I didn't realize that the private backchannel -- which was an attempt to answer
the attack you made on my efforts to address questions of sexual harassment 15
years ago as ignoring other forms of harassment and hostility specific to race
-- meant that I was supposed to not express an opinion on racial harassment. I
invited your input because I value your opinion as someone who has taken the
lead on issues of racial exclusion over the years. You said that you did not
agree with my approach of having the NDT adopt a specific policy. You did not
say that you had any objection to the strategy of having each individual judge
say for her/himself what s/he thinks about hostile learning environments. I
can't imagine what possible objection you have to my philosophy stating that I
think that Civil Rights protections for a non-racially hostile learning
environment should apply to debate rounds. The types of actions/speech that I
am referring to would include: racial slurs, racial jokes, offensive racial
symbols such as the display of a noose in the round. You are correct that the
examples I listed were more relevant to the assessment of sexual harassment,
since that has been the main focus of the recent complaints, but that does not
mean that instances of racial harassment could not be an issue. I see no
reason to say that one type of harassment matters and the other does not.
If all you are saying is that I need to include the same level of specificity
for race as I did for sexual harassment, I will gladly add these examples in.
If your argument is that my understanding of what constitutes a racially
hostile learning environment is wrong, and too much tied to my understanding of
a sexually hostile learning environment, then plesae enlighten me and the rest
of the community as to what constitutes a racially hostile learning
environment. We can have open discussion about those factors like we have been
doing about sexual harassment. All I am trying to say is that I view both
forms of harassment to be illegal and unethical, and nothing in position
against racial harassment is hypocritical.
I believe that my judging philosophy would address your concerns regarding
Louisville debaters being told that they shouldn't feel racially offended in
debate rounds by judges. That is exactly the issue permeating all the debate
on edebate last week about the SFSU incident. If I had been judging the round
you related to me where your debaters asked the other team to quit using the
"N" word, I would have considered that to be an objection to racial harassment
and would have insisted that the team stop or lose the round.
I do not mean to be obtuse, but I don't fundamentally understand what your
objection is. I also don't think that the fact that you and perhaps all of the
rest of the Louisville debaters and coaches have decided that any mention of
racial harassment in the judging philosophy is hypocritical means that everyone
else in the community feels that way. There are other debaters than Louisville
debaters who may find themselves in a racially hostile learning environment
that would like to know what the judge thinks about the issue, and would like
to invoke any protections that the judge offers against offensive language and
conduct.
Sherry
----- Original Message -----
From: Ede Warner
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 8:41 AM
Subject: [CEDA-L] Stop the hypocrisy NOW! Don't include race!
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 prefer 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
_______________________________________________
CEDA-L mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
