Tomorrow I leave for districts, easily one of the most grueling tournament weekends of the the debate season, the chance for a school to rise up from the bottom and prove they're worthy of debating at the NDT, or a school who was a "sure thing" flopping; no one is safe at districts, anything can happen, and its certainly anyone's game to be won (and hopefully ours!)
This time of year always has a push to work harder, prodding and shoving debaters and coaches alike to give it their all, which means setting school aside for a few days, focusing your entire time for 5 straight days on debate, on what you need to say in each round and make it work for the judges you could/know you have. It's that exact push that is felt to an even HIGHER degree when it comes to the NDT and CEDA Nationals at the end of the season, when teams make it to the outrounds (double octofinals, octos, etc) where the pressure to perform, to win, to be the best that you can possibly be in the activity, can break you.
By now you're fully aware of my interest/intent to discuss the debate community and their identity management given technological developments and the incident on YouTube almost two years ago involving a CEDA outround in Wichita, KS that led to the firing of a debate coach, and a general attack against the community for what one university official believed was "eroding standards" of behavior by debaters and coaches alike. In this post I intend to clarify the direction of my research, by setting forth the trends that exist within the literature on the topics, and suggest the type of gaps in impression management research that this study would serve to fill. Using debate then as a model of a normally isolated activity/culture, we can see how the existence and proliferation of new technology such as YouTube has increased the impression management in these types of groups, in effect censoring the behavior/thoughts/ideas of the community for fear of the ramifications of thought by the larger society as a whole.
Defining Impression Management
The term "impression management" was coined by Erving Goffman (1959) to explain the process by which individuals manage how other people view their identity; that is it say, the ability for an individual to purposefully control the image projected of who they are in given situations- effectively laying forth a "claim" that "this is who I am." Goffman believed strongly in the words of William Shakespeare that all the world is a stage- his dramaturgical perspective established individuals as characters in their own lives. This view suggests that as characters, we have a variety of roles we play based on the context of the situation we find ourselves in: for example, we can have many roles we play in our lives at once: teacher, student, sister, daughter, coach. Those roles can conflict- who you are as a teacher can certainly defer from your position in a classroom as a student. This is where impression management comes into play; wherein we control who we are, step into those roles, play that character part in each situation, careful to keep them separated from each other and consistent with the view of "who we are" in those given moments.
Development of Online Media
The development and accessibility of both the Internet and a variety of digital video sharing sites (as well as cameras) has made the ability to tape and post footage of almost any event possible. Vlogs about dating and fashion advice to more socially oriented topics like the War in Afghanistan and misrepresentations of Irish culture sprinkle throughout YouTube, each vying for their own spot within this evolving cultural phenomenon. There is no question that online media has changed/effected the culture of our society; the impact is hotly debated as both positive and negative (Jenkins, 2008; Creeber & Royston, 2008; Trend, 2001) with a wider conclusion drawn that if nothing else, as de Zengotita (2005) puts it "we've been turned into method actors." Online media not only serves to monitor our every move in an almost 24/7 surveillance mentality (Redden, 2000) but it establishes a precedent of awareness of the camera that alters out behavior regardless of whether the camera is recording, will result in a video, or ever be seen by anyone but you. It's the moment the red blinking light comes out that a change occurs in the behavior of the individual the little glass dot is being directed at: a realization that that action occurs exists not only in the established reality of the moment, but could forever be replayed for not only that person to see, but anyone who came into possession of that video. This becomes the point of contention: the lasting nature of the digital material created within society changes a person's behavior to an extent, raising the question of the effects of new media on culture and society when the camera is turned on to a group that is typically not under surveillance.
