OPTION 1 – Resolved: Professional sports are an
appropriate platform for political change.
OPTION 2 – Resolved: NCAA student athletes ought
to be recognized as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
I admit that I haven’t been posting much lately, mostly
because I don’t have much to say except the same old same old, and I am otherwise
engaged more often than not, but this one caught my fancy. My first reaction
was, like yours, sheer wonderment that the NSDA would get that drunk before
releasing potential topics, but then I realized that they were probably stone
cold sober, which led to even more wonderment.
Seriously?
A platform for political change means, I guess, a place to
demonstrate in the hopes of changing things politically, as compared to a place
to have a direct cause/effect relationship. I mean, they’re probably not saying
that if you act in professional sports, there is a direct result in politics. I
guess. Here’s what Web sez about a platform:
2:a declaration of the principles
on which a group of persons stands; especially :a declaration of
principles and policies adopted by a political party or a candidate
3a (1) :a usually raised
horizontal flat surface; especially :a raised flooring
(2) :a device or structure
incorporating or providing a platform; especially :such a structure
on legs used for offshore drilling (as for oil)
b :a place or opportunity for
public discussion
4a :a usually thick layer (as
of cork) between the inner sole and outer sole of a shoe
b :a shoe having such a sole
5a :a vehicle (such as a
satellite or aircraft) used for a particular purpose or to carry a usually
specified kind of equipment
b :operating
system; also :the computer architecture and equipment
using a particular operating system
While I like the idea that the rez refers to scarily tall
shoes, it’s probably more like the declaration of principles or the place for
public discussion. Actually, in the literal syntax of the rez, it would have to
be the latter. So, professional sports are an appropriate place for public
discussion in aid of political change. I have two thoughts on this. What place isn’t appropriate for public discussion
in aid of political change? And second, when exactly during the
football/baseball/soccer/43-man-squamish game does this public discussion take
place? I mean, I just read in the NY Times
that the huddle is disappearing from pro football, and as far as I know in my
limited understanding of sports, that’s about the only time in that game anyone
ever says anything to anyone else other than trash talking on the line of
scrimmage and “Oomph” when someone tackles you. My guess is that this rez is
somehow meant to address taking the knee during the anthem. Which of course
means in NSDA Speak that the rez should not mention in any way, shape or form the concept of
taking the knee during the anthem. As statements of principles goes, and taking
the knee is definitely such an animal, it is also overarching in its
obliqueness. It is analogous to the Marlon Brando movie, The Wild One, when Johnny is asked what he’s rebelling against, to
which his reply is, “Whadda ya got?” In the US in 2017, a general protest
against pretty much everything makes sense to me, but it doesn’t lead to
political change as much as public awareness. Unfortunately, that awareness
gets turned around into more hatred and bitterness, but that’s sort of beside
the point. A topic that said: Displays of resistance during the national anthem
are … something, would at least tackle it head on. It wouldn’t go anywhere
during the argumentation, but at least people wouldn’t have to spend argument
time trying to explain what they’re arguing about.
As for the second possibility, on the Department of Labor
website it says, “the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
establishes minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, and child
labor standards affecting full-time and part-time workers in the
private sector and in Federal, State, and local governments.” The NCAA is for
college students, so my initial thought, which was that the one thing that
might be applicable here, child labor standards, turns out to be impossible. Which
raises the question, Did I miss the memo where it was announced that we now pay
college basketball players? I mean, that could absolutely be a thing that I
don’t know about. In which case, insuring that they get paid the same as burger
slingers at McDonalds really does seem like a good use of debater time this
coming December. (I’m sorry. I realize sarcasm doesn’t always come across
clearly in the written word, hence I’ll parenthesize the subtext.) If they don’t
get paid, the laws that apply to their getting paid seem to be, I don’t know,
inapt?
Sports. What do I know?
1 comment:
Well presumably that's the point: if they were treated as employees under FLSA, they'd have to be paid. I imagine FLSA was chosen specifically so they'd have to be paid hourly, as opposed to assume profit-sharing mechanism.
Post a Comment