Dear Sherry and the rest of the Community, I tried having this conversation with Sherry backchannel but clearly that did not dissuade her from moving forward on this. But everything happens for a reason, we just have to figure out what it is. I think I've got ours. We will strongly, strongly, strongly object to the inclusion of the statement "and/or racial harassment". By her own admission privately and implicitly through her post, Sherry is unsure what constitutes racial harassment. Look at the difference below between the specificity of what Sherry thinks is inappropriate for sexual harassment cases and the lack of any specifics on race. Remember the old feminism arguments: you can't add women and stir. Why isn't that equally true regarding racial harassment? Simply adding the words, "and/or racial harassment" is not only insufficient but problematic and risks doubling the injury to a student who invoking the philosophy's racial harassment clause. I am in love of the general idea of having statements in philosophies, that is the purpose of a philosophy. But I hate the idea of having statements that selectively don't mean anything tangible. It is wrong to decide to just add it to make myself feel that I'm more inclusive without also recognizing that the ability to have a common understanding of what qualifies as racially offensive enough to warrant elimination is exactly what most of the race problem is in America today. Here is why we are so vehement about this: my students over the years have said that many, many things said by opponents in debates are racially insensitive or intentionally racist. In many of those debates, judges who don't see the same offensive recontextualize the comments, explaining why the judge doesn't think those comments are offensive or why Louisville SHOULDN'T be offended. As Mari Matsuda says, "not repairing the injury is to create it again." To add the statement on racial h., then deny my students the same treatment because YOU PERSONALLY don't see the injury is wrong. And that will be compounded by adding the statement, then challenging student experiences that don't jive with what your experiences as a judge. Many of you see contradictions regarding racial sensitivity in ways that a majority of Blacks don't. Use of nigga in rap songs or by Blacks but personal offense when whites use word is a great example. And if you don't believe that Blacks should be offended only when whites use the word, guess what? You probably shouldn't have racial harassment in your philosophy. And if your solution to this problem is too say "no one can use the word" but my students want to play the song in debates, aren't we back at the same problem? If you can't deliver on the promise that when my students say what is going on is racially insensitive, and accept unconditionally what your logical self tells you is a contradiction, you have no business putting race in your philosophy. Bothered by my decision to capitalize Blacks and not whites? If so, you shouldn't have a racial harassment clause in your philosophy. I believe that Sherry's heart is in the right place, but her privilege and liberalism blinds her to the dilemma she creates. Why is solvency less important on the race part of this? At a minimum, race should not be added without specific examples of what she sees as racially offensive in the same why that she lists potential objections on sexual content, so that students have some context for where Sherry is willing to go with her claim. I suspect she doesn't because she can't. And what happens if her examples aren't consistent with what a racial minority feels is racially insensitive. Race shouldn't be added until she figures it out. Otherwise, you are going to replicate the injury when it occurs. The only question is: is it more important to feel better about your personal inclusion at the risk of further injurying the students your statements claim to protect? Or is it more important to critically examine the contradiction that is being pursued here and find an alternative that's consistent: at this point doing both the same way or not doing them at all. And if you solution is not at all, then how are you all going to deal with the example you've just been confronted with? Think I'm exaggerating. While we speak, I'm engaged in a discussion with Elliott where he repeatedly makes the claim that all Louisville does is cry foul on race in debates? Do you really think he is the only person who believes this in the community? In fact, I'd argue that most of you likely agree with that assessment. As I sit and write my book today, I unsure you I have more examples of judges dismissing the feelings of my students by saying "it isn't race", then I have judges who demonstrated empathy and validation for those feelings. In the same way Sherry feels outraged that people are dismissing Wende's feelings about her experiences, which NO ONE can challenge, this community is so hypocritical and complicit about this with regards to racial sensitivity it isn't funny? But wait, making jokes about our collective over-sensitivity is how most of you handle it, isn't it? Here's how it's going to go down: you put racial harassment in your philosophy, you best be prepared to defend it. You leave it out and include sexual harassment, you'd best be prepared to defend that too. You choose to not put anything it, you'd best be prepared to defend why that choice won't create more ugly situations like the injuries to Wende. Sorry if that creates the proverbial no win situation for you folks, but we will not allow issues important to us continue to be treated with less specificity just to legitimate others who want to feel good about themselves. That's called inferiority and further demonstrates why racial disparities exist so heavily here. This entire community owes more than lip service when it's convenient to the race issue, and creating workable and consistent solutions is only just and fair. Even if that forces reconsideration of many existing beliefs in this community. Tiffany forward this to the troops...we can and will mobilize around this issue. Yea, that's a top down decision. It's called leadership. I'm very, very comfortable that when I speak for my students, they will be down with my call. That's because we share a set of experiences that create a shared frustration. When they understand what is going here, I won't need to beg them to act accordingly. More proof of racial difference. Will all of them agree? Likely not, a couple won't. Do I have a problem with requiring collective action as a precondition to move forward strategically in an effort to make our movement? Not at all. You see that's another contradiction that most in the community can't get past: the absolute belief in individualism and the need at times for minorities to engage in collective action. You see, it is still voluntary...if they don't want to march with the rest of the soldiers, then can quit. What they can't do is undermine the mission of the collective? Why is this justified? Because the nature and scope of the social injustice that is going down at this moment is a level of severity that I'm willing to risk the alienation of a few for the souls of the many. Y'all do it...don't believe me. Go back and reread the above paragraph carefully then get back with me. We will be using Affirmative Action judging this weekend to increase diversity in the judging pool. Our choice increases the likelihood that more women and minorities participate equally in this community which is a benefit to the entire community. However, coalition building is not and should not be one-sided, it should require consideration on both sides. Demanding that all judges, especially women, create equal treatment to protect the minority interests of students for a fair and equal racial climate is not too much to ask. I hope others consider our lead, to pr efer unrepresented groups and to accept the responsibilities that go along with participation in this community, beginning with equality and justice for all. Sincerely, Ede >>>
From: "Sherry Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 11/8/2007 6:59 AM Subject: [CEDA-L] Judging Philosophy I'm still trying to figure out how to post my now updated philosophy. Perhaps it was not as easy as I said in the last message. Once I get a definitive answer how to do it, I'll pass it along. For your information, here is the new language that I have added to my philosophy: In addition to the theoretical preferences, I do have some views regarding decorum in the round. 1. As I mentioned above, I view myself as an educator and consider the debate round to be a learning environment. I believe that both basic civil rights law, as articulated in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and subsequent state laws, as well as basic ethics requires that debaters and judges conduct themselves in rounds in a manner that protects the rights of all participants to an environment free of racial/sexual hostility or harassment. I am inclined to disallow language and performances that would be considered harassment in a regular class-room setting. I have no problem with discussions that include sexual issues, but if the incorporation of pornography, sexual simulation, sexual threats against the other team, nudity, etc., creates a hostile environment for the other participants in the round, then it should not be presented. If you think your debate performance potentially crosses the line and could constitute sexual and/or racial harassment, your safest bet is to warn the other team before the round and ask if they have any objections. I consider a request from the opposing team or me to not use explicit language/material/performance to be a signal of their/my discomfort and deserving of your respect. I view the intentional decision to create a hostile environment without respecting the feelings of the opposing team to be an unethical practice that will be treated the same way as other ethical violations such as fabricating evidence loss and zero speaker points. Sherry
_______________________________________________ CEDA-L mailing list [email protected] http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
