[eDebate] Time to Review the Merger

[Andy Ellis]

im less interested in proving the truth of 4 than i was a few years ago,
however, i wonder if though directors like it one of the pressures
stylistcly comes from budget givers...



On 6/9/06, matt stannard <stannardmatt at hotmail.com> wrote:

>

> If I may offer a non-scientific preview of the survey responses I have

> processed:

>

> Programs have left for four main reasons:

>

> 1. Perceived budgetary expenses of NDT/CEDA debate as opposed to

> parliamentary debate.

> 2. Decline of regional travel opportunities, feeding #1.

> 3. Simple lack of interest on the part of their students, tied to the

> perception that the work requirements of NDT/CEDA debate are next to

> impossible for students who either work or are involved in other academic

> activities.

> 4. Theoretical/ideological opposition to the communication practices of

> NDT/CEDA debate (this was not listed nearly as much as the other three;

> the

> majority of directors who have abandoned NDT/CEDA say they love it and

> wished they could have kept doing it).

>

> stannard

>

>

> >From: "Josh Hoe" <jbhdb8 at gmail.com>

> >To: "Darren Elliott" <delliott at kckcc.edu>

> >CC: edebate at ndtceda.com, Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu

> >Subject: Re: [eDebate] Time to Review the Merger

> >Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 13:40:59 -0400

> >

> >The only disagreement I can see in the Cheif's post is the one I

> pre-empted

> >about the merger causing the decline of regional debate.

> >

> >CEDA was moving toward an entirely NDT style prior to the merger....The

> >merger did NOT cause the decline in programs...Programs were dying and

> >regional circuits were dying in CEDA PRIOR to the merger....One of the

> >major

> >arguments for the merger at the time was to ARREST decline.  The

> >Mid-America

> >region was the CEDA version of the Emory/Wake/West Ga/Kentucky etc region

> -

> >if you didnt travel to the Mid America district in the last 7 years of

> CEDA

> >qua CEDA you had NO chance at CEDA nationals.

> >

> >I was one of the last people to make the transition (ASU did an entirely

> >CEDA schedule the first pseudo merger year) and I was a CEDA officer and

> >was

> >VERY active through this whole period.  It is just patently false to

> >suggest

> >that prior to the merger CEDA was this idyllic romantic past you suggest.

> >

> >I have suggested this before...Most, if not all, of the reasons debate is

> >dying is not a result of the merger...It is the result first and foremost

> >of

> >increased travel costs.  In addition, many programs left entirely or did

> >Parli because they hated the style of debate that was becoming prominant

> in

> >CEDA PRIOR to the merger.  The style popularized by schools such as

> Emporia

> >(you), UCO (me), SIU at the end (Jack) etc.

> >

> >Finally, I have gotten a crash course in the last four years of just how

> >hard it is to keep a debate program running without University support.

> >The

> >major problems across the board for most schools who try to debate is

> >DECLINING UNIVERSITY FUNDS FROM STATE BUDGETS.  Its easier to bemoan how

> >terrible debate is and how many programs we are losing but many of the

> >problems we all face are created externally.  My fear is, in our haste to

> >do

> >something radical to return to a past that no longer exists, we will make

> >the problems worse not better.

> >

> >I know I am somehwat of a muckraker in this forum but please realize that

> >the one thing we do have is each other...If we start choosing sides and

> >dividing up again we are only going to have two seperate, smaller, and

> more

> >rapidly dying groups of college debaters.

> >

> >The best thing we can do is SHARE our success stories....How did Dr.

> Warner

> >generate University support, how did the teams with lots of money get to

> be

> >teams with lots of money, how does Jack get support at OU, etc etc

> >etc.....How can you justify what we do to administrators

> >successfully.....How can you create revenue streams outside the

> University

> >budgeting process.  We may not agree on how debate should look but we are

> >resources for each others continued survival.  Cutting off whole sections

> >of

> >such resources seems to me, at best, short sighted.

