Ethics of changing language in evidence

SCOTT HARRIS sharris
Fri Apr 14 15:23:31 CDT 2000


Jan,

Do you think it would be wrong when reading the evidence which said that
sanctions on Iraq risked spreading infectious disease throught the Middle
East region to highlight it so you orally said it would spread disaseases
throughout the region without underligning the words Middle East?  Would
this mean I still linked to the Middle East K because it was in the
evidence even if I didn't read those words?










On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, Jan Hovden wrote:

> I think there are a couple of distinctions to be made.  First, not all
> fields accept the outright changing of the language.  Many publication
> manuals prefer puting [sic] behind the offensive term or word that is no
> longer considered the appropriate word.  The second and more important
> element  is that we read our evidence orally.  People can't tell by
> hearding the evidence whether or not the words were changed.  This has
> the potential to affect how the evidence is received.  First, if the
> gendered language does affect the authors argument, people would not be
> able to determine this when they hear the evidence.  They would only be
> able determine it if they read the evidence.  This is problematic to me
> for a couple of reasons.  First, it masks the gendered implications of
> the evidence.  If the gendered language does affect the author's,
> argument hiding the language is unfair in a competetive framework.
> People shouldn't have to read every piece of evidence to determine it.
> They should be able to hear it when they listen for it.  Secondly, it
> masks the sexism that is still rampant in society as a whole.  This
> solution allows people who don't read the cards to come away with a
> false sense of what is really happening in the world.  You don't see the
> world as it really is.  I think this is educationally detrimental.  In
> addition, you are changing the authors intent.  Many people who
> currently write and do use gendered language do it on purpose.  I don't
> think I have the right to change another persons intentions.  Finally, I
> think it sets a bad precedent.  Can we now delete Middle East out of our
> evidence to avoid the Middle East kritik?  How far are we willing to go
> and can you really draw a distinction.
>
> Jan
>
> Team Topic Debating in America wrote:
>
> > From: Harry Nathanael Niska <hnniska at GLORIA.CORD.EDU>@LIST.UVM.EDU> on
> >
> >       04/14/2000 01:35 PM EST
> >
> > Please respond to Harry Nathanael Niska <hnniska at GLORIA.CORD.EDU>
> >
> > To:   EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
> > cc:
> > Subject:  Re: Ethics of changing language in evidence
> >
> > Actually, I think there is a pretty decent precedent for changing
> > language
> > in quotations that does not effect the core meaning of the quotation.
> > Lots of old quotations have been reprinted with more inclusive terms.
> > The
> > way this is usually done is by putting the editor's term in brackets.
> > For instance, I could quote the Declaration of Independence as, "We
> > hold
> > these truths to be self evident, that all [people] are created equal."
> >
> > These types of editing changes happen at least in journalism, if not
> > in
> > other scholarly work.
> >
> > I think that the precedent for editing changes like this exists also
> > due
> > to the underlining people make in evidence.  Just as people choose
> > which
> > part of the quotation to read, I think they should be able to insert
> > more
> > inclusive pronouns if that doesn't change the argument.  However, the
> > original should be available to show that the change didn't actually
> > change the intent of the author.
> >
> > Harry
> >
> > On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, Steven Hunt wrote:
> >
> > > I have not seen any discussion of the ethics of changing language in
> >
> > > evidence to make it gender neutral. My own opinion is that changing
> > any
> > of
> > > the original language of an author or authors is unethical. You just
> >
> > can't
> > > should not do this according to the scholarly precepts I was taught.
> >
> > > You can put the evidence in context. You can apologize for it. You
> > can
> > > explain it. BUT you can't change it. The automatic assumption that
> > > debaters can and should go through evidence crossing out
> > paternalistic
> > > language is a precedent that disturbs me greatly. I assume we should
> > also
> > > cross out racist, agist, elitist, slanted language too!
> > >  What do others
> > > believe on this issue. Steve Hunt Lewis & Clark College
> > >
> > > q
> > >
>

