homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Sat Feb 17, 2018 10:12 pm
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 Next
Author Message
 Post subject: NITOC at Bob Jones - WAT
PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2014 3:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:13 pm
Posts: 163
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Runnin through the 6 with my woes
So does anybody else think it's a little awkward that NITOC is being held at a location that was a factor in Stoa breaking off from NCFCA? I need a good explanation for this guys, please.

_________________
~Jacob Beaver


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 12:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:31 pm
Posts: 82
Home Schooled: No
If a protest coalesces we will see if the STOA board threatens competitors with expulsion from nationals. Then it will really be the same.

_________________
The NCFCA board has just announced that they will create a grand army to counter the increasing threats of the separatists.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 12:31 am 
Offline
melancholy milkshakes. no straws.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:31 pm
Posts: 3986
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Hinnom, TX
y-man23 wrote:
So does anybody else think it's a little awkward that NITOC is being held at a location that was a factor in Stoa breaking off from NCFCA? I need a good explanation for this guys, please.

How was that a factor again? This is ancient history to me :|

_________________
Joe Hughey
joehughey24@gmail.com

Two roads diverged in a wood and I -
I took the one less traveled
And that has made all the difference


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 12:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:13 pm
Posts: 163
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Runnin through the 6 with my woes
lookingforangels wrote:
y-man23 wrote:
So does anybody else think it's a little awkward that NITOC is being held at a location that was a factor in Stoa breaking off from NCFCA? I need a good explanation for this guys, please.

How was that a factor again? This is ancient history to me :|

The TL;DR is that NCFCA announced that Bob Jones was the location of the 2009 national championship. A whole lot of people didn't like that because of BJU's history as a racist institution and many people threatened to boycott nationals. This became a main reason why Stoa broke off from the NCFCA due to what some believe was poor handling of this issue by NCFCA leadership.

_________________
~Jacob Beaver


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 1:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:31 pm
Posts: 82
Home Schooled: No
The mishandling of the BJU protest was merely the final straw. Before that there were years of wrangling over how much control and transparency the NCFCA board used. It's an interesting story and one better told by those that were there.

_________________
The NCFCA board has just announced that they will create a grand army to counter the increasing threats of the separatists.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 4:46 pm 
Offline
Hint hint peoples.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:18 pm
Posts: 1379
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: San Diego, California
I was only 12 going on 13 at the time of the split, but I do remember that much of the controversy was also about NCFCA's poor structure for both representation in influencing the board as well as nationals qualification. I wrote a long post about that a while back here, but in short, it used to be that each state only got two slots per event. So California, a state with dozens of national-caliber competitors, only got two slots, while a smaller state (which had good competitors but admittedly was not as good) also got two slots. A state that only HAD two competitors in an event? They both got nationals slots. Thank goodness NCFCA changed it. Of course, it came at the price of California breaking away...that's what took them to institute much-needed reforms to their qualification system. (They still need reforms in how their board operates in my view, but that's a can of worms I'd rather not open here.)

Also, don't forget folks that Stoa was intended to be a sabbatical for one year. If it didn't work we'd have come back. Stoa started as a protest against Nationals and NCFCA's structure. Since Stoa did work, we stayed out and mobilized to make a full-fledged league. Not to imply Stoa is perfect; I think NITOC qualification needs to be changed. But it's better than NCFCA's current structure, IMO (no offense). Again, that's a different discussion for a different thread.

With regards to why Stoa picked Bob Jones...it's simply because Stoa needed to find a facility (a) big enough and (b) that could offer the right dates. Simple as that. It'll be interesting to see if a protest will erupt over both BJU's colored history (no pun intended) as well as their more recent scandals. So far the only complaints I've heard in my circles are with regards to its location back east.

