Sept. 3 Exec-Sec Rpt., 4 of 4
Greg Simerly
simegreg
Tue Sep 5 16:09:32 CDT 2000
CONSTITUTION OF THE CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION (3/20/00)
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE #
ARTICLES OF THE CONSTITUTION:
ARTICLE I: THE ORGANIZATION 3
ARTICLE II: PURPOSE OF THE ASSOCIATION 3
ARTICLE III: MEMBERSHIP IN THE ASSOCIATION 3
ARTICLE IV: OFFICERS AND THEIR DUTIES 4
ARTICLE V: NOMINATIONS AND ELECTIONS 10
ARTICLE VI: REGIONS OF THE ORGANIZATION 11
ARTICLE VII: ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETINGS OF THE ASSOCIATION 12
ARTICLE VIII: AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS 13
BY-LAWS:
I. MEMBERSHIP DUES AND BUDGET 14
II. CURRENT REGIONS OF THE ASSOCIATION 15
III. STANDING COMMITTEES 15
IV. TOPIC SELECTION 16
V. TOURNAMENT SANCTIONING 17
VI. SWEEPSTAKES PROCEDURES 19
VII. ELIGIBILITY TO EARN POINTS IN CEDA DEBATE 21
VIII. TRANSFER STUDENT ELIGIBILITY 26
IX. DIRECTION OF THE NATIONAL TOURNAMENT 28
X. ELIGIBILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE NATIONAL CEDA TOURNAMENT 29
XI. NATIONAL TOURNAMENT RESEARCH PROCEDURES 32
XII. AWARDS 34
XIII. CONTEMPORARY ARGUMENTATION AND DEBATE 36
XIV. NATIONAL TOPIC ELECTRONIC JOURNAL 36
XV. STATEMENT OF ETHICAL PRINCIPLES 37
XVI. STATEMENT ON SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION 42
XVII. SUGGESTIONS FOR TOURNAMENT ADMINISTRATION 48
XVIII. EVIDENCE POLICY 51
XIX. PUBLIC SPHERE DEBATE 55
CONSTITUTION OF THE CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION
ARTICLE I: THE ORGANIZATION
Section 1. This organization shall be known as the Cross Examination Debate
Association and shall use the initials CEDA as its abbreviated title.
Section 2. This Constitution provides formal organization for the former
Southwest Cross Examination Debate Association which began September 1971
and became the Cross Examination Debate Association in May 1974.
ARTICLE II: PURPOSE OF THE ASSOCIATION
Section 1. The purpose of the Association is to promote competitive
practices which ensure the growth and survival of intercollegiate debate by
encouraging a form of debate striking a balance among analysis, delivery
and evidence.
Section 2. The Association will provide each year sweepstakes trophies and
other awards to recognize outstanding debate teams, students and educators.
Section 3. The Association will maintain a national sweepstakes point
system and host an annual National CEDA Championship Tournament.
ARTICLE III: MEMBERSHIP IN THE ASSOCIATION
Section 1. There are three classes of members: institutional, affiliate and
associate memberships.
A. Institutional membership in the Association is open to any
college, university or community college that, acting through its program
director, wishes to join. Members of the Cross Examination Debate
Association agree by joining the Association and paying the membership fee
to follow the Constitution and Bylaws of CEDA in their participation in
CEDA-sanctioned activities.
B. Affiliate membership applies to schools that did not enter teams
in CEDA competition during the preceding year. Affiliate membership fees
will be $10 less than regular members.
C. Associate membership is individual membership in the Association
without voting privileges and is open to any person with an interest in the
purposes of this organization. Membership entitles the individual to
receive the Association's journal and mailings from the Executive
Secretary. Associate membership fees will be less than regular membership.
Section 2. Membership fees shall be determined at the annual
business meeting(s) of the
Association and will be passed by an amendment to the Bylaws.
Section 3. The period of membership shall be July 1 through June 30. For
the purposes of voting on the first topic of a school year, any school that
was a member during the preceding year, as well as those who already have
paid dues for the current year, will be entitled to vote.
ARTICLE IV: OFFICERS AND THEIR DUTIES
Section 1. The elected officers of this Association shall be a President,
First Vice President, Second Vice President, Executive Secretary and
Treasurer. These elected officers, the two immediate past presidents and
the Regional Representative from each CEDA region shall constitute the
national Executive Council. Elected officers should be members of the
American Forensics Association. The appointed officers of the Association
will include an Archivist and Editor of the Association's journal. The
editor is chosen by the Executive Council from the pool of applicants and
nominees for the position and appointed by the President for a three-year
term. The Archivist serves until resignation or the appointment of a
successor.
Section 2. The President's duties are to:
A. Be responsible for upholding this Constitution and its Bylaws and all
other decisions made at the annual business meetings of the Association;
B. Chair the National Tournament Committee;
C. Chair and be a voting member of the Executive Council;
D. Serve as a voting member of the Topic Selection Committee;
E. Serve as representative of the Association to other
organizational meetings (if he/she is unable to attend, the First Vice
President, the Second Vice President or the Executive Secretary, in that
order, shall fulfill that obligation, or if none of them can attend, then
the President shall appoint a member of the Association as his/her
representative);
F. Appoint members and chairs of standing committees and,
from time to time, of such committees as he/she deems suitable or are
requested by the membership at the annual business meetings;
G. Fill, by appointment or special election, as indicated
in Article V, vacancies among officers or regional representatives;
H. Fill by appointment a vacancy in the position of Editor
of the Association's journal, such appointment to be for the unexpired term
of the individual who has been replaced;
I. Following his/her term as President to serve for two
years as a voting member of the Executive Council.
Section 3. The First Vice President's duties are to:
A. Assist the President by assuming such duties as chairing an annual
business meeting if the President so requests;
B. Replace the President in case of the latter's death,
resignation or severance of connection with forensics at the school he/she
represents;
C. Serve as a voting member of the Executive Council;
D. Serve as Chair and voting member of the Topic Selection
Committee; and
E. Serve as member of the National Tournament Committee;
Section 4. The Second Vice President's duties are to:
A. Attend the National Communication Association Program
Planners meetings;
B. Plan any programs assigned by the National Communication
Association to CEDA;
C. Serve as the National Communication Association
Convention liaison, which includes scheduling meeting times;
D. Be in charge of carrying out any programs assigned by
the National Communication Association to CEDA as a consequence of CEDA's
affiliate status with the National Communication Association.
E. Replace the First Vice President in case of the
latter's death, resignation, severance of connection with forensics at the
school represented, or assumption of the position of President;
F. Serve as a voting member of the Executive Council;
G. Serve as a voting member of the Topic Selection
Committee; and
H. Chair the Research Committee.
I. Notify the membership of such convention information as meeting times,
hotel facilities, and CEDA programs.
