Search News


Browse Archives

News

A Debate Performance Laid Bare

August 14, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

It's a performance that gives new meaning to the word "cross-examination."

An argument between two debate coaches escalates into a war of words, each showering the other with a string of obscenities before an audience of seemingly unfazed students. Before long, one coach has mooned the other, and the video -- posted to YouTube -- continues recording the spectacle of two communication professors stomping their feet, flailing their arms and shouting at the top of their lungs.

The video, which has racked up over 11,000 views since Aug. 2, raises more questions than it answers, such as, What prompted the head of Fort Hays State University's cross-examination debate team, Bill Shanahan, to drop his pants and expose his rear to his rhetorical opponent, the University of Pittsburgh debate director Shanara Reid-Brinkley? Why did it take almost six months for the video hit the Web? And what was the dispute about, anyway?

While neither professor could be reached, it appears that the argument involved teams' ability to "strike" judges they believe have historically given them lower scores. One of the teams struck a judge who was African American and female, Fort Hays State provost Larry Gould told a local station, "and that set the thing off." While it's unclear who started the ruckus, the video begins with an off-screen Shanahan, apparently responding to facial expressions from the off-screen Reid-Brinkley, asking rhetorically, "Is this bullshit, Shanara? Is this bullshit?"

"Fort Hays State does not condone the behavior or the language in that video. What Bill did in terms of mooning the audience and the foul language is something we don’t approve of," Gould said in a separate interview with Inside Higher Ed.

The department chair and a dean are conducting an investigation into what prompted the incident, he said, which will include interviews with people seen in the almost nine minutes of posted footage. The university wants to gather all the facts before deciding on any official response, he continued, "if we do anything at all."

Another question the video raises -- whether it's staged -- appears to be moot. Shanahan himself told the previous department chair that something had happened at the tournament in March, according to Gould, but "obviously there was more to it" than what he let on at the time. "We don’t know why there was such a lengthy period in between the actual incident" and the publicity over it, he said.

A University of Pittsburgh spokesman said: “We’re aware of the situation and we’re looking into it.”

Shanahan, who in the video is barefoot, wearing shorts and a ponytail, has an apparent history of outbursts. The Hays Daily News reported that he has been arrested for battery on at least two occasions, one of which stemmed from a dispute with his eye doctor.

"Bill is a nonconformist, you can probably tell from the video," said Gould, who's known Shanahan for most of the professor's 13 years at the university. "He’s a maverick, and he’s very productive in everything he does ... and accordingly he’s very passionate about what he does." His teaching evaluations are "really very good," he said, and "most" students (but not all, he conceded) enjoy his "provocative style."

"My concern was for the students, though I obviously represented them poorly in this situation," Shanahan told another local station. "I am a passionate person and sometimes my devotion to debate and intellectual engagement gets the better of me."

Reid-Brinkley was brought on as Pittsburgh's debate director in 2007. According to the announcement, her "University of Georgia doctoral dissertation explores how debaters use innovative forms of argumentation, such as hip hop music, to challenge prevailing norms of argument practice and press for a more racially inclusive intercollegiate policy debate community."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on A Debate Performance Laid Bare

  • Debate
  • Posted by Anon on August 14, 2008 at 7:05am EDT
  • What the article doesn't mention is that Bill Shanahan won the national championship for his debate team at Fort Hays State a few years ago, against larger and better-funded Ivy League teams. While his performance in the video is clearly not a shining moment, he is a breath of fresh air in Western Kansas and quite devoted to his students and team.

  • Wish we had more B. S.
  • Posted by anon 2 on August 14, 2008 at 8:35am EDT
  • As I watched this, I thought it would be so cool to have more professors like Bill Shanahan. He argues using speech, not war and battery. The moment he lost his drawers he is saying *ss hole, so it's not a full moon by any means, merely a gibbous or crescent depending upon your viewing angle.
    Still I guess I wouldn't want the black female or the barefoot guy. Society does not act like either.

  • I’m Not Quite Speechless
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on August 14, 2008 at 8:40am EDT
  • I have to admit that I don’t understand this. On the other hand, I almost think “There, but for the grace of God and fifty years, go I.” Here’s a summary of my reaction ...

    1. No matter what disgraceful adjectives you use to describe this, I will agree.

    2. It is upsetting to me that an event like this gives fodder to those amongst us who cannot do anything outside the intellectual confines of “civility” and “rational discussion.”

    I have asked myself if this is consistent with Paul Goodman’s argument ...

    “It is my thesis that the agent of this clinch is administration and the administrative mentality among teachers and even the students. It is the genius of administration to enforce a false harmony in situations that should be rife with conflict. Historically, the communities of scholars have perennially been invaded by administration from the outside, by visitors of king, bishop, despotic majority, or whatever is the power in society that wants to quarantine the virulence of youth, the dialog of persons, the push of inquiry, the accusing testimony of scholarship.

    But today Administration and the administrative mentality are entrenched in the community of scholars itself; they fragment it and paralyze it. Therefore we see the paradox that, with so many centers of possible intellectual criticism and intellectual initiative, there is so much inane conformity, and the universities are little models of the Organized System itself.”

    I wonder what he would say after viewing this YouTube video?

    3. I was heartened by the tempered, almost supportive responses by the Fort Hays State leaders. I was reminded of a response one time by Guido Calabresi, Dean of the Yale Law School; to wit ...

    “It was tasteless, even disgusting, but that's beside the point. Free expression is more important than civility in a university.”

    4. I would have given almost anything to have a team of interviewers outside the room to try to ascertain what the students took from this experience. Frankly – and I’ll admit this is a stretch – I’d be willing to wager that, as outrageous as the scene seemed to be, it was, on balance, a positive learning experience for the students. But what do I know.

    Thanks for sharing this with us. At the least, it’s wonderful food for thought.

  • great example!
  • Posted by lk on August 14, 2008 at 8:40am EDT
  • What a wonderful example these two professors are setting for their students. Passion is an excuse for vulgarity and poor manners! It is "okay" to bare your butt and cuss your opponent as long as you are committed, productive and passionate about it!

  • Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
  • Posted by todd miller on August 14, 2008 at 8:40am EDT
  • That video is priceless.

  • A lack of hierarchy
  • Posted by chris b on August 14, 2008 at 10:40am EDT
  • This video says so much about some of the dysfunctional elements of higher education today.

    The worst thing the Fort Hays professor does isn't the "mooning," as juvenile and vulgar as that is. The worst thing he does is angrily reply to the student in the video (something about the student being "exclusionary," too.) His explosive anger and lack of self-control in engaging a student in this fashion is completely out of line, and in any institution I was responsible for he'd encounter a significant consequence for that.

    The Emory professor acquits himself well in a bad situation that has clearly become racially tense. Odd, isn't it, that college campuses have this underlying racial tension when the overwhelmingly agreed-upon worldview is progressive. By contrast, the military has racial problems no doubt, but it tries to address them by making them clearly subordinate to a higher purpose. Higher education has largely abandoned this.

    The obviously good-hearted and well intentioned professor from Vanderbilt sees "building bridges" as the strategic imperative, but I'd suggest that re-establishing a proper hierarchy will yield better results. Starting with the premise that it is better to reason together than to demonstrate your passionate commitment.

    Sorry to be so judgmental.

  • Ws and Ls
  • Posted by chris b on August 14, 2008 at 10:45am EDT
  • "What the article doesn’t mention is that Bill Shanahan won the national championship for his debate team at Fort Hays State a few years ago, against larger and better-funded Ivy League teams. While his performance in the video is clearly not a shining moment, he is a breath of fresh air in Western Kansas and quite devoted to his students and team."

    This is pretty much how Bob Knight kept his job for so long at IU regardless of throwing chairs, etc. Not sure this is where we want college debate to go.

  • Posted by MrMojo on August 14, 2008 at 11:30am EDT
  • I'd wish we had more information about the Pitt coach's comments prior to the outburst. He may be a bit unhinged, but the notion that it's 'racism' to strike a judge who happens to be female and black , along with the topic of the Pitt coach's dissertation, suggests that the problem isn't with Shanahan.

  • Debat or Verbal Abuse
  • Posted by Anna on August 14, 2008 at 11:50am EDT
  • Wish we had...stated "He argues using speech, not war and battery," but I think any psychologist would agree that throwing around nearly incoherent insults between incomprehesible opinions is akin to an outright physical fight. They were not attempting to advance their point but merely knock down their opponent. This ironic tape should really be labled "how not to debate." Learning how to debate is intended to give tools to students so that they don't condescend to the level of these so called coaches. I would quit coaching, if I were them.

