't exist. As the dude before me said, race does matter. And only whites can pretend that it doesn't, because we're the winners in the racism game. And by pretending so, we abdicate ourselves and perpetuate institutionally racist norms.

 

More simply, white-washed pc language isn't going to change the mathematical fact that if you're black the odds are that you'll attend a segregated school with inferior teachers and curriculum, earn less than whites, get pulled over by cops more often, and so on and so on. Only direct, outspoken confrontation of the problem will.

 

Does that make it any clearer? As I said, Paul Kivel breaks this down really well. His explanation is really clear and easy to argue. As I said, we've very rarely lost on this argument, and it's usually just a couple of Kivel cards that kills it.

 

 

 

Thanks for being so willing to help, but I think you miss-interpreted what I ment by this being my novice year. I was a novice during the PKO topic, our season is done here and I'm headed to camp this summer. (Just clarifying. Sorry if it sounded rude.)

 

Sorry. My bad. Good luck on your sophomore season. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm. Perhaps I was misunderstood.

 

Well-I'm not expecting race itself to push me far in a round any more than the color of my socks--I just meant I'd use it to spike out of the more common convictions made in those types of K's, like speaking for the minority instead of letting them speak for themselves. On top of that, even if discrimination against different groups is a factor (which it realistically is), then the argument is that racism/discrimination is at its most potent when one side is given greater power/influence than the other. Since we take steps towards equality, we can eliminate that as well. But even so, I wouldn't count solely on that to win myself a K battle.

 

Though also, saying that 'race won't get you far' or 'the value of character is best' in a debate round, while mostly true, bypasses a simple fact. Race does matter, its one of the first things people notice, and unfortunately, whether or not its a valid judgement, people tend to consciously or subconsciously formulate opinions in their head based on that. And race making no impact in the round is theory that isn't always lined up with practice--it is something the judge will definiately notice whether they attempt to or not. However, I never said this was going to be the basis of my offense, as I never relied on anything besides skill, knowledge, and delivery to pick up a ballot.

 

Right, but your AFF makes an attempt to break down that atrocious mode of society. As such, you CAN'T do society is doing, because THATS RACIST. The argument will be made, and I've heard it, that "power given to minorities causes atrocities, proven throughout history, and creates new modes of power while re-entrenching "old" ways of power and domination. I think Camus wrote it, I'll look around for it for you.

 

Race does matter today, but your case attempts to stop that for tomorrow because of the violence created by that viewpoint. You should acknowledge it's existence, but not follow through in it's wake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right, but your AFF makes an attempt to break down that atrocious mode of society. As such, you CAN'T do society is doing, because THATS RACIST. The argument will be made, and I've heard it, that "power given to minorities causes atrocities, proven throughout history, and creates new modes of power while re-entrenching "old" ways of power and domination. I think Camus wrote it, I'll look around for it for you.

 

Race does matter today, but your case attempts to stop that for tomorrow because of the violence created by that viewpoint. You should acknowledge it's existence, but not follow through in it's wake.

 

For the Arkansas folks' sake, I don't think this argument's gonna fly with lay judges.

 

Otherwise, I think you can beat this argument with common sense, plus some of the Barndt stuff I posted earlier. Another card we used a couple years ago was from someone named Gewirth. It basically said that we can't allow a threat of backlash keep us from doing what is right.

 

On a nondebate level, like, just as a person, I find the argument to be really shallow and offensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not just the terms, but the oppression based on race, which is, for the oppressed, as plain to see as sunlight. Only those who are not oppressed in an institutionally racist system can adhere to a colorblind paradigm. That's because, frankly, it doesn't exist. As the dude before me said, race does matter. And only whites can pretend that it doesn't, because we're the winners in the racism game. And by pretending so, we abdicate ourselves and perpetuate institutionally racist norms.

 

More simply, white-washed pc language isn't going to change the mathematical fact that if you're black the odds are that you'll attend a segregated school with inferior teachers and curriculum, earn less than whites, get pulled over by cops more often, and so on and so on. Only direct, outspoken confrontation of the problem will.

 

Does that make it any clearer? As I said, Paul Kivel breaks this down really well. His explanation is really clear and easy to argue. As I said, we've very rarely lost on this argument, and it's usually just a couple of Kivel cards that kills it.

 

Yeah, that makes it a lot clearer. Thanks.

I guess I'll go get a book by Kivel for this summer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I could debate these ideologies more--I don't get much of a chance unless I have a rare judge/debate at national level tournaments. Though, I only think that power given to minorities becomes the 'wrong' type of power when those powers are unequal. True equality would eliminate that type of corruption in its worst form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the Arkansas folks' sake, I don't think this argument's gonna fly with lay judges.

