[eDebate] [CEDA-L] Accusations of Illegal Debating

[NEIL BERCH]

And that's why I qualified my response by saying I hadn't seen Shawn's 
students.  Matt indicates that the performance doesn't "[cross] the line."  
That may very well be the case.  I think, however, it is important to 
acknowledge that there is a line.--Neil



>From: matt stannard <stannardmatt at hotmail.com>

>To: NEIL BERCH <berchnorto at msn.com>, Shawn T Whalen <swhalen at sfsu.edu>, 

>Sherry Hall <shahall at comcast.net>

>CC: <edebate at ndtceda.com>, <ceda-l at ndtceda.com>

>Subject: RE: [eDebate] [CEDA-L]  Accusations of Illegal Debating

>Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 07:28:57 -0600

>

>

>Unless the performance has changed significantly since I saw it at UNLV, I 

>don't see where it crosses the line.  There is sexually explicit language 

>and a story about a hypothetical kidnapping victim being forced into 

>same-sex activity by the Taliban and Osama bin Laden.  Clothes stay on; 

>there's a bit of simulated sex.  It's all very theatrical and in fact 

>reminds me of political theater.  Most importantly, all the sex stuff is 

>grounded in theory, again blatantly and transparently so, like "here's what 

>this means, here's why we're doing what we're doing."  In my opinion there 

>is absolutely nothing "harassing" about the 1AC given my understanding of 

>either legal or organizational sexual harassment norms (assuming, again, 

>that the performance hasn't changed).

>

>As a GA for Long Beach I used to have to judge IEs and commonly saw things 

>like simulated oral sex, womyn grabbing their breasts a lot, gyrations of 

>every conceivable kind.  If the complaint in question is about the 1AC, I'd 

>hate to see what would happen if the complaintant attended the NIET...

>mjs

>

>

>From: berchnorto at msn.comTo: swhalen at sfsu.edu; shahall at comcast.netDate: Fri, 

>2 Nov 2007 08:23:34 -0400CC: eDebate at ndtceda.com; 

>ceda-l at ndtceda.comSubject: Re: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] Accusations of Illegal 

>Debating

>

>

>

>

>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

>To: Shawn T Whalen

>Cc: Shawn T Whalen ; NEIL BERCH ; eDebate at ndtceda.com ; ceda-l at ndtceda.com

>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

>To: Sherry Hall

>Cc: Shawn T Whalen ; NEIL BERCH ; eDebate at ndtceda.com ; ceda-l at ndtceda.com

>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.ShawnShawn--

>

>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 =

>_________________________________________________________________

>Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Café. Stop by 

>today.

>http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_OctWLtagline