_________________
http://www.ebsd.us/

As the deer pants for the water brooks, so pants my soul for You, O God. -Psalm 42:1


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 7:02 pm 
Offline
is jealous
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 8:50 pm
Posts: 224
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: climbing in yo windows, snatchin' all yo people up
There were a lot of protests on HSD and other places about the choice of BJU in 2009, but that definitely wasn't the reason we split off. 2009 was just my first year of competition, but my family had been competing for several years before that. A lot of the reasons for the split have been mentioned here, but there were also a lot of background issues of disagreements between California leaders and the rest of the NCFCA board. For instance, NCFCA tried to force California to use a really inefficient tab software for our tournaments because it was created by a member of the NCFCA board who the board wanted to support, whereas California wanted to use Joy Of Tournaments, a system created by a California board member, which Stoa still uses today). There was also just a huge accumulation of small issues over many, many years. The idea of California splitting off didn't start in 2009, it had been talked about for many, many years before that. 2009 nationals was just the last straw, and it seemed like everyone from California at that nationals could just tell this was the last nationals we'd compete in with NCFCA.

As far as the choice to use BJU for NITOC this year, I'm rather curious to see if there was a particular motive on the part of the Stoa board. To me, it seems like a way of saying that we've moved past the disagreements between the two leagues. It's been 6 years now, and both leagues are still going strong, and we're not bitter enemies. I'm not terribly worried about the controversies with the campus itself, it doesn't mean Stoa is connecting itself with BJU's past. Like Evan said, Stoa just needs a campus for NITOC. NCFCA wasn't harmed (to my knowledge) by the use of BJU in 2009, and I sincerely doubt Stoa will be either.

_________________
Elizabeth Danford | Alumni


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2889
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
BJU probably gave Stoa one steal of a deal: their freshman class is down to about half of what it was not too long ago because of the scandal which has been rocking it for the past few years. BJU is basically scrambling for any money and recruits they can find: Stoa's motivation was likely just cost.

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 11:05 pm 
Offline
is jealous
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 8:50 pm
Posts: 224
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: climbing in yo windows, snatchin' all yo people up
Sharkfin wrote:
BJU probably gave Stoa one steal of a deal: their freshman class is down to about half of what it was not too long ago because of the scandal which has been rocking it for the past few years. BJU is basically scrambling for any money and recruits they can find: Stoa's motivation was likely just cost.


^ After incurring the surprise cost of having to rent half a hotel and 2 other college campuses for last NITOC, any extra money Stoa had was basically gone, so the cost motivation wouldn't surprise me.

_________________
Elizabeth Danford | Alumni


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2015 1:27 am 
Offline
Tsarcastic
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 3512
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Under my own vine and fig tree
As someone who helped organize that protest, this is really awkward.

_________________
"It is not possible to choose between injustice and disorder. They are synonyms." -- Nicolás Gómez Dávila

~IM_R


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2015 3:16 am 
Offline
Is now cool
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:29 pm
Posts: 3495
Home Schooled: Yes
This was a really big deal back in the day. The BJU nationals really fractured the league and, from what I remember, the fallout was one of the big reasons why Stoa split.

It's really interesting to me that no one this year seems to care.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2015 3:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2441
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
+X wrote:
This was a really big deal back in the day. The BJU nationals really fractured the league and, from what I remember, the fallout was one of the big reasons why Stoa split.

It's really interesting to me that no one this year seems to care.

We are more removed from the repeal* of their last racist rule (9 years then, 15 now). Granted, given their response to allegations of sexual assault and their response to the GRACE report, both of which were unknown in 2009, I would say there is probably more reason to protest now.

*I'm talking institutional racism. I'm sure mixed race couples are still frowned upon, even if they aren't outlawed.

_________________
-Bryan
Co-Founder of Olympus Forensics

Google it, we're the second link that pops up. We're pretty proud of that.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2015 6:16 pm 
Offline
Tsarcastic
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 3512
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Under my own vine and fig tree
ShaynePC wrote:
Masked Midnight wrote:
Quote:
*I'm talking institutional racism. I'm sure mixed race couples are still frowned upon, even if they aren't outlawed.
Not much you can do about that; people will be people.


One thing you can do about it is not support it by having a tournament there.