 

Otherwise, I think you can beat this argument with common sense, plus some of the Barndt stuff I posted earlier. Another card we used a couple years ago was from someone named Gewirth. It basically said that we can't allow a threat of backlash keep us from doing what is right.

 

On a nondebate level, like, just as a person, I find the argument to be really shallow and offensive.

 

1) I wasn't talking to you, don't be a douche.

2) I'm not, or never want to be, in Arkansas.....I don't care what they think.

3) A threat of backlash could be worse than not doing plan, thus, we might want to allow the threat of backlash instead of case impacts.....

4) The Camus cards turns this argument, look again

The argument will be made, and I've heard it, that "power given to minorities causes atrocities, proven throughout history, and creates new modes of power while re-entrenching "old" ways of power and domination."

This turns case impacts and becomes a huge solvency deficit for you.....

 

5) It's very clear you didn't comprehend what I said or you wouldn't be disagreing. I offered a modification and all-out advice. Don't try to fight me, I was HELPING....

 

6) Here's what I'm saying.

a) Society, RIGHT NOW, is racist.....

B) Your case attempts to break down and stop Racism on a global leve.

 

Thus, you must acknowledge racism exists in today's world, but not fucntion on the same level as the world today, because it is racist....do you see?

 

If you try to stop racism on a global level through a global entity or action, it becomes warped and racist itself, turning your case. Because your inherency will point out how the world is racist. Being said, you inherency will almost always, in this particuar situation, turn your solvency and make your plan utter crap. I hope you truly see I'm trying to help so you stop acting like a dick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wish I could debate these ideologies more--I don't get much of a chance unless I have a rare judge/debate at national level tournaments. Though, I only think that power given to minorities becomes the 'wrong' type of power when those powers are unequal. True equality would eliminate that type of corruption in its worst form.

 

There is no such thing as equality.....Racism will always exists in multiple forms (HeteroSexism, Gender roles, Hunting of animals, etc.) When you get rid of one, another one, usually the exact opposite, will "pop up."

 

When the minority is given the "power", it becomes unequal, because the become the ones with power....thus power becomes the "wrong type of power".

 

I'm also very sorry you can't talk about these philosophic entrenchments more as well. It's a shame that educated people cannot educate themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) I wasn't talking to you, don't be a douche... I hope you truly see I'm trying to help so you stop acting like a dick.

 

I don't understand how I was being a douche and a dick. Maybe when I said that you'd get smoked if you ran these arguments against us. But that's true, and I was merely telling you to help you. Also, how can you not be talking to me if you're on an open forum. If you want to have a private chat, then do it back channel. Otherwise, it's all open dialogue in here.

 

Onto the line by line:

 

2) I'm not, or never want to be, in Arkansas.....I don't care what they think.

 

Well, that's sure helpful.

 

3) A threat of backlash could be worse than not doing plan, thus, we might want to allow the threat of backlash instead of case impacts.....

 

Gewirth turns this. The card specifically offers the example of MLK and the freedom marches, when people warned that such actions would rile the KKK. Gewirth points out that this is no reason to not take action.

 

 

4) The Camus cards turns this argument, look again

The argument will be made, and I've heard it, that "power given to minorities causes atrocities, proven throughout history, and creates new modes of power while re-entrenching "old" ways of power and domination."

This turns case impacts and becomes a huge solvency deficit for you.....

 

This is just plain untrue. Yes, modes of oppression continue to exist. But changes do happen. The Civil Rights Movement brought enormous change to this country. Things aren't perfect, no, and they arguably never will be perfect. But that doesn't mean that progress hasn't been made, and continue to be made. Think about it, blacks are no longer lynched in America. Blacks are no longer segregated from whites by law.

 

On a personal level, I find this argument, the way it is so glibly presented, to be offensive. Perhaps if it were laid out as little more fully I would see some of its nuances, but as you've presented it here I can't help but see it as obnoxious.

 

Granted, I'm not working with a lot of info here, but I fail to see how one card by a French novelist (this is the Camus who wrote The Stranger, right?) could turn and destroy an entire case about institutional racism in the United States.

 

5) It's very clear you didn't comprehend what I said or you wouldn't be disagreing.

 

So what are you saying? You possess the absolute truth? And if I could only understand what you know, then I would, I don't know, stop working on cases about racism? If so, what's the point of debate?

 

I offered a modification and all-out advice. Don't try to fight me, I was HELPING....

 

And I was trying to help you by saying, based on pretty solid experience, that if you run this argument against a team that really has its racism arguments down, you're going to have a tough time winning.

