On civil disobedience in debate, pt 1

Dear Debaters,

Debating about debate isn't new... really it isn't. We've been doing it for ages and things haven't changed as a result. There are several reasons for this, which is the purpose of this post.

The thing is, most 'projects' are akin to acts of civil disobedience... and the reason you aren't effective is that you aren't actually following the guidelines for civil disobedience... go read Letter From a Birmingham Jail

ok.... now, that you've seen there are several parts of civil disobedience 1) identification of the problem, 2) attempting to solve the problem within the system, 3) being disobedient, and 4) taking the punishment for your disobedience --let's talk about how you've tried to do it...

On Identifying the 'problem' (1)-- you've identified something you don't like about NPTE. OK -- but, is there a real problem to be solved, or simply something you don't like. Those things aren't the same. Are there any real harms to not having a democratically elected NPTE board? Do you think that just because someone is elected that they will somehow make better decisions about things? I kind of think not -- but, you think it is a problem, so what should you do about it?

That brings us to (2) working for a solution inside the system. That you didn't do. In fact, your coach has privileged access to the NPTE board and didn't use it to suggest your project. He still does read all of our private board discussions, even though he isn't on the board. He chimes in and often acts like the 6th, (unofficial) board member -- and he didn't make any such suggestion... didn't know that, did you? Also, as a former NPTE board member, he knows the procedures for change we've established AND he knows where our discussions about democratization have lead -- hmmm, didn't know that either did you? At least you could have made a formal proposal to the board, outlining concerns and solutions. You didn't do that, probably because debate projects are too much fun -- and a good excuse not to win the national title as seniors -- thus a way to keep your fragile egos intact. Way to be a GenMe-er... go read the book...

The next step (you know, the one you jumped to) is actually being disobedient (3) -- I suppose you did that. You ignored the side and topic norms and presented your "case" for democratization of the NPTE. But, from what I can understand, you didn't really articulate harms or solvency... you just gave your opinion. That was enough to win you some prelim rounds (probably because the other team agreed or you ended up with critics who like projects or didn't want to drop seniors) -- but I noticed that you were out pretty early in elim rounds... hmm. I was kind of happy to see that D1 beat you on a 3-0... Really, I'm not so sure what you hoped to accomplish -- that you couldn't have accomplished by discussing it between rounds, discussing it on-line or making a formal proposal to the board.

The final step is being punished for your disobedience (4) -- this you didn't do. You didn't even forfeit the round -- you didn't take ANY kind of punishment for your actions. In fact, your actions probably made you more popular among your peers -- because that is what it is really all about, no? Honestly, that is what I'll think until I see a formal proposal from you... you've had some feedback on what it should look like and consider, so the next step is yours. At any rate, you were pretty sure you'd get the ballot --- so you didn't take a risk with this project...

So -- at this point all you've been is naughty.

Stay tuned for a story from a few years ago about a planned act of debate civil disobedience that didn't get off the ground. The plan had all the elements --- and was hatched by Hubby....