Technologies Impact on Impression Management
While Goffman could not have predicted that this management could occur in an online environment; it has been a hot topic of research in the most recent years. In a digitally evolved world, impression management has become a constant site of struggle and uncertainty with Internet users navigating a vastly unknown territory. Increased transparency (Beal & Strauss, 2008; Solove, 2004; Solove, 2007) has taken its toll on impression management. Users are constantly questioning and altering their online persona; while research has been conducted in regards to impression management for social network sites such as Facebook (Zywica & Danowski, 2009; Martinez-Aleman & Wartman, 2008) there isn't a lot of research in regards to impression management in video sharing sites where a high number of the videos posted are personally created videos from a handheld camera or computer. The research on Facebook suggests that impression management hasn't changed all that much from the days of Goffman; participants still indicated that they changed/altered their character role on these sites as a way to meet the social standards set by society of what was considered acceptable and/or attractive.
The NDT/CEDA Debate Community and YouTube
NDT/CEDA debate co-existed with the growth of YouTube and proliferation of videos from tournaments peacefully until the Summer of 2007, when a video taken by coach who watched a debate round caught a post-round fight/discussion on tape that was posted to YouTube. The intensity of the fight gained national attention, leading to an investigation by the both universities in question, and ultimately the firing of the head coach for Fort Hays University, Bill Shanahan. Prior to this event, debate rounds were frequently posted to YouTube by schools as tools for preparation for future tournaments, education for new generations of debaters, and for entertainment sake when the round held particularly meaning/interest based on the content. The result of this video led to a removal of those videos, and rules at tournaments in addition to guidelines for specifics teams where debaters and debates could no longer to taped, and if they could, they couldn't be posted to any online forum. What remains on YouTube as far as NDT/CEDA debate concerns is slim. Footage from debate documentaries (Debate Team; CSTV NDT Championships 2004-2006; Resolved) in clips remain, in addition to less then a handful of videos from actual tournaments, and at least a third of those videos come from one university, Towson, a squad involved in the debate that led to the firing of Shanahan.
Debate Culture
Literature on the impact of debate on the competitor is expansive. This is due, no doubt, in large part to the increasing number of debaters who go on to work towards their Masters or PhD and use these opportunities within Communication Studies departments to study the activity and the production that occurs as a result. There are two camps functionally when it comes to the question of the quality of debate: one side is pro-policy making, suggesting that having an activity wherein the competitors role play as policy makers has a positive influence on the participants (Coverstone, 1995; Speice & Lyle, 2003; Dybvig & Iverson, 2002) and a camp that suggests the activity could stand to grow and change, that it supports a pro-government system that only serves to alienate and allude the larger discussion on the needs/wants of citizens (Spanos, 2004; Hicks & Green, 2001). Beyond this two broad sides of the activity however, discussion on the culture of the community and what debate constitutes is a separate question that is not frequently addressed. McDonald (2001) discussed the sacrifices and role of being a coach of NDT/CEDA debate reaching the conclusion that there is a fine line to be walked between maintaining a competitive and productive squad. In addition, there have a been few (less publicized) glances into the culture of the activity (Gilbert, 2008; Nugent, 2007) wherein past participants attempt to shed light on the changes/driving demand for success the activity produces in an individual, but neither speaks to the overwhelming nature/effect of debate as an entity.
Concluding Thoughts
As the literature and research stands at the moment, impression management in the digital realm has been studied only in the context of the change in behavior specifically to portray an online persona for YouTube (Chen, 2008), rather then changing every day behavior as a result of a fear that those moments could be taped/placed online (such as what has presumably happened with the debate community.) Meyrowitz (1985) explains this gap in understanding situationism as a result of new media, that this research seeks to fill. Meyrowitz explains the difficulty in dealing with new media in relation to individual development/management, summarizing the commonalities of media literature and situationism (a focus on the larger effect of the structure on an environment) and differences (medium theorists don’t address face-to-face interaction, situationalists ignore the existence of media) with a final call to action of a need for a framework that has a static definition and connection between these two areas of study as they converge in the digital age.