Section 5. The Executive Secretary's duties are to:
A. Conduct elections for officers of the Association and
on such other matters as the Executive Council may direct. If the
Executive Secretary's name appears on the ballot, the First Vice President
will conduct the election;
B. Conduct balloting to determine CEDA debate topics in
accordance with procedures determined by the Executive Council or as set
forth in the Constitution or Bylaws;
C. Maintain official records of the current standings of
schools in CEDA sweepstakes competition and periodically to communicate
this information to the membership of the Association;
D. Correspond in the name of the Association with
prospective tournament hosts and/or members of the Association;
E. Record and disseminate to the membership the minutes of
the annual business meetings;
F. Serve as a voting member of the Executive Council;
G. Serve as a voting member of the Topic Selection Committee;
H. Establish an agenda for the annual business meetings of
the Association with the assistance of the President; and
I. Maintain an updated version of the Constitution and
Bylaws and disseminate these to the membership periodically.
J. Shall call and organize any necessary email, listserve or other computer
or electronic discussions of the Executive Council.
K. To ensure that officers' and regional representatives' names are
included in the
National Communication Association Convention Program.
L. Accept membership applications to CEDA, receive all membership dues and
other payments to the Association.
M. Approve the applications to host CEDA-sanctioned tournaments.
Section 6. The Treasurer's duties are to:
A. Serve as the primary financial officer of the Association;
B. Pay all expenses of the Association that are authorized
by the President or Executive Council;
C. Prepare and give accounting of the financial state of
the Association to the annual business meetings of the Association each year;
D. Order all trophies and awards;
E. Distribute the Association's journal and maintain a
library of back issues;
F. Maintain the nonprofit corporate tax-exempt status of the Association;
G. Be responsible for tax preparation and accounting for
the Association;
H. Become bonded;
I. Submit to audits as required by the Executive Council; and
J. Serve as voting member of the Executive Council.
K. Prepare a budget for each year in consultation with the
Executive-Secretary and President.
Section 7. Each of the Regional Representatives' duties are to:
A. Serve as a voting member of the Executive Council;
B. Represent his or her region at the meetings of the
Executive Council;
C. Serve as liaison between the region and the Executive
Council;
D. Hold regional meetings at appropriate tournaments
during the year; and
E. Coordinate scheduling of regional tournaments.
F. Facilitate the election for student representative to the Executive
Council. The election should be completed by October 1.
F. If a regional representative is unable to attend an Executive Council
meeting, she or he may appoint a substitute with voting privileges from the
region. If no substitute is appointed by the regional representative, the
President may appoint a substitute with voting privileges from the region.
Section 8. The Archivist's duties are to keep, so far as possible, a
complete and accurate record of the organization and its history.
Section 9. The duties of the Editor of the Association's journal are to:
A. Select an editorial board (all should be members of the
forensics staffs at CEDA-member schools and an attempt should be made to
include persons from a variety of CEDA regions); and
B. Be responsible for all aspects of preparation and printing of the
journal, including adherence to a timely publication schedule.
Section 10. The Executive Council shall:
A. consist of the President, First and Second Vice Presidents, Executive
Secretary, Treasurer, each region's representative and the two most recent
past Presidents;
B. lead the Association;
C. provide interpretation of any article of the Constitution
or its Bylaws;
D. be consulted when any action not clearly specified in
this Constitution or in the Bylaws is to be taken.
E. perform other functions outlined for them in the
Constitution and By-laws.
F. The Executive Council may meet at: (1) annual meetings of the NCA
(National Communication Association), (2) the annual National Tournament,
(3) any special
meetings (e.g., summer conferences) and (4) by e-mail or by other kinds of
computer or electronic communication.
G. A quorum of the Executive Council is considered to be 50 percent of the
membership plus one member for meetings as specified in (1-4) in section
G. The Executive-Secretary shall maintain either an e-mail address list
or a listserv for all Executive Council members. The Executive-Secretary
shall contact members who do not have access to e-mail by other means.
In case of other means of communication, the Executive- Secretary shall
be responsible for making sure that all members of the Executive Council
have access to any deliberations.
H. Suggested Protocol for E-mail Deliberations: The Executive- Secretary
should contact all members and notify them of the need for a discussion.
A reasonable
but limited period of time (e.g., two weeks) shall be set for the
deliberations.
Members must refrain from voting until such time as discussion has ended and
the Executive-Secretary calls for a vote. Members may not rescind their
individual votes during deliberations, but they may ask for
reconsideration or
rescinding of the group votes by normal parliamentary means after all
voting has
concluded.
I. The Executive Council should refrain from making decisions which can or
should be made by a general business meeting or a general vote of the
membership.
Section 11: Student Representatives.
A. Each region will select a student representative who will serve as a
member of the Student Representatives Committee. Student Representatives
must be officially enrolled, undergraduate students in good standing at
the college or university they attend.
B. The duties of the Student Representatives Committee are to:
1. Report the concerns of debaters to the Executive Council.
2. Select two debaters to serve on the Topic Selection Committee
C. Each student representative will have one vote at the annual business
meetings of the Association. Student Representatives may vote by proxy
under the provisions specified in Article VII.
Section 12: Removal of Officers and Elected Representatives.
A. Executive Officers (President, Vice-Presidents, Executive-Secretary,
Treasurer) And those appointed to positions (e.g. Editors, Committee
Chairs, etc.) may be removed for non-feasance, misfeasance and
malfeasance by a two-thirds vote of the Executive Council.
B. Regional Representatives may be removed for non-feasance, misfeasance
and malfeasance if (1) a petition of 10 percent of the membership of the
region petitions the Executive-Secretary for removal and (2) the
Executive Council agrees to removal by a two-thirds vote.
ARTICLE V: NOMINATIONS AND ELECTIONS
Section 1. The Nominating Committee is responsible for nominations for the
regional representatives, Second Vice President, Executive Secretary and
Treasurer when their terms have expired. The Committee shall solicit or
receive nominations from each region of CEDA. When nominating for Second
Vice President, Executive Secretary and/or Treasurer, the Nominating
Committee should attempt to submit at least two names for each position.
Section 2. Nominations shall be submitted by the Nominating Committee at
the first annual business meeting of the Association, at which time
additional nominations for any office may be submitted by any member
present.
Section 3. No later than 30 days after a business meeting, the Executive
Secretary shall submit to the membership by mail or email a ballot
containing the names of all nominees. Members will vote for national
officers and the representative of their particular region. Ballots may be
returned to the Executive Secretary by mail, email, or fax. Phone
balloting will not be accepted. Balloting shall cease at midnight 30 days
after submission of the ballot. A plurality of ballots returned will
elect. In the event of a tie between the two leading contenders for an
office, their names shall be resubmitted to the membership.
Section 4. Officers shall serve the following terms, commencing June 1
following their election: After serving as Second Vice President for one
year, that individual becomes First Vice President for one year and then
assumes the Presidency for one year. Members from the regions on the
Executive Council serve two-year terms. The regions of The East, North
Central, Rocky Mountain, Southern California and South Central shall elect
their representatives in even numbered years.
Section 5. Vacancies, whether occasioned by death, resignation, or
severance of connection with forensics at the school the individual
represents, shall be dealt with as follows. The Executive Council may
authorize a special election to restore the staggering of terms for
regional representatives.
A. If the office of President becomes vacant, the First
Vice President will assume the vacated office of President. If the
remaining term is six months or more, the new President will fill that term
only and will vacate the office of first Vice President. If the remaining
term is less than six months, the new President may assume the duties of
President not only for the remainder of that term but for the term he/she
normally would have served as well.
B. If the office of the First Vice President becomes
vacant, the Second Vice President will assume the vacated office of the
First Vice President for whatever remains of the term and will vacate the
office of Second Vice President.
C. If the office of the Second Vice President becomes vacant, the
President will hold a special election as described in this Article. Until
such time, the First Vice President temporarily will assume the duties of
the Second Vice President.
D. If the office of Executive Secretary or Treasurer
becomes vacant, the President will hold a special election as described
Section f of this Article. The term of the new Executive Secretary or
Treasurer will run until June 1 of the calendar year three years after the
date of the election.
E. If a vacancy occurs among the regional representatives,
the President will either 1) appoint a replacement for the remaining term
of the representative or 2) call a special election as described in Section
F of this Article.
F. If the President is required to call for a special
election by the terms of this article, he/she, with the advice of the
Executive Council, will nominate at least two individuals to run for the
vacant office and instruct the Executive Secretary to hold a special
election. The President may appoint an individual to act as Executive
Secretary, Treasurer or Regional Representative until such time as the
newly elected person takes office.
G. Should a Past President entitled to serve on the
Executive Council be unable or ineligible to do so, then the last preceding
Past President who is eligible and willing to do so will be given that
place on the Council.
ARTICLE VI: REGIONS OF THE ORGANIZATION
Section 1. The Association is divided into regions as specified in the Bylaws.
Section 2. If a member school wishes to be in a district other than the one
assigned to them and listed in the Bylaws, the Director of Forensics at
that school must petition the Executive Council, in writing, thirty days
prior to an Executive Council meeting. Action by the Executive Council to
move a school to another district requires a 2/3 vote and becomes effective
following the Association's National Tournament.
Section 3. The Executive Secretary will monitor the membership in CEDA
regions. If the geographical boundaries listed in the Bylaws result in
serious inequities in representation for three consecutive years, the
Executive Council shall propose to the CEDA membership a plan for
redistricting.
Section 4. Each region, with the approval of the Executive Council, shall
have the right to determine their own regional name.
ARTICLE VII: ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETINGS OF THE ASSOCIATION
Section 1. Members attending the annual business meetings of the
Association constitute its governing body. Changes to the Bylaws may be
made at annual business meetings. Between business meetings, the Executive
Council will make such rules as are necessary to support the purposes of
the Association. Actions of the Executive Council will have the force of
Bylaws. Members will be notified of the Executive Council's actions and at
the next business meeting will have the opportunity to approve or reject
continuation of those rules.
Section 2. Business meetings shall be held annually at the fall national
convention of the National Communication Association and at the
Association's National Tournament.
Section 3. Each regular or affiliate member institution will have one vote.
Section 4. In order to conduct any business other than hearing and
discussing reports, a quorum of representatives of at least 12 institutions
must be personally present (proxy votes do not count for a quorum).
Section 5. Proxy voting at business meetings will be allowed under
the following conditions:
A. The Executive Secretary will distribute with the agenda for
the national business meetings a proxy form for each business item that
requires a vote of the membership;
B. Members who do not attend the business meetings may complete, sign and
send these forms to the national meetings with another voting member;
C. No member institution may vote more than five proxies in addition to
its own vote;
D. Proxy votes are to be submitted to the
Executive-Secretary at the start of each business meeting. The
Executive-Secretary will count only those proxy ballots that are complete
and signed.
E. Proxy votes apply to main motions but not secondary
motions;
F. In the event that successful amendments to a main motion
substantially alter its intent, the President may rule that proxies are void.
Section 6. If a quorum exists at the business meeting, members (and proxy
voters) may modify the Bylaws by majority vote. Proposed amendments to the
constitution will be discussed and if they receive a majority vote of
members (and proxy voters), they will be submitted to the entire membership
by mail, at which time they will require a two-thirds vote to pass.
Section 7. The presiding officer at a business meeting will be entitled to
vote as the representative of his/her institution.
Section 8. Parliamentary authority for the organization will be Robert's
Rules of Order, Newly Revised.
ARTICLE VIII: AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS
Section 1. Amendments to the Constitution
A. An amendment to the Constitution may be initiated by any member school;
B. Amendments to the Constitution must be submitted to the
Executive Secretary 30 days prior to a business meeting to be discussed at
that meeting. The Executive Secretary will communicate proposed amendments
to the membership no later than 15 days prior to the business meeting
C. A majority vote of the schools represented at the
business meeting will be necessary for a proposed constitutional amendment
to be sent to the membership;
D. Within 10 days following the business meeting, the
Executive Secretary will distribute by mail or email a ballot containing
all proposed constitutional amendments. Balloting will cease at midnight 30
days after the date of the business meeting;
E. Constitutional amendments require a two-thirds vote by
school representatives voting by mail, email, or fax.
Section 2. Amendment to the Bylaws
A. An amendment to the Bylaws may be initiated by any
member school;
B. Amendments to the Bylaws must be submitted to the
Executive Secretary no later than 30 days prior to a business meeting to be
considered at that meeting. The Executive Secretary will communicate
proposed amendments to the membership no later than 15 days prior to the
business meeting;
C. Bylaw amendments require a majority vote by school
representatives and proxies voting at the business meeting.
Section 3. Alternative Amendment Procedures for the Constitution and Bylaws
A. An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of the
Executive Council or by a petition of 5% of the current CEDA membership to
the CEDA Executive Secretary and the CEDA President.
B. The proposed amendment shall be distributed to the
membership. Members will have 30 days to send comments on the proposed
amendment to the Executive Secretary.
C. Within 45 days of the publication of the proposed amendment, the
Executive Secretary will mail a ballot to the membership containing a copy
of the proposed amendment. Balloting will cease at midnight 30 days after
the ballots were distributed.
D. A three-fourths vote of all members voting will be
required to enact an amendment initiated under this section.
BYLAWS
I. MEMBERSHIP DUES AND BUDGET:
Section 1: Annual dues in the Cross-Examination Debate Association for the
year July 1 though June 30 will be $50 for regular membership, $40 for
associate individual membership and $30 for affiliate membership (affiliate
membership applies to schools that did not enter teams in CEDA competition
during the preceding year).
Section 2: The Treasurer, in consultation with the other Executive
Officers (President, Vice-Presidents and Executive-Secretary) should
present a budget of anticipated income
and expenses and existing resources as a guide for the financial activity
of the
Association. This budget shall be presented to the Executive Council no
later than the
Summer meeting of each year. If there is no scheduled summer meeting,
then the
Treasurer should provide the budget to the Executive-Secretary by August 1
who will
distribute the budget to the Executive Council. The Executive Council may
vote to amend
any part of the budget by a simple majority vote.
Section 3: Legitimate CEDA related expenses of the officers of the
Association will be reimbursed from the Association's funds. Travel,
lodging and food at National Communication Association Conventions will not
be covered. Additionally, the President, Executive Secretary, Treasurer,
National Tournament Computer Manager/Operator, and the Editor of the
Association's journal will receive annual honoraria in amounts established
by the Executive Council.
II. CURRENT REGIONS OF THE ASSOCIATION
The following geographical areas shall constitute the current regions of
the Association:
1. Northwest--Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Helena, Mt.
2. The West--zip codes 9300-9700 and Reno, Nevada.
3. Southern California--zip codes 9000-9299, Las Vegas, NV, Hawaii,
Arizona.
4. Rocky Mountain--Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, Montana and El
Paso, Texas.
5. North Central--Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, South Dakota, North Dakota,
Nebraska and Illinois.
6. Mid-America--Missouri, Kansas and Oklahoma.
7. East Central--Ohio, Indiana, Michigan and West Virginia.
8. South Central--Louisiana and Texas
9. Southeast Central--Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi and
Alabama.
10. Southeast--North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.
11. The East--Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York,
Connecticut, Pennsylvania, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia.
III. STANDING COMMITTEES
The standing committees of this Association shall include :
Section 1: Committee on Discrimination and Sexual Harassment. This
committee is chaired by the Sexual Harassment Officer and is responsible
for administering CEDA's policy on discrimination and sexual harassment,
which is contained in the Bylaws.
Section 2: Committee on Program Development. This committee shall promote
new membership, assist new and potential programs in CEDA-related
activities, assist programs facing budgetary or other problems, coordinate
efforts to regain lost memberships and suggest available forensic materials
relevant to CEDA.
Section 3: Public Relations Committee. This committee shall promote the
activities of CEDA and its member schools, including promotion of
national standings and award winners among the various national and
regional media and coordinate efforts at development of alternative funding
support sources.
Section 4: Nominating Committee. This committee shall solicit and receive
names of individuals for elective office in the organization and propose
the slate of nominees at the annual business meeting, as indicated in
Article VI of the Constitution.
Section 5: Research Committee. The Second Vice President will serve as
Chair of the Research Committee. This committee shall evaluate proposals
for research to be conducted at the Association's National Tournament and
approve only those proposals which meet standards for ethical and competent
research. Committee procedures and guidelines for evaluation appear in the
Bylaws.
Section 6: National Tournament Committee. The Committee shall administer
the Association's National Tournament. Guidelines and procedures for
administration appear in the Bylaws.
Section 7: Professional Development Committee. This committee shall
promote the
professional development of director/coaches, coaches, and the
graduate/undergraduate
assistants associated with debate programs.
Section 8: Ethics Committee. This committee shall investigate allegations
of unethical behavior and recommend responses to the Executive Council.
IV. TOPIC SELECTION
Section 1: The CEDA Topic Selection Committee will be responsible for
choosing problem areas and writing debate topics. The CEDA Topic Selection
Committee will consist of ten members. Five members will be the Executive
Officers. The Executive Officers will assume their topic committee duties
for the subsequent year beginning at the national tournament. The
remaining five at-large members will be drawn from a national pool. Two of
the at-large members must be students. Open nominations of non-student
members will be solicited at the Fall business meeting. The term of office
of the three non-student representatives will be three years, and to
provide for overlap one will be elected each year. In the case of a tie,
the topic committee chair will not vote.
Section 2: Within two weeks of the national tournament the committee will
report to the Executive Secretary no fewer than three problem areas to be
voted upon by the general membership. In early July the committee will
report to the Executive Secretary no fewer than three resolutions
corresponding to the winning topic area in each of the following categories:
a. Policy resolutions phrased so as to affirm the value of future and
specific governmental change, and suggesting a broad but predictable array
of potential
affirmative plans.
b. Non-policy resolutions phrased so as to generally affirm the truth or
value of an idea, condition or action, but not to simply affirm the
desirability or worth of future change.
The topic committee will have the discretion to offer separate topics for
both the Fall semester (September Through December) and the Spring semester
(January through March) on the non-policy section of the ballot or to offer
year-long non-policy topic choices. The slate of topics will be voted upon
by the general membership to select the fall topic.
Section 3: The Executive Secretary will distribute a topic selection ballot
to all CEDA members in early July. Only mailed or faxed ballots received by
the deadline designated by the Executive-Secretary will be accepted. The
designated deadline must be no more than five days before the topic
announcement date.
Section 4: The topics will be selected through a weighted preferential
voting system. For example, if there are five topics on the ballot, the
first choice within each category of a ballot receives five points, second
selection four, etc. In order to be counted, not all choices on the ballot
need be ranked. The topic receiving the most weighted votes within each
category will be selected.
Section 5: The CEDA topics will be announced on the last Friday in July.
V. TOURNAMENT SANCTIONING
Section 1: For a CEDA tournament to carry sweepstakes points, it must be
sanctioned by the Executive Secretary and listed in the official Calendar
of CEDA Tournaments. To apply for initial tournament sanctioning, the
college or organization must request the CEDA Executive Secretary for
approval to hold a CEDA tournament at least 60 days in advance of the
scheduled tournament.
Section 2: Tournaments once sanctioned by the Executive Secretary
continues to be approved until the tournament is not held for two
consecutive years. If an approved tournament has been canceled by its host
school two years in succession, then a written explanation must be offered
to and accepted by the Executive Secretary before that tournament will be
placed again on the Official CEDA Calendar. Any tournaments finding
themselves in this position will be so notified.
Section 3: Approval of a tournament as qualifying to award CEDA
sweepstakes points may be rescinded by a two-thirds vote at a meeting of
the Executive Council, provided a month's prior notice has been given that
it will be on the agenda for that business meeting.
Section 4: CEDA sanctioned tournaments must abide by any and all division
requirements (e.g., novice definition) and publish these requirements
clearly in the tournament invitation.
Section 5: Individual tournament directors may modify time limits or use
variants of cross examination and determine which CEDA division(s) (e.g.
open, junior, novice, etc.) and other experimental divisions using the CEDA
topics and may allow as many teams per school to enter their CEDA divisions
as they wish. The tournament is obligated to use the appropriate CEDA
topics for the tournament and to follow divisional rules where applicable..
Section 6: The Director of a tournament with a CEDA division agrees to
transmit to the Executive Secretary complete win-loss records at the
tournament within two weeks after the tournament and in no case later than
the close of registration at the Association's National Tournament.
Section 7: CEDA approved tournaments may commence no sooner than the third
Friday of September. Regional workshops on CEDA debate and the topics are
encouraged between announcement time and commencement of the official fall
season. The President will conduct the Association's National Tournament
to end the season, at which time Sweepstakes Awards shall be presented.
Section 8: Regional Representatives should coordinate the scheduling of
CEDA tournaments in their regions to avoid conflicts among those
tournaments insofar as possible, and should pursue the goal of ensuring
that at least three tournaments offering competition on the policy topic
and three tournaments offering competition on the non-policy topic occur
each semester in each region.
Section 9: All CEDA sanctioned tournaments are expected to abide by the
provisions of the Statement on Discrimination and Sexual Harassment(Bylaw
XIV) and the Statement on Ethical Principles(Bylaw XV). Tournament
invitations and tournament practices should reflect this support. Local
tournaments may need to adapt the specifics of these statements, but the
underlying principles should be maintained. The invitation to the
Association's National Tournament should endorse these two statements
explicitly.
VI. SWEEPSTAKES PROCEDURES
Section 1. An essential aspect of the work of the Cross-Examination Debate
Association will be the conferring of sweepstakes awards on schools that
have participated in CEDA tournaments during the year.
Section 2. To be eligible for CEDA points, a tournament must contain at
least six teams from a minimum of three different schools.
Section 3. Points in preliminary rounds will be accumulated for
sweepstakes according to the following formula:
A. One point shall be awarded for each debate win (including a win for a
"bye" and a win for an opponent's "forfeit") by a team in the last six
preliminary rounds of a CEDA-sanctioned division of a tournament.
B. Each of a maximum of two teams for which a school receives credit
toward sweepstakes at a CEDA tournament will receive at least one point
toward the CEDA sweepstakes, even if they win no debates at all.
C. Should a school enter more than two teams in a CEDA tournament, then
the rounds of only the two teams with the most wins in CEDA competition
in the tournament will be counted toward sweepstakes.
D. Where students from two different schools combine to form a CEDA team
at a tournament, the total points and tie-breakers earned by such a split
team will be divided between their two schools.
E. Competition in CEDA on a Lincoln-Douglas or individual debate basis
will count as half the point that would be awarded for team competition. Up
to a total of four Lincoln-Douglas individual debaters may be counted
toward sweepstakes, in whole or in part with two-person team points, except
that no more than four debaters, whether team or individual entries, shall
be counted. A debater may earn sweepstakes points in only one division per
tournament.
F. Teams from a host school may enter preliminary rounds in their own
tournament and count wins in preliminary rounds toward their sweepstakes
total; teams from the host schools may continue into the elimination round
in their own tournament, but no CEDA sweepstakes points will be awarded
them in these elimination rounds, although they may receive whatever
tie-breaker points accrue to their performance. Host teams may earn full
CEDA points for participating in their own tournament if that tournament is
run by a committee composed of Directors of Forensics from several schools
or an autonomous tournament director from a school other than the host school.
G. All eight preliminary rounds at the Association's National Tournament will
Section 4. Points in elimination rounds will be awarded as follows:
A. Tournaments may advertise as many elimination rounds as is
desired, but only elimination rounds meeting the following specifications
will be counted toward CEDA Sweepstakes: for semifinals, there must be a
field of 8 teams in the division; for quarterfinals, there must be a field
of 15 teams in the division; for octafinals, there must be a field of 29
teams in the division; for double octafinals, there must be a field of 58
teams in the division; for triple-octas, there must be a field of 115
teams in the division.
B. In calculating the number of teams in a division for the
purpose of determining the number of CEDA sweepstakes eligible elimination
rounds, each team must have participated in more than half of the number of
scheduled preliminary rounds at the tournament.
C. CEDA sweepstakes points may be counted for only a single set of
elimination rounds for each division at a tournament. In the event of a
tournament with a collapsed division which results in two separate
elimination round brackets, only the higher level bracket of elimination
rounds will count for CEDA Sweepstakes points.
D. One point for each ballot won by a team in an elimination round, with
the limitation that no more than three points may be acquired in a single
elimination round, regardless of the number of judges used (anything less
than a unanimous decision in an elimination round will be treated as a 2-1
decision for sweepstakes purposes) and
E. At tournaments in which teams in elimination rounds are given
"byes"(as opposed to instances where two teams from the same school are
paired against each other) a team receiving a bye shall be awarded the
maximum number of sweepstakes points available to other teams debating in
that round
F. Should two teams from the same school reach a final round in a
CEDA division of a tournament, their school will receive three points for
winning the round, even though the debate was not held (or as many points,
but no more than three, as actually holding the debate would have produced
for them); the same rule shall hold true whenever two teams from the same
school meet in elimination rounds (or preliminary rounds), even though no
actual debate occurs.
Section 5. In case of ties in the standings, these will be resolved by
tie breaker points based on places won in the six tournaments at which the
school has won the most points, at the rate of five points for a first
place, three points for a second place and one point for a third place (or
a tie for third or semifinalists).
Section 6. Any errors or omissions in the CEDA reports of tournament
results and sweepstakes point totals must be brought to the attention of
the Executive Secretary no later than 14 days prior to the commencement of
the National Tournament for that academic year. Any mistakes made on
tournaments held within two weeks of the National Tournament must be
corrected during the first day of preliminary rounds of the National
Tournament.
Section 7. Final sweepstakes awards will be based on the point totals
accumulated at the six tournaments at which each school has gained the
most points.
Section 8. Any school that is a member of the Association winning debates
in any or all of the CEDA divisions of CEDA sanctioned tournaments is
eligible for a sweepstakes award.
Section 9. At the end of the CEDA season, national sweepstakes trophies
for first through tenth places will be presented. Trophies for first
through fifth place among two-year colleges competing in CEDA will also be
presented. Also, awards will be presented to the three top or top 10%
(whichever is larger) schools in the standings in each region that did not
receive one of the top ten national sweepstakes trophies.
VII. ELIGIBILITY TO EARN POINTS IN CEDA DEBATE
Section 1: Tournament contestants eligible to earn points are to be
officially enrolled, undergraduate students in good standing at the college
or university they represent in forensics competition.
A. Contestants are considered "officially enrolled undergraduates" when
they are duly registered in accordance with institutional regulations as
undergraduate students at the college or university they are representing
in competition and are not in possession of a bachelor's degree.
B. "Good standing" shall be determined by the rules and policies set by
the institution the forensics competitor is representing in competition.
C. A graduate student officially enrolled and in good standing may
petition the Executive Secretary to compete at the National Tournament and
earn CEDA points, for a period of not more than two consecutive time
blocks, if the student has not competed in CEDA, NDT, Lincoln-Douglas, NFA,
parliamentary, or an equivalent form of debate during his/her undergraduate
or high school careers. The Executive Secretary will notify the Director of
Forensics tournament directors regarding the outcome of the petition. This
does not relieve individual Directors of Forensics from verifying whether
the participation of a graduate student is acceptable to individual.