 

In addition, I offered my personal opinion that the argument is offensive to me. Sorry if you think that's fighting, or a lack of gratitude for your help. But that's the way it is. I think the argument is offensive.

 

6) Here's what I'm saying.

a) Society, RIGHT NOW, is racist.....

B) Your case attempts to break down and stop Racism on a global leve.

 

Thus, you must acknowledge racism exists in today's world, but not fucntion on the same level as the world today, because it is racist....do you see?

 

If you try to stop racism on a global level through a global entity or action, it becomes warped and racist itself, turning your case. Because your inherency will point out how the world is racist. Being said, you inherency will almost always, in this particuar situation, turn your solvency and make your plan utter crap.

 

You really need to go back and look at all the Barndt cards I posted earlier. They address this.

 

In closing: I appreciate that you're trying to help. But I don't see why you have to be so hostile. Perhaps it was because of my cocky earlier post suggesting that you'd get smoked on this argument. I'm sorry if it came off harsh. I meant it to be some gamely smack. I'll try to be a better sport in the futre.

 

But as far as feeling offended by your arguments, I'm not sorry about that. That's the way I feel. And I know I'm not alone in these feelings. You can certainly raise these arguments in the round -- many folks do. That's what debate is about. But don't assume that they're automatic wins, or that they're unassailable. Because, trust me, they're not. If you hit a team that's really on top of race arguments, these counter-arguments are relatively easy to beat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe, you mentioned relying on social economic studies to provide statistical warrants to the Barndt evidence...what studies would those be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm finding tons of good evidence:

 

The effect of profiling on youth:

 

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en_text/consultations/race-policy-dialogue-paper-cj.shtml

 

This article sets the framework for what I think is the key to solvency: A paradigm shift in law enforcement. It also links to a lot of great kritical advantages. As well as the Barndt evidence I posted earlier. Link:

 

http://happyweb.net/parking/policeintegrity/prp/default.htm#Human%20Diversity%20and%20Sensitivity%20Training

 

This cites a number of court cases that could provide a basis for an aff case:

 

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/03justice/profiling05.htm

 

This offers a total policy alternative, based on the French system:

 

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/03justice/profiling05.htm

 

I'll post more as I find them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But also contrast these studies:

 

Michael R. Smith and Matthew Petrocelli (Virginia Commonwealth University and California State University–Hayward), "Racial Profiling? A Multivariate Analysis of Police Traffic Stop Data," Police Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 1, 4-27 (2001).

Unfortunately, I haven't seen a webbed version. From what I remember, these authors conclude that racial profiling does not exist: rather, arrests/detentions of minorities are consistent with random statistical sampling. Granted, this isn't the greatest study in the world, but there are a lot of similar studies that arrive at the same conclusion.

 

An original study by NBER


, later followed up (using a completely different data set) with fairly similar results.

While these studies can (and should) be cited as proof that racial profiling exists, I think it's a good statistical study to indict Brandt's solution: empowering minorities simply will give us the opposite of the status quo situaton. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing would be up to debate, but certainly it advances the proposition that Brandt does not really address the fundamental issues in racism...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe, you mentioned relying on social economic studies to provide statistical warrants to the Barndt evidence...what studies would those be?

 

I'm just starting to look into this. I posted earlier about a harvard professor named Roland Fryer. His papers are available on the Harvard website, and they deal with aspects of institutional racism, though not specifically profiling. The articles also cite other studies, which I haven't begun tracking down yet.

 

So far, I've only found one economic analysis of racial profiling. It looks at both the effects of racial profiling on the victim and whether its practice empirically reduces crime. The abstract:

 

This paper considers racial profiling in traffic stops as a public policy problem. Efficiency and equity considerations are characterized. I argue that while there is a strong argument that racial profiling produces a violation of fairness, specifically in the treatment of innocent black motorists, the efficiency effects of profiling are not known. One cannot assign probabilities to the possible magnitudes of either deterrent effects or the harms of profiling to individuals. This makes the assessment of profiling an example of decisionmaking under ambiguity. I defend a notion of a “Fairness Presumption” that requires a policymaker to be able to make an affirmative case if a policy is to be implemented that induces unfairness. On this basis, I reject racial profiling as a policy.