Research Goal
My intention with this research then is to follow the community through the remaining tournaments of the season (Districts, CEDA, and the NDT) in addition to the remainder of the footprints on YouTube in hopes to understand the role that impression management has played on the culture and character of the community as a direct result of the existence of digital video sharing sites. By doing so, there should be a sense of clarity in the role/effect of these sites on individual communities/cultures.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Working Towards Understanding
I'm in the middle of preparing for districts, and amidst the cutting of cards about the United States construction of China as a threat and the role of feminism in regards to nuclear weapons policy, I've been thinking and wondering about what the outside world must really think of us debaters. I went to the doctor on Friday (I have a sinus infection) and when I made a comment about how I coach debate, she said, oh you all talk really fast, and then made some jibberish sounds of quick speaking. I laughed a little, but was also surprised that someone had stopped and taken the chance to watch a video (She'd seen a documentary) about debate who had never had anything to do with it. So, as I move forward, I've comprised a list of the literature I feel is associated with/allows for understanding of the question(s) at hand in regards to the digital impact on the debate community. They are, in no particular order:
Books:
Beal, A. and Strauss, J.
2008, Radically Transparent: Monitoring and Managing Reputations Online, Sybex.
Burgess, J., Green,J., Jenkins,H., and Hartley,J.
2009, YouTube: Online Videos and Participatory Culture. Polity.
Creeber, G., and Royston M.
2008, Digital Culture: Understanding New Media. Berkshire: Open University Press.
de Zengotita, T.
2005, Mediated: How the Media Shapes Your World and the Way You Live in it. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Goffman, E.
1959, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Anchor Books.
Jenkins, H.
2008, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, NYU Press.
Jenkins, H.
2009, Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education For the 21st Century, MIT Press.
Mills, C.W.
1959, The Sociological Imagination. Oxford University Press.
Meyrowitz, J.
1985, No Sense of Place. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nugent, B.
2007, American Nerd: The Story of My People. Simon and Schuster.
Redden, J.
2000, Snitch Culture. Feral House.
Solove, D.
2004, The Digital Person: Technology and Privacy in the Information Age. NYU Press.
Solove, D.
2007. The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor and Privacy on the Internet. Yale University Press.
Tapscott, D.
2008, Grown Up Digital: How The Net Generation is Changing Your World, McGraw-Hill.
Trend, D.
2001, Reading Digital Culture. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing.
Journal Articles:
Chen, L.
2008, Individual online impression management: self presentation on YouTube™, International Conference of Pacific Rim Management.
http://www.myacme.org/ACMEProceedings09/p26.pdf
Chu, D.
2008, Collective behavior in YouTube: a case study of "Bus Uncle' online videos, Asian Journal of Communication, 19(3), 337-353.
Gilbert, S.
2009, Competitive and slightly unhinged, The Washingtonian, 45(1), 66.
Lin, C.
2009, From media consumption to media production: applications of YouTube™ in
an eighth-grade video documentary project. Journal of Visual Literacy, 28(1), 92-107.
McDonald, K.M.
2001, Demanding expectations: Surviving and thriving as a collegiate debate coach. Argumentation and Advocacy, 38(2), 115-120.
Robinson, L. and Schulz, J.
2009, New avenues for sociological inquiry: evolving forms of ethnographic practice. Sociology, 45(4), 685-699.
Video:
Robbins, D.
2005, Debate Team. Green Lamp Pictures.
http://www.debateteamdocumentary.com/index.html
Whitely, G.
2008, Resolved. One Potato Productions.
http://www.debatemovie.com/
College Sports Television (CSTV)
2005, National Collegiate Debate Championship, CBS.
http://www.cstv.com/cstv/programming/debate/debate1.html
College Sports Televisions (CSTV)
2004, National College Debate Championship, CBS.
http://www.cstv.com/cstv/programming/debate/debate1.html
Books:
Beal, A. and Strauss, J.
2008, Radically Transparent: Monitoring and Managing Reputations Online, Sybex.
Burgess, J., Green,J., Jenkins,H., and Hartley,J.
