College Policy Debate Forums
October 22, 2018, 08:03:59 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: IF YOU EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS WITH THE SITE, INCLUDING LOGGING IN, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IMMEDIATELY.  EMAIL ME DIRECTLY OR USE THE CONTACT US LINK AT THE TOP.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: 2016 NDT Welcome Speeches From Binghamton University  (Read 2070 times)
joe leeson-schatz
Full Member
***
Posts: 139


« on: March 31, 2016, 08:06:46 PM »

Seifudein Adem's speech is attached to this post. William Spanos' address, delivered by Guy Risko, is pasted below. You can watch the lives stream of awards and speeches at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FaZuet0umA

I am deeply honored and gratified by this invitation by Joe S[ch]atz, the director of the Binghamton debate team, to address the national debate conference at Binghamton  University this year. I wish I could be here with you in person, but since that is impossible, this indirect format will have to do,

I am honored and gratified by this invitation primarily because, despite the fact that my intellectual work  has been severely critical of the protocols of debating, it has nevertheless become increasingly a presence in the debate world. And this  is  evidence that the old system of debate, which privileges disinterest inquiry, has been self -destructing ever since the Vietnam  War and, most dramatically,  in the wake of the United States' inauguration of it unending  global war on terror after 9/11/01.

As I told Christopher Spurlock in the controversial  interview we did a few years ago, the debate world is the major source of the American administrative and political class. I meant by this a ruling class whose thinking,  despite the antagonist labels--Republican, Democrat; Conservative, Liberal--is determined by a system of argument that,  as in the debate world,  views the agonizing oppositions of the actual, existential, world in which we live as fundamentally equal, whereas, in obvious fact, they are always unequal. The world implied by the essential debate protocols is, as the protocol  that allows debaters to switch sides makes clear,  a worldless world, a world devoid of the existential differences that make a difference. The debate happens nowhere. If a debater defies this fundamental protocol in the name of this actual world, he or she is condemned as being a subverter of the democratic community. This worldless  world, where, for example,  the positions of whites and blacks, or men and women,
or the world's minorities and the neoimperial powers have equal weight is also the worldless  world of the administrative political class it largely produces.

This alienation and silencing of  a voice that refuses to play by the rules of the debate system became tellingly manifest in the notorious recent case of Steven  Salaita, an American of Palestinian origins, who, after being hired by the  University of Illinois,  was dismissed by the university president for his public criticism of  the Israeli attack on Gaza in 2014 as a manifestation of criticism against the Israeli government and antisemitism, a dismissal that was also approved even by a prominent liberal Illinois professor who stated that Salieta's engaged criticism of Zionism was "uncollegial," that is, did not  conform to the protocols of disinterested debate.

The United States, particularly in the post 9/11 era,  has wreaked havoc in the world in name of its Exceptionalism, which, practically speaking,  means the disinterested inquiry it has always privileged to oppose to totalitarianism. This havoc is especially manifested in the horrendous destabilization  of the Middle East and the damaged lives of the millions of refugees its spectacular "shock and awe" military tactics produced. The topic of this year's national debate concerns the question of decreasing American military presence in the world. To me, this is not a debatable issue, one that implies the equal authority of both sides of it. And that is  because, as the modern history of the planet bears incontrovertible witness, Western and, more recently, American military force has exacerbated violence rather than reduced it in that fraught part of the world. The  recent
terrorist  attacks in Paris are exemplary of this.

This is not to say that the US should isolate itself from the urgent problems that face  the globe; it is to say, that the solution will require a radically different orientation to them, one that abandons the arrogant  Exceptionalism enabled by its democratic/totalitarian binary and acknowledges that it was the West's relentless imperial project in the name of its superiority that by and large produced not only the destabilization of the planet,
particularly in the Middle East, but also the fanatic terrorism that a certain segment of that ravaged world has  adopted to combat that Western domination. To  put this negative positively -- and in keeping with  my initial remarks about the debate world-- the US's interest resides in taking part with the global community of peoples  in behalf of transforming the friend/foe or war- to-the-end mentality  it has always fostered in the name of the  nation state. I mean a community of identityless identities in which,  as the late  Edward Said put it, "'the complete consort dances together' contrapuntally." Or,  in the language of the great Afro-Caribbean poet Aime Cesaire, in qhich

no race possesses the
monopoly of beauty,
of intelligence, of force, and
there is room for everyone at the
rendezvous of victory

* THE UNITED STATES OFTHE HORN OF AFRICA.docx (20.09 KB - downloaded 203 times.)
Logged
CouldaBeenaContenda
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 73


« Reply #1 on: April 01, 2016, 01:04:10 PM »

...William Spanos' address, delivered by Guy Risko, is pasted below...

From that speech:

Quote
...This alienation and silencing of  a voice that refuses to play by the rules of the debate system became tellingly manifest in the notorious recent case of Steven  Salaita, an American of Palestinian origins, who, after being hired by the  University of Illinois,  was dismissed by the university president for his public criticism of  the Israeli attack on Gaza in 2014 as a manifestation of criticism against the Israeli government and antisemitism, a dismissal that was also approved even by a prominent liberal Illinois professor who stated that Salieta's engaged criticism of Zionism was "uncollegial," that is, did not  conform to the protocols of disinterested debate....

From:
The News-Gazette

Editorial

UI hiring not broken
Tue, 02/10/2015 - 8:00am | The News-Gazette

(Disclaimer: the link took me to a page dated April 1, 2016, so I can't rule out the risk of taking anything I find today as genuine)

"...Let's revisit the circumstances that resulted in this bizarre controversy. Between the time Salaita was offered a job and his contract was scheduled to be approved by UI trustees, Israel launched an assault in the Gaza Strip. Salaita then went on a tweeting rampage that was, at the least, indecorous and, at the most, a disqualifying indictment of the judgment required of a potential employee..."

Can anyone direct me to a published log of those "tweets"?
Logged

Dover (New Hampshire) High School debate team, 1967-1970
Dover High School Debate Coach, 1970-1971
University of New Hampshire debate team, 1970 (when we still spoke like human beings)
University of New Hampshire debate team, 1980-1981 (and when we didn't)
UNH assistant debate coach, 1980-1981
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.0.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMF customization services by 2by2host.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!