Amen. Frankly until the admin corrects it's heinous scandal and also removes it's legacy of institutional racism and legalism, I'd say a Stoa boycott is in order.

Oh wait... is this 2009?

_________________
"It is not possible to choose between injustice and disorder. They are synonyms." -- Nicolás Gómez Dávila

~IM_R


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2015 11:03 pm 
Offline
Forerunner
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 2:45 am
Posts: 1090
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Locations are too mainstream
Lol, I was there at the BJU NCFCA Nationals in 2009... this is awkward. :lol:

_________________
NCFCA debate and speech alumni
Former homeschooler
Joel Thomas
Liberty University


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 12:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2441
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
Forerunner wrote:
Lol, I was there at the BJU NCFCA Nationals in 2009... this is awkward. :lol:

As was I, a decision I now wholly regret.

Razi- By "assumption" I mean "100% sure." Given that the vast majority of the administration is the same as it was in 2000, the fact that the new admins were selected by the old ones, that the president who publicly advocated and defended racist policies in both 1997 and 2000 was still president until about 6 months ago, and the racism of the BJU-wing of fundamentalist theology as a whole, yes we can be sure.

But even ignoring racism, covering up for, hiring, and defending those who have oppressed, shamed, blamed, silenced, and forced out rape victims and refuses to even acknowledge it is enough for me to advocate a boycott.

_________________
-Bryan
Co-Founder of Olympus Forensics

Google it, we're the second link that pops up. We're pretty proud of that.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:18 am 
Offline
Tsarcastic
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 3512
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Under my own vine and fig tree
If BJU wanted to be "no longer racist" they could take away the honorary degrees they've handed out to miscreants like George Wallace, change the name and remove 80% of the faculty. That would exhibit a change of heart. In reality every bit of progress BJU has made has been at the point of a tax return.

Furthermore even if they were "off the hook" regarding racism, by now the major thing for me is the immense sexual harassment scandal.

_________________
"It is not possible to choose between injustice and disorder. They are synonyms." -- Nicolás Gómez Dávila

~IM_R


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:27 am 
Offline
Tsarcastic
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 3512
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Under my own vine and fig tree
Most recent information I have (2011), you are still required to have a letter from your parents written to the dean authorizing an interracial relationship. No such letter is required for an intra-racial relationship.

http://www.motherjones.com/road-trip-bl ... s-catholic

_________________
"It is not possible to choose between injustice and disorder. They are synonyms." -- Nicolás Gómez Dávila

~IM_R


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 6:27 am 
Offline
Guardian of the Black Room
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 3:05 am
Posts: 878
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: 127.0.0.1
IrishMex Rebel wrote:
Most recent information I have (2011), you are still required to have a letter from your parents written to the dean authorizing an interracial relationship. No such letter is required for an intra-racial relationship.

http://www.motherjones.com/road-trip-bl ... s-catholic

The article you link references an article from 2000 as its only source that such a letter is required. So, the 2011 date is really just a reiteration of a source over a decade old. It is interesting to note that this page makes no mention of such a letter. (Seriously, though--what kind of school actually needs to have a "race statement?!? The fact that they think the differences between people with different skin colors are so large that it warrants an official statement is quite disconcerning.)

I skimmed the student handbook looking for mention of such a policy; although I didn't find anything saying a letter of permission was required for interracial dating, I do consider the entire document to be quite oppressive. If you want to be saddened, just read the "Social Life" section (starts on page 24).

Some of the more startling quotations. (clicky)
Physical contact policy wrote:
On and off campus, physical contact between unmarried men and women is not allowed.

Seriously? I've been on grounds only a semester and a half here at UVa, and I know for a fact that inadvertant contact between men/women is unavoidable. Even intentional contact is a part of normal life--a high-five for congratulations, a handshake to signify agreement, etc. How can this be "not allowed?"

First Year Privileges wrote:
These are available to all first-year residence hall students. A student with first-year privileges:
• Will check out when he or she leaves campus and check in upon return.
• May work off campus with a recurring work pass; will check out for work and check in upon his or her return to campus.

