the great debate

Dear Friends and Family,today was a very different day at the Summer school. It started with us perparing for the great debate. Well the topic was: Elimination of all forms of borders. Our team was to defend the motion. The build up to it was what i liked best. First we were in divided into three sub groups that concentrated on three parts of the topic. We had to do several readings for that in our subgroups. We were given time to build our arguments, discuss in our groups and also nominate a speaker for our groups.

The questions that we had to answer were so loaded that we had to really choose the right words to be precise.Our team was convinced that we weould win from the very begining. Our teamates Mioara and Olive, literally burnt the mid night oil and got us a 71 page document defending our topic. We then got together under a tree to discuss perspectives and nominate speakers.

WE had Olive who would intorduce and wrap up, Veysel who would build up, danelle would give in the vital points and Chris was to peak on our topic. Now the actual debate began. Jane Mc Adams the Director of the SS, and Jean Francois were the chairs of the dabate. They were also the tutors of the respective groups. Now our Olive set the pace with the opening remarks, it was brief but neat. Then Lara a good friend from the opposite side started her opening remarks. She had it all organized and presented her case very systematically. Our Veysel presented the case and the tradition followed. Things were a bit dull on both the sides till danelle started. she made clear arguments and pointed out that it was important to get done with the borders because it was a right to move. our Chris pointed out the need for a borderless world to promote equity and convinced the opponents that the world needs to be opened up.

The best was the wrap up, Olive summarized all the points and punched it with a line of human rights. While lara tried her best on the other side. Now it was time for the discussion, we stood our ground we wanted to win by all means. When it cam e to voting we had to close our eyes and then vote, at the end we realized that we had less votes than the other team. OOps we had lost by two votes. Our team was upset that two of our people cross voted and hence we had to suffer the loss. some of us were upset but it was a greatr learning.

the methodology made us read, disccuss and even debate our positions. I really wish i could do this in Loyola, in previous occasions i have tried so hard but also failed miserably.

well i will try again.

After this session we had yet another great session, this time we had the Tutors telling us what they were involved in. Starting with Richard, he was the Pedro aruppe fellow at the RSC. He explained his work on post conflict situation in Rwanda.

Zachary explained his doctoral work on the fundemental interconnections with the international protection, the accountability of UNHCR and the ability of the refugees to enforce accountability

Jean Francois my tutor, explained his work on teh spaces to protect and the concept of emergency. Refugee law, groups at risk and so on.

Maryanne, a psychologist by training explained her work on the urban refugees, climate induced refugees and psycho social interventions

Matthew Gibney, spoke on his work on rejection os asylum seekers and repatriation.

Finally Jane, told us about her work in international law and various other projects.

WEll to cut a long story short it was wonderful to hear the stories of the faculty, they were all involved in some study that was cutting edge. The language they spoke was so up to date and inwell informed that we from the developing world have to learn to emulate. We do work like donkeys and jump around like monkeys. others simply are in a deep state of slumber.

It was day with a lot of learning.

Will tell you more tomorrow.



Jea