  • Mutually Exclusive Goal Attainment
  • Posted by Curro Romero on August 14, 2008 at 12:15pm EDT
  • I hope what the students took from this was the ability to tease out the crucial distinction between passion/conflict from zero-sum competition: two entirely different animals. Competition, defined as Mutually Exclusive Goal Attainment, isn't about productive struggle (letting ideas interact, fizz and ferment), but mere striving for ego supremacy among debaters.

    Shanahan betrays our cultural belief that only competition makes things interesting. He appears to believe only in extrinsic (as opposed to intrinsic) motivation for thinking and participating in discussion and dialog. How absurd.

    Others on this site have alluded to Alfie Kohn's _No Contest: The Case against Competition_. The book argues that challenging the status quo, overcoming mindless conformity is best done through conflict and passion, to be sure, but WITHOUT the extrinsic motivator, the ego-supremacy purpose of zero-sum contests. He has a whole discussion, in fact, about the folly of believing that Debate somehow advances human knowledge. Please see his actual analysis before passing judgment on this, perhaps, counterintuitive claim.

    Has it occurred to anybody that it is precisely competition and its glorification
    that gives rise to cheating, crime, violence and war? There's been talk of building moats around soccer stadiums. Replace competitive sports with cooperative sports and see what happens to both physical and mental health. Replace ego orientation with task orientation, say numerous psychological studies.

    Look again at the video. It isn't about hashing out issues, challenging others' positions and having to re-think one's own in order to advance learning. It's about rules of "striking" one's opponent in order to win a zero-sum (ego) contest. In competition the ego becomes abstracted from the issues at hand. It has even been proposed that adversarial debate in courts of law is misguided where achieving civil or criminal justice is concerned.

    Certainly race or racism is a most inappropriate topic for "debate." Dialog and (painful) healing from the mess history has bequeathed us, yes! Not debate. Debate perpetuates--it does not change--history. (Nor do I think the problem of racism can somehow be subordinated within a hierarchy, as though something else is any more important than recognizing everyone's humanity. It suggests mutually exclusive goal attainment, when exclusivity itself is already the problem.)

    Repeat: Replacing competition with cooperation does NOT mean self-sacrificing conformity. Cooperation is and should be conflictual. Each of us knows internal emotional and cognitive dissonance; it does not mean that some parts of ourselves are "losers" in a contest; it can mean all our "parts" are undergoing change and growth.

  • @ anon
  • Posted by Brian , Assoc Prof at Large Midwest U on August 14, 2008 at 1:30pm EDT
  • "...the article doesn’t mention is that Bill Shanahan won the national championship for his debate team at Fort Hays State a few years ago, against larger and better-funded Ivy League teams."

    But didn't he do so by introducing phony "performance debate" and other gimmicks into the national debate circuit? Wasn't his big claim to fame in making college debate more like high school LD rounds?

    The sad thing is that Shanahan probably deludes himself into thinking he's leftist or progressive -- but his rage attack against a black woman suggests otherwise. Dude's got issues.

  • Mysterious Moon?
  • Posted by Mildred Norfleet on August 14, 2008 at 1:30pm EDT
  • I find it interesting that the majority of the criticism here is aimed at Shanahan, while Reid-Brinkley, who is clearly using just as much profanity, and who appears to have started the heated interchange with her accusations that Shanahan is "walking around doing stuff", is getting a pass. The mooning was in response to Reid-Brinkley's comment that Shanahan was an "asshole". His response is hilarious and quite apropos in the context, if not dignified.

  • Reclaiming debate -- it matters
  • Posted by ybp on August 14, 2008 at 2:30pm EDT
  • And the type of debate--the white woman with very short hair wrapping up the equipment appears in the film. I think this is about changing the terms of debate & how that plays out along race & class.

  • @Brian
  • Posted by Huh? on August 14, 2008 at 4:20pm EDT
  • "The sad thing is that Shanahan probably deludes himself into thinking he’s leftist or progressive — but his rage attack against a black woman suggests otherwise. Dude’s got issues."

    Let me see if I understand: white male coach exercises right (by rules of the debate) to remove a judge; African-American woman makes charge of racism; white male coach replies strongly to that charge--and he is not progressive? In other words, no person of color can ever be criticized without losing one's progressive credentials?

  • Adversarial Debate
  • Posted by chris b on August 14, 2008 at 4:20pm EDT
  • Curro Romero said:

    "It has even been proposed that adversarial debate in courts of law is misguided where achieving civil or criminal justice is concerned."