> >

> >Josh

> >

> >

> >

> >On 6/9/06, Darren Elliott <delliott at kckcc.edu> wrote:

> >>

> >>I am working on the wordings that Tim presented as per the Topic Cmte

> >>deliberations and dont have time for a long dive into this but Andy's

> post

> >>was an outgrowth of a conversation at the CEDA summer meetings.  I think

> >>it

> >>has merit.  I do want to comment on a couple things Josh says below.  We

> >>have different perspectives I think that are worth noting.

> >>

> >> >>> "Josh Hoe" <jbhdb8 at gmail.com> 06/08/06 11:17 PM >>>

> >>JH:  Sure, I suspect it would be easy to make sure the NDT no longer

> >>debated the

> >>CEDA topic...just go back to two value topics a year.  That would do it

> >>for

> >>sure.

> >>

> >>ME:  I agree.  Hypothetically if programs would flood back to evidence

> >>based debate would it be worth it?

> >>

> >>JH:  Not really sure what Andy's argument is....A team can still travel

> >>exclusively a CEDA schedule, still attend CEDA nationals only, still set

> >>CEDA regional or overall points championships as the squad goal.  What

> >>exactly are you saying?  No program is forced to debate at traditionally

> >>NDT

> >>tournaments or at the NDT.  Any program still has exactly the same

> choices

> >>open to them as they did when I debated CEDA.

> >>

> >>ME:  Depends on the team doesnt it?  For some the "CEDA schedule" they

> >>once knew is a thing of the past.  As regional debate died in parts of

> the

> >>country the ability to travel a CEDA schedule dies as well.  Some

> programs

> >>have the same choices available--not all do.  And I would wager to say

> >>MOST

> >>of the CEDA programs that existed when you debated CEDA have gone the

> way

> >>of

> >>the T-Rex.

> >>

> >>JH:  So, whats left, if the above is true, is the topic...and that is

> >>voted for

> >>by the CEDA membership and written by elected CEDA leadership members.

> >>

> >>ME:  Not that simple.  The topic is the one thing that unified the two

> >>mostly, I agree with Gary on that point and with you on that point.

> >>However

> >>that was a major factor in many schools leaving.  That led to a decline

> in

> >>Regional debate in many regions.  So others had to choose between

> leaving

> >>or

> >>changing their squad focus entirely.  The merger didnt just change the

> >>topic

> >>process.  There are many things it allowed/caused/led to.  The topic

> >>change

> >>came first.  And the topics are certainly different.  From my

> perspective

> >>they are better.  But others disagree.  And instead if hearing those

> >>voices

> >>we just keep pushing them to the margins.

> >>

> >>JH:  Guess I am being somewhat purposefully obtuse but for a

> >>point...rarely was

> >>there really an ideal romantic past and hardly ever can it be returned

> to.

> >>

> >>ME:  If losing over 100 programs in the past 15 years isnt romantic

> enough

> >>then maybe nothing can convince folks that we have an obligation to look

> >>at

> >>where we were and where we are now.  Gary is right, institutionally we

> >>really should do this from time to time.

> >>

> >>JH:  What you are really arguing, I suspect, is that you wish more

> people

> >>supported a less national circuit approach so that there was more viable

> >>regional debate all over the country.  The lack of this is NOT the fault

> >>of

> >>the merger...It was happening at the end of traditional CEDA before the

> >>merger.

> >>

> >>ME:  Was it happening on the same scale?  Really?  That isnt my

> >>recollection.  Even if it was, CEDA's Natl circuit tournaments are now

> >>barely able to make it as Regional tournaments.  CEDA's natl.

> tournaments

> >>were the Jesuit qualifiers.  Now S. Carolina and UMSL are gone.  Emporia

> >>and

> >>UCO are Regional tournaments.  The Pacific Northwest is down to 2-3

> >>programs

> >>total much less a large Natl tournament drawing many teams.

> >>

> >>I will conclude with my example from CEDA Mid-American Region/NDT

> >>D3.  Prior to the merger CEDA's top programs in this area of the world

> >>were

> >>SMS, ESU, UMKC, UCO, and K-State.  They all held big tournaments too.

