[eDebate] "Illegal debating" discussion

[James E. Radford jr]

On 11/5/07, James E. Radford jr <jeradford at gmail.com> wrote:

>

> Well-taken. I did want to reply to your characterization of my position

> as "academic freedom should trump all other concerns..." I'm completely

> unconcerned with "academic freedom;" my concern is for regular-old first

> amendment freedom of speech. And I don't think freedom of speech "trumps all

> other concerns." I think there is a balancing act that has to happen in each

> individual instance, and that balance needs to err toward not restricting or

> punishing speech. I worry about throwing the baby out with the bathwater:

> wasn't there some (at least attempted) pedagogical or political value to the

> performance? Does the value of preventing others from feeling harrassed or

> uncomfortable outweigh the value of freely-flowing speech and ideas? I'm not

> answering that question, just asking it.

>

> Another twist to this: from what I understand, the team performed some

> homosexual simulation? If that's the case, then this is far different from

> the harrassment of the past: the guys weren't coming on to or making

> advances toward the women; rather, the debaters simply felt uncomfortable by

> sexual imagery. Would they have felt just as uncomfortable if this had been

> two women simulating sex? And, if so, would this discussion make sense? Just

> something to mull over.

>

> And I don't mean to discourage Wende or anyone else from speaking their

> mind and calling things whatever they want to call them. Just trying to add

> to the discussion.. J.

>

>

>

> On 11/5/07, Sherry Hall <shahall at comcast.net> wrote:

> >

> >  The threatened sexual assault I referred to in an earlier post occurred

> > at another tournament, but involved this same team.  It was explained as a

> > situation where the usual performance "got out of hand."  I was not

> > asserting that a violent sexual assault had been threatened in this debate.

> > I just want back and re-read Wende's post.  I thought she had originally

> > said it included showing pornography, but I agree that that is not in

> > there.  Someone else had written me right before Wende's post and said that

> > it did include pornography, so I confused the two posts.   Whether there was

> > pornography shown or not, does not change the fact that the explicit

> > sexuality created a hostile environment, that this was communicated to the

> > team, and that the coach for that team responded that that was their

> > intended purpose.   It is this admission that the debaters are knowlingly

> > and intentionally creating an environment that makes it impossible for

> > someone else to particpate that I take exception with.

> >

> > I guess I fundamentally disagree with you and Shawn that academic

> > freedom should trump all other concerns.  When I debated there were less

> > than 10 women at the NDT and only one coach who was a woman.  People sat

> > around trying to figure out why more women chose not to participate in

> > college debate.  A not insubstantial number of us concluded that sexual

> > harassment, both in rounds and among squads, was a big part of the problem.

> > We embarked on a grass-roots consciousness raising campaign in the early

> > 90s.  At that time we said that our goal was to try to make people aware of

> > the kinds of practices and actions that made debating difficult for women.

> > I felt strongly that an explicit policy against sexual harassment was

> > unnecessary because most of the people in this activity are basically

> > respectful of each other.  This incident, and other recent incidents, are

> > causing me to rethink this position.  I think it is time that this community

> > decided whether or not we are willing to say that people can say or

> > do whatever they want in a debate round regardless of the consequences it

> > has on other participant's sense of empowerment, sense of

> > inclusion/exclusion, and ultimately the overall levels of diversity of

> > participation.

> >

> > As for whether or not it was correct for Wende to characterize the SFSU

> > performance as "illegal", I have to disagree with you again.  Title IX makes

> > it illegal to create sexually or racially hostile learning environments.

> > This is an academic activity, most of the coaches are professors or at least

> > employees of universities, all of the participants are students at

> > universities (at least they are supposed to be :--) ).  The battle to

> > include legal protections against sexual and racial discrimination in this

> > country was a hard fought one, and if someone, especially a freshman, has

> > the courage to stand up and express her discomfort with this situation,

> > which is not the cool thing to do, and not an easy thing to do, then you

> > should not tell her that it is wrong for her to invoke the legal protections

> > that she is entitled to.

> >

> > I am still mulling over what I think we as a community should do to

> > address this situation.  I am leaning toward a declaratory policy that says

> > that harassing speech and performance in debate rounds is unethical behavior

> > that should be treated like other unethical behavior in debate rounds --

> > such as fabricating evidence.  This would obviously require some sort of

> > definition of harassment, and that is going to be difficult.  But I gather

> > from Shawn's posts and some of those that followed, that there is

> > disagreement over whether or not intentionally harassing one's opponents

> > should be protected, and that question needs to be answered.  My idea would

> > still leave it up to the individual judge to decide how to address a

> > specific allegation in a round, just as the judge does with allegations of

> > cheating.  It has been reported to me that the judges in the debate in

> > question were at a loss as to what they were supposed to do.  I think a

> > declaratory policy might help prevent other people who feel that their

> > opponents are creating a hostile environment from being silenced.  It might

> > also help judges who want to take a stand against the "argument" but don't

> > feel that the rules back them up.  I am not interested in creating the

> > sexual harassment police who will go from room to room looking to see if

> > everyone is behaving in a proper manner.  I think that all the women from

> > Cal Poly were asking in this situation was for their feelings to be

> > respected.  If this policy causes teams that push the envelope to be a

> > little more careful and respectful of the feelings of their opponents, then

> > I think that is a good thing.  You can call this censorship if you want to,

> > I call it basic respect.

> >

> > Sherry

> >

> >

> > ----- Original Message -----

> > *From:* James E. Radford jr <jeradford at gmail.com>

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

> > *Sent:* Monday, November 05, 2007 3:38 PM

> > *Subject:* Re: [eDebate] "Illegal debating" discussion

> >

> >

> > From my reading of the discussion, I gathered that there was some

> > speculation that there had been something sinister, like the showing of

> > pornography or threats of sexual assault.. But, based on Wendy's post, I

> > concluded that that had not happened, but rather, the debaters had done some

> > sort of "performance" on which they simulated sex acts on one another, but

> > there was no nudity. My post assumed no porn and no assault-threats.

> >

> > In-round pornography might, in my mind, constitute harrassment

> > (although, in the context of debate, I would be wary to attach a legal

> > penalty even to porn, for freedom-of-speech concerns, if the display served

> > to further some legitimate pedagogical/political/artistic goal).

> >

> > And I think that Wende, or anyone, certainly has a "right" to call

> > whatever happened harrassment, but, I worry that the discussion of whether

> > the "performance" was inappropriate or even immoral might be obscured by the

> > use of a legal term that means something specific. In other words, lets not

> > confuse the "was it legal" issue with the "was it right" issue.

> >

> > Moreover, I worry that reference to illegality serves to deter

> > potentially offensive speech, which, from my standpoint, and from a

> > constitutional standpoint, is the worst thing possible. There are also

> > obvious line-drawing problems, if the touchstone is whether an act creates a

> > "hostile environment," especially when the very task of debate is to defeat

> > an opponent with a agressively-delivered torrent of combative words.

> >

> >

> > On 11/5/07, Sherry Hall <shahall at comcast.net > wrote:

> > >

> > >  You leave out the showing of pornography to people who have asked not

> > > to be exposed to it.  I think that that clearly violates the sexual

> > > harassment definition at Harvard. Hanging posters of scantily clad women in

> > > office settings has been deemed to violate sexual harassment laws by

> > > creating a hostile working environment under Title VII.  I think the key

> > > here is whether or not the actions created a hostile environment.  I believe

> > > that Wende has indicated that her partner did perceive this to be hostile.

> > > An environment that renders one so uncomfortable as to not be able to

> > > participate in the round seems pretty hostile to me.  I also think it is not

> > > very helpful for you or anyone else to suggest that Wende and her partner

> > > are wrong to characterize this as sexual harassment.  They are the ones that

> > > experienced it, and you are not really in any position to challenge their

> > > perceptions of how they felt.  If they felt they were harassed, if they felt

> > > the environment was hostile, then for them it was.  We as a community have

> > > to decide how we are going to deal with these situations.  We can continue

> > > to turn a blind eye and watch more and more women leave this activity, or we

> > > can acknowledge that some basic standards of respect for the other

> > > participants in this game are in order.  I applaud Wende's openness in

> > > explaining what happened, and wholeheartedly support her right to call it

> > > sexual harassment if she sees fit.

> > >

> > > Sherry

> > >

> > >

> > > ----- Original Message -----

> > > *From:* James E. Radford jr <jeradford at gmail.com>

> > > *To:* edebate at ndtceda.com

> > > *Sent:* Monday, November 05, 2007 12:20 PM

> > > *Subject:* [eDebate] "Illegal debating" discussion

> > >

> > >

> > >  I've been following this discussion with some interest, and wanted to

> > > add something briefly:

> > >

> > > I think it's important to note that "sexual harrassment" is understood

> > > by most to have a specific legal definition, and, when a specific act or set

> > > of acts takes place that meets that definition, those acts may constitute

> > > one element of a legal claim, in court, for monetary damages, under law.

> > > Similarly, many institutions, such as universities, have their own

> > > definitions of specific acts or processes that constitute "sexual

> > > harrassment," and, if one engages in those acts, there is some specific

> > > penalty involved.

> > >

> > > While Wende may be correct that her partner felt uncomfortable and

> > > offended by the team's sexual simulations, it is a big leap to jump from

> > > "offended" or "uncomfortable" to "the team engaged in specific acts which

> > > are proscribed by (a) law, entitling us to monetary damages, or (b)

> > > institutional policy, subjecting the team to a penalty."

> > >

> > > So, there should really be two separate discussions here: (1) Did the

> > > actions constitute actionable "sexual harrassment," and (2) Even if not,

> > > were the actions so reprehensible and offensive, and so lacking in

> > > pedagogical, artistic, or political value, that the team should not have

> > > done the performance?

> > >

> > > I think that, based on Wende's characterization, the actions probably

> > > did not meet the def of "sexual harrassment," and, in that case, that term

> > > should probably be extracted from the debate, so that we can focus on the

> > > merits of the performance and not get distracted by a misleading legal term.

> > >

> > >

> > > Just my two cents, J.

> > >

> > > ------------------------------

> > >

> > > _______________________________________________

> > > eDebate mailing list

> > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com

> > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

> > >

> > >

> >

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20071105/ba206240/attachment.htm