That is the extent of "first year privileges." I'd love to know what type of person thinks those are privileges instead of "obligations" or "requirements." These are restrictions on behavior, and thus shouldn't be considered "privileges."

Social Life on Campus: Classroom Buildings policy wrote:
Male and female students should guard their testimonies; they are not to be alone together in a classroom, rehearsal studio or other room.

:shock: (No further comment.)

In general, the feeling I get from reading the BJU student handbook is that, if you're a student, BJU owns you. You can only hold a job if you have permission. You must check in/out when you leave campus with other people. You must attend all classes with few exceptions. You must... (etc)

(Pardon me for straying from topic. But, I was quite shocked by the stuff in that handbook.)

_________________
"The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits"
- G.K. Chesterton


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 6:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2441
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
I spent several pages of my senior thesis on the rule regarding interracial dating. All rules about race were repealed in 2000, shortly after a presidential debate at the school. The repeal was announced, but the rule itself was defended, on Larry King Live.

Regarding their handbook, yes it is terrifying. I think it is telling that they expelled a student, in part, for posting lyrics (not the song, just lyrics) to a CCM song about God's grace on his facebook.

_________________
-Bryan
Co-Founder of Olympus Forensics

Google it, we're the second link that pops up. We're pretty proud of that.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:19 am 
Offline
Tsarcastic
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 3512
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Under my own vine and fig tree
anorton wrote:
IrishMex Rebel wrote:
Most recent information I have (2011), you are still required to have a letter from your parents written to the dean authorizing an interracial relationship. No such letter is required for an intra-racial relationship.

http://www.motherjones.com/road-trip-bl ... s-catholic

The article you link references an article from 2000 as its only source that such a letter is required. So, the 2011 date is really just a reiteration of a source over a decade old. It is interesting to note that this page makes no mention of such a letter. (Seriously, though--what kind of school actually needs to have a "race statement?!? The fact that they think the differences between people with different skin colors are so large that it warrants an official statement is quite disconcerning.)

I skimmed the student handbook looking for mention of such a policy; although I didn't find anything saying a letter of permission was required for interracial dating, I do consider the entire document to be quite oppressive. If you want to be saddened, just read the "Social Life" section (starts on page 24).

Some of the more startling quotations. (clicky)
Physical contact policy wrote:
On and off campus, physical contact between unmarried men and women is not allowed.

Seriously? I've been on grounds only a semester and a half here at UVa, and I know for a fact that inadvertant contact between men/women is unavoidable. Even intentional contact is a part of normal life--a high-five for congratulations, a handshake to signify agreement, etc. How can this be "not allowed?"

First Year Privileges wrote:
These are available to all first-year residence hall students. A student with first-year privileges:
• Will check out when he or she leaves campus and check in upon return.
• May work off campus with a recurring work pass; will check out for work and check in upon his or her return to campus.

That is the extent of "first year privileges." I'd love to know what type of person thinks those are privileges instead of "obligations" or "requirements." These are restrictions on behavior, and thus shouldn't be considered "privileges."

Social Life on Campus: Classroom Buildings policy wrote:
Male and female students should guard their testimonies; they are not to be alone together in a classroom, rehearsal studio or other room.

:shock: (No further comment.)

In general, the feeling I get from reading the BJU student handbook is that, if you're a student, BJU owns you. You can only hold a job if you have permission. You must check in/out when you leave campus with other people. You must attend all classes with few exceptions. You must... (etc)

(Pardon me for straying from topic. But, I was quite shocked by the stuff in that handbook.)



I also looked within the handbook. My understanding is that it was a verbal policy of the administration. If any former or current BJU students know anything about it, I would be interested.

The rest of the student handbook is so absurd, it belies belief.

_________________
"It is not possible to choose between injustice and disorder. They are synonyms." -- Nicolás Gómez Dávila

~IM_R


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 Next

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited