The thread about me.

[Michael Krueger]

Well, I have left the debate world.

I acknowledge there were accusations, but the university brought found
no proof of harassment and I was not dismissed from the university.  I
chose to step down as the director of debate because I thought it was in
the best interest of the team.  Because people are charged, they are not
necessarily guilty.  And because people are not found guilty doesn't
mean they are innocent.  The point is, very few people know the whole
story.  There is alot of conjecture, there is alot of rush to judgement,
there is alot of animosity.  And it seems that some in the debate
community are in a rush to hang whomever might be guilty.  Some people
might choose to remember that, especially those people inclined to want
to sue over every possible issue.

As far as feminism goes, that is a fallacy of equivocation.  A person
can be charged or even guilty of harrassment, but harassment, according
to the definitions, doesn't mean that a person is anti feminist.  Frank
discussions of sex and sexuality can be considered harassing behavior
and a violation of sexual harassment policy, but that does not mean that
the person is anti-feminist.  Arguably, frank discussions of sex and
sexuality is on the agenda of feminists (see Foucault, for example, who
argues that case in the History of Sexuality, which has been a part of
the agenda of some feminists).

Regardless, I bid the debate community adieu.

mike

PS- I miss alot of people, and don't miss a few more.  i'm not on
edebate; i only know of this discussion from a person who wrote me a
lovely letter of support.  So I am afraid that you will have to continue
the haranguing without me.  Enjoy!




--
Michael Krueger
Middle Tennessee State University
Box 43
Murfreesboro, TN 37132
(615) 898-5202 (office)
(615) 898-5826 (fax)
http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger/

>From  Thu Oct 19 20:52:17 2000
Message-Id: <THU.19.OCT.2000.205217.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 18366 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:53:40
 -0400
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-r02.mail.aol.com (imo-r02.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.2]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA30972 for
 <eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:53:38 -0400
Received: from DaveAnt420 at aol.com by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.31.) id
 f.65.b3448c3 (3702); Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:52:17 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 124
Message-ID: <65.b3448c3.2720f141 at aol.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:52:17 EDT
Reply-To: DaveAnt420 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Dave Anthony <DaveAnt420 at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: The thread about me.
Comments: To: mkrueger at frank.mtsu.edu

In a message dated 10/19/00 6:20:10 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
mkrueger at FRANK.MTSU.EDU writes:

> As far as feminism goes, that is a fallacy of equivocation.  A person
>  can be charged or even guilty of harrassment, but harassment, according
>  to the definitions, doesn't mean that a person is anti feminist.  Frank
>  discussions of sex and sexuality can be considered harassing behavior
>  and a violation of sexual harassment policy, but that does not mean that
>  the person is anti-feminist.  Arguably, frank discussions of sex and
>  sexuality is on the agenda of feminists (see Foucault, for example, who
>  argues that case in the History of Sexuality, which has been a part of
>  the agenda of some feminists).
>
>  Regardless, I bid the debate community adieu.
>
>  mike
>

As I predicted yours is an especially "saucey" type of feminism.

Are you denying that you "slept" with one of your debaters? I notice you
carefully tip-toed through those roses. Screwing our students and "frank
discussions of sexuality" are very different. Given my own student's exposure
to your "tendencies" in the past I am positive you went past "discussing."

Why don't you sue me for libel in court so we can clear up exactly what was
"discussed"?

Good riddance,

Michael Bryant,
don't expect much sympathy

>From  Thu Oct 19 20:40:56 2000
Message-Id: <THU.19.OCT.2000.204056.0400.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 18473 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:58:54
 -0400
Precedence: bulk
Received: from mail.virginia.edu (mail.Virginia.EDU [128.143.2.9]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA43076 for
 <EDEBATE at list.uvm.edu>; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:58:53 -0400
Received: from guppy.mail.virginia.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa21307; 19 Oct
 2000 20:58 EDT
Received: from anybody.cfw.com (dhcp-42.mvl.intelos.net [216.12.16.42]) by
 guppy.mail.Virginia.EDU (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA18229 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:58:52 -0400 (EDT)
Priority: NORMAL
X-Mailer: Simeon for Win32 Version 4.1.4 Build (40)
X-Authentication: IMSP
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <SIMEON.10010192056.N at anybody.config.mail.virginia.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:40:56 -0400
Reply-To: jba5b at virginia.edu
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Jim Apple <jba5b at VIRGINIA.EDU>
Subject: Re: The thread about me.
In-Reply-To: <65.b3448c3.2720f141 at aol.com>

On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:52:17 EDT Dave Anthony
<DaveAnt420 at AOL.COM> wrote:

> Are you denying that you "slept" with one of your debaters?
> I notice you carefully tip-toed through those roses.
> Screwing our students and "frank discussions of sexuality"
> are very different. Given my own student's exposure to your
> "tendencies" in the past I am positive you went past
> "discussing."
>
> Why don't you sue me for libel in court so we can clear up
> exactly what was "discussed"?

Did you read the message?  He said he wasn't on edebate
anymore.  He won't read your message.  Of course, you said
that you weren't on edebate, too.

Jim Apple
Virginia

At some point in life, the secret of even a tenuous grasp
on happiness is permanently not noticing almost everything.

>From  Thu Oct 19 21:20:33 2000
Message-Id: <THU.19.OCT.2000.212033.EDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with
 spool id 18653 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 21:21:10
 -0400
Precedence: bulk
Received: from imo-r15.mail.aol.com (imo-r15.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.69]) by
 list.uvm.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA15940 for
 <eDebate at list.uvm.edu>; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 21:21:08 -0400
Received: from DaveAnt420 at aol.com by imo-r15.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.31.) id
 c.c3.a32d74c (3702); Thu, 19 Oct 2000 21:20:34 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 124
Message-ID: <c3.a32d74c.2720f7e1 at aol.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 21:20:33 EDT
Reply-To: DaveAnt420 at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Dave Anthony <DaveAnt420 at AOL.COM>
Subject: Re: The thread about me.
Comments: To: jba5b at virginia.edu

In a message dated 10/19/00 6:59:29 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
jba5b at VIRGINIA.EDU writes:

> Did you read the message?  He said he wasn't on edebate
>  anymore.  He won't read your message.  Of course, you said
>  that you weren't on edebate, too.
>
>  Jim Apple
>  Virginia
>

Gee, Jimmy Appleseed, did you notice I sent a copy to him, too? His message
was on the list and so was my reply. Coaches having sex with their students
is inexcusable. Krueger's not the only one doing it. There are several sex
harassers in this community of the both the straight and gay variety and my
hope is that they'll go to bed with a little more anxiety, tonight. They
often use their chic radicalism to try to keep others off their trail. If
real accountability were to occur several of this nation's most successful
programs might topple.

Too often this community has turned it's eyes and tried to ignore coaches
sleeping with their students and grad assistants. We look the other way,
rather than acknowledge those among us that have been fired for sex crimes.
Sometimes we've gone on to make them leaders in the community, choosing to
totally ignore they were removed from positions for criminal sexual abuse.

And, then, I have to endure being called a "sexist pig" for not naming a
female while I was insulting her partner. Maybe, if I had sexually abused her
instead, this community would feel more sympathy for me.

What a strange and twisted community this can sometimes be!

A little disgusted with this community, at the moment,

Bear