Question #1-- Several national tournaments have recently enacted policies that preclude the public posting of video-recorded debates, but allow for "private sharing". Whether that sharing is limited to the college community, or might include interested high school debaters, etc., remains unclear. 1. What is your opinion about having a similar policy for CEDA Nationals? 2. What limitations do you think should exist, if any, on sharing video with high school debaters or others outside the CEDA community? 3. How should such policies intersect with programs who assert their policy is not to allow their debaters to be video-recorded?
I disagree with these policies. Let me preface the more detailed answer by explaining a few qualifications. Because I was a lawyer and because I teach 1st Amendment and Communication law courses, I tend to look at all of these issues from a legal perspective first, then I have my personal opinions. There is a distinction between what people this the law is and what the law really is. 1. CEDA should not have a policy prohibiting the videotaping and publication of debates conducted at CEDA Nationals…nor should it condone the censorship of videotaping debates at CEDA sanctioned tournaments. Those policies are absurd and unenforceable given the ability (constitutionally protected) to post material on the internet anonymously. To clarify two points of law on this issue, first, there is no expectation of privacy in the communication acts at tournaments. These are public events hosted by public institutions, with students from public institutions. Second, the “appropriation of likeness” without permission is a non-starter for a number of reasons. Similar to having your picture taken on a public sidewalk having an argument with a traffic cop, you have no expectation of privacy. As long as the person posting is not deriving financial gain from its publication, you do not have much a of trademark or copyright claim. So, the legal basis for preventing the publication of these public speech acts is on shaky legal ground. My opinion is that these debates should be open to taping. It begs the question of what policy debate is in the first place. Is college policy debate a series of private moments of student self-exploration, or is policy debate supposed to be a serious discussion of policy issues facing the nation. Millions of taxpayer dollars are spent on policy debate. My assumption is that most people would see policy debate’s justification as a serious discussion of policy issues. Save the self-exploration for your therapist. The underlying educational function of policy debate means that we have an obligation to our various “publics” when we debate. The more ways in which policy debate is transmitted to the public serves the overall educational goals of the organization. There is also a question of insularity. I am troubled by the same people that want absolute freedom of speech for debaters within rounds, but then want to engage in the worst form of censorship…prior restraint…regarding the videotaping of debate rounds. The inconsistency baffles me. 2. No limit on sharing videotapes with anyone…including the news media. If you are embarrassed by the stunts you pull in a debate round, or the language you use, clean up your act or be willing to defend your actions to the public. 3. They can make the claim and you can try to persuade people not to videotape. However, I do not think they have an expectation of privacy. I do not think CEDA should have a policy of banning videotaping. They can forfeit the round if they are in a twist on the issue. One caveat, there may be a claim on religious grounds, but that would be an exception to the principle.. Question #2-- Assume there is some glimmer of possibility for a program to emerge (students seeking to establish one, a faculty member trying to get it started, etc.). What sort of support, in the form of information, letter wCEDA has been making several improvements on recruiting and supporting new programs. Without giving a huge list, I will be the first to give credit the Mike Davis, Vik Keenan and M.L. Sandoz for their work on this issue. I think M.L.’s example of Vanderbilt helping the University of Houston serves as a model that can be scaled up. I think that CEDA should be more aggressive in recruiting programs. We need a few things to do this: 1. A new coach training seminar; 2. Evidence made available for new programs; 3. Designation of a mentoring school with incentives for that program to help the new program (reduced fees; etc.); 4. A professionally produced recruiting packet for university administrators. Programs require funding. That requires institutional support. They requires a marketing campaign involving academic and institutional justifications for policy debate. Question #3-- Some would like to see CEDA Nationals attended by most or all NDT 1st round teams. 1. Do you think this is an important objective? 2. What actions would you take to pursue it? 3. What changes in the tournament would you be open to make in order to make it happen? 1. No. Not important. My program’s value in attending CEDA Nationals has never been based on the NDT. 2 and 3. I would not pursue it unless the majority of the CEDA community voted on the issue. So, how would that vote come down? It is pretty obvious to me why those who NDT teams do not attend CEDA Nationals…it conflicts with their prep for the NDT. The solution, and you all know what it is already, is that CEDA will have to change its Nationals scheduling priorities. This means we would have to guarantee that CEDA would be hosted after the NDT. That is what it will come down to. Consequently, CEDA will further identify itself as an organization that is of secondary importance to the NDT. The whoring out will be virtually complete. If that is the overwhelming desire of CEDA, I guess I will carry out its actions. This means, of course, hosting Nationals sometime in April…which is impossible because we have to host Nationals on some school’s spring break. You folks better think of the logistics of your choices before you make that decision. One alternative suggestion…we suggest that the NDT be run at CEDA Nationals. How would that work? People can still get their Copeland award and still be recognized as an NDT top seed. Then, they participate in CEDA Nationals. No NDT. Now, you all know this is never going to happen. But it does illustrate an important point. Why is it CEDA always has to be the organization that rolls over to the NDT? What has the NDT EVER compromised on in favor of CEDA? Question #4-- How do you feel about having electronic business meetings to allow those of us who cannot attend nca an opportunity to participate more in ceda? (eg via an online bulletin board, via edebate/ceda-l, etc.) I am in favor of electronic participation. The video conferencing for the Topic Committee this summer was an excellent example of how this can be done. Question #5-- What will each of you do to help revive programs at smaller colleges who have lost their programs either by funding shortfalls or administration apathy? See my answer on Question #2. A real marketing campaign with a professionally produced brochure package and a mentoring program that rewards existing programs for bring new schools into the organization. Question #6-- Under what conditions, if any, would you accept, advocate or defend the content regulation of a CEDA-sanctioned intercollegiate debate? The Professionalism Amendment answers most of this issue. So, I will answer that issue here at the same time. The answers to this question will probably demonstrate the distinction between what people think Freedom of Speech means and what FOS really is in the United States. There are some people who think that public debate tournaments are laboratories for students to try anything they wof intellectual inquiry. That is wrong. It is a public forum and standard first amendment law applies. The same people who make these broadstroke pronouncements of absolute freedom start to shy away when confronted with reality. I can give too many examples of “content-regulation” that will make even the most committed free speech anarchist cringe. If a student wants to engage in self-immolation to protest CAFO’s…do we prevent it or at least punish the act after the fact? I say yes. What about a student reading evidence from some “expert” who claims that real acts of violence are justified…then proceeds to knock the hell out of the debater from the opposing school? What about defecating on the 1AC and handing it back to the First Affirmative Speaker. There was a QJS article on the Rhetoric of Shit. Does this justify the behavior. What about simulating a rape (Yeah, we know it already happened) to the point that it creates a hostile environment? What about use of racist language in order to humiliate or intimidate an opponent of a protected class (race, religion, gender)? Where do we stand as a community on an unprotected class such as gays, lesbians, and transgenders? Are we going to condone, under absolute FOS, someone humiliating a student because of her sexuality? What about destruction of real property….tearing up a room, or ripping down a wall map because it has “evil borders?” There are some clear-cut lines that can be drawn and we should enforce to the point of prior restraint: 1) Obscenity under the current case law (huge leeway); 2) Violence against other persons and against oneself; 3) Acts of intimidation and/or humiliation based on currently identified protected groups; 4) Acts of intimidation and/or humiliation based on a person’s sexuality; 5) Acts of property destruction. Acts censured (not censored) after the fact based on due process under the proposed Professional Responsibility Amendment. Question #7-- What should CEDA in conjunction with the NDT do in the next five years to bring our organizations into the fold of convergence and increase the electronic eloquence of our organizations? Secondarily, what should CEDA in conjunction with the NDT do to foster our students' development of producerly skills necessary to successfully communicate ideas, develop meaningful social and political coalitions, and participate in democratic discourse in the "real world" with all the underlying "implications?" I like computers. I like the internet. I like communicating via the internet. The CEDA website is a great start. We need to shift away from edebate to the CEDA website. I would like more content on the website. I would like the caselist to move to the website. I would like to have the Brushke system integrated into the website. I would like to have videos of debate posted on the website. I would like a virtual tour of policy debate available on the website to aid in program recruitment and retention. I would like a lot of the material Tuna has on his WDI website incorporated in to CEDA. And, if he does not like it, we can start from scratch and model his groundbreaking efforts in this area. Regarding the second part of the question. I do not think the organization should be involved in creating videographers out of debaters. We have a lot on our plate already Question #8-- Describe your ideal debate round, team, squad, tournament, and community. My ideal round: The 1AC presents a plan that is pretty close to being topical, but I am not sure. The case has real would impacts and some critical ground implications. The 1NC presents a conditional counterplan, a case specific disad and then thirty case turns. 2AC runs an add-on to give more weight to the plan minus the c-plan; impact turns the disad, and gets out of the case turns. All hell breaks loose in the block. The 1AR does a stand up series of discoes to get out of the case turns and goes for the impact turns on the disad for the easy win. 2NR goes for the case turns and the impacimpact the impact turns to her own disad. 2AR makes a brilliant time frame and impact analysis. My team is the ideal team. I have a mix of National caliber debaters and debaters who will probably never break at a tournament. The one’s who will never break will gain more from debate over the long run than the debaters who make to finals most weekends. Open to all, but feisty in terms of challenging each other’s assumptions on all aspects of life. Tournament: The Mardi Gras Tournament, of course. A humane schedule, plenty to do after debate rounds. Community. The Community is not edebate, I can tell you that for sure. When I meet people in face to face discussions, the change in attitudes is amazing. There is a reason why we travel to certain tournaments out of our region..it is because we are meeting with members of our extended debate family. We disagree on issues all the time, but we still love to hang out with people that like to argue and that love to show students new ideas and new visions of the world, as it is now or how it could be. Question #9-- What would you do to try and increase the number of teams participating at CEDA Nationals? Free Beer-pong after round 8. I think we officially incorporate some form of Novice and JV division, or break out division. Darren Elliott’s decision this year meant a big difference for my squad. Instead of just two teams traveling to Idaho, we will be bringing four teams. Question #10-- What should CEDA do to revitalize Regional Debate? See my previous answers on recruitment. We need more regional schools in order to have a regional circuit. As I noted in my 2nd VP statement. Louisiana went from 10 schools participating in CEDA zero, and now just one. We could travel to eight tournaments within our own state. Now we have to drive all the way to Dallas. Bring back CEDA Regionals. Question #11-- What experience do you have to make you qualified to be in charge of a National Organization that fulfills both academic and competitive needs of its members? Directing one or more debate programs for over ten years. Participating and or coaching in debate for almost thirty years. My experience as an attorney and as a professor gives me a unique background to address the emerging challenges. Beat Jason Russell in a beer chug contest in 1996. Question #12-- 4 of the 5 years that you serve CEDA, 2 as a VP and 2 as a Past President, you have to work well with others who are the actual President. Whichever one of you wins will have to work well as a unit with Gordon Stables and Sue Peterson (the 2 who will assume the Presidency before you). What do you bring to the table to ensure a smooth and complementary leadership role? I can take Gordon Stables in a physical brawl. Sue…not so sure who will win. I think you will be surprised that I work well with others on an interpersonal level. I am usually focused on how to solve a problem, regardless of my personal views on the situation. For example, I worked with Ede Warner this summer during the business meeting. You all know that I will get into it with people on issues on edebate. But, when it comes to getting work done, I sit down with people and try to work out a solution that we can all live with. Another example, I attended the NDT D3 meeting this fall. I did not call for bolwing up the NDT, or anything else. Rather, I tried to help find some workable solutions to problems raised by members of the NDT District. My wife thinks I am quite charming. Question #13-- Do you feel CEDA should abandon its current leadership structure and move towards another structure? If so, what should the new structure look like? No. Having the 2nd VP work for two