> >>None

> >>of us really had to travel out of the Region even though a few did but

> on

> >>occasion.  Not to the extent they do now.  The merger brought into the

> >>fold

> >>some NDT powerhouses we never encountered before.  It brought us face to

> >>face with KU, Baylor, Texas, and N. Texas.  KU and Baylor also had huge

> >>tournaments.  But then the chase was on.  To keep up at districts we had

> >>to

> >>go where those schools were going all year.  So the bid chase was on.

> >>Folks

> >>flocked from the District.  As a result all of those big tournaments

> >>decreased in size.  The burdens mounted and yes a year long topic also

> >>brought burdens.   Regional programs disappeared.  Gone were NEMO, MOSO,

> >>UMSL, Webster, SLU, CMSU, SMU, Central Methodist, Cameron, NOC, WJC and

> >>who

> >>knows how many more I cant remember off the top of my head.  All those

> >>schools leaving meant even more teams now not coming to the Regional

> >>tournaments.  And the cycle goes on and on.  Was the merger the sole

> >>reason?  Not likely.  Did we do what was necessary to preserve identity

> >>and

> >>preserve programs?  Absolutely not.  Shame on us.  A look back is not

> only

> >>necessary but prudent and hopefully not too late.

> >>

> >>chief

> >>

> >>Darren Elliott

> >>Director of Debate--KCKCC

> >>CEDA 2nd VP

> >>

> >>Josh

> >>

> >>

> >>On 6/8/06, Gary Larson <Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu> wrote:

> >> >

> >> >  Andy's call to evaluate the effects of the "merger" between CEDA and

> >>NDT

> >> > is an important call do something that is a necessary part of

> >>institutional

> >> > decision-making. If we're not self-reflective about the impact of

> >>decisions

> >> > we make, we will inevitably evolve in directions that are less than

> >>ideal.

> >> >

> >> > But the final paragraph of Andy's post deserves comment.  He asks

> >> > presumably the historically CEDA part of his audience,

> >> >

> >> > "Do we still want to be a part of the NDT process? Has it paid off

> for

> >> > us?"

> >> >

> >> >  The irony here is that the "merger" such as it is was not a CEDA

> >>decision

> >> > to be part of the NDT process.  It was rather an NDT decision to be

> >>part

> >>of

> >> > the CEDA process.  The watershed moment was a decision by the NDT

> >>community

> >> > to adopt the CEDA topic.  The conditions for that decision - that the

> >>topic

> >> > be worded as a policy resolution and that there only be one topic per

> >>year -

> >> > had both been essentially already adopted by the CEDA community

> >>independent

> >> > of any possibility that the NDT would adopt the CEDA topic.

> >> >

> >> > As a result, the topic selection process remains uniquely a CEDA

> >> > constitutional function, even if some fret that it has been

> >>co-opted.  If

> >> > CEDA were to decide that Andy's concern is warranted and that CEDA no

> >>longer

> >> > wanted to be part of the NDT process, it would discover that

> unilateral

> >> > disengagement is impossible.  The question is not whether CEDA adopts

> >>the

> >> > NDT topic - it's whether the NDT adopts the CEDA topic.  Besides

> topic

> >> > construction there really is no merger (other than that defined by

> >>travel

> >> > patterns and choices to attend one or both of the national

> tournaments

> >>-

> >>but

> >> > a number of schools played on both sides of the street long before

> >>there

> >>was

> >> > talk of a merger).

> >> >

> >> > Given a somewhat popular narrative that says that CEDA lost programs

> to

> >> > Parli because it capitulated to NDT, the real story is perhaps even

> >>more

> >> > interesting.

> >> >

> >> > GARY

> >> >

> >> > _______________________________________________

> >> > eDebate mailing list

> >> > eDebate at ndtceda.com

> >> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

> >> >

> >> >

> >>

> >>

>

>

> >_______________________________________________

> >eDebate mailing list

> >eDebate at ndtceda.com

> >http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> eDebate mailing list

> eDebate at ndtceda.com

> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060609/f8d55f5e/attachment.htm