    Problem is, all the alternatives are worse. That "Kingdom on Earth" that some prominent politicians would like to build will devolve into despotism.

    And Ms. Norfleet, it isn't so much that I give Ms. Reid-Hunter a pass, it's that our higher education industry produces so many of her ilk that it seems almost banal to point out that she is apparently unfit for her job.

  • ALL the Alternatives?
  • Posted by Curro Romero on August 14, 2008 at 6:45pm EDT
  • chris b. wrote, "Problem is, all the alternatives are worse." Even those that have not been invented yet? How can we know ALL the alternatives are worse where they have not been practiced or developed by social-historical processes?

    Again I plead, "Please see [Kohn's] actual analysis [i.e. read the book, the argument [the studies, the analyses, the research], in its entirety] before passing judgment on this, perhaps, counterintuitive claim."

    To Mildred Norfleet: The fact that the coaches are coaching such zero-sum contests shows that they're BOTH OF the CULTURE that believes in what Shanahan expresses at one point: namely, that people wouldn't even attend if there were no competition involved as an extrinsic motivator. I, for one, wouldn't give her a pass on that score.

    We all partake of culture. So also we can critique it.

  • moonbeam debates
  • Posted by Bob S. on August 14, 2008 at 9:40pm EDT
  • Crude, crass, ignorant and childlike. Nothing is worth such a response from people at this level. The look, tone and histrionics are right out of the dorm or poolroom, not a collegiate university setting.

    Kids will love it because it goes down to their level; others will find it funny because of their own standards of civility. It just looks alike a bar-room brawl among spoiled kids who, however wrapped, have yet to grow up. Shut the program down or get more mature professionals to lead it in a better fashion.

  • Posted by Anon on August 15, 2008 at 5:10am EDT
  • And thus I did LD Debate instead -- I never understood those CE folks. I tried it once -- I just wasn't crazy enough. ;-)

  • Posted by db on August 15, 2008 at 5:15am EDT
  • Regardless of what started the fight, and if you cancel out the speech of the two as equally irresponsible, some of the undertones are pretty visible: he can confront, shove arms and even expose himself while she is corralled and led away as though a threat. Afterward, those in ultimate charge try to reason with him only as she has to re-enter the area only after calming down.

    Whether this is about race or gender in the initial contextual content, you'd have to be fooling yourself not to note he is treated very differently after making much more threatening and irrational actions.

    ...and he's been convicted of assault!?!?

  • Posted by most.of.you.are.clueless.idiots , I think.. on August 15, 2008 at 5:20am EDT
  • Of all the wonderfully thoughtful and obviously informed comments, I think I like Chris B.'s the best. Clearly, this video demonstrates that academia is doomed! Our only hope is the army, where people don't ask questions, they only obey. FASCISM ISNT CONFLICTUAL YAY! LOLZ.

    If anything this video demonstrates that academic debate is one of the more progressive academic activities. Even though the community, which I'm sure most posters have field knowledge of (Not..), is one of the most left-leaning, there are still large debates over the question of race. It's not about tolerance, but a confrontational-becoming..

    Now, the other post that was AWESOME was genius who made the comment re: Bill and performance debate.
    1. You're an idiot guy -- the reason this argument escalated is partially related to Bill's thinking that something that happened prior to the debate (striking) shouldn't be part of the decision in the round, 'cause if that could be reason you win/lose, why couldn't anything you had done in the past?

    2. performance debate is not LD - Performance debate, to me, is more or less founded on the premise that a policy-maker should be self-critical of the epistemological foundations of their decisions. There's nothing phony about that. On the other hand, I guess only a highschool LD debater would dare question the mantra of utilitarianism, which I guess we should superimpose onto policy-makers, I guess, because that's how 'its always been,' at least so you say.

    3. Brian - you're racist. Getting mad at somebody of another color doesn't make that purpose a racist. On the other hand, assuming that BS would get pissed off solely because Shanara is black . . is making pretty racist assumptions about how people understand conflict.

    Good job, I await more profound reflections,

  • OUCHIE
  • Posted by chris b on August 15, 2008 at 7:35am EDT
  • Hmm. Don't think I said "academia is doomed"; I thought I said that the video illustrates "some of the dysfunctional elements" of higher ed. But if that makes me foremost among a group of mostly "clueless idiots," I guess I can process through that in my therapy group.