 

"Racial Profiling as a Public Policy Question: Efficiency, Equity, and Ambiguity," Steven N. Durlauf, January 6, 2005, presented at the ANNUAL MEETING AMERICAN ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION*"EXPANDING THE FRONTIERS OF ECONOMICS"

 

I also found, but haven't yet read, these papers on the meeting's website:

 

***** LAWRENCE BLUME, Cornell University--Learning and Discrimination

 

 

***** CHARLES MANSKI, Northwestern University--Optimal Search Profiling with Linear Deterrence

 

 

***** NICOLA PERSICO and PETRA TODD, University of Pennsylvania--Passenger Pro?ling, Imperfect Screening, and Airport Security

 

 

***** STEVEN DURLAUF, University of Wisconsin-Madison--Racial Profiling as a Public Policy Question: Equity, Efficiency, and Ambiguity

 

Link:

 

http://www.aeaweb.org/annual_mtg_papers/8210.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But also contrast these studies:

 

Michael R. Smith and Matthew Petrocelli (Virginia Commonwealth University and California State University–Hayward), "Racial Profiling? A Multivariate Analysis of Police Traffic Stop Data," Police Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 1, 4-27 (2001).

Unfortunately, I haven't seen a webbed version. From what I remember, these authors conclude that racial profiling does not exist: rather, arrests/detentions of minorities are consistent with random statistical sampling. Granted, this isn't the greatest study in the world, but there are a lot of similar studies that arrive at the same conclusion.

 

An original study by NBER


, later followed up (using a completely different data set) with fairly similar results.

While these studies can (and should) be cited as proof that racial profiling exists, I think it's a good statistical study to indict Brandt's solution: empowering minorities simply will give us the opposite of the status quo situaton. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing would be up to debate, but certainly it advances the proposition that Brandt does not really address the fundamental issues in racism...

 

Yeah. There's definitely some nice ambiguity to the whole thing, which is terrific for debate. I'll be working on the negative side of this next week or week after.

 

Though I take issue with your saying "empowering minorities simply will give us the opposite of the status quo situaton." I think this is sort of absolutist and binary. And I would counter it with Paulo Freire's suggestion that any concession to the oppressed class is looked upon -- incorrectly -- by the oppressive class as reverse oppression. Personally, I believe this to be true, and I see it evidenced in the backlash against affirmative action. The main problem with this is that it abdicates those of us who are privileged by a history of cruel racist policy from working to change the status quo, which demands making concessions for the common good. Worse, it completely ignores that history. What Brandt is getting at is an arguable notion that everyone suffers from racism. To me, this is empirically proven by the alienation and ennui and psychologically- and spiritually-challenged aspects of suburban life (I know this is tough to argue, but, being an ex-pat of the burbs who now lives in the hood, I believe it to the core of my being). To be freed, Bardt and others suggerst, whites must learn to work alongside blacks, even take direction from blacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Though I take issue with your saying "empowering minorities simply will give us the opposite of the status quo situaton." I think this is sort of absolutist and binary. And I would counter it with Paulo Freire's suggestion that any concession to the oppressed class is looked upon by the oppressive class as reverse oppression.

Your point is well-taken. Authors like Barndt and Freire are amazingly important, for they push the limitations of our mind. But, I think as you pointed out, they can only tell half of the story. One half of the story is developing a theory on how the world works, the other half is actually observing it. In this sense, we're using two different modes of thought to make a complete debate argument.

 

My "strategy" is to work backwards: take the observable phenomena and then see if your theory still holds true.

The study by Levitt suggests that there is a strong correlation between arrest rates and minorities: white cops tend to profile/arrest minorities in higher numbers, and minority cops tend to profile/arrest whites in higher numbers. That's the observable phenomena. ONE conclusion is that putting different groups in places of power really accomplishes nothing. ANOTHER conclusion suggests that perhaps placing minorities in power achieves a solution that, on average, is better than the status quo (really all that's happening is removing the "elitist" position that whites have enjoyed for so long). Literally, there are HUNDREDS of theories that could explain this phenomena, not just the one I advanced. The argument of "reverse status quo" just seemed to be the obvious debate response to the Barndt theory.

 

Personally, I believe this to be true, and I see it evidenced in the backlash against affirmative action. The main problem with this is that it abdicates those of us who are privileged by a history of cruel racist policy from working to change the status quo, which demands making concessions for the common good. Worse, it completely ignores that history. What Brandt is getting at is an arguable notion that everyone suffers from racism. To me, this is empirically proven by the alienation and ennui and psychologically- and spiritually-challenged aspects of suburban life (I know this is tough to argue, but, being an ex-pat of the burbs who now lives in the hood, I believe it to the core of my being). To be freed, Bardt and others suggerst, whites must learn to work alongside blacks, even take direction from blacks.

This is what I love about debate, and why I like economics. Let me just take two quotes.

