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

[NEIL BERCH]

Josh--It's my understanding that the CEDA Sexual Harassment Liaison is only 
for CEDA Nationals, or at least only has "authority" at CEDA Nationals.  
Perhaps Jan or one of her successors could comment.--Neil



>From: Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com>

>To: "Sherry Hall" <shahall at comcast.net>

>CC: Shawn T Whalen <swhalen at sfsu.edu>, eDebate at ndtceda.com,NEIL BERCH 

><berchnorto at msn.com>, ceda-l at ndtceda.com

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

>Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 10:16:58 -0400

>

>Hello,

>

>In no way am I taking a stance on the appropriateness of SFSU's affirmative

>(have not seen/heard it).

>

>I was at the meetings way back when the harassment policy was passed and I

>seem to recal that involved the tournament director being ready and in

>contact with the host schools sexual harassment officer/office in such

>instances.  I cannot remember how discretionary the policy was/is but I

>suspect a CEDA officer could answer this easily.  There is also supposed to

>be a CEDA sexual harrassment liason as well (I seem to remember Jan Hovden

>had this office at one point).

>

>Hope all goes well,

>

>Josh

>

>

>

>

>On 11/2/07, Sherry Hall <shahall at comcast.net> wrote:

> >

> >  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 <swhalen at sfsu.edu>

> > *To:* Sherry Hall <shahall at comcast.net>

> > *Cc:* Shawn T Whalen <swhalen at sfsu.edu> ; NEIL BERCH 

><berchnorto at msn.com>;

> > 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.

> >

> > Shawn

> >

> >

> > Shawn--

> >  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

> > =

> >

> >

> > _______________________________________________

> > CEDA-L mailing list

> > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com

> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l

> >

> >




>_______________________________________________

>CEDA-L mailing list

>CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com

>http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l