|
Banned
|
An Example of Liberal Media Smear of a College and it's Winning Team.
Background:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pigglet
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=197
.......I once thought it would be interesting to have a series of threads where people would be forced to defend positions opposed to their own. Ustwo could be a liberal...not pretend to be one for the sake of proving the weaknesses of the position, but really try to defend it. Host could be a GOP type. roach could be a diehard capitalist Western civ divine right type. .......
|
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/ma...rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/ma...gewanted=print
March 19, 2006
Ministers of Debate
By ZEV CHAFETS
Correction Appended
The slogan of Lynchburg, Va., is engraved on the tile floor of its modest airport: "The most interesting spot in the state." This was the assessment of an early resident of Lynchburg, Thomas Jefferson, who also suggested that someday Lynchburg would be a great metropolis. Jefferson, right about so much, was wrong about this. Today Lynchburg is a sleepy little town of 64,000 on the banks of the polluted James River. Its municipal Web site lists just a few "Famous Products," chief among them the "disposable small-volume enema" and "the first disposable douche." The Web site is discreetly silent about the fact that the local branch of the firm Babcock & Wilcox designed the nuclear reactor at Three Mile Island.
<b>Oddly, city hall doesn't brag about its only national claim to fame — the Liberty University debate team.</b> The most interesting thing about modern Lynchburg is that Liberty consistently produces one of the nation's great collegiate debate programs. This season Liberty is closing in on an unprecedented sweep — first place in the rankings in all three national college debate groups: the American Debate Association, the Cross Examination Debate Association and the National Debate Tournament.
Two men are responsible for this improbable success. One is Liberty's founder, the Rev. Jerry Falwell, who has spared no effort to make his school into a national debate power. The other is the team's head coach, Brett O'Donnell.
O'Donnell, who is 41, is an intensely competitive man — he works 80-hour weeks and spends half of every year away from his wife and two children on the road coaching, scouting and recruiting. He is a political junkie with autographed photos of Karl Rove, Oliver North and Newt Gingrich on display in his small office. His heroes are Jesus Christ and Ronald Reagan — closely followed by the 79-year-old Penn State football coach, Joe Paterno, whom he admires for his work ethic. In 2004, Karl Rove brought O'Donnell in to help the Bush presidential debate team, and O'Donnell expects to be working with Republican candidates again this year. But politics is a sideline for O'Donnell. His day job is teaching nice Christian cheek-turners how to cut their opponents' throats.
Liberty is not the kind of school where the star coach is bigger than the university's chancellor. To get to O'Donnell's office, you pass the Jerry Falwell Ministries Museum, in which the most prominent exhibit consists of two Prohibition-era figures loading booze into a Model T Ford. One figure is said to be Jerry Falwell's father.
Carey H. Falwell was a successful Lynchburg businessman who founded two bus companies. He was also a hoodlum, who, in addition to moonshining, organized cock and dog fights and ran a notorious nightspot. In 1931, he shot his brother Garland to death. The killing was ruled self-defense, but it cemented Carey Falwell's local reputation as a very bad man.
This sort of family laundry is not usually hung in the personal museums of university founders. But Doc Falwell, as O'Donnell calls his boss, is proud of his hardscrabble, entrepreneurial heritage. In 1971, he started Liberty as a small Bible college. <b>Today, perched on a 4,400-acre mountain, with 22,500 resident and online students, Liberty bills itself as the world's largest conservative Evangelical Christian university.
"We expect to double our size in the next 15 years," Falwell told me.</b> Falwell, at 72, has a taste for expansion that seems undiminished. We were sitting in his wood-paneled office on the Liberty campus. He swiveled to a desktop computer and, with surprising dexterity, called up next year's enrollment numbers — 21,678 applicants for 3,200 places in the freshman class. "If I had the money and the staff, we could enroll 200,000," he said with a beatific smile.
There are building sites all over campus, including the recently dedicated LaHaye Ice Center, a hockey arena donated by Beverly and Tim LaHaye, an author of the "Left Behind" novels. Considering LaHaye's apocalyptic beliefs and Falwell's own eschatology, this focus on the future is reassuring.
