Hello my dear friend, I'm not sure that most of the discussion has addressed the fundamental question, but let me try. There are three distinct categories at work here: crimes, acts of harassment, and offensive speech. Understanding the distinctions seems important before any policy course is selected. Crime- Other than the "threat of sexual assault" (I'm pretty sure this isn't a crime in and of itself) nothing that approaches a crime has been mention. I'm not sure that a threat of sexual assault is sufficient evidence to be charged or convicted of sexual assault either. Frankly I don't know, but I strongly suspect that it's not enough. Threats and attempts may or may not be the same thing. Given the context of a debate round, I suspect that no prosecutor would see that as sufficient evidence alone. There have been crimes at debate tournaments, although I suspect most of them have occurred outside of the competition round proper. Perhaps your students engaged in indecent exposure although that hasn't been discussed outside of Neil's example. But generally, I don't think anything illegal took place. Harassment- While I can't speak to CEDA's policy nearly as eloquently as Jan did, I can say that my time helping to develop a racial harassment policy at Louisville, similar to the existing sexual harassment policy, makes it difficult to do inside of a single speech. Most of these charges require a process to occur first. Whether it's offensive comments by someone, followed by an acknowledgment of the nature of the offensive, followed by the comment or action to be done repeatedly thereafter. Parts of these procedures usually include things like informal mediation or informal of certain procedures prior to a formal charge. This seems consistent with what Jan's post said about CEDA's policy. Offensive speech- The culture of NDT/CEDA debate is built on offensive speech, both inside the competition round and outside. As just one example, Elliott's speech is protected all the time through silence by others in this community. But there are many, many others. I have certainly been guilty of purposefully trying to offend most in the community from time to time. The only question is who is being offended? Sometimes it's judges being offended by losing teams after debates, sometimes teams offend each other, and sometimes coaches offend their own students and vice versa. Currently, the regulation of offensive speech is defend yourself or perish: judges can choose to intervene, debaters can choose to challenge issues they find offensive, and coaches can make regulate students and be regulated by their higher level administrators. Now as to whether that should be the cause, and whether or not the community should find new and different ways to regulate offensive speech, I don't know: depends on what the purpose and goals of the activity are. But to confuse a crime or even the allegation of a crime with offensive speech does in fact run contrary to everything this community has generally theoretically defended over my 25 years in it. But when application of said theories begin, it does seem more and more, that selective choices are being made to censor speech when folks disagree, contrary to those theories. What I do know is that if this community doesn't make some effort to formally gather a stronger hold on a set of formal priorities beyond what appears to be mostly competition, these selective forays into make believe: like making believe something is a crime and then using that as a threat to walk out of a debate contest, will create a problem for the activity. The community lacks any common goal or objective outside of competition and that is a long term problem for any group or organization. In the end, this group will come together to end the hypocrisy by itself or external pressure will likely create that change. -Ede Ede Warner, Jr. Director of Debate Society/Associate Profes sor of Communication University of Louisville 308E Strickler Hall 502-852-3522 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://comm.louisville.edu/~debate
>>> From: Shawn T Whalen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 11/1/2007 9:46 PM Subject: [eDebate] Accusations of Illegal Debating Dear Colleagues, Last weekend, San Francisco State University debaters were accused of behaving illegally. It is the first time in my 31 years of experience in scholastic debate, that such an accusation has been levied based entirely on the content and performance of an argument made during a debate. Our students have employed the same basic argument since the start of the year, and I think it is unfortunate that none of my colleagues sought to raise concerns that they might have had about our arguments with me. I have been centrally involved in my students’ argument and performative choices this season and I invite those of you with concerns about them to discuss those concerns with me directly. While I completely respect and promote the rights of each individual to assert and defend all of their rights under the law, I want to suggest that debate rounds might not be the most appropriate place to make those assertions. Debate judges and debate tournament officials are rarely qualified to adjudicate these claims and debaters themselves are rarely qualified to address the full complexity of legal accusations. These types of accusations put judges and tournament officials in a very awkward position and potentially connect them to the legal claims being made in compromising ways. Our students encourage and invite a discussion of style, taste, and aesthetics but ethical and legal accusations are designed to enjoin us from inviting that discussion. By their very nature they chill that discussion immediately given the contemporary protocols for managing these accusations in the debate community. Legal accusations, in particular, go much further in their potential to chill these discussions. These accusations have forced us to seek the support of university administrators who do not fully appreciate the debate tournament context and who could act as censors. We are gratified that our administrators have chosen to support our academic work, but we recognize that not every administrator would see the risk/reward calculus in the same way. My students and I feel strongly that these accusations are a grave threat to our academic freedom and unless and until we are legally enjoined from doing so we will proceed making our arguments as we see fit. I remain distressed and saddened by the lack of support that seemed to exist among my colleagues last weekend for my students’ rights to free speech and academic freedom. I hope that as educators and colleagues we can make time for a discussion about how these types of conflicts might be better managed. Sincerely, Shawn Whalen Director of Forensics San Francisco State University
_______________________________________________ CEDA-L mailing list [email protected] http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