years before becoming President allows for a smoother transition. Watch what happens with Obama in his first 100 days, then ask yourself…wouldn’t it be better if he would have had a little on the job training first? Question #14-- Recently CEDA has discussed moving from Regions to self-selecting Conferences. Do you favor thexclusion. I am worried about people gaming the system. I am not really sure what purpose either regions or conferences serve anymore given that some regions do not hold regional championship tournaments or regional meetings. Question #15-- Do you favor a continued use of edebate for ceda business and discussion, or should the organization move towards a list serv that is controlled by the organization? I think edebate should be abandoned. It served its purpose. We should shift discussions to the CEDA website. Have a student forum section. I think this will also cut down of the conspiracy theorists posting “Obama is not a real American” garbage every five minutes. Question #16-- Do you favor the current amendment before the membership on professionalism and ethics? Yes. I worked on the original draft of the proposal. I think Gordon Stables and the others that worked on it did fantastic revisions. I have posted my reasons for support in my VP statement and on edebate. In a nutshell, we have to protect the organization first. We have to protect students and we have to protect programs. It is about time that CEDA move to become an association of professionals. Part of being a profession is having enforceable standards of conduct. Question #17-- How should CEDA respond and under what time table should CEDA respond in the face of publicity or press that puts the organization in a bad light? Who should be consulted? We should respond as quickly as possible. We should be proactive. I will use the most recent example/debacle. And, if members of the current CEDA organization get defensive, then so be it. Chief and Gordon can jump me in the parking lot at Idaho State in March. When things got out of hand at the conclusion of the Ft. Hays/Towson round, CEDA dropped the ball. In typical insularity fashion…they thought that we could all “wish it away.” Well, the audacity of hope might get you elected to the Presidency of the United States, but it will not prevent the publication of such a juicy incident. CEDA dropped the ball in three fundamental ways: 1. It did not move to censure the two culpable actors. Silence was not the best option. 2. It did not take any action on claims made by certain individuals regarding the event. My guess is that this failure to take action may have been part of the reason why the mooning video was placed on YouTube. 3. Ft. Hays and Pitt were not informed of the incident. This was a serious error that I believe resulted in the loss of a great program. Jason and Andy talk a good game about public relations. But, I have yet to see any specifics. Here is a specific example of classic public relations failure. A critical aspect of PR is damage control. Our organization’s failure to provide Pitt and Ft. hays with a “heads-up” on this left the President’s of the respective schools wrong-footed. They had to overreact because the story had spun out of hand before they could do damage control. A letter to the respective schools would have gone a long way toward institutional damage control. The respective schools could have been prepared. More importantly, they would not be able to point the finger back at CEDA. We got scapegoated because we failed to act. Next time, when I am Imperial Ruler of all that is real debate, we will put the ball in the schools’ courts. Question #18-- Should CEDA have the ability to sanction its own members for behavior unbecoming a professional, such as verbal, physical, or sexual harassment? Whether CEDA sanctions the offender or not, should CEDA report complaints to the home institution of the offender and if so, how should that report be made and by whom? That is the Professional Responsibility Amendment. Please take time to read it. I helped draft those portions that the question seeks answers. The PRA will sanction violations of those listed in this question, after due process. There is an investigation and adjudication procedure. Thfired. Maybe they should be fired. How that report is drafted and sent is covered by the PRA. Question #19-- Finally, why do you want to be President of the organization? My priorities in life are as follows. My daughter is first. My wife is second. My debate team is third. Shadow, my Pomeranian is fourth. My family is fifth. Debate is sixth. I have been engaged in the activity since 1981. I have been a member of CEDA since 1984. My only goal is to provide more access of research based debate to as many students as possible. I think CEDA serves a vital function of promoting research based debate. Despite my rhetoric on some issues, I only want CEDA to succeed and to flourish as an organization. I want it to regain it prominence as the Nation’s leading forensics organization. _______________________________________________ CEDA-L mailing list [email protected] http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
