• Towson students win national debate in shocking style.
• Finalists turn traditional forum into profanity-laced tirades.
By Pete Papaherakles —
The cultural communists are claiming another victim. This time it’s Western education, which has fallen into the trap of political correctness by kowtowing to the cult of “white guilt” and “black victimhood.”
The latest example of this degradation is in the way that time-honored college debate championships have been turned into a mockery by black students who reject traditional contests formerly featuring logic and reasoning and now using instead profanity-laced tirades and rap music in a pathetic attempt to make an argument.
In 2014, at the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) championships at Indiana University, Ameena Ruffin and Korey Johnson, two students from Towson University in Maryland, became the first black women to win a national debate tournament. “Founded in 1971, CEDA is now the primary national association promoting policy topic intercollegiate academic debate.”
But instead of debating the actual resolution, which asked whether the United States president’s war powers should be restricted—as is typically required under debate rules—the two women along with other teams of black students attacked the foundation and history of the debates. The more important issue, they argued, is not the resolution that was asked of them, but how the U.S. government is at war with poor black communities.
In the past, students would lose points and be ejected from the contest for failing to argue the resolution. But somehow, their total refusal to debate the assigned topic and rant instead about the only topic they care to discuss—namely how the white man’s racism is the cause of all their problems—not only was accepted by CEDA authorities—but won them the contest.
And this was only the beginning. In the final round, Miss Ruffin and Johnson went up against second-place winners Rashid Campbell and George Lee from the University of Oklahoma, two black male debaters, sporting dreadlocks and African-style clothing. For four hours, the two teams engaged in a heated debate about concepts like “ ‘nigga’ authenticity” and whether “war powers should be used against niggers.”
When Lee took the podium he turned on “music” that played a rhythm with background voices of black women wailing. He then proceeded to go into a “rap”monologue, while pacing and gesturing in the typical shuckin’ and jivin’ hip-hop genre. The routine included crotch grabbing and plenty of profanity, including the “f” word, the “s” word, the “m-f” word and copious use of the terms “nigga” and “nigger”—which apparently are very different in black culture.
He went on to express in his 10-minute rant how white racism has forced him to become a gangster, a drug dealer and a pimp in order to survive the harsh conditions of “da hood.” He’s been to jail and done some “bad things” but it’s not his fault. It’s all due to the pain and suffering endured over 150 years ago during the slavery era and now it’s payback time for whitey, who needs to give everything to atone for his racism and feel the pain blacks have gone through.
Asked by Miss Johnson what the purpose of the music was, Lee replied, “Whachu mean whut’s da puhpose? Don’t need no puhpose! [sic]” Finally, he added, it’s “cuz we’z niggaz [sic].”
At one point during Lee’s rebuttal, the clock ran out but he refused to yield the floor. “[Expletive deleted] the time!” he yelled.
His partner and the two women each made their presentations along similar black victimhood lines followed by incomprehensible rebuttals.
The women didn’t use the hip-hop format, however. They used a style that seems to be popular in collegiate debates today. The debater reads as fast as he or she possibly can, making it impossible to understand what’s being said while making strange gagging sounds as they breathe. It’s like listening to an auctioneer hyperventilating.
Joe Leeson Schatz, the director of speech and debate at Binghamton University, thinks it’s great that historic rules are being ignored and violated.
“Finally, there’s a recognition in the academic space that the way argument has taken place in the past privileges certain types of people over others,” he said. “Arguments don’t necessarily have to be backed up by professors or written papers. They can come from lived experience.”
University of California, Hastings Law School professor Osagie Obasogie, who teaches a class called “critical race theory,” also agrees that the traditional debate format is racist.
“Various procedures—regardless of whether we’re talking about debate formats or law—have the ability to hide the subjective experiences that shape these seemingly ‘objective’ and ‘rational’ rules,” he said. “This is the power of racial subordination: making the viewpoint of the dominant group seem like the only true reality.”
Debate “champion” Johnson agreed, saying: “No matter how people feel about my argument, they have to listen to me for all of my speeches—everything I have to say. They can’t make me stop speaking.”
Paul E. Mabrey, III, president of CEDA, defended the debate participants and the “racists” attacking them, encouraging those sympathetic to the new style, to strike back.
“The stories attacking the innovation, skills and intelligence of Towson and Oklahoma in that final debate round are nothing but thinly veiled racism,” he said. “And in some cases, extreme cases of racial bigotry.”
In other words, logic, intellect, order, dignity and discipline—all of the things that made Western civilization great and helped foster a government of the people—are being torn down in today’s academia to make room for a base and savage culture that rewards ugliness, violence, profanity and disrespect.
Pete Papaherakles is a writer and political cartoonist for AFP and is also AFP’s outreach director. Pete is interested in getting AFP writers and editors on the podium at patriotic events. Call him at 202-544-5977 if you know of an event you think AFP should attend.