#####LOCO IN LAWRENCE#####

>From  Fri Apr 14 16:44:12 2000
Message-Id: <FRI.14.APR.2000.164412.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 123400 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 16:45:02
 -0400
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-d08.mx.aol.com (imo-d08.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.40]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA30636 for
 <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 16:44:55 -0400
Received: from MattHRice at aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id
 n.1a.206a8e2 (4004) for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Fri, 14 Apr 2000
 16:44:12 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_1a.206a8e2.2628dd1c_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 61
Message-ID: <1a.206a8e2.2628dd1c at aol.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 16:44:12 EDT
Reply-To: MattHRice at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Matt Rice <MattHRice at AOL.COM>
Subject: Eric Truett ruminates on the NCAA-NDT connection

--part1_1a.206a8e2.2628dd1c_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Clearly, a rough day at the office for Mr. Truett.  Enjoy.

Matt


From: etruett at nas.edu

Subject: please post to edebate


Someone sent me a message on the NDT-NCAA Basketball connection.  Given that
the
tournaments occur at roughly the same time, I have always been fascinated by
this overlap.  I also have strong memories of my first NDT, where Georgetown
won
the NDT while Duke was trouncing Michigan for the NCAA Title.  Although one
never wants to celebrate a Duke win, it was good by association.

On the women's side (Div 1), there has never been a dual winner or finalist.
This is not especially surprising, given that the women's tournament has only
existed since 1982 and several of the powerhouse women's basketball teams do
not
have NDT programs (Tennessee, UConn, Louisiana Tech, Old Dominion).  A few
teams
have advanced teams to the NDT Finals and the Final Four, but not in the same
year---Georgia (only a year apart) and USC (about a decade apart).

On the men's side, there is ONE team that has won both the NCAAs and the
NDT--UCLA in 1971.  The UCLA team lead by Steve Patterson and Henry Bibby
defeated Villanova for the title.  Villanova was later found guilty of NCAA
violations and their name has been deleted from the historical records
concerning the game.  This marked the 5th of UCLAs unprecedented 7 straight
NCAA
titles, and their 7th title in their amazing stretch of 10 titles in 12 years.
Even Northwestern, Emory and Dartmouth have not achieved that level of
dominance.  The fate of the UCLA debate team was to be overshadowed by the
Wizard of Westwood, but Don Hornstein and Barrett Mcterney as well as coach
Patricia B. Long should be remembered for their accomplishments.

Close calls include:

1962: Ohio State wins the NDT, but the men's team cannot handle Oscar
Robertson
and the Cincinnati Bearcat dynasty.

1982:  Louisville wins the NDT, but are helpless in a final 4 with UNC,
Georgetown, and Houston (one of the few final fours that have 4 teams with NDT
programs at one time or another).  This was Dean Smith's first title, and
featured such famous players as Jordan, Worthy, Ewing, "Sleepy" Floyd,
Drexler,and Olajuwon.  Perhaps the greatest final 4 ever.

1986:  Kentucky wins the NDT, while cross-state rival Lousville, lead by
"Never
Nervous" Pervis Ellison defeats a veteran Duke squad, Coach K's first of many
trips to the final game.  I think this will go down in history as the only
time
I was disappointed by a loss by the Blue Devils.

1989:  Michigan makes it to the final round, but is upended by Baylor.  Glenn
Rice's Wolverines find a less formidable opponent in Seton Hall.  Maybe if the
NDT included an overtime (a 3AR, perhaps?), UMich could have pulled off the
double.

2000:  MSU steamrolls to the basketball title, but the debate team comes up a
free throw short of the double.

Future prospects include:

Georgia--has very strong women's team, and Jim Harrick has won it all before.
Can the debate team hold up their end of the bargain?

Kansas--strong showing against Duke gives hope, but defection to NBA of Big
Red
and Eber hurts short-term chances.  Harris wants to know--Is Mellman/Margariel
the next Ostertag or Chenowith?

