[eDebate] "Illegal debating" discussion

[James E. Radford jr]

And. as a postscript.. I just Shawn's post.. It seems that there teams are
doing whatever they're doing for a political purpose that is highly
legitimate and well thought-out. I don't think anyone should be deterred
from speaking and performing the things that are important to them. I think
we can draw a ready distinction between what they are doing and a jerky
coach talking aloud about the titty bar in front of young female students.

The occasional discomfort and offense is the price we pay for a culture
of unfettered political speech. What if the complaint was that a team from
Army, who had lost their best friends in Iraq, felt uncomfortable, to the
point of tears, when teams advanced arguments that cast the war as a farce?
I think we would be quick to defend the teams advancing those arguments,
even if it led Army to feel hurt or excluded.


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

>

> Neil---The first amendment argument makes sense in relation to one's

> speech subjecting them to an actionable claim in court for which a judgment

> may be enforced via the coercive power of the state. I realize that, in that

> context, protections for speech aren't absolute ( e.g. libel, slander,

> "true threats," etc.), but there is a balancing act that has to be performed

> to weigh the first amendment concerns vs. the benefit of making the speech

> actionable. Of course I realize that the first amendment does not apply to,

> for example, the debate community's attempt to discourage or penalize

> speech. Imus's firing from NBC did not violate the first amendment; but most

> of the legal claims against him by the b.ball players were dropped, most

> likely, because any judgment would run into first amendment concerns. I

> refered to the first amendment in the context of my concern that someone

> would bring a legal claim for sexual harrassment.

>

> Sherry---Thanks for engaging me in this discussion. Although I have a bit

> more libertarian view on this issue, I respect the need to prevent behaviors

> that discourage women (or anyone else) from benefiting from debate.

>

>

>  On 11/5/07, Shawn T Whalen <swhalen at sfsu.edu> wrote:

> >

> > Sherry,

> >

> > As read these last few posts, you support a policy that would provide

> > judges the ability to render decisions on hostile environment claims and the

> > passage below suggests that the only necessary proof of the allegation would

> > be the feelings of those making the accusation.  Are you really comfortable

> > with the effect that would have?

> >

> > Hostile environments can be created in a variety of ways and their is

> > case law on race, religion, ethnicity etc. in addition to those resulting

> > from sexual harassment.  I cannot imagine a single contemporary academic

> > debate where someone could not make such a claim.  The effect of this logic

> > seems devasting to me.

> >

> > On a completely seperate note, I am continually amazed at the speed to

> > which people assert the hostility of our affirmative to women.  First and

> > foremost, go see the damn thing before you make a judgement.  The Cal Poly

> > debaters never made that assertion and nothing in Wende's post seemed to say

> > that either, except that Wende and her partner happen to be women.  (It is

> > also not accurate that any SF State coach said that the argument was

> > designed to be hostile to women or anyone).  The reduction of sexual

> > discussions and sexual behavior to biological sexual catagories of male and

> > female are at the heart of heteronormativity.

> >

> > Also, let me ask you to consider the position of my students a bit more

> > (and I am not referring to just the two debaters who run this argument).  If

> > we should be concerned about the effect that arguments have on

> > participation, we should consider my students as well.  In 10 years working

> > with undergraduates at SF State, the most unifying similarity I've witnessed

> > is a sentitivity to the effects of heteronormativity on their expressions of

> > self.  The criticism in this performance is evident in most of the

> > perfomances done by our individual events students as well.  If you outlaw

> > these discussions (and the aesthetic choices necessary to leverage them)

> > then you exclude them.

> >

> >

> > Shawn

> >

> >

> > Sherry said:

> >

> > "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...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."

>

>

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20071105/064aa2e7/attachment.htm