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<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Shawn T Whalen<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Shawn T Whalen<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ; NEIL BERCH<mailto:[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ; [EMAIL
PROTECTED]<mailto:[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<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Sherry Hall<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Shawn T Whalen<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ; NEIL BERCH<mailto:[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ; [EMAIL
PROTECTED]<mailto:[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.
Shawn
Shawn--
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
=_______________________________________________
CEDA-L mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