MSU--needs to rebuild at both levels, but has coaching staff and access to
talent pool to do it again.  Will the Flint, MI debate team give the Spartans
the "posse" it needs to keep things going.  Broken Arrow has already produced
2
top-flight debaters this decade--you can only go to the well so many times.

Michigan--always a double threat, although basketball team has slumped
recently.
Mancuso appears in better shape than Ellerbee at this point, but he'd sure
like
some of those full scholarships to throw around.

Gonzaga--always dangerous shooting the 3 or spewing the DA.  Will Frappier
follow Monson to the Gophers?

Wake--have plenty of talent, but haven't been the same since Prestes and
Duncan
graduated.  A coincidence?  And who would have thought that ex-Deacs would
become all-stars like Woods, Ryan, and Langwell.  Lute Olson coached at Iowa
before Arizona.  A coincidence?  And when will Ross Smith get his own radio
show
broadcast from the Tavern?

Kentucky--both teams out in the round of 32 this year, but the frenetic style
of
both squads makes them a threat (and not just to themselves, each other, or
society at large)  :)  And will Solt take over for Pittino in the Boston
organization?

Louisville--Denny Crum should take some lessons from Ede Warner.  At the same
time, Denny won two NCAA titles while Ede was running a funeral home.  As an
aside, Darrell "Dr. Dunkenstein" Griffith would be pretty wicked throwing
down a
two-handed Racial Gendertivity K.

Texas--foundation is strong with solid coaching for all 3 teams.  Was one of
few
teams with a legitimate shot to do damage in all 3 tourneys.  In the end, the
debate team got the best of it.  Evans kritiks Mihms hook shot, causing him to
rethink why he was foolish enough to advance the hierarchical project of
scoring
points.  The Bulls use their lottery pick to draft a copy of Heidegger's
"Being
and Time"




----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
Return-Path: <etruett at nas.edu>
Received: from  rly-yb01.mx.aol.com (rly-yb01.mail.aol.com [172.18.146.1]) by
air-yb02.mail.aol.com (v70.20) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 14:11:25 -0400
Received: from  himalaya.nas.edu (himalaya.nas.edu [144.171.1.23]) by
rly-yb01.mx.aol.com (v71.10) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 14:10:47 -0400
Received: from smtpmta.nas.edu (smtpmta.nas.edu [144.171.1.40])
    by himalaya.nas.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA17617;
    Fri, 14 Apr 2000 14:05:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by smtpmta.nas.edu(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.6  (890.1 7-16-1999))  id
852568C1.0063BA21 ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 14:09:17 -0400
X-Lotus-FromDomain: NAS
From: "Eric Truett" <etruett at nas.edu>
To: jniedfeldt-thomas at arcstp.org, amfxg at hotmail.com, kwon at sitescape.com,
        CMcIntos at CSIS.ORG, kaisermcmullen at hotmail.com, tmcrae at pcl.org,
        parcherj at mindspring.COM, matthrice at aol.com, shorge_sato at hotmail.com,
        cstought at law.harvard.edu, Jwstubbs at aol.com
Message-ID: <852568C1.0063B9C3.00 at smtpmta.nas.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 14:06:40 -0400
Subject: please post to e-debate
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

--part1_1a.206a8e2.2628dd1c_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <etruett at nas.edu>
Received: from  rly-yb01.mx.aol.com (rly-yb01.mail.aol.com [172.18.146.1]) by
        air-yb02.mail.aol.com (v70.20) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 14:11:25
        -0400
Received: from  himalaya.nas.edu (himalaya.nas.edu [144.171.1.23]) by
        rly-yb01.mx.aol.com (v71.10) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 14:10:47
        -0400
Received: from smtpmta.nas.edu (smtpmta.nas.edu [144.171.1.40])
        by himalaya.nas.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA17617;
        Fri, 14 Apr 2000 14:05:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by smtpmta.nas.edu(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.6  (890.1 7-16-1999))  id
        852568C1.0063BA21 ; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 14:09:17 -0400
X-Lotus-FromDomain: NAS
From: "Eric Truett" <etruett at nas.edu>
To: jniedfeldt-thomas at arcstp.org, amfxg at hotmail.com, kwon at sitescape.com,
        CMcIntos at CSIS.ORG, kaisermcmullen at hotmail.com, tmcrae at pcl.org,
        parcherj at mindspring.COM, matthrice at aol.com, shorge_sato at hotmail.com,
        cstought at law.harvard.edu, Jwstubbs at aol.com
Message-ID: <852568C1.0063B9C3.00 at smtpmta.nas.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 14:06:40 -0400
Subject: please post to e-debate
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Send this to your debate friends.

*********************************************
Someone sent me a message on the NDT-NCAA Basketball connection.  Given that the
tournaments occur at roughly the same time, I have always been fascinated by
this overlap.  I also have strong memories of my first NDT, where Georgetown won
the NDT while Duke was trouncing Michigan for the NCAA Title.  Although one
never wants to celebrate a Duke win, it was good by association.

On the women's side (Div 1), there has never been a dual winner or finalist.
This is not especially surprising, given that the women's tournament has only
existed since 1982 and several of the powerhouse women's basketball teams do not
have NDT programs (Tennessee, UConn, Louisiana Tech, Old Dominion).  A few teams
have advanced teams to the NDT Finals and the Final Four, but not in the same
year---Georgia (only a year apart) and USC (about a decade apart).

On the men's side, there is ONE team that has won both the NCAAs and the
NDT--UCLA in 1971.  The UCLA team lead by Steve Patterson and Henry Bibby
defeated Villanova for the title.  Villanova was later found guilty of NCAA
violations and their name has been deleted from the historical records
concerning the game.  This marked the 5th of UCLAs unprecedented 7 straight NCAA
titles, and their 7th title in their amazing stretch of 10 titles in 12 years.
Even Northwestern, Emory and Dartmouth have not achieved that level of
dominance.  The fate of the UCLA debate team was to be overshadowed by the
Wizard of Westwood, but Don Hornstein and Barrett Mcterney as well as coach
Patricia B. Long should be remembered for their accomplishments.

Close calls include:

1962: Ohio State wins the NDT, but the men's team cannot handle Oscar Robertson
and the Cincinnati Bearcat dynasty.

1982:  Louisville wins the NDT, but are helpless in a final 4 with UNC,
Georgetown, and Houston (one of the few final fours that have 4 teams with NDT
programs at one time or another).  This was Dean Smith's first title, and
featured such famous players as Jordan, Worthy, Ewing, "Sleepy" Floyd,
Drexler,and Olajuwon.  Perhaps the greatest final 4 ever.

1986:  Kentucky wins the NDT, while cross-state rival Lousville, lead by "Never
Nervous" Pervis Ellison defeats a veteran Duke squad, Coach K's first of many
trips to the final game.  I think this will go down in history as the only time
I was disappointed by a loss by the Blue Devils.

1989:  Michigan makes it to the final round, but is upended by Baylor.  Glenn
Rice's Wolverines find a less formidable opponent in Seton Hall.  Maybe if the
NDT included an overtime (a 3AR, perhaps?), UMich could have pulled off the
double.

2000:  MSU steamrolls to the basketball title, but the debate team comes up a
free throw short of the double.

Future prospects include:

Georgia--has very strong women's team, and Jim Harrick has won it all before.
Can the debate team hold up their end of the bargain?

Kansas--strong showing against Duke gives hope, but defection to NBA of Big Red
and Eber hurts short-term chances.  Harris wants to know--Is Mellman/Margariel
the next Ostertag or Chenowith?

MSU--needs to rebuild at both levels, but has coaching staff and access to
talent pool to do it again.  Will the Flint, MI debate team give the Spartans
the "posse" it needs to keep things going.  Broken Arrow has already produced 2
top-flight debaters this decade--you can only go to the well so many times.

Michigan--always a double threat, although basketball team has slumped recently.
Mancuso appears in better shape than Ellerbee at this point, but he'd sure like
some of those full scholarships to throw around.

Gonzaga--always dangerous shooting the 3 or spewing the DA.  Will Frappier
follow Monson to the Gophers?

Wake--have plenty of talent, but haven't been the same since Prestes and Duncan
graduated.  A coincidence?  And who would have thought that ex-Deacs would
become all-stars like Woods, Ryan, and Langwell.  Lute Olson coached at Iowa
before Arizona.  A coincidence?  And when will Ross Smith get his own radio show
broadcast from the Tavern?

Kentucky--both teams out in the round of 32 this year, but the frenetic style of
both squads makes them a threat (and not just to themselves, each other, or
society at large)  :)  And will Solt take over for Pittino in the Boston
organization?

Louisville--Denny Crum should take some lessons from Ede Warner.  At the same
time, Denny won two NCAA titles while Ede was running a funeral home.  As an
aside, Darrell "Dr. Dunkenstein" Griffith would be pretty wicked throwing down a
two-handed Racial Gendertivity K.

Texas--foundation is strong with solid coaching for all 3 teams.  Was one of few
teams with a legitimate shot to do damage in all 3 tourneys.  In the end, the
debate team got the best of it.  Evans kritiks Mihms hook shot, causing him to
rethink why he was foolish enough to advance the hierarchical project of scoring
points.  The Bulls use their lottery pick to draft a copy of Heidegger's "Being
and Time"



--part1_1a.206a8e2.2628dd1c_boundary--

>From  Fri Apr 14 16:50:33 2000
Message-Id: <FRI.14.APR.2000.165033.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 123562 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 16:51:44
 -0400
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.72]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA26168 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Fri, 14 Apr 2000 16:51:42 -0400
Received: from Zompetti at aol.com by imo28.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id
 5.50.404fc36 (8976); Fri, 14 Apr 2000 16:50:33 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 100
Message-ID: <50.404fc36.2628de99 at aol.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 16:50:33 EDT
Reply-To: Zompetti at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Joe Zompetti <Zompetti at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: Gendered Language:  It Matters who the Judges are
Comments: To: elisiaco at usc.edu

In a message dated 4/14/00 7:46:12 PM !!!First Boot!!!, elisiaco at USC.EDU
writes:

>
>  Perhaps this is a problem that men find themselves in, to
>  which I say tough shit. (not to discount Tara's argument that the problem
>  exists) Rather I would argue that its not really more of a double-bind...
>  I'm not sure what "more" would entail.  This is both a problem and a
>  responsibility of adjudicating. I suggest that women who are judges find
>  their position in the back of the room problematic as well.  Women who
>  judge are perceived as giving special preferences to women debaters,
>  accused of finding special political sympathy for these types of
>  arguments, have a difficult time negotiating the position of being an
>  "expert" critic of argument on
>  one hand and women, subject of the discourse on the other. Its a
>  privilege to not have to notice these and other issues which are
>  innevitable... and even more so  when we listen to debaters who "step out
>  of the box." Debating issues that are close to the heart is difficult.
>  Taking on issues that are marginalized in conventional discourse is not
>  only difficult in debate rounds, but also in "real life."  That's why
>  we've had civil rights *struggles*.  Let us not forget that the struggle
>  is important, and I would add its more important than the damn ballot.
>
>  Elisia


I agree.  As a male judge (duh) and having judged these sorts of debates, I
must admit they are some of the most difficult rounds to judge ever.
However, I'm sure other judges find other types of rounds difficult as well.
On the 4-1 in the NDT doubles, I sat out.  I believe I was right, and of
course, the other 4 did too.  It was highly personal and very difficult to
address.  Nevertheless, I was also grateful for having that opportunity and
experience.  No one said judging was easy.

zomp




More information about the Mailman mailing list