    Curro Romero, you ask a compelling question. And I must admit that I did not consider the alternatives that have not yet been invented. So you may have a point. I'm not familiar with the particular work by Alfie Kohn that you reference. (I did read his book "Punished by Rewards," however, and found it unpersuasive, generally because I hold a view of human nature that I suspect you would assess to be unduly pessimistic. I blame my dear Irish Catholic mother for this.)

    But more importantly, let me thank you for the way you address issues rather than call names. The benefits of acquiring that discipline are shown by the Emory professor in the video; the dysfunctionality caused by lacking it in the Fort Hays and Pittsburgh profs.

  • Debate Performance
  • Posted by Shaun , Selective focus on August 15, 2008 at 8:00am EDT
  • While William "Bill" Shanahan moon is getting all the selective focus; Shanara Reid-Brinkley's race baiting "your white..."
    is totally ignored. Had Shanahan stated something to the effect of "your black..." it would have created a media frenzy. Instead Shanara's racism is ignored. Typical of the hypocrisy so prevalent in all issues that remotely involved race.

  • Prejudice vs. Racism: A Definition
  • Posted by Curro Romero on August 15, 2008 at 9:50am EDT
  • Shaun,

    You raise a sensitive and important point about today's (seeming) double standards around ethnic issues. Respectfully, I ask you to consider the following.

    I suppose there can be disagreement about which, if any, ethnic group in the U.S. is dominant today. But historically, all ethnic groups of fair skin have had to wait their turn, and often "earn," the right to tap into an institution that was invented in the late 17th-early 18th century: Whiteness.

    It stemmed from indentured servants from both England and Africa trying to organize together to revolt against their masters. Ever since, such "white" folks were in a position to benefit, if ever so slightly, from slavery, jim crow, segregation, institutional and cultural racism, even if they themselves repudiated racism as an overt avowal of biological or social inferiority of people of color. They benefited in many, often subtle, hardly tangible ways. Therefore, they were "privileged" in the social scheme of things, even if they themselves were struggling along class lines.
    (In fact, racism has proven very useful in distracting "whites" from class-based political awareness.)

    Given our history, it's certainly understandable for people of color (and I am one, although I've always passed as "white," so I have a sense of both experiences) to be prejudiced against "whites." I'm not even sure that simple prejudice is what Reid-Brinkley is expressing here. But if it were, we can make a key distinction in both our language and thinking. From her perspective a "white" person expressing prejudice toward an African American also has white privilege attached to it (even if that person is relatively powerless in terms of class).

    In short, prejudice is prejudice, unfortunate enough. Prejudice plus power is racism. Thus, according to that definition, her calling Shanahan "white," whatever else it is, cannot be racist. She has no power over him. Her ethic group is not dominant in America.

    It is precisely for this reason that I can't condone debate CONTESTS, on this issue especially.

    Obviously, people of color in this country have been hurt by racism, have had their humanity degraded. But so also have people of European descent, though in a profoundly different way. And it hurts, but at deeper levels, perhaps, and many "whites" think the hurt is coming from people of color. It isn't. It's coming from history and needs to be understood as such.

    I have a friend who immigrated from Austria, thick German accent and all, who feels insulted every time somebody calls him "white." "I'm not white!, he insists. "I'm Austrian." He's also married to an African American woman, also a dear friend of mine. So the term "white" is loaded with history, and that could be what Reid-Brinkley was referring to: privilege is invisible to those who have it, starkly visible to those who don't.

    That doesn't mean that it's easy to be "white," either. It means we need a special language by which to examine our historical predicament. Debate is not that language, as I said above. It perpetuates rather than alters futile patterns of discourse.
    Sorry, I forget who above offered the gender analysis of what went on in the video. It strikes me as most useful. Thanks.

    I believe that sexism and racism hurt us all, and zero-sum competitions by which to explore that pain are most inappropriate and utterly counterproductive.

  • Posted by Clo on August 15, 2008 at 11:30am EDT
  • Being passionate about one's work and beliefs is one thing...losing it completely in front of a group of students is another. The two debate "leaders" were disgraceful in this setting (come on, we all have an opinion whether it's called a "judgment" or not). Had this ridiculous behavior occurred in a professional setting, the two would have been fired or censured by his/her superior. Are we excused from being role models by the First Amendment?

    The saddest part was hearing the student(?) cry off screen. What do you think he got out of this foul-mouthed, hateful display?

  • whites cant be racist
  • Posted by Shaun , Whites cant be raciss on August 15, 2008 at 1:00pm EDT
  • Curro;
    It's not possible to declare that blacks are powerless in today's society, or even that they do not share equal political power with whites. The tired definition of racism as requiring political power or a subtle subjugation of another ethnic group has many flaws, not the least of which is that the most stringent use of 'power' is physical and we see that black on white violent crime is overwhelmingly greater statistically than white on black violence. How can a victim have power over their assailant? How does one who is murdered have power over the murderer? Your circular logicon race is weak and tired. blacks certainly can be racist jus as well as whites. Whites hold no power over blacks. Any imaginary residual benefit of a slavery which ended 150 years ago in no way benefits any living person. If there is a residual benefit its been more than quantitatively addressed through countless programs such as affirmative action. Slavery is too easy an excuse for poor performance and I find it shocking that you would use this lame excuse for Ms Shanara Reid-Brinkley's racial verbal attack.

  • Posted by Brian , Assoc Prof at Large Midwest U on August 15, 2008 at 4:45pm EDT
  • @huh?
    “no person of color can ever be criticized without losing one’s progressive credentials?”

    I didn’t say that. Shanahan struck the only black woman judging at the tournament. And he was the one who rushed in her face and started screaming at her. Then gave the self-absorbed “passion” speech, and then got aggressive again. And I’m not the only one who sees a racial and gender dynamic going on – I think you’re naïve if you don’t.

    @most.of.you
    We get it. You know more about debate than anyone here. You have context that no one else does. That’s great. Pat yourself on the back big guy. I wish you all the best this season and in your debating career.

    But this “self-critical of the epistemological foundations” blah blah blah is a little much. I mean, don’t you think “performance debate” is kind of lame? Isn’t a “performance debate” approached premised on the hope that your creativity will compensate for your lack of research and argumentation skills. And if Shanahan is the “godfather of performance debate,” as this LAT article contends, doesn’t make him kind of lame too?
    http://communications.fullerton.edu/forensics/documents/LATimes%20article.doc.

    Good job, I await more enumerated ad homenims,

  • Sharing Trade-offs and Benefits All Around
  • Posted by Curro Romero on August 17, 2008 at 6:00pm EDT
  • "Curro;It’s not possible to declare that blacks are powerless in today’s society, or even that they do not share equal political power with whites."

    Shaun, which whites?

    Yes, as I suggested above, we all do have issues with representation, with perception. I'd say a good way to think is not in terms of "powerlessness" but "dominance." I sense you feel that blacks now dominate you, or are on the verge. Clearly, so-called "whites" have never been dominant, because, as I suggested above, class has also been a huge factor in American history.

    Research question: Are there reliable criteria to show that as a group African-Americans, after centuries of struggle past slavery, Reconstruction, lynchings, jim crow, segregation, shifting stereotypes, ongoing institutional and cultural racism--are there reliable sociological criteria that shows African Americans have arrived? If so, when? Can we pin-point a moment (supposedly during one of the decades after _Brown vs. Board_ or the Voting Rights Bill, etc. that African-Americas (along with Puerto Ricans and other Latino groups, American Indians, and other people of color somehow "pulled alongside" quote "whites"? Hard to say, because so many whites remain in bad shape, beleaguered. Class and gender social hierarchies come into play. This IS after all a hierarchical society with rather unevenly distributed wealth and power and special burdens on women. But if such a moment of ethnic and gender equality in our recent history did occur, when was it and how do we know? We're back to representation and perception.

    That's why, again, debate (as formalized zero-sum contests) is not the way to hold dialog about issues of (alleged) social inequality. It inevitably involves group and personal experience with everyone saying, "Hey, what part of OUCH do you not understand?" What I hear you say above is that something hurts. As a person of color myself, I hear that. It's valid and I want to know more. What hurts?

    See also Richard Rodriguez's early book _Hunger of Memory_ in which he explains why he chose not to take advantage of affirmative action in graduate school. If he can see what things are like from somebody else's point of view, and act accordingly, there may be hope the rest of us can too. But dialog (as opposed to debate) means ALL parties might follow Rodriguez's example: see things from others' points of view (as well as one's own without necessarily speaking for the whole of one's group!), and take action that shares trade-offs and resulting benefits all around. Should be possible in a democracy.