[eDebate] Challenge to the Community

[Andy Ellis]

Thank you Omri, i do indeed feel more informed. But really this is the last
time...so sad...

On 4/4/07, Omri Ceren <ceren at usc.edu> wrote:

>

> OK. Now we're going to discuss "tone".

>

> When I said "seriously", it worked because I made your position seem

> obviously absurd and kind of stupid. I accomplished that by juxtaposing

> and re-characterizing your positions in such a way as to make you seem

> nonsensical.

>

> When you said "seriously", you followed it up by whining that "the

> debates you see are more ideologically determined and constrained than

> the ones i see." This, to put it mildly, failed to really provide the

> rhetorical umpff that you were looking for.

>

> Let's try this again (but, honestly, this is going to have to be the

> last time): the conceit by which you take it upon yourself to challenge

> the debate community to attack itself emerges from a combination of

> ignorance, smugness, and pretension that makes me almost feel bad about

> publicly mocking you. You need the debate community to be as dull and

> unnuanced as you are so that you can continue in this pathetic moral

> exhibitionism, where your desperate need to convince yourself of your

> own superiority comes together with an inchoate sense of what counts as

> political activism.

>

> You really should stop pretending that you have either the authority or

> credibility to challenge anybody to do anything. It's getting to be kind

> of sad.

>

> Omri.

>

>

>

> On 4/4/2007 3:26 PM Andy Ellis wrote:

> > Seriously? are you really saying people dont make that answer and win a

> > lot of debates on it? The debates you see are more ideologically

> > determined and constrained than the ones i see. And yes at least those

> > folks who debated milliken have a great legal knowledge to provide to

> > their campuses...

> >

> > On 4/4/07, *Omri Ceren* <ceren at usc.edu <mailto:ceren at usc.edu>> wrote:

> >

> >     Seriously? This year's Milliken affirmatives advocated using the

> USSC to

> >     address de facto segregation in school districts. You think that

> this

> >     means that they said that the "the law is the best way to end racial

> >     discrimination in education", and in response you petulantly

> chellenged

> >     the community to sue... itself. And you can't understand why this is

> an

> >     example of how you don't get nuance?

> >

> >     Seriously?

> >

> >     Omri.

> >

> >     On 4/4/2007 3:17 PM Andy Ellis wrote:

> >      > Also, what is it exactly that i am doing that you are elaborating

> a

> >      > community critique of?...like is this a criticism that goes andy

> >     ellis

> >      > is a wacko  or does it actualy engage the work being done on the

> >     ground

> >      > in baltimore to further this goal,if its the former i know that

> >     stuff if

> >      > its the latter, id like to hear your version of that

> criticism....

> >      >

> >      > On 4/4/07, *Andy Ellis* < andy.edebate at gmail.com

> >     <mailto:andy.edebate at gmail.com>

> >      > <mailto:andy.edebate at gmail.com <mailto:andy.edebate at gmail.com>>>

> >     wrote:

> >      >

> >      >     So tell me omri (and i dont ask this with the lazy

> revolutionary

> >      >     bombast i often espouse) what have you learned from a year of

> >      >     milliken debates that you are now using and working with your

> >      >     debaters on to address racial discrimination in education?

> >      >

> >      >

> >      >     On 4/4/07, *Omri Ceren* < ceren at usc.edu

> >     <mailto:ceren at usc.edu> <mailto:ceren at usc.edu

> >     <mailto:ceren at usc.edu>>> wrote:

> >      >

> >      >         No. You just don't get it.

> >      >

> >      >         There's actually a relatively robust criticism to be made

> >     of you,

> >      >         tracing how risk-free revolutionary posturing can hold

> >     the good

> >      >         hostage

> >      >         to the perfect while using aggressive smugness to

> insulate

> >      >         intellectual

> >      >         laziness. So for instance, no one of any intellectual

> >     care would

> >      >         claim

> >      >         to have seen the best debaters in the country claiming

> >     that "law

> >      >         is [the

> >      >         best method]... of pursuing racial justice in education".

> >     First

> >      >         of all,

> >      >         outside of a very precise use in pyschoanalytic critical

> >     literature,

> >      >         "the Law" isn't a meaningful category. There are multiple

> >      >         branches and

> >      >         levels of government empowered to enforce legislative and

> >     judicial

> >      >         decisions - and while I know that most of the debates

> >     that you

> >      >         saw this

> >      >         year didn't really think that those distinctions

> mattered,

> >      >         that's kind

> >      >         of my point too.

> >      >

> >      >         Anyway, like I said - there's a relatively robust

> >     criticism of your

> >      >         personal sensibility, political ideology, and

> interpersonal

> >      >         community.

> >      >         But I doubt you'd get it.

> >      >

> >      >         Omri.

> >      >

> >      >

> >      >         On 4/4/2007 3:00 PM Andy Ellis wrote:

> >      >         >  Uh right, i will continue to do the work outside of

> >     the legal

> >      >         structure

> >      >         >  and in it when necessary to increase minority access

> >     to and

> >      >         completion

> >      >         >  of college. I dont doubt the  efficacy of my methods,

> >     and sure

> >      >         i didnt

> >      >         >  see the same debates you saw but my term heard and i

> >     saw many

> >      >         teams

> >      >         >  adamently defending the necessity of using the law to

> >      >         challenege racial

> >      >         >  discrimination and i am simply asking those that made

> the

> >      >         claims to

> >      >         >  follow up on them.

> >      >         >

> >      >         >  Furthermore i understand debaters cant sue for other

> >     peoples

> >      >         >  inclusion(in a basic sense of the term i think there

> >     could be

> >      >         a claimant

> >      >         >  who suggested that they where damaged by the lack of

> >     minority

> >      >         inclusion

> >      >         >  in the community, but im probably wrong like you said

> >     im not

> >      >         in the

> >      >         >  highly technical debates) but there are legal cases

> and

> >      >         movements that

> >      >         >  debaters can contribute their skills and dedication to

> >     and

> >      >         furthermore

> >      >         >  if through those super high end debates you saw

> >     provide the

> >      >         training

> >      >         >  they promise then it seems as if you can figure out

> how to

> >      >         uses cases on

> >      >         >  your campus as entree points to legal justice

> movements.

> >      >         >

> >      >         >  or maybe all those things i heard in debates where

> >     just lies

> >      >         and nods to

> >      >         >  racial inclusion?

> >      >         >

> >      >         >  On 4/4/07, *Omri Ceren* < ceren at usc.edu

> >     <mailto:ceren at usc.edu> <mailto:ceren at usc.edu <mailto:ceren at usc.edu>>

> >      >         <mailto: ceren at usc.edu <mailto:ceren at usc.edu>

> >     <mailto:ceren at usc.edu <mailto:ceren at usc.edu>>>> wrote:

> >      >         >

> >      >         >     Andy,

> >      >         >

> >      >         >     Surely you should be leading this effort, what with

> >     all of the

> >      >         >     topic-specific research that I'm sure you did this

> >     year.

> >      >         And with all

> >      >         >     the high-tech policy rounds that you judged and

> >     scouted.

> >      >         >

> >      >         >     Omri.

> >      >         >

> >      >         >     On 4/4/2007 9:55 AM Andy Ellis wrote:

> >      >         >      > So after a year of hearing debates about how the

> >     law is

> >      >         not only

> >      >         >     a good

> >      >         >      > means of pursuing racial justice in education,

> >     but the

> >      >         best method, i

> >      >         >      > have a challenge to offer. Use the skills that

> >     you have

> >      >         acquired in

> >      >         >      > debating about the law to craft a strategy that

> >     uses the

> >      >         law to

> >      >         >     increase

> >      >         >      > meaningful minority participation in the

> >     community. The

> >      >         NCAA has been

> >      >         >      > sued for admissions requirements that preference

> >     test

> >      >         scores and

> >      >         >     gpa, if

> >      >         >      > there is precedent in that or other cases there

> >     should

> >      >         be a case

> >      >         >     to sue

> >      >         >      > your university or your debate team or ceda or

> >     the ndt,

> >      >         if they have

> >      >         >      > those standards. But dont let my suggestions

> >     limit you,

> >      >         many many

> >      >         >     many

> >      >         >      > of you have researched and learned a whole lot

> about

> >      >         using the

> >      >         >     law to

> >      >         >      > fight for racial justice in education, you im

> >     sure can

> >      >         come up with

> >      >         >      > something on your own.

> >      >         >      >

> >      >         >      >

> >      >         >      >

> >      >         >

> >      >

> >

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> >

> >      >         >      >

> >      >         >      > _______________________________________________

> >      >         >      > eDebate mailing list

> >      >         >      > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com

> >     <mailto:eDebate at www.ndtceda.com> <mailto:eDebate at www.ndtceda.com

> >     <mailto:eDebate at www.ndtceda.com>>

> >      >         <mailto: eDebate at www.ndtceda.com

> >     <mailto:eDebate at www.ndtceda.com> <mailto: eDebate at www.ndtceda.com

> >     <mailto:eDebate at www.ndtceda.com>>>

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

> >      >         >      >

> >      >         >      >

> >      >         >      >

> >      >         >

> >      >

> >

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> >      >

> >      >         >      >

> >      >         >      > No virus found in this incoming message.

> >      >         >      > Checked by AVG Free Edition.

> >      >         >      > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.26/746

> -

> >      >         Release Date:

> >      >         >     4/4/2007 1:09 PM

> >      >         >

> >      >         >

> >      >         >     --

> >      >         >

> >      >         >

> >      >         >     --------------

> >      >         >     PhD Student, USC Annenberg School for Communication

> >      >         >     Email: ceren at usc.edu <mailto:ceren at usc.edu>

> >     <mailto:ceren at usc.edu <mailto:ceren at usc.edu>> <mailto:

> >      >         ceren at usc.edu <mailto:ceren at usc.edu> <mailto:

> >     ceren at usc.edu <mailto:ceren at usc.edu>>>

> >      >         >     Mobile: 412-512-7256

> >      >         >     --------------

> >      >         >

> >      >         >

> >      >         >

> >      >         >

> >      >

> >

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> >

> >      >         >

> >      >         >  No virus found in this incoming message.

> >      >         >  Checked by AVG Free Edition.

> >      >         >  Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.26/746 -

> Release

> >      >         Date: 4/4/2007 1:09 PM

> >      >

> >      >

> >      >         --

> >      >

> >      >

> >      >         --------------

> >      >         PhD Student, USC Annenberg School for Communication

> >      >         Email: ceren at usc.edu <mailto:ceren at usc.edu>

> >     <mailto:ceren at usc.edu <mailto:ceren at usc.edu>>

> >      >         Mobile: 412-512-7256

> >      >         --------------

> >      >

> >      >

> >      >

> >      >

> >      >

> >

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> >

> >      >

> >      > No virus found in this incoming message.

> >      > Checked by AVG Free Edition.

> >      > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.26/746 - Release Date:

> >     4/4/2007 1:09 PM

> >

> >

> >     --

> >

> >

> >     --------------

> >     PhD Student, USC Annenberg School for Communication

> >     Email: ceren at usc.edu <mailto:ceren at usc.edu>

> >     Mobile: 412-512-7256

> >     --------------

> >

> >

> >

> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> >

> > No virus found in this incoming message.

> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.

> > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.26/746 - Release Date:

> 4/4/2007 1:09 PM

>

>

> --

>

>

> --------------

> PhD Student, USC Annenberg School for Communication

> Email: ceren at usc.edu

> Mobile: 412-512-7256

> --------------

>

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070404/84438975/attachment.htm