NCFCA Response to BJU Protest

As many of you know, several NCFCA affiliates (competitors, alumni, coaches, parents and staff) have been protesting (in writing and by joining a facebook group) the decision by the NCFCA Board to choose Bob Jones University as the location for our 2009 National Championship.

(If you wish to find the many reasons why BJU is an unacceptable location for our organization, please look to previous posts)

The response from the NCFCA has been incredibly disheartening. While Mr. Larimer's response was an expected non-response, the recent action taken by the Regional leadership of Region 8 was nothing less than extremely disappointing. This is the email in full sent to all regional coordinators and their own region.

From: Lisa Kays [mailto:kays.lisa@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 3:52 PMTo: region7@ncfca.org; Darleen Rossi; Lars Jorgensen ; region5@ncfca.org; region3@ncfca.org; Region6@ncfca.org; region1@ncfca.org; region4@ncfca.org; region9@ncfca.orgSubject: Region 8 Update

Fellow region coordinators,

You may already be aware that the National Championship will be held in my region in Greenville , SC. I have been the primary person working with BJU to provide a location.. As you have all experienced, securing a facility for this large a tournament has its challenges.

That was why I was so discouraged to find out that some of our Christian communicators were protesting ANY facility that opens it doors to us. This is the letter my Regional Leadership Team sent to our region concerning the protest and encouraging them to consider how they speak about people and places that allow us to hold tournaments in their facilities.

My region is busily preparing for all your students arrival, hoping to make this a great National Championship.. Hope to see you soon!

Lisa Kays

--------------------------------------------------

Region 8,

As you all know our region has the pleasure and responsibility of helping host the NCFCA National Championship this year in SC. I am grateful for your hard work and attitude in wanting this to be our best representation of Region 8 as we serve to get community judges, staff hospitality and communications and do the many small jobs that make a tournament of any size run smoothly. Many of you who will not be attending the National Championship as competitors have asked how you may serve our region and the league during this time. I am blessed to be a part of such a wonderful region.It has come to my attention that there has been a little controversy over the choice of holding Nationals at Bob Jones University . Because our organization does not own a facility, we rely on other organizations to provide facilities to host all of our tournaments.

Our organization depends on the willingness of other organizations--both Christian and secular--to be able to provide this educational opportunity for our affiliates.Our criteria for choosing a facility include the number of rooms available, local support staff, and availability for a full week in early June.

We also require that the hosting facility, whether a secular or Christian university, does not impose their philosophy on our tournament or restrict the way we run our event. At each of the facilities we use, however, we do ask our affiliate families to respect some of our hosts' polices. Many leads for locations that met these criteria have fallen through over the past few months. When we approached Bob Jones University with the possibility of providing a facility for the NCFCA National Championship, they were gracious and accommodating, and they quickly worked with us through the long process of sorting out the details for such a large event. We must remember that facilities are built by organizations, and even Christian organizations have policies that other Christians will disagree with.

This does not mean, however, that it is right to disrespect the organization that is making our event possible. Nationals is an event that places huge demands on the facility that hosts it. Whether we agree with all of their policies or not, Bob Jones University and its staff are willing and excited to share their campus with us, sacrificing both time and money to provide this opportunity for our affiliates. As Christians, and as communicators, we are charged with respecting authority and setting an example in loving one another. As Bob Jones University is willing to bear the cost of hosting our event, we expect all affiliates to communicate respectfully with and about them. We are not asking you to endorse them as a university or to agree with all of their policies, but we are asking you to do three things:

1. Speak respectfully about the university as our hosts, just as you would at a secular university that offered classes you may find offensive. As we are merely hosting our event at their facility, please note their general regulations will not apply to you during the tournament. Every host facility has a few policies they would like us to respect, however, and we should do so.

2. Set an example of how loving Christian communicators speak about and with people they disagree with.

3. If you still have concerns about this facility, please contact us directly. We are always open to concerns from the affiliates and will do our very best to make sure that we act in a way that our affiliates find acceptable. I would ask our region for the following action points:·

If you are a part of any kind of protest group, for any reason, please remove your name from the group.·

Please let me know if you were part of a group. You are not in trouble! But I need to be able to say that I knew about it and you removed yourself from the protest. ·

Pray for Nationals, the Board of Directors, and all the volunteers as we build up to Nationals. If you still do not feel comfortable attending an event held at this university, please contact us immediately so that we can roll down your Championship slot to the next competitor. I am not aware of anyone in our region that has participated in any protest, but if someone has and chooses not to remove their name, I will recommend to the Board of Directors that your National slot be revoked.

Once again, we are always open to input from our affiliates. But we cannot approve public communication that disrespects those who have been gracious enough to host our organization.

Thank you for your prayers and support,

Lisa Kays

Regional Leadership Team

Charlotte Baker

Noelle Gebel

Renee McLean

Sue Nelson

Lisa Kays

Firstly I would like to note, no other region has taken this action. If you are a member of this protest or are considering joining this protest, please understand that if you are not a member of Region 8, this does not and will not effect you. No other regional leadership has taken such action, despite Region 8 tacitly encouraging them to.

Furthermore I am incredibly saddened to see this. This is nothing less than strong arm tactics against a very legitimate and very respectful protest. The arguments that this email poses (not being respectful, protesting "ANY" site) are just simply untrue.

I would like to note that regrettably this strong arming has resulted in some transient success for Region 8. Here are some messages we've received,

----------

I have decided that the nat protest group is not really something I need to be part of. Ultimately, not forgiving BJU is demonstrating the same legalistic behavior that we are accusing them of committing. (Never mind however that one cannot "forgive" an institution and one while must be loving, one does not need to be accepting of sin and legalism) Anyways this is my decision.

I left awhile ago, but my name is still on the list of people who suppor[t] the movement. Could you remove that? Sorry, my coach is terrified that since the other regions are furious with you guys, some people will punish me on the ballot for a protest that im not even part of lol.

Feel free to disscuss with me anytime.

----------

Well as it is my parents and my coach have expressed concern about my participation in this group, it has caused me to look more closely at why I had joined the group and after some more research I would like to be removed from the list

-------

I would encourage you to write to Region 8 leadership and to the NCFCA board, for a few reasons,

To Region 8 Leadership,

1. There are many errors in their emails. This movement is not disrespectful and is not protesting any site.

2. We would ask that there are no moves on the part of Region 8 Leadership to encourage other Regions to take similiar action.

3. To please reconsider disqualifying protesters.

To NCFCA Board,

1. Please consider this protest when reviewing future sites for Nationals.

2. Please do not disqualify anyone over a protest, regardless of what any Regional Director says.

Other Regional Directors:

1. Please do not take actions against their competitors for their convictions.

Emails:

kays.lisa@gmail.com, Mrs. Lisa Kays, Region 8 Coordinator.

Regional Emails:

region7@ncfca.org
region5@ncfca.org
region3@ncfca.org
Region6@ncfca.org
region1@ncfca.org
region4@ncfca.org
region9@ncfca.org
region2@ncfca.org

NCFCA Board:

Mike_Larimer@ncfca.org
Ron_Grant@ncfca.org
Del_Clark@ncfca.org
Teresa_Hudson@ncfca.org
Lisa_Kays@ncfca.org
Roger_Smith@ncfca.org

For References:

clethodim@gmail.com

(Protest Group Email)

Metaphysics Redux

So naturally there has been a response to our metaphysics brief that we've been spreading about the league. This comes from the authors of the Red Book, whom we highly respect, but I think at the end of the day it's pretty clear that the metaphysical interpretation simply provides no clash and doesn't allow for a correct debate. The brief is posited in response to ours, with the bold being ours and the italics, theirs. If you really read it the response is a bit shallow in depth, inaccurate at times, incomplete and non-responsive. If anyone wants a fuller response to this, please email at: sinnfeinman@gmail.com

It allows for no clash. While there is a metaphysical definition of idealism, as my opponent defined it, it does not and cannot clash with pragmatism. Why? Because pragmatism deals with different philosophical subjects, specifically ethics. Pragmatism, according to Dr. Victor Fontaine, Professor of Philosophy, argued that pragmatism is about ethics or epistemology, the study of knowledge, not metaphysics which is the study of reality. Pragmatism, dealing with that is or is not ethical, does not clash with metaphysical idealism, dealing with what is or what is not real.

Pragmatism can't just start with un-stated under-the-table presuppositions and then assert that there is no clash because we can't look under the table.Well, that's the same thing as saying that ideas don't exist.It's a metaphysical assertion.

It does not allow for a value debate.

In debate, there are 3 kinds of resolutions. Policy resolutions, in which there is a debate about whether or not to take an action. There are fact resolutions, where one debates about the truth or falsity of a question. And then there are value resolutions, where one debates about the value or worth of something. When my opponent tries to narrow the debate down to metaphysics, the study of reality, and argues that idealism is the right way to look at reality, this is turning it from a debate of value, into a debate of fact. Even if my opponent proves that his version of reality, idealism, is correct, it does not prove if it is more valuable than pragmatism. The way my opponent defines it, we cannot have a debate about worth or value, which is what we are supposed to have.

Why is it not valuable to know what is real? How can we go anywhere else if we don't know that first? And it's true that neither idealism nor pragmatismhave any inherent guide for measuring their relative worth. The debaters must do that in each debateso why isn't an accurate perception of realitya good measuring stick? It would be the negative's burden to prove that his criterion - whatever that may be is better than metaphysics for weighing the two if he wants to posit ethics as his measuring rod he has a slippery slope to defend because as before, pragmatism doesn't have a moral imperative inherent in itnor does it have a stable point from which to evaluate right or wrong.

Metaphysical idealism is not valuable.

I would argue that the idea that reality is based upon or evolved by the mind is morally reprehensible. This leads to the idea of moral relativism, the belief that one’s individual perceptions determine moral reality, which leads to excusing of any and all crimes against humanity, as long as it was justified in that individual’s or group of individual’s perception of reality.

The key to this one is that even if metaphysical idealism is a mental construct. So is everything pragmatic we can't get outside our own heads especially from a pragmatic point of view, who evaluates consequences? Your mind. Who evaluates outcomes? Your mind.

Ethics is more valuable than metaphysics.

I would argue that a debate about the ethics, as my case lines out, is most valuable because it allows us to apply the lessons in our everyday life, indeed as soon as we leave this debate round, we are capable of taking it’s lessons to heart and practicing them as we go about our day. Even if a debate about metaphysics provided clash, was valuable or even about values, it would not allow us to apply it’s lessons to our lives and therefore is not as valuable as the debate that I laid out in my case, a debate about ethical idealism v. ethical pragmatism.

This is a bare assertion what in metaphysical idealism doesn't allow application to the "real" world? If we allow that reality exists objectively, then understanding, acknowledging and cooperating with it is vital to ethics [and] to applications of every kind.

Metaphysical idealism is wrong.

Not only does it provide no clash, has no place in this resolution, is morally bankrupt and isn’t valuable, but idealism, on a metaphysical scale, is simply wrong. Reality is not based upon the mind in any way shape or form. Our minds can perceive reality, but these perceptions, in themselves, do not compose reality. If no one existed and no mind was here to perceive reality, still reality would continue to exist. Philosophers G.E Moore, in his Refutation of Idealism, and David Stowe explain how reality exists completely outside of our ability to perceive. We may perceive something inaccurately, for instance someone in a hypnotic state perceives he is flying. But that is not reality. Clearly the mind is not the ultimate basis of reality. This is not only morally bankrupt, but simply not true.

I'd point that out as an attempt to cloud the issue with emotive language. And if you aren't arguing from a mental construct point of view don't let this stick. It's completely beside the point. A classical idealist posits that reality DOES exist objectively and that the only way to connect properly with it is through ideas. Ideals because pragmatic reality is distorted by mind and matter [sic].

If anyone wants a fuller response to this, please email at: sinnfeinman@gmail.com

Nationals 2009

I report with deep regret and a bit of shame, that Nationals will be held at Bob Jones University. For those who may be unaware, why would BJU be a bad idea? Well for a few reasons,

1. Up until the 70s, BJU banned black students, and then for sometime banned unmarried black students (for fear of "race-mixing"). Furthermore they continued to ban "interracial" dating. This had been rescinded in later years, but this is far too recent of a past and the atmosphere remains a bit unapologetic about this. Hardly the "Biblical worldview" the NCFCA is rightfully trying to uphold.

2. Division in the Body. NCFCA is a Christian organization and thus should embrace a Christian spirit, that is the spirit of Christ Himself. But BJU has constantly made a habit of attacking Christians with uncalled for and divisive rhetoric such as "heretical". Such persons and organizations like Rev. Billy Graham and Catholic Christians come to mind. This attitude, for which there has been no rescinding, is frankly appalling and no organization should condone it.

3. Legalism. A quick read through the bylaws of the college show a legalistic, stern, and shallow interpretation of Christian morality. Why endorse this kind of "morality"? Isn't this the sort of system that Christ condemned?

4. Honorary Degrees. Some of the people that this university chose to associate with (and has yet to rescind) is frankly scary. "Rev" Ian Paisley, the hardliner Protestant demogogue, who once argued for the burning of Catholic churches and homes in Northern Ireland whose qualification for an honorary degree seemed to be a condemnation of Catholicism via violence. The second major offense against common decency, was their bestowment of a degree upon Gov. George Wallace. A greater disgrace, I cannot imagine. The company one keeps speaks a lot about a college.

Now you may be thinking,

Why does all of this matter? I believe that as the main Christian, home-educated, forensics league, we must hold ourselves to a higher standard. Not only should we hold ourselves to a higher standard for Biblical reasons, but the eyes of the forensics community is upon us, to some extent. Not only for our interesting position as the main homeschooling league, but also for the fact that many NCFCAers go on to college and do well. It would do a great disservice to all the work the league has done, and to the alumni on the college circuit. It ought to embarrass the board.

This is not to say that Nationals should be boycotted. This would do nothing positive. But we, as the stockholds of this league so to speak, ought to express the dismay that many of us hold over this. Our board should have known better.

How to Beat Slavery

As was the style during the Democracy year (2006-2007: "Resolved, Democracy is over valued by the United States Government.") it is becoming common to label anything you don't like as "the other side". For example,

"Hitler was a ________________."

"Stalin was a ________________."

"Communism was ______________."

"The Founding Father's were ________."

The most common one is slavery. It is common tactic to label slavery (in particular the American kind) and argue it belongs to the other "ism" (most commonly pragmatism). Here is a free brief against that.

Slavery Brief: Why Slavery is Neither Idealistic, Nor Pragmatic
By Joe Laughon, Channel Islands Debate

Slavery is not idealistic.

1. Merely because slavery was upheld by some people’s convictions does not make the system idealistic. An ideal is defined as something that is an honorable or worthy principle or aim. (American Heritage Dictionary). Clearly holding other human beings in bondage is not an honorable or worthy principle, regardless of whether or not that some felt that way.

2. An Idealist is easily capable of opposing slavery. In fact most abolitionists, such as William Lloyd Garrison, John Brown, the Beechers and Rev. Elijah Stone were labeled, correctly, as idealists. In his newspaper, The Liberator, Garrison was quoted as such, “I am in earnest – I will not equivocate – I will not excuse – I will not retreat a single inch – AND I WILL BE HEARD.” (caps original). That hardly sounds like a pragmatist.


Slavery is not pragmatic.

The slave trade was incredibly inefficient. “Historians agree that hundreds of thousands, and probably millions of slaves perished over the course of 300 years during the rigors of the “Middle Passage” across the Atlantic Ocean. Estimates remain inevitably imprecise, but range as high as one third of the slave “cargo” who perished from disease or overcrowding during transport from Africa.”—Michael Medved. Most historians agree this contributed to the incredibly high price of slaves and a very inefficient pricing system due to a flaw ridden transportation phase.

Slavery held back the American economy. Slavery results in a lack of industrialization, lack of diversification (which according to all economists is crucial to a healthy economy), and growth. Look to the American experience, “These states [the free states] (with dynamic banking centers in Philadelphia and Manhattan) quickly emerged as robust centers of commerce and manufacturing, greatly enriching themselves while the slave-based economies in the South languished by comparison. All analyses of Northern victory in the great sectional struggle highlights the vast advantages in terms of wealth and productivity in New England, the Mid-Atlantic States and the Midwest, compared to the relatively backward and impoverished states of the Confederacy. The notion that America based its wealth on slave labor hardly comports with the reality that for two hundred years since the founding of the Republic, by far the poorest and least developed section of the nation was precisely that region where slavery once prevailed.”

Slavery discourages a strong work ethic (and thus further harms not only an economy but a civil society). In the book Democracy in America, a French commentator notes the negative effects of slavery on a society and the observably positive consequences of a free labor society. “These contrasting effects of slavery and of freedom are easy to understand; they are enough to explain the differences between ancient civilization and modern. On the left bank of the Ohio work is connected with the idea of slavery, but on the right with well-being and progress; on the one side it is degrading, but on the other honorable; on the left bank no white laborers are to be found, for they would be afraid of being like the slaves; for work people must rely on the Negroes; but one will never see a man of leisure on the right bank: the white man’s intelligent activity is used for work of every sort.”

Slavery led to instability. A society that allows slavery is rarely prosperous and stable. Commonly these societies are plagued by division, disunity and slave revolts. Compare the North with its industrial strength versus the fear of slave revolts that gripped the South, not to mention the actual revolts in Virginia, Alabama and Louisiana. In addition societies such as Sparta, Rome and Saxon England realized that if they had abolished slavery they would either, a) not be busy putting down slave revolts (Spartacus, helots, Welsh serfs) and, b) their society would be better equipped to deal with threats (Spartans couldn’t go on lengthy military campaigns for fear of slave revolts, Saxons had to deal with Danish invasions and Welsh serf revolts. Also one can compare the West today, to the fringes of civilized society where slavery is tolerated. The West is clearly more prosperous and more stable than regions that tolerate slavery (ex. Eastern Europe, Africa, East Asia and parts of Latin America).

How to Beat Metaphysics

For those who attended the 2009 San Diego Classic (much love to Sharon Nagatani and Scott York), you'd know that some of us do not believe that metaphysics is a legitimate interpretation of this year's resolution. Measures to defeat it went from discussing it, debating it parli-style, or handing out briefs against it. Here is one such brief, for free, to take and to give to anyone. Use it.

Problems with the Metaphysical Interpretation.

It allows for no clash.

While there is a metaphysical definition of idealism, as my opponent defined it, it does not and cannot clash with pragmatism. Why? Because pragmatism deals with different philosophical subjects, specifically ethics. Pragmatism, according to Dr. Victor Fontaine, Professor of Philosophy, argued that pragmatism is about ethics or epistemology, the study of knowledge, not metaphysics which is the study of reality. Pragmatism, dealing with that is or is not ethical, does not clash with metaphysical idealism, dealing with what is or what is not real

It does not allow for a value debate.

In debate, there are 3 kinds of resolutions. Policy resolutions, in which there is a debate about whether or not to take an action. There are fact resolutions, where one debates about the truth or falsity of a question. And then there are value resolutions, where one debates about the value or worth of something. When my opponent tries to narrow the debate down to metaphysics, the study of reality, and argues that idealism is the right way to look at reality, this is turning it from a debate of value, into a debate of fact. Even if my opponent proves that his version of reality, idealism, is correct, it does not prove if it is more valuable than pragmatism. The way my opponent defines it, we cannot have a debate about worth or value, which is what we are supposed to have.

Metaphysical idealism is not valuable.

I would argue that the idea that reality is based upon or evolved by the mind is morally reprehensible. This leads to the idea of moral relativism, the belief that one’s individual perceptions determine moral reality, which leads to excusing of any and all crimes against humanity, as long as it was justified in that individual’s or group of individual’s perception of reality.

Ethics is more valuable than metaphysics.

I would argue that a debate about the ethics, as my case lines out, is most valuable because it allows us to apply the lessons in our everyday life, indeed as soon as we leave this debate round, we are capable of taking it’s lessons to heart and practicing them as we go about our day. Even if a debate about metaphysics provided clash, was valuable or even about values, it would not allow us to apply it’s lessons to our lives and therefore is not as valuable as the debate that I laid out in my case, a debate about ethical idealism v. ethical pragmatism.

Metaphysical idealism is wrong.


Not only does it provide no clash, has no place in this resolution, is morally bankrupt and isn’t valuable, but idealism, on a metaphysical scale, is simply wrong. Reality is not based upon the mind in any way shape or form. Our minds can perceive reality, but these perceptions, in themselves, do not compose reality. If no one existed and no mind was here to perceive reality, still reality would continue to exist. Philosophers G.E Moore, in his Refutation of Idealism, and David Stowe explain how reality exists completely outside of our ability to perceive. We may perceive something inaccurately, for instance someone in a hypnotic state perceives he is flying. But that is not reality. Clearly the mind is not the ultimate basis of reality. This is not only morally bankrupt, but simply not true.

http://www.answers.com/topic/idealism

Reality is based on, or evolved by, the mind; this is metaphysical idealism which claims that no material things exist independently of the mind.