And that's why I qualified my response by saying I hadn't seen Shawn's
students. Matt indicates that the performance doesn't "[cross] the line."
That may very well be the case. I think, however, it is important to
acknowledge that there is a line.--Neil
From: matt stannard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: NEIL BERCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Shawn T Whalen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Sherry Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] Accusations of Illegal Debating
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 07:28:57 -0600
Unless the performance has changed significantly since I saw it at UNLV, I
don't see where it crosses the line. There is sexually explicit language
and a story about a hypothetical kidnapping victim being forced into
same-sex activity by the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. Clothes stay on;
there's a bit of simulated sex. It's all very theatrical and in fact
reminds me of political theater. Most importantly, all the sex stuff is
grounded in theory, again blatantly and transparently so, like "here's what
this means, here's why we're doing what we're doing." In my opinion there
is absolutely nothing "harassing" about the 1AC given my understanding of
either legal or organizational sexual harassment norms (assuming, again,
that the performance hasn't changed).
As a GA for Long Beach I used to have to judge IEs and commonly saw things
like simulated oral sex, womyn grabbing their breasts a lot, gyrations of
every conceivable kind. If the complaint in question is about the 1AC, I'd
hate to see what would happen if the complaintant attended the NIET...
mjs
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Fri,
2 Nov 2007 08:23:34 -0400CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] Accusations of Illegal
Debating
Well, now that I have a little context, I actually will offer a few
thoughts. First, while CEDA has a sexual harassment policy, it technically
only applies to CEDA Nationals. Other tournaments can (and often do) apply
that policy as well, though CEDA leaves it to the tournament (since the
CEDA policy could conceivably contradict school policies). What CEDA
requires is that the general principles of its policy against sexual
discrimination be enforced.
I want to talk about two situations that occurred at our version of
JV/Novice Nationals the past two years. I think they illustrate some of
the complexities involved here.
Year 1 (China topic): Coach comes up to me after round 1 or 2. Coach is
outraged, because a debater from a CEDA Northeast school has gotten almost
naked (down to his underwear), ostensibly to look at the "Made in China"
labels on his clothes. The coach reports that the two women who debated
for her/his school in the round felt as though the other debater had
created a hostile environment. Coach throws out the term sexual harassment
and indicates, among other things, that I could be in trouble with my
administration for allowing this. We discuss this for a bit, and
eventually, someone says something about a procedure. A light bulb goes on
for me. I tell the coach that the first step in this case is going to be
informal mediation. I appoint a mediator (another reason why it's really
cool to have Vanderbilt come to your tournament is that ML doesn't usually
judge, so she's available for things like this!). Later on, I see the
coach of the other school. I mention the situation to her/him and indicate
that there is a concern. S/he says something to the effect of that the
"nudity" is not crucial to the argument (so why do it?!), so the debater
won't do it if anyone objects. S/he is very helpful in resolving the
problem. I relay this to the complaining coach, who is still not happy,
but who graciously agrees to leave things alone.
Year 2 (Supreme Court topic): Debater gets naked in a round and then walks
out into the hallway where he runs (not quite literally) into the parents
of one of my debaters who are donating their time to the tournament (note:
all of this is third hand, as I'm home recovering from surgery, though I
did make the final call on this). The judge in that round is very upset
(and I believe feels harassed). The parents of debater handle it well
(they just think it was stupid). My tab room staff, etc. want to kick the
debater out of the tournament and have him removed from campus. I overrule
them. I am, however, absolutely livid with the coach of the naked debater
(s/he probably didn't know this until now), fuming to one person, "If s/he
wants to be a leader in this activity in the future (which s/he does and
already is in many respects), s/he can't have her/his students going to
other people's campuses and doing stuff like this." Only months later do I
find out that the coach had no idea that this was taking place and was
angry about it as well. I feel sheepish about being mad at her/him.
Here's the point: it's great that Shawn has an administration that is
supportive of him and his students as they test the limits of discourse.
However, it's not just your administration that you need to be concerned
about. I'm pretty sure (virtually certain) that I could have explained
either of these situations satisfactorily to my administration (though I'm
not sure I would have wanted to expend the necessary capital). There are
other hosts who could not do so. Do you really want to argue that your
expression of artistic license outweighs the potential cancellation of
someone else's program?
I was there, when after the initial "nude debate" at the NDT, the ADA
passed a rule banning nudity and drug use in rounds. I voted against that
rule, because I thought it was stupid and unnecessary. I expected that,
after the first incidence of "in-round nudity" (which was well thought-out
and was necessary to the performance), people would say, "Been there, done
that". I was wrong.
I still think that debate organizations shouldn't be about banning debater
practices, but, as Sherry points out, there are limits. And one person's
challenge to the existing order is another person's sexual harassment.
That said, I'm not sure the legal arguments belong in-round (though they
are reasonable to bring up with Shawn out-of-round as well as with the
tournament administration). And, I haven't seen the performance of Shawn's
students, so I'm just speaking in terms of abstract principles.
--Neil Berch
West Virginia University
----- Original Message -----
From: Sherry Hall
To: Shawn T Whalen
Cc: Shawn T Whalen ; NEIL BERCH ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Accusations of Illegal Debating
Just to play the advocate here, it is my understanding that CEDA has
specific policies against harassment in debate rounds. I know when we put
an invitation out to our tournament and claim to be "CEDA-sanctioned" we
are agreeing that those policies will be enforced at the tournament that we
are hosting. If people feel that your argument is in violation of those
rules, what's wrong with asking the tournament to take action. I must also
confess that I am not as familiar with the CEDA rules as I am with the NDT
governing documents, and am not sure what a host is supposed to do in
response to such accusations. It is also the case that probably every
University in the United States has policies opposing harassing language on
campus. From my experience with various university policies that were
implicated at summer debate camps over the years, most universities prefer
that harassment issues be dealt with within the university before calling
in law enforcement (unless a physical assault was involved). Is your
objection to last weekend's action that your arguments were characterized
as "illegal"? Would you really have preferred that police be called?
Sherry
----- Original Message -----
From: Shawn T Whalen
To: Sherry Hall
Cc: Shawn T Whalen ; NEIL BERCH ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Accusations of Illegal Debating
Hi Sherry,I really don't think its necessary - my point is that if someone
thinks that the law has been violated and wants it enforced, they should
call a cop and/or an attorney. The debate tournament is not equiped to
deal with those claims.That being said, our debaters critique the
heteronormativity in traditional international relations scholarship and in
traditional academic debating. They suggest that the results of
heteronormativity have resulted in the structuring of terrorism and
queerness in similar ways. They attempt to "interrupt these discourses,
informed by queer pedagogy, by performing a narrative which involves
explicit language and some abbreviated, fully clothed similated sex acts.
The accusation was that our performance was sexual harassment.ShawnShawn--
I have to agree with Neil. There is no way for anyone to add constructive
comments or opinions about this issue when they have no idea what you are
talking about. Whether you want to debate the merits of the claim or not,
some brief explanation of what the issues are -- what is your argument?
what is the nature of the accusation of illegality? -- is necessary.
Surely, if someone threatens to kill someone else in a debate round, that
is not protected speech just because it occurred in the setting of a debate
round.
Sherry =
_________________________________________________________________
Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Café. Stop by
today.
http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_OctWLtagline
_______________________________________________
CEDA-L mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