One from Steve Levitt: "[T]he appropriate data, analyzed the right way are key to understanding a problem."

Of course, taking that too literally creates problems that Bill James notes: "[T]here is no magic number at which the data becomes reliable."

 

I think our biggest problem is that talking theories and statistics are all well and good, but the argument doesn't hold any weight unless it rings true with the reader. For instance, sabermetricians may print out reams of data on a particular pitcher, PROVING (in their minds, at least) that he'll be a major league bust; but you'll never convince the scout who just saw the guy throw a hell of a game. In this context, my observation doesn't ring true with you because it seems too binary, and your beliefs don't ring true with me because I think it's too simplistic (or rather, superficial- it sounds nice but I don't think it accomplishes anything).

At the very least, I can admit that your opinion is very well-reasoned and clearly took a lot of personal reflection. But, luckily, a debate round ends after 90 minutes or so, and then after the round, we can shed ideological differences and laugh about how we all "died" because of thermonuclear war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your point is well-taken. Authors like Barndt and Freire are amazingly important, for they push the limitations of our mind. But, I think as you pointed out, they can only tell half of the story. One half of the story is developing a theory on how the world works, the other half is actually observing it. In this sense, we're using two different modes of thought to make a complete debate argument.

 

My "strategy" is to work backwards: take the observable phenomena and then see if your theory still holds true.

The study by Levitt suggests that there is a strong correlation between arrest rates and minorities: white cops tend to profile/arrest minorities in higher numbers, and minority cops tend to profile/arrest whites in higher numbers. That's the observable phenomena. ONE conclusion is that putting different groups in places of power really accomplishes nothing. ANOTHER conclusion suggests that perhaps placing minorities in power achieves a solution that, on average, is better than the status quo (really all that's happening is removing the "elitist" position that whites have enjoyed for so long). Literally, there are HUNDREDS of theories that could explain this phenomena, not just the one I advanced. The argument of "reverse status quo" just seemed to be the obvious debate response to the Barndt theory.

 

Really good point. I must admit, I haven't yet read the article; I was just reacting to that one sentence you wrote. With that data, you would have a very strong case for that (though it wouldn't link to the case I'm writing because the policy wouldn't stipulate an increase in non-white officers; indeed the main solvency mechanisms -- disciplinary provisions for racial rofiling offenses and a significant community dialogue component -- would be racially universal).

 

 

This is what I love about debate, and why I like economics. Let me just take two quotes.

One from Steve Levitt: "[T]he appropriate data, analyzed the right way are key to understanding a problem."

Of course, taking that too literally creates problems that Bill James notes: "[T]here is no magic number at which the data becomes reliable."

 

I think our biggest problem is that talking theories and statistics are all well and good, but the argument doesn't hold any weight unless it rings true with the reader. For instance, sabermetricians may print out reams of data on a particular pitcher, PROVING (in their minds, at least) that he'll be a major league bust; but you'll never convince the scout who just saw the guy throw a hell of a game. In this context, my observation doesn't ring true with you because it seems too binary, and your beliefs don't ring true with me because I think it's too simplistic (or rather, superficial- it sounds nice but I don't think it accomplishes anything).

At the very least, I can admit that your opinion is very well-reasoned and clearly took a lot of personal reflection. But, luckily, a debate round ends after 90 minutes or so, and then after the round, we can shed ideological differences and laugh about how we all "died" because of thermonuclear war.

 

That's what I love about debate, too (minus the nuke war part; I don't like that aspect of the game so much). What you say here reminds me of this book I'm reading by Edward Said about humanism, specifically the chapters about reading. The way he describes humanism reminds me quite a bit of debate, in that he says humanism ought not be the canonization of any one set of ideas or bodies of intellectual work, but an act of always seeking challenges to the canon, or the intellectual traditions of a culture. Reading, he says, is crucial to this. And not just any reading, but deeply engaged reading in which the reader tries to inhabit the lives of the writers at the time of writing while subjecting the writers' ideas to the reader's, and vice versa.

 

I think this has a lot to do with why I feel motivated to work on cases that focus on race issues (also because the team I help coach is all black). In some ways, I see in our debaters' opponents myself when I was a teen growing up in the suburbs, and I want to challenge these kids (me) to seriously question the predominant assumptions and beliefs upheld in the United States. And certainly to be ever mindful of the nation's cruel history (indeed, its cruel present).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe,

 

I am not looking for specific to racial profiling links to sociological and psychological effects. I am looking for straight up racism as a whole. Maybe you misunderstood me or I wasnt clear in my request the first time?

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if this has already been touched on, but how does everyone feel about solvency for this case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...