Section 2: Tournament contestants are eligible to earn points for a maximum
of eight time blocks over a maximum period of five different, not
necessarily consecutive, academic years. Participation in other forms of
post-secondary debate, including but not limited to NDT, non-CEDA L-D or
parliamentary debate would count toward fulfilling these time blocks if the
conditions in subsequent subsections are met, except that one year in
parliamentary debate will not count against a student's ability to
participate in and earn CEDA sweepstakes points in one year of novice CEDA
competition assuming other eligibility conditions are met.
A. The tournament season shall be divided into two "time
blocks": July 1 through December 25 and December 26 through June 30.
B. Students shall have used their eligibility to earn
points in a given time block if they participate in three or more debate
tournaments.
1. For purposes of eligibility, a "tournament" is defined
as a forensic contest involving at least three schools and six teams in
which at least four rounds of debate are held and decisions are rendered by
judges. Summer workshop tournaments do not count in the calculation of a
student's eligibility.
2. "Participation" in a tournament is defined as competing
in more than half of the scheduled preliminary rounds of the tournament. A
student's participation in individual events, with the exception of
Lincoln-Douglas debate, shall not count against his/her eligibility to earn
CEDA points.
C. In case of co-enrollment, a student may earn CEDA points for only one
institution per time block.
Section 3: A contestant may not earn CEDA points for participation in a
novice or junior division of a tournament unless that student meets the
following definitions:
A. A novice is defined as an individual with no more than 24 rounds of
team policy debate at the high school or college level, or CEDA non-policy
debate. Once debaters start as a novice they remain a novice for the
entire academic year. However, if debaters have not advanced to
elimination rounds at two tournaments during that first year of novice
eligibility they are entitled to a second year of eligibility until
advancing to elimination rounds in two tournaments or upon completion of
the second academic year. Upon completion of novice eligibility, debaters
will be eligible to debate in junior varsity for two academic years, or
until they advance to the final round of three open, junior varsity or
varsity tournaments, or until they qualify for the National Debate
Tournament. An exception will be made for Junior Varsity national
tournaments. A waiver process for this section may be established by the
Executive Council for extraordinary situations.
B. The preceding eligibility rules shall not restrict
individual tournament directors from implementing additional eligibility
requirements for their tournaments.
Section 4: Adjudication Procedures for Bylaw VII:
A. Any person who is a student or faculty member at a
CEDA member school may initiate proceedings under this section for a
violation of this Bylaw by sending a complaint in writing to the Executive
Secretary of CEDA. If the complaint involves a student from the
Executive-Secretary's school, the complainant will submit the complaint to
the Second Vice President (or, if that creates a conflict of interest, the
First Vice President, Treasurer, or person designated by the President) who
will follow the procedures outlined below. The complaint must make one of
the following allegations:
1. a student competing for a certain school is not
"officially enrolled" at the college or university he/she is representing
in competition;
2. a student has already received a bachelor's
degree;
3. a student is not in "good standing" at the
institution he/she is representing in competition;
4. a student has already competed for eight time
blocks or five different, not necessarily consecutive academic years;
5. a student is co-enrolled and earning CEDA
points for more than one institution per time block; or
6. a team competing in a novice or junior division
of a CEDA tournament did not meet the CEDA definition of a novice or
junior team.
B. The person(s) making the complaint shall attach to the complaint all
information used leading to the filing of the complaint. This shall
include any tabulation sheets, tournament results or statements of any
persons. Such information will be attached to and will become part of the
complaint.
C. Upon receiving a complaint, the Executive Secretary
shall notify in writing by registered mail the Director of Forensics of the
students alleged to be in violation of this Bylaw, that CEDA points are
being disputed for that student. Any response by the Director of
Forensics to the Executive Secretary concerning the complaint must be in
writing and sent by registered mail.
1. Upon receiving clear written evidence from that Director of Forensics
that the complaint was made in error, the Executive Secretary shall notify
all parties to the complaint that the CEDA points earned by the student are
being recorded.
2. If no evidence of the complaint being in error is provided by
that Director of Forensics within two-weeks after notification, the
Executive Secretary shall deduct CEDA points earned by the violating
students during the time period(s) in question.
D. If evidence is unclear, or if any party to the complaint wishes to
appeal, the matter shall be forwarded to the CEDA Executive Council for
resolution. The Executive Secretary shall forward to all members of the
Executive Council by a copy of the complaint and all evidence submitted by
the parties. All appeals must be filed within two-weeks of notification.
1. Members of the Executive Council with a potential conflict of
interest in the case should remove themselves from consideration of the
appeal. Conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to, affectional
or institutional affiliation with one or more of the parties involved in
the dispute.
2. After a two-week review period, the CEDA President shall poll the
Executive Council members by phone or email to determine whether a decision
regarding the alleged violation can be rendered by phone or whether an
evidentiary hearing is needed. A majority vote of the Executive Council is
required to dispose the case.
a. If a majority of the Executive Council renders a decision by phone or
email, that decision will be reported to the Executive Secretary, who will
notify the parties involved of the decision and adjust CEDA points in a
manner consistent with the decision.
b. If a majority of the Executive Council votes in favor of a
hearing or if the Executive Council fails to render a majority decision by
phone or email ballot, a hearing shall be scheduled at the next regular
meeting of the council.
(1) The CEDA President will notify the parties
involved by registered mail of the time and place of the hearing, of the
violation(s) which shall be the subject of the hearing, of the names of
witnesses who may possibly appear at the hearing and of the right of the
complainant(s), Director of Forensics and/or student to be represented at
the hearing by legal counsel.
(2) At the hearing, the CEDA President will read the complaint and
summarize supporting materials; allow Executive Council members to call
witnesses and receive documents into evidence; allow the complainant(s),
the Director of Forensics and/or the student to cross-examine witnesses and
examine documents; and keep a tape recording of the proceedings.
(3) At the conclusion of the hearing, the Executive Council will
render a decision by majority vote. The Executive Secretary will notify
all parties involved in writing of the decision and adjust CEDA points
consistent with the decision.
VIII. TRANSFER STUDENT ELIGIBILITY
Section 1: Students who transfer from a college or university with an
existing debate program may not, effective Fall 1997, earn CEDA points for
the next two time blocks for which they would otherwise be eligible, unless:
A. They have not competed in debate during the two time
blocks previous to transfer, or
B. They have competed at a junior or community college
and are transferring from that institution to a four-year institution.
Section 2: This provision does not restrict students' rights to compete,
but rather students' eligibility to earn national CEDA points.
Section 3: Directors of Forensics have an affirmative obligation to inform
the Executive Secretary in writing of the names of transfer students who
represent their college or university in competition.
Section 4: Adjudication Procedures for Bylaw VIII:
A. Any person who is a student or faculty member at a
CEDA member school may initiate proceedings under this section for a
violation of Bylaw VIII by sending a complaint in writing to the Executive
Secretary of CEDA. The complaint must allege a specific violation of
Section VIII, Subsection A.
B. The person(s) making the complaint shall attach all information used in
filing the complaint. Such information may include, but is not limited to,
team rosters and tabulation sheets and will become part of the complaint.