2009, YouTube: Online Videos and Participatory Culture. Polity.
Creeber, G., and Royston M.
2008, Digital Culture: Understanding New Media. Berkshire: Open University Press.
de Zengotita, T.
2005, Mediated: How the Media Shapes Your World and the Way You Live in it. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Goffman, E.
1959, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Anchor Books.
Jenkins, H.
2008, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, NYU Press.
Jenkins, H.
2009, Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education For the 21st Century, MIT Press.
Mills, C.W.
1959, The Sociological Imagination. Oxford University Press.
Meyrowitz, J.
1985, No Sense of Place. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nugent, B.
2007, American Nerd: The Story of My People. Simon and Schuster.
Redden, J.
2000, Snitch Culture. Feral House.
Solove, D.
2004, The Digital Person: Technology and Privacy in the Information Age. NYU Press.
Solove, D.
2007. The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor and Privacy on the Internet. Yale University Press.
Tapscott, D.
2008, Grown Up Digital: How The Net Generation is Changing Your World, McGraw-Hill.
Trend, D.
2001, Reading Digital Culture. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing.
Journal Articles:
Chen, L.
2008, Individual online impression management: self presentation on YouTube™, International Conference of Pacific Rim Management.
http://www.myacme.org/ACMEProceedings09/p26.pdf
Chu, D.
2008, Collective behavior in YouTube: a case study of "Bus Uncle' online videos, Asian Journal of Communication, 19(3), 337-353.
Gilbert, S.
2009, Competitive and slightly unhinged, The Washingtonian, 45(1), 66.
Lin, C.
2009, From media consumption to media production: applications of YouTube™ in
an eighth-grade video documentary project. Journal of Visual Literacy, 28(1), 92-107.
McDonald, K.M.
2001, Demanding expectations: Surviving and thriving as a collegiate debate coach. Argumentation and Advocacy, 38(2), 115-120.
Robinson, L. and Schulz, J.
2009, New avenues for sociological inquiry: evolving forms of ethnographic practice. Sociology, 45(4), 685-699.
Video:
Robbins, D.
2005, Debate Team. Green Lamp Pictures.
http://www.debateteamdocumentary.com/index.html
Whitely, G.
2008, Resolved. One Potato Productions.
http://www.debatemovie.com/
College Sports Television (CSTV)
2005, National Collegiate Debate Championship, CBS.
http://www.cstv.com/cstv/programming/debate/debate1.html
College Sports Televisions (CSTV)
2004, National College Debate Championship, CBS.
http://www.cstv.com/cstv/programming/debate/debate1.html
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
What's Next?
As I've begun developing and researching the content behind my views about debate on YouTube, I reached a few conclusions.
First, that the existence of a site where videos can be universally uploaded and shared with anyone with internet access all over the world, has the ability to completely change the culture of a community. If I attend a tournament and want to tape a debate (regardless of the end goal of that video) I now have to get written permission from the participants, who can't even make that choice for themselves, but instead, are forced to follow a policy set by their coach or their school, for fear that perhaps there might be "another Shanahan incident". The videos that WERE on the internet have, for the most part, been removed. You have to dig deep if you want to find footage about the debate community shot by one of our own.
Second, this change can be best explained through an increased level of impression management by those involved in debate. Erving Goffman best explained this concept through the idea of situationism. That is to say that we all have a role we play, and there were roles that existed for those involved in debate that they comfortably played in the company of those involved in the community, that was disrupted when that footage was broadcast and viewed by those unfamiliar with the activity, not only taking then the role/character act out of context, but misrepresenting it to society as a whole.
Unfortunately, showing through video the LACK of video and disassociation of any sort of personality or sense of identity is a bit difficult. Therefore, my proposal is to study and (hopefully) show what the culture has evolved into- the variety of people and events and encounters that come together and ARE debate. Using the footage that remains for the public to see, coupled with my own work as I attend the last handful of tournaments of the season, I hope to be able to take what was a horrific instance of misrepresentation of the activity, tell the story of debate, and perhaps offer a more cohesive image of who we are as a response to the derogatory claims about the state of activity as laid out by Fort Hays University.
First, that the existence of a site where videos can be universally uploaded and shared with anyone with internet access all over the world, has the ability to completely change the culture of a community. If I attend a tournament and want to tape a debate (regardless of the end goal of that video) I now have to get written permission from the participants, who can't even make that choice for themselves, but instead, are forced to follow a policy set by their coach or their school, for fear that perhaps there might be "another Shanahan incident". The videos that WERE on the internet have, for the most part, been removed. You have to dig deep if you want to find footage about the debate community shot by one of our own.
Second, this change can be best explained through an increased level of impression management by those involved in debate. Erving Goffman best explained this concept through the idea of situationism. That is to say that we all have a role we play, and there were roles that existed for those involved in debate that they comfortably played in the company of those involved in the community, that was disrupted when that footage was broadcast and viewed by those unfamiliar with the activity, not only taking then the role/character act out of context, but misrepresenting it to society as a whole.
Unfortunately, showing through video the LACK of video and disassociation of any sort of personality or sense of identity is a bit difficult. Therefore, my proposal is to study and (hopefully) show what the culture has evolved into- the variety of people and events and encounters that come together and ARE debate. Using the footage that remains for the public to see, coupled with my own work as I attend the last handful of tournaments of the season, I hope to be able to take what was a horrific instance of misrepresentation of the activity, tell the story of debate, and perhaps offer a more cohesive image of who we are as a response to the derogatory claims about the state of activity as laid out by Fort Hays University.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
KSU Proud: Ariel Nixon
I had a great time getting to know Ariel, a sophomore at KSU who received a grant from KSU PROUD the summer before her freshman year, in order to ensure she could attend Kansas State. I think it's inspiring to consider that a school is willing to offer and help a student who has never even been to Manhattan get the chance to go to school here- a true embodiment of the spirit of KState Proud. Ariel graciously agreed to allow me to post the video that contains images and statements about her experiences at Kansas State and with KSU Proud:
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
College Debate: What is it?
I've spent the last 5 days in Austin, Texas getting five hours of sleep a night, driving a suburban full of college students around the UT campus, rushing between building, eating whatever food place is open when we're done for the day- and loving every second of being at an NDT/CEDA sanctioned college debate tournament. It's hard to believe I've been involved with the debate community for ten years, but I wouldn't change my experiences with the activity for anything else I've done. Four years of high school debate, 4 years as a college level participant, and I'm now in my second year as a coach for Kansas State University.
What I love about debate can not be entirely qualified in a series of words or posts, nor could I tell you what it is that makes us who we are. What I do know, is that college debate IS it's own culture, a community of individuals who come together to discuss a variety of topics each year, more excited each new school year not for our new classes, but so that we can return to the Georgia State or Gonzaga season openers to see all of our friends- and to many, our families. Each season we spend weekend after weekend together, debating, talking, making friends, and having fun.
The year culminates each spring in two major "nationals"- the National Debate Tournament (NDT) and Cross-Examination Debate Association National Tournament (CEDA). These two tournaments have distinct qualities that separate them from each other, much like the division that exists in the name of the activity itself. NDT/CEDA debate, prior to the 1990's merger, were two separate entities of college debate, merged together to preserve the activity at universities across the nation. The NDT is the exclusive national season ending tournament: to go to the NDT you must either receive a first-round bid (the top 16 teams in the nation) qualify out of your district tournament (another 30-40 teams) and finally, if neither of those work, a remaining 16 teams receive a second round bid to the big dance. Winning the NDT is most debaters dream- that many teams never get the chance to even fight for. This is where CEDA nationals comes in: it is no coincidence that CEDA has been dubbed in the community "The People's Tournament" CEDA is open to any team in the nation of any competitive level (there are three: novice, jv, and varsity) and there are usually upwards of 200 teams competing for the 1st place title.
An insular activity, debate wasn't introduced to the outside world until the events of a quarter finals debate and post-round discussion at the 2008 CEDA Nationals was uploaded to YouTube for all the world to see.
Almost immediately, a post popped up on the college debate website forums, www.ndtceda.com, with a forecast of what was to come from sharing the video with those unfamiliar with the activity:
Below is a remaining clip of that debate:
The original full version of both the debate and the post-round discussion was removed by the poster not long after it was posted, but the damage was already done as word spread quickly through media outlets as a result of the YouTube video, that led to Fort Hays University firing Bill Shanahan:
What began as an investigation into a singular event following one debate, exploded into a full fledged attack against college debate, with this statement issued by the President of Fort Hays to the rest of the world:
What followed was outpouring of support for both Shanahan and debate:
But what exactly IS this community that is under attack, who are these debaters, these coaches, these college students and faculty from across the country who come together in this environment that President Hammond believes is not an acceptable college level activity?
It is my hope, that by following the remaining tracks of who we are in debate that exist on the internet, supplemented with my own interviews and video as I attend the remaining tournaments of the 2009-2010 season, that I'll be able to provide an answer to that question, a more representative, and (hopefully) positive image of a community afraid to show their face to the world again for fear that they will be persecuted much like Bill Shanahan was.
As I began to search YouTube for videos about and/or related to college debate, I was saddened by the few videos that remained; worried about what their presidents might think many universities were ordered to remove any rounds they had posted to the web. Videos that had been posted for educational purposes- chances to show interested high school students, or to prepare for an upcoming tournament had to be kept private, debaters were told to say they couldn't be taped at tournaments anymore; tournaments themselves issued statements that they would not allow any videos uploaded to YouTube from their school without written approval from the director.
My search through the videos that remained then began with Bill and Shanara. Interesting is that the video exists in several forms on YouTube, each with different titles, almost all (save the one included above) with mocking titles like: "So This is Higher Education?" and "How Educated Liberals Debate!"
The video even got its own remix in the aftermath:
Two years prior to this event, Fort Hays Coach Bill Shanahan spoke on what the activity means to him, a clip deleted from a debate documentary that was meant to introduce society to college debate, but hardly got any play time compared to the post-round discussion that got a front-page CNN.com article:
But discussing the activity, and seeing post-round chats can only tell you so much. College Sport TV (CSTV) actually followed a small handful of teams at the NDT during the 2006-2008 seasons, documenting what the activity was, and what people do from a competitive sports activity approach:
Everyone has their own opinion though, on what the activity should be about, here a small handful of the remaining videos that I found where people either discussed debate, or used debate to get a point across:
It is unfortunate that much of what was there before is now gone- that as I taped rounds while I judged at Texas that debaters were worried about what their coach would say, if they wanted their names attached to this ethnography of debate. This is only the beginning, but I believe that it's necessary for us to take a closer look at college debate, to show people the dedication, hardwork, personality, and unique life style that a college debater partakes in, for if no other reason than to show universities that we are not a group of hoodlums that "lack decorum and civility." I'd like to leave you then with a blogpost I found at the global debate website, updating the world on what Shanahan is up to after leaving Kansas:
What I love about debate can not be entirely qualified in a series of words or posts, nor could I tell you what it is that makes us who we are. What I do know, is that college debate IS it's own culture, a community of individuals who come together to discuss a variety of topics each year, more excited each new school year not for our new classes, but so that we can return to the Georgia State or Gonzaga season openers to see all of our friends- and to many, our families. Each season we spend weekend after weekend together, debating, talking, making friends, and having fun.
The year culminates each spring in two major "nationals"- the National Debate Tournament (NDT) and Cross-Examination Debate Association National Tournament (CEDA). These two tournaments have distinct qualities that separate them from each other, much like the division that exists in the name of the activity itself. NDT/CEDA debate, prior to the 1990's merger, were two separate entities of college debate, merged together to preserve the activity at universities across the nation. The NDT is the exclusive national season ending tournament: to go to the NDT you must either receive a first-round bid (the top 16 teams in the nation) qualify out of your district tournament (another 30-40 teams) and finally, if neither of those work, a remaining 16 teams receive a second round bid to the big dance. Winning the NDT is most debaters dream- that many teams never get the chance to even fight for. This is where CEDA nationals comes in: it is no coincidence that CEDA has been dubbed in the community "The People's Tournament" CEDA is open to any team in the nation of any competitive level (there are three: novice, jv, and varsity) and there are usually upwards of 200 teams competing for the 1st place title.
An insular activity, debate wasn't introduced to the outside world until the events of a quarter finals debate and post-round discussion at the 2008 CEDA Nationals was uploaded to YouTube for all the world to see.
Almost immediately, a post popped up on the college debate website forums, www.ndtceda.com, with a forecast of what was to come from sharing the video with those unfamiliar with the activity:
Below is a remaining clip of that debate:
The original full version of both the debate and the post-round discussion was removed by the poster not long after it was posted, but the damage was already done as word spread quickly through media outlets as a result of the YouTube video, that led to Fort Hays University firing Bill Shanahan:
What began as an investigation into a singular event following one debate, exploded into a full fledged attack against college debate, with this statement issued by the President of Fort Hays to the rest of the world:
What followed was outpouring of support for both Shanahan and debate:
But what exactly IS this community that is under attack, who are these debaters, these coaches, these college students and faculty from across the country who come together in this environment that President Hammond believes is not an acceptable college level activity?
It is my hope, that by following the remaining tracks of who we are in debate that exist on the internet, supplemented with my own interviews and video as I attend the remaining tournaments of the 2009-2010 season, that I'll be able to provide an answer to that question, a more representative, and (hopefully) positive image of a community afraid to show their face to the world again for fear that they will be persecuted much like Bill Shanahan was.
As I began to search YouTube for videos about and/or related to college debate, I was saddened by the few videos that remained; worried about what their presidents might think many universities were ordered to remove any rounds they had posted to the web. Videos that had been posted for educational purposes- chances to show interested high school students, or to prepare for an upcoming tournament had to be kept private, debaters were told to say they couldn't be taped at tournaments anymore; tournaments themselves issued statements that they would not allow any videos uploaded to YouTube from their school without written approval from the director.
My search through the videos that remained then began with Bill and Shanara. Interesting is that the video exists in several forms on YouTube, each with different titles, almost all (save the one included above) with mocking titles like: "So This is Higher Education?" and "How Educated Liberals Debate!"
The video even got its own remix in the aftermath:
Two years prior to this event, Fort Hays Coach Bill Shanahan spoke on what the activity means to him, a clip deleted from a debate documentary that was meant to introduce society to college debate, but hardly got any play time compared to the post-round discussion that got a front-page CNN.com article:
But discussing the activity, and seeing post-round chats can only tell you so much. College Sport TV (CSTV) actually followed a small handful of teams at the NDT during the 2006-2008 seasons, documenting what the activity was, and what people do from a competitive sports activity approach:
Everyone has their own opinion though, on what the activity should be about, here a small handful of the remaining videos that I found where people either discussed debate, or used debate to get a point across:
It is unfortunate that much of what was there before is now gone- that as I taped rounds while I judged at Texas that debaters were worried about what their coach would say, if they wanted their names attached to this ethnography of debate. This is only the beginning, but I believe that it's necessary for us to take a closer look at college debate, to show people the dedication, hardwork, personality, and unique life style that a college debater partakes in, for if no other reason than to show universities that we are not a group of hoodlums that "lack decorum and civility." I'd like to leave you then with a blogpost I found at the global debate website, updating the world on what Shanahan is up to after leaving Kansas:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