Falwell is after something more than growth for its own sake. He wants to create "champions for Christ." That's where O'Donnell comes in.
"Our football program can't change the culture," Falwell said. "Our debate program can, by producing advocates who know how to argue for Judeo-Christian ethics and the American Constitution. We have 32 kids on our team this year, and they'll all be lawyers or leaders of some sort. Our goal is to create an army of people who know how to make our case. These are brilliant, articulate students. I couldn't have made the Liberty debate team when I was that age. I couldn't talk that fast."
Falwell's dedication to his debate program was on display that morning. When O'Donnell and I arrived at his office, we learned that Falwell's sister-in-law had died only two hours earlier. I was amazed that he kept our appointment; O'Donnell wasn't.
<b>"We're Doc's baby," he told me. "He meets with the team at the start of every season to offer his support. He follows our schedule. The kids know we matter to him."
This enthusiasm is expressed in practical ways. Liberty's program has five full-time coaches and a budget of half a million dollars. And in college debate, money talks. Since its inception in 1980, the Liberty program has won 15 national-rankings championships, two more than its closest competitor, Northwestern. Most of this success has come under O'Donnell.</b> Born to working-class parents in northern Virginia (his father and mother both worked for the telephone company), he first came to Liberty as a freshman student in 1982. He chose the school over the Air Force Academy because he wanted to be a minister.
The Liberty debate team was a minor activity in those days. Even so, O'Donnell never made varsity. After graduation he received a master's degree in communications from Penn State, coached debate there for two years and then returned to Liberty for good in 1993.
"I convinced Doc that, with the right kind of approach, we could be a national power," he recalls. Falwell liked the sound of that, and O'Donnell came through on his promise. Since 1994, Liberty has always been in the Top 5 of the National Debate Tournament rankings.
"Brett's done amazing things," says Warren Decker, the head debate coach of George Mason University, one of Liberty's chief rivals. "As an overall program, Liberty is very close to the top."
"Overall program" is a term of art. Debate ranking points are awarded for total wins at the novice, junior varsity and varsity levels. Unlike many universities, Liberty emphasizes all three. Its elite varsity debaters may not be as good as the best in the country, but top to bottom, Liberty racks up the most points. This success amazes many of O'Donnell's colleagues.
"We get kids who may have been debating since the sixth grade," says Ed Panetta, head coach of the University of Georgia. "They come to us with seven years' experience, and they attend debate camps in the summer. Brett's kids have limited debate experience."
Partly this is because of Liberty's egalitarian entrance criteria, which Falwell summarizes as "first come, first served." Many Liberty students are more notable for their piety than for their intellectual sophistication. O'Donnell has a budget for scholarships, but his recruiting is severely circumscribed by the school's requirement that students be professing Christians.
"The coaching staff here looks at tapes of the best prep-school debaters in the country," he says. "A lot of them, unfortunately from our point of view, wouldn't fit in here." A few years ago, O'Donnell tried to sign up a debater he met while coaching at a summer camp in Michigan, only to discover that the kid was Jewish.
Being a Christian is a necessary but insufficient requirement for making the Liberty squad. A lot of students are home-schooled; some have even taken part in special home-school debate leagues. But according to O'Donnell, they lack the starch for serious debate. "These kids pray with each other before the matches," he says. "They put a big emphasis on good manners. I've got nothing against manners or praying, but we want to win. I've never met a home-schooled debater who was aggressive enough for college competition."
The paucity of experienced high-school debaters has forced O'Donnell to start mostly from scratch. Each year he sends a mailing to incoming Liberty students who have a combined SAT score of 1,200 or above — roughly 40 percent (read correction at the bottom of this article....) of the freshman class. Around 60 students reply. They go through a rigorous debate boot camp at the start of their first semester. Seven or eight make it through the freshman season. By senior year, only three or four are left, competing at the varsity level.
The survivors see themselves as an intellectual elite. "Reverend Falwell says, 'We're No. 1, and Harvard is like No. 4 or something,' " Lauren Zawistowski, a first-year debater from Jacksonville, N.C., told me. "The kids on campus are proud of our success, what little they understand about it."
Erin Beard, Zawistowski's teammate, is a sophomore from York, Pa. She considers herself and her teammates to be witnesses for Christ. "Our presence on the debate circuit changes people's conception of Christianity," she says. "They see that we respect their beliefs. We're not close-minded."
O'Donnell encourages his debaters to make friends with competitors from other schools. "They're welcome to attend our devotions, and some of them do," he says. "Some just socialize. We don't beat them over the head with a Bible, and we don't preach to them." Over the years, a number of Liberty debaters have found love and marriage on the debate circuit.
The rules of college debate require teams <h3>to argue at each tournament both sides of an annual, nationally chosen topic.</h3> This year's is "Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase diplomatic and economic pressure on the People's Republic of China in one or more of the following areas: trade, human rights, weapons nonproliferation, Taiwan."
This is not a topic that presents ideological or religious problems to the Liberty squad, but that has not always been the case. "A few years ago," O'Donnell recalls, "the topic dealt with the right of privacy. That means, among other things, abortion. <b>The question arose, can we let our students argue the pro side of the case? Some conservative Christian schools decided that they couldn't argue both sides of certain issues. Bob Jones University wound up dropping policy debating."</b>
O'Donnell took the matter to Falwell. "Doc decided that if we wanted to compete, we'd need to accept the rules," O'Donnell says. <b>That season, by special dispensation, Liberty's debate practice rooms became the only place on campus where students were free to argue in favor of Roe v. Wade.</b>
"Not all the Liberty debaters are all that pious," says the George Mason coach, Warren Decker. Decker was raised in a Christian home in Kansas, but he has long since traded his Sunday-school innocence for a marked skepticism. <b>"Besides," he says,"debate is a liberalizing activity. I doubt that Falwell is producing a lot of people who, when they finish at Liberty, are going out to spread the Word."
O'Donnell disagrees, mostly because he says he doesn't fear the power of secular ideology. "If there's a challenge to belief, it's better that the kids face it now," he says. "We don't need to shelter them. We want them to know the best arguments they will be up against. What determines how they ultimately fall out on this is their relationship with God."</b>
Still, the Liberty team is not what you'd call religiously lax. Not long ago, before leaving campus for a road trip to a tournament at the Naval Academy, they gathered for prayer in front of their vans (the Liberty debate program is so flush that it gives out scholarship money to special team drivers). At the end of the tournament day they prayed again. And when O'Donnell announced that there would be group devotions on Sunday morning at 6:30 a.m., he was greeted with a respectful silence instead of the groans I anticipated.
Several years ago, a Roman Catholic quit the team, declining to pray with the group. O'Donnell, whose own boyhood family was divided between its Catholic and Baptist sides, was sympathetic but unbending. "He just didn't feel comfortable with the style of our devotions," O'Donnell says.
O'Donnell and his coaches scout the other teams. Liberty knew that one of its opponents in Annapolis would probably argue that the Chinese should be pressured because they discriminate against their Muslim minority. In the van on the four-hour drive there, debaters rehearsed responses, using a special lingo.
"They pull the genocide card," one said, "we come back with Heidegger."
"Then blam, Erich Fromm."
"Right. Setting up an accusation of Holocaust triv."
"Holocaust what?" asked O'Donnell.
"Triv. Trivialization."
"Don't use shorthand," O'Donnell said. "Judges don't like it."
He said this gently; O'Donnell has an easy, first-name relationship with his debaters ("I hate being called coach"), and he is not much of a disciplinarian, at least by Liberty standards. Team members, like all students, are obliged to follow the Liberty Way. No alcohol, tobacco or drugs are permitted. (Students are subject to random testing.) On the road the team stays in hotels that have cable TV, but students aren't permitted to watch movies rated R, NC-17 or X. There are romantic couples on the squad, but they are forbidden to do more than hold hands.
O'Donnell supplements the Liberty Way with requirements of his own. His debaters devote about 35 hours a week to the team. For tournaments, O'Donnell maintains a strict dress code: men must wear neckties, women must wear dresses or skirts with stockings, or slacks. All debaters are required to keep up a 3.0 grade average — a standard that has cost him at least one good prospect this season.
And, of course, no dairy products are allowed on game days. "Milk loosens the mucus in the throat, and that makes it harder to speak quickly," he explains.
Debaters research their own arguments, practicing once or twice a week by scrimmaging under the supervision of an assistant coach, who tapes the sessions and then reviews and critiques them to point out mistakes. Some of these are simple things — speech tics like "you know" or "I mean." But coaching also involves instilling O'Donnell's debate theory. "The trick is to persuade the audience," he explained to me. "It's psychological, and it rests in Aristotle's theory of enthymeme. Aristotle saw that pure logic can't carry a public argument. You need to make the audience go along with you. You do that by leaving out a premise the audience will add itself.
"For example, if you are trying to convince senior citizens to invest in something, you emphasize the stability of the investment. You don't have to convince seniors that stability is in their interest. They already know that. When they connect what you are proposing to what they already know, you have them arguing with you instead of against you. That's what we teach our kids."
<b>Quick speaking hardly captures the velocity of collegiate debate. Varsity debaters talk at 350 to 400 words a minute — about the speed of a fast auctioneer. Only experienced judges — most of whom are coaches from neutral schools — can actually follow the argument. For this reason, debate isn't a spectator sport.</b> Sitting in a classroom at Annapolis for the opening debate of the tournament, a match between Liberty and Trinity University, I could make out only random bursts of words: "Chinese. . .production facilities . . . economic consequences. . .freely elected. . .patient. . .consequences. . .targets. . .moratorium. . .nuclear winter. . .human rights.. . ."
O'Donnell calls debate "a game of the mind," but it is also a sport that requires strength and stamina. Contests last 92 minutes, and each debater on each two-person team speaks three times — opening arguments, cross-examination and closing arguments — for a total of 23 minutes. At some tournaments, teams have five matches a day.
Debaters gulp air like competitive swimmers. Melissa Hurter, a senior from Huntsville, Ala., talked at high speed for nine full seconds between breaths (she and her partner Lindsey Hoban, a senior from Lake Ariel, Pa., keep in shape by playing wind instruments). The Trinity debaters sucked air after only five seconds and sounded as if they were drowning. Liberty won handily.
There is a tactical logic to speed-talking. Arguments — even nonsensical or irrelevant arguments — must be rebutted. Those left unanswered count against you. The faster you talk, the more arguments you can make, and the better your chance to rack up points. Debaters carry their ammunition, files of every possible argument and rebuttal, in 14-gallon plastic tubs.
The emphasis on words per minute presents Liberty with another challenge. Debate is generally a male sport; Liberty tends to be an exception. Many of its best debaters are, like Hurter, Southerners who come from a culture that frowns on fast-talking women. They compete against self-assured, big-city Northern boys who have been arguing since the playground.
"A lot of these guys are like me, frustrated athletes," O'Donnell says. "I'm a classic slow white guy, but I'll race you to the door."
Liberty does have one great advantage: Despite its perennially high ranking, it is underestimated. "We're supposed to be dumb," O'Donnell says. "People take us lightly. And I won't lie, that gets the kids motivated. We get a lot of pleasure when we beat a Columbia or a Dartmouth."
There were no Ivy League teams at the tournament in Annapolis, but Liberty went up against Navy, Army, Boston College, Georgia, George Mason, the University of Michigan at Dearborn and a number of other bigger schools. They won two of the three divisions, novice and junior varsity. The following week in Austin, Liberty teams defeated squads from Emory and Northwestern. Heading into the National Debate Tournament, which begins later this week, Liberty was No. 1 in overall points in all three national rankings.
"We don't compete against Mount Pisgah College," Falwell told me proudly.
One on one, the best debaters from Harvard, Northwestern, Emory and Berkeley will usually — but not always — beat Liberty's top varsity team. At the National Debate Tournament, a single-elimination shootout structured along the lines of the N.C.A.A. basketball tournament, Liberty will be happy to finish in the Sweet 16.
This doesn't bother O'Donnell. "If we changed the way we recruit and concentrated on fielding an elite varsity, we'd definitely have a shot at winning the national tournament every year," he says. "But that's not who we are. I spend more of my time with the novices than I do with the varsity. The evidence we work up gets shared among all the debaters. Our goal here is to grow an entire program. We want to educate a lot of kids and instill them with a sense of mission. That's the secret of our success — that and a lot of hard work."
Everyone on the college circuit is aware that Liberty is a conservative Christian university. This could be a problem — judging is highly subjective. "Ninety-five percent of the debate community, including the judges, are more liberal than the most liberal members of Congress," O'Donnell says. But he isn't complaining. Judges can be idiosyncratic, but most of them will be swayed by strong argument, O'Donnell says; some even bend over backward to correct for their liberal bias.
Occasionally, though, being at Liberty can present a challenge. After Falwell made incendiary remarks about American immorality causing the 9/11 attacks, the George Mason University team argued that Liberty should lose simply because its chancellor's offensive statements undermined the debate team's credibility. This tactic, described in debate circles as "postmodern," failed to persuade the judge, and according to O'Donnell, Decker, the George Mason coach, later apologized. Decker denies apologizing, and when I raised the incident with him in Annapolis he grinned in a way that couldn't be called remorseful.
Still, for the most part, the debate community is collegial and tight-knit, and O'Donnell is definitely a member of the in-crowd. This year he serves as treasurer of the National Debate Tournament board of trustees. After the first day of the Annapolis tournament, half a dozen rival coaches — including Frank Harrison, whose Trinity varsity lost to Liberty — repaired to Harry Brown's Restaurant. O'Donnell refrained from drinking with his colleagues, and he said a short, silent grace before tucking in to the she-crab bisque, but other than that he gave no hint that he was anything but a big-time college coach enjoying an expense-account meal at the best joint in town.
O'Donnell is aware of his privileged status at Liberty, but he is cautious about the future. Falwell has been in uncertain health, and his anointed successor, Jerry Falwell Jr., is a relatively unknown quantity. ("Politically my son is to the right of me," Falwell told me with gleeful pugnacity.) Falwell Jr. supports the debate program, but O'Donnell knows from the Bible what can happen to Pharaoh's favorite when a new king comes to power.
To safeguard his program, <b>O'Donnell has embarked on a campaign to raise a $10 million endowment. More than 60 of Liberty's ex-debaters are now lawyers; some are doing very well.</b> When he isn't coaching or recruiting, O'Donnell spends an increasing amount of time with them, trying to turn nostalgia and team spirit into hard cash.
O'Donnell also has ambitions that go beyond debate. It was in May 2004, when Karl Rove gave the commencement speech at Liberty, that O'Donnell introduced himself and said, "You should hire me to get President Bush ready in the fall." A few weeks later he received a call from Rove's office inviting him to try out.
O'Donnell's first assignment was to analyze John Kerry's previous debates from the primaries and earlier elections. He did the same with John Edwards's tapes. The results, according to Bush's chief media adviser, Mark McKinnon, were "very good." McKinnon's company, Maverick Media, put O'Donnell on the payroll.
"The guy has great chops," McKinnon told me. "He knows more about presidential debates than anyone I've ever talked to."
O'Donnell drafted a paper that served as a basis for Bush-Kerry predebate technical negotiations. He conferred with Bush's campaign manager, Ken Mehlman, in almost daily telephone conferences. O'Donnell was made part of two debate subgroups, one charged with anticipating Kerry's lines of attack, the other with devising ways of turning the tables.
O'Donnell didn't participate in Bush's actual rehearsal sessions. Those were limited to the inner circle — people like Rove, McKinnon, Condoleezza Rice, Karen Hughes and Dan Bartlett, the communications director. Bush's handlers feared that bringing a new man into the room might throw him off. Some campaign staff members were annoyed by O'Donnell's persistent harping on the need for the president to improve his nonverbal communication, and his opinion that Bush shouldn't agree to an audience-question format at the second debate. He was right about both. "I think he could have been helpful as a participant," McKinnon says.
For O'Donnell, even his limited role was a dream come true. "I've wanted to work on political campaigns ever since I started debating," he says. "I did a little pro bono work for Jack Kemp in 1988. Now here I was working for the president of the United States. Talk about nervous. When Karl Rove asked me if I wanted to do it, I jumped. I never even asked him about money. I would have done it for free."
O'Donnell has since lost his amateur standing. After the 2004 election, he founded his own consulting company, O'Donnell and Associates Ltd. In 2005, his first private client, the Republican Jerry Kilgore, lost the Virginia gubernatorial race.
O'Donnell doesn't intend to stay 0-1. He's already negotiating with four 2006 campaigns — two senatorial and two gubernatorial — although he won't name them. The deals aren't yet closed, and at least one of his potential clients is nervous about being publicly associated with the Falwell wing of the party.
Ken Mehlman, who is now the chairman of the Republican National Committee, has no such worries. "I'm a big fan of Brett's," he says. "If candidates ask me about him for 2006, I'm going to recommend him."
O'Donnell wouldn't mind working for Democratic candidates who share his values. (He has a signed photo of Zell Miller in his office.) On the other hand, there are some Republican clients he wouldn't take. "It would be very hard for me to work with a pro-choice candidate like Rudy Giuliani," he told me. "Or someone lukewarm on the war in Iraq, like Chuck Hagel. I believe in a preemptive strategy, in fighting over there and not over here. I don't want to be just a hired gun. I have an agenda. I'm an ideologue."
A Christian ideologue?
"Absolutely. But would I work for a candidate who isn't a Christian, somebody with the same core principles as mine? Sure. Mitt Romney, for example; he's a Mormon, but our beliefs are similar. I'd work for an atheist if he shared my values."
What about Lynchburg's most famous son? Would O'Donnell work for Thomas Jefferson?
O'Donnell laughed. "With his skills, I doubt he'd need a debate coach. And we'd probably have our ideological differences. But sure, I'd relish working for Thomas Jefferson. He was a patriot."
In the meantime, O'Donnell is focusing on more realistic possibilities. He takes his team into the National Debate Tournament in Evanston, Ill., on March 24. Then, win or lose, he has another season to prepare for. Some talented junior-varsity kids will be moving up. A couple of very promising recruits are coming from Ohio and Florida. And best of all, there will be crop of novices from nowhere, willing young Christians eager for Lynchburg's minister of debate to teach them the art of fast talking for the greater glory of God and Liberty.
Zev Chafets last wrote for the magazine about Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein. His book on Jews and Evangelicals will be published by HarperCollins in the fall.
Correction: Mar. 19, 2006, Sunday:
An article on Page 52 of The Times Magazine today about the debate team at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., misstates the percentage of students there with SAT scores over 1200. It is 15 percent, not 40.
|
IMO, this is an NY Times, "hit piece" that deliberately casts Lynchburg, VA, Liberty University, and it's nationally recognized debate team in a negative way, with the goal of associating Jerry Falwell and the "christian right", to republican political leaders, to discredit all of them.
The success of Liberty's debate team is something that the college, as well as Lynchburg, can be proud of. The students work hard, and demonstrate their felixibility and lack of religious influenced or political bias, by energetically and competently debating both sides of any assigned issue.
It's all about collegiate competition and the art of presenting a winning argument in debates, but the NY Times writer tries to make it look more ominous. The benefits of the skills learned by the students and earned by the students and their coach, flow to the college and to the political leaders and their advisors who coach Brett and "Doc" Falwell admire and support.
The debate team members are the future <a href="http://www.liberty.edu/academics/law/index.cfm?PID=4040">Liberty U, law school</a> graduates, and their success in the future will be helped by their debating experience, and will bring more recognition to Liberty U. Law school.
Politics is all about winning, influencing your political party's platform and moving it through the legislative process, into law. The NY Times article ignores all of the potential benefits and doesn't even do a competent job of smearing it's targets.
This is an example of why I don't trust or read the liberal media. Their bias is so obvious that they brought the recent prominence of foxnews, drudge, breitbart.com, and frontpagemag.com on themselves!
Last edited by host; 08-17-2006 at 01:17 AM..
|
08-17-2006, 01:06 AM