C. Upon receiving a complaint, the Executive Secretary shall notify in
writing by registered mail, the Director of Forensics of the student
alleged to be in violation of this Bylaw that CEDA points are being
disputed for that student. Any response by the Director of Forensics to
the Executive Secretary concerning the complaint must be in writing and
sent by registered mail.
1. Upon receiving clear written evidence from that
Director of Forensics that the complaint was made in error, the Executive
Secretary shall notify all parties to the complaint that CEDA points earned
by the student are being recorded.
2. If no evidence of the complaint being in error
is provided by that Director of Forensics within two-weeks after
notification, the Executive Secretary shall deduct CEDA points earned by
the violating student during the time period(s) in question.
D. If evidence is unclear, or if any party to the complaint wishes to
appeal, the matter shall be forwarded to the CEDA Executive Council for
resolution. The Executive Secretary shall forward all members of the
Executive Council by registered mail, a copy of the complaint and all
evidence submitted by the parties. All appeals must be filed within
two-weeks of notification.
1. Members of the Executive Council with a
potential conflict of interest in the case should remove themselves from
consideration of the appeal. Conflicts of interest include, but are not
limited to, affectional or institutional affiliation with one or more of
the parties involved in the dispute.
2. After a two week review period, the CEDA
President shall poll the council members by phone or email to determine
whether a decision regarding the alleged violation can be rendered by phone
or email or whether an evidentiary hearing is needed. A majority of the
Executive Council is required to dispose the case.
a. If a majority of the council renders a
decision by phone or email, that decision will be reported to the
Executive Secretary, who will notify the parties involved of the decision
and adjust CEDA points appropriate to the decision.
b. If a majority of the council votes in favor
of a hearing or if the Executive Council fails to render a majority
decision by phone or email ballot, a hearing shall be scheduled at the next
regular meeting of the council.
(1) The CEDA President will notify the
parties involved by registered mail of the time and place of the hearing,
of the violation(s) which will be the subject of the hearing, of the names
of witnesses who may possibly appear at the hearing and of the right of the
complainant(s) Director of Forensics and/or student to be represented at
the hearing by legal counsel.
(2) At the hearing, the CEDA President
will read the complaint and summarize supporting materials; allow council
members to call witnesses and receive documents into evidence; allow the
complainant(s), the Director of Forensics and/or the student to
cross-examine witnesses, examine documents; and keep a tape recording of
the proceedings.
(3) At the conclusion of the hearing,
the Executive Council will render a decision by majority vote. The
Executive Secretary will notify all parties involved in writing of the
decision and adjust CEDA points appropriate to the decision.
IX. DIRECTION OF THE NATIONAL TOURNAMENT
Section 1: The Association will host a National CEDA Tournament in late
March or early April.
Section 2: The Executive Council of CEDA will receive bids from member
schools wishing to host the tournament. Bids will be received at the
Executive Council's fall meeting for the subsequent academic year's
National Tournament. The Executive Council will award the tournament on
the basis of bids received. As much as possible, the tournament should
rotate nationally.
Section 3: The President and Executive Secretary will provide bidding
schools with a detailed bid form. Bids are to be submitted in writing and
should indicate such things as the services and facilities available,
letters of support from appropriate school administrative bodies and hotel
information.
Section 4: When possible the National Tournament should be scheduled to
avoid conflicting with significant religious holidays, such as Easter and
Passover. When conflict with significant religious holidays cannot be
avoided the CEDA Executive Council will schedule tournament events such
that interested participants have the opportunity to attend religious
observances.
Section 5: In accepting bids from tournament hosts, the CEDA Executive
Council shall obtain appropriate assurances from prospective hosts that
religious observances for interested parties can be secured at or near the
host site. Arrangements might include a place of worship and special
dietary requirements.
Section 6: The President, assisted by the First and Second Vice Presidents
and a tournament committee selected by the President, shall be responsible
for all tournament operations, such as invitations, computer matching
arrangements, schedules and schematics, etc.
Section 7: This tournament will have eight preliminary rounds and offer
the appropriate number of elimination rounds to insure that all teams with
five or more wins in preliminary competition compete in elimination rounds.
The tournament will offer competition in separate divisions on the policy
topic and on the non-policy topic.
Section 8: The Treasurer is responsible for ordering appropriate tournament
and sweepstakes awards.
Section 9: The Executive Secretary is responsible for sweepstakes
calculations.
Section 10: The National CEDA Tournament shall be administered in a manner
that is consistent with the CEDA STATEMENT ON ETHICAL PRINCIPLES and the
STATEMENT ON DISCRIMINATION AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT in the Bylaws.
Section 11: Additional information related to tournament management is
contained in the Suggestions for Tournament Administration in this document.
Section 12: The CEDA President is encouraged to include a low-cost
tournament motel or hotel for the CEDA National tournament.
Section 13: The CEDA President shall send congratulations letters to the
administrations of all teams clearing at CEDA Nationals whose directors
provide an administrator's name and address.
Section 14: Each school competing in the CEDA national tournament will pay
a $40.00 (in addition to the entry fee for each two-person team). The fee
should go directly to the host institution to underwrite costs associated
with hosting the tournament.
X. ELIGIBILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE NATIONAL CEDA TOURNAMENT
Section 1: National CEDA Tournament contestants are to be officially
enrolled undergraduate students in good standing at the college or
university they represent in competition, although students who have
bachelor's degree may compete at the National CEDA Tournament only if they
receive their degrees in the time block during which the National
Tournament occurs.
Section 2: Students may participate in no more than four National CEDA
Tournaments.
Section 3: The National CEDA Tournament entry form shall include a section
in which the Director of Forensics of students being entered into the
tournament verifies by signature that each student is in good standing
and/or the date of graduation of each student. In the case of student run
programs, a faculty advisor, students activities director, or Dean of
Students must confirm this information
Section 4: Adjudication Procedures for Bylaw X;
A. Any person who is a student or faculty member at a CEDA member school
may initiate proceedings under this section for a violation of this Bylaw
by sending a complaint in writing to the President. The complaint must be
made no later than the second day on which preliminary rounds are
scheduled. If the complaint involves a student of the President, the
complaintant will submit the complaint to the First Vice President (or, if
that creates a conflict of interest, the Second Vice President,
Executive-Secretary, Treasurer, or person designated by the President) who
will follow the procedures outlined below. The complaint must make one of
the following allegations:
1. That a student competing for a certain school is not an
officially enrolled undergraduate student in good standing at the college
or university they represent at the National Tournament.
2. That a student competing for a certain school earned a bachelor's
degree prior to the time block during which the National Tournament occurs.
3. That a student competing for a certain school has already
participated in four National CEDA Tournaments.
4. That a student competing for a certain school has already
competed for eight time blocks or five different, not necessarily
consecutive academic years.
