First of all, I want to thank Melissa, Kate, and Jimmy for the energy each
put into last night's debate.  I know that preparation for such an event
isn't easy and I also know that the psychic energy requirement is high.
So, thanks to all three of you for bringing the debate to those who
attended.
 
As things were closing down and all were leaving I couldn't figure out why
I was having an odd reaction to the event.  I spent a good deal of time
last night trying to figure out why and I want to just throw my reflections
out to see how others felt...
 
The bottom line is that I felt diminished by the debate last night.  I felt
that way because it appears to me that debate is really conceived around
the idea of winning a persuasive contest rather than expressing your ideas
and working with others to determine a mutually beneficial conclusion and
direction.  Both Kate and Jimmy responded to questions that were hostile
and demeaning and I don't really believe that any of us should have to
accept that.  The win/lose perspective caused many in the audience to
simply not listen to other points of view -- they were looking for flaws in
the "other side's" argument or looking for opportunities to reinforce their
own predisposition.
 
I want to make my reason for raising this concern clear.  I am not
criticizing any of our three colleagues.  I am simply saying that we all
participated in something that is an accepted practice in speaking and
presentation settings such as last night.  It is a part of the way we
conduct business in much of the public sector.  I wonder if this works and
I wonder if we can find other ways to understand each other and come to
mutually beneficial outcomes?
 
This is partially opportunism so forgive me, but, I was reminded of some
other ways to create public discource when I was reading something by David
Mathews -  one of the folks involved in the deliberative communities
concept.  The quote follows:
"In a deliberative dialogue we use our intellects, not to analyze and break
down events as we do in other forms of knowing, but rather to synthesize,
to connect, to 'throw together,' and ultimately to 'find a way' to act that
is consistent with our survival or prosperity and what we consider the
'good life.'  In other words, we don't CHANGE or minds, we CREATE new
minds."
 
I'm passing the boundaries of reasonable length so forgive me.  I'd love to
hear your reactions.
 
Thanks,
Denny
 
Dennis C. Roberts
Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs
111 Warfield Hall
Miami University
Oxford, OH 45056
(513) 529-3435
[log in to unmask]
www.muohio.edu/mlc/