All joking aside, I'm adding Pahlka's book to my library holds list. That statement about data being used as a stick to beat people with reminds me of the Ani DiFranco lyric - "Every tool is a weapon / if you hold it right."
Oh my goodness, your mention of Elena Ferrante at the end!! I spent July and a bit of August binge-listening to her 4-part Neapolitan series. Wow. I had never been so sucked into such a lengthy story about female friendship (among, of course, many other things!)
According to the students, it’s a mix of the campus tilting strongly pro-choice + a number of pro-life students being nervous about outing themselves, expecting they might lose friendships/be excluded from campus opportunities.
If we only needed two people per side, we were ok. But this format has alternating speeches from the floor, so you need something that divides the body of people showing up, not America in the abstract.
Do you feel that creating parameters that were narrow enough to allow disagreement without being labeled a bad person created space for people to leave with more flexible viewpoints than they started with?
I think one thing that helps a lot is *how many* people speak on each side. When two, or even four, people debate, the sides sound more fixed and cohesive.
When we have alternating aff-neg speeches with no coordination between speakers. it becomes clearer how much range there is on each side of the question and the different paths/reasons that led people to their view.
Your book review reminded me of a podcast I listened to a few years back: the guys at New Polity out of Steubenville did a series on the Politics of Tyranny and it had a whole episode on Bureaucracy: https://newpolity.com/podcasts-hub/bureaucracy. A good listen.
Hey now, there's nothing wrong with building a concrete boat! If you do it well it can provide valuable learning experiences, a national conference trip, AND bragging rights ;-) https://www.asce.org/communities/student-members/conferences/asce-concrete-canoe-competition
All joking aside, I'm adding Pahlka's book to my library holds list. That statement about data being used as a stick to beat people with reminds me of the Ani DiFranco lyric - "Every tool is a weapon / if you hold it right."
Your article about the abortion debate was fascinating! I read it twice. Thank you.
Thank you!
Great photo!!
That Jennifer Pahlka book has been added to my to-read list. Thank you!
Yessss!
The excerpt from your book review perfectly encapsulates the experience of working in modern healthcare as well.
Oh my goodness, your mention of Elena Ferrante at the end!! I spent July and a bit of August binge-listening to her 4-part Neapolitan series. Wow. I had never been so sucked into such a lengthy story about female friendship (among, of course, many other things!)
Surely the inability to find anyone to take a pro life stance for a college debate team deserves further investigation?
According to the students, it’s a mix of the campus tilting strongly pro-choice + a number of pro-life students being nervous about outing themselves, expecting they might lose friendships/be excluded from campus opportunities.
If we only needed two people per side, we were ok. But this format has alternating speeches from the floor, so you need something that divides the body of people showing up, not America in the abstract.
Reminded me of this piece, took me a second to remember where I read it.
https://open.substack.com/pub/bariweiss/p/judges-ruin-high-school-debate-tournaments?r=7y4vw&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
Do you feel that creating parameters that were narrow enough to allow disagreement without being labeled a bad person created space for people to leave with more flexible viewpoints than they started with?
I think one thing that helps a lot is *how many* people speak on each side. When two, or even four, people debate, the sides sound more fixed and cohesive.
When we have alternating aff-neg speeches with no coordination between speakers. it becomes clearer how much range there is on each side of the question and the different paths/reasons that led people to their view.
Your book review reminded me of a podcast I listened to a few years back: the guys at New Polity out of Steubenville did a series on the Politics of Tyranny and it had a whole episode on Bureaucracy: https://newpolity.com/podcasts-hub/bureaucracy. A good listen.