B. The person(s) making the complaint shall attach to the complaint all
information used leading to filing of the complaint. This shall include
written statements of persons charged with certifying enrollment in good
standing at the student's currently attended institution, statements of
persons who could verify receipt of a bachelor's degree at the current or
previously attended institution, or tabulation sheets from prior National
Tournaments. Such information will be attached to and will become part of
the complaint.
C. Upon receiving a complaint, the President shall immediately notify the
Director of Forensics of the student alleged to be in violation of this
Bylaw that a challenge to the student's eligibility has been presented.
1. Upon receiving clear written evidence from the
Director of Forensics that the complaint was made in error, the President
shall notify all the parties to the complaint that the student remains
entered in the tournament.
2. If no evidence of the complaint being in error
is provided by that Director of Forensics, the President shall disqualify
the student from the tournament.
D. Appeals of the decision of the President may be made by all parties to
the complaint. The student may continue his/her participation at the CEDA
National Tournament while the appeal is disposed.
1. The CEDA First Vice President will call a
meeting of the Executive Council upon being notified in writing of an
appeal. The First Vice President will notify the parties involved of the
time and place of the hearing, the violation(s) which will be the subject
of the hearing, the names of witnesses who may possibly appear at the
hearing and of the right of the complainant(s), Director of Forensics
and/or student to be represented at the hearing by legal counsel.
2. The President will provide the Executive
Council with the complaint and all evidence submitted by the parties.
3. At the hearing the CEDA First Vice President
will read the complaint and summarize supporting materials; allow council
members to call witnesses and receive documents into evidence; allow the
complainant(s), Director of Forensics and/or the student to cross-examine
witnesses and examine documents; and keep a tape-recording of the proceedings.
4. At the conclusion of the hearing the Executive
Council will render a decision by majority vote. The First Vice President
will notify the parties involved and the President of the decision in writing.
XI. NATIONAL TOURNAMENT RESEARCH PROCEDURES
Section 1. The Cross Examination Debate Association endorses research in
debate pedagogy, theory and practice. Research practices should conform
with generally accepted standards for Social Science Research. Minimum
standards for research involving human subjects include the subject's
informed consent, voluntary participation, right to terminate
participation, protection of confidentiality and appropriate debriefing.
In all instances, researchers should use the least intrusive means for
gathering information. Research protocols involving human subjects should
be reviewed by appropriate Institutional Review Boards prior to their use.
Research may be conducted at the CEDA National Tournament when it does not
intrude upon competitor participation and performance or tournament
administration. Further, research may be conducted at the National
Tournament only when explicitly authorized and in compliance with
requirements established by CEDA. While CEDA authorization is necessary to
conduct research at the National Tournament, the researcher(s) retain
responsibility for obtaining other authorizations as well as for the
administration of the research, as specified below.
Section 2. CEDA assumes none of the responsibility for research
authorized at its National Tournament. The policy and procedures
established for the authorization of research are only intended to
facilitate the orderly execution of research. Researchers retain the
responsibility to ensure the interests of subjects are protected.
Section 3: Persons desiring to conduct research at the National CEDA
Tournament shall submit a written request including the following information:
A. A request for authorization to conduct research at the National
CEDA Tournament;
B. An abstract of the study identifying its purpose, methods and
procedures;
C. A research protocol including any questionnaires, interview
schedules, or other instruments which will be administered at the
tournament. Protocols should indicate when the instrument(s) will be
administered/distributed (e.g., at registration, between rounds, etc.) and
the estimated time needed for completion;
D. Documentation that the research protocol has been approved by the
Institutional Review Board or equivalent (e.g., Human Research Committee,
etc.) of both the home institution of the researcher as well as the host
institution of the tournament;
1. Researchers should contact the tournament host to
coordinate host school institutional requirements and procedures.
E. Five copies of the request, abstract, research protocol and
Institutional Review Boards approval should be sent to the chair of the
CEDA Research Committee.
Section 4: Requests which fail to meet the preceding requirements will
not be considered for authorization.
Section 5: Research Committee Membership
A. The Second Vice President will serve as Chair of the CEDA
Research Committee.
B. The President of CEDA will appoint four additional members of the
Research Committee.
Section 6: CEDA Research Committee Responsibilities
A. Screen research authorization requests for compliance with the
conditions enumerated in Section A.
B. Rank order the requests complying with the authorization
requirements. The Committee shall evaluate proposals on the following
criteria:
1. unobtrusiveness to tournament administration;
2. unobtrusiveness to participant performance; and
3. scholarship/pedagogical merit.
C. In consultation with the President, the Research
Committee will determine how many research proposals may be authorized.
The authorization will follow the rank order.
D. The Research Committee Chair shall notify applicants of the disposition
of their proposals.
E. Authorization for conducting research is valid only for
the National Tournament occurring in that calendar year. Research which is
not conducted or completed must be submitted for reconsideration at
subsequent CEDA National Tournaments.
F. Proposals not authorized for the National Tournament
in a given calendar year may be revised and/or resubmitted the following year.
Section 7: Deadlines
A. Requests for authorization with their supporting documents must
be postmarked by February 1 for research to be considered for the National
Tournament in that calendar year.
B. Notification of authorization by the Research Committee should be
completed by March 1.
XII. AWARDS
Among the awards given by the Association at the National Tournament are
the following:
Section 1: Scholastic Debater Award, which will be given annually to a
maximum of thirty CEDA debaters for outstanding achievement in debate,
scholastics and community service.
A. Criteria. Recipients should demonstrate personal
qualities that show their understanding of the role of intercollegiate
debate in a liberal education. They should show evidence of success and
good conduct in debate; excellence in their classroom studies as evidenced
not only by grade-point-average but by breadth and challenge of study and
show a commitment to the betterment of their community through outside
activities.
B. Selection Process. The President will appoint a selection committee.
Nominations must be in writing, including as much supporting material as
appropriate. Nominations may come from any member school. No more than two
students from a given school shall receive this award. The selection
committee as much as appropriate should encourage diversity in the
selection process.
Section 2: All-American Debate Squad Award, which will be given annually
to a maximum of thirty CEDA debaters for their competitive success; good
conduct; and squad contributions.
A. Criteria. Recipients should demonstrate their competitive excellence,
measured qualitatively or quantitatively; evidence of their commitment to
fair play in the activity; and evidence of their contribution to the
success and well-being of their forensics program.
B. Selection Process. There will be at least one recipient from each of
the CEDA regions and at-large recipients (who may come from any district)
to total no more than thirty. At least two recipients must be from
community college programs. The President will appoint a selection
committee. No more than two students from a given school shall receive this
award.
C. Awards. Suitable awards, funded by proceeds from the National
Tournament, will be given to recipients at the National Tournament. The
Public Relations Committee will publicize the winners to the news media and
universities.
Section 3: Founders' Award. The Founders' Award will be given annually to
the school accumulating the most points over time in CEDA sweepstakes.
When a school wins the Founders' Award, their accumulated points revert to
zero and they begin accumulating points anew the following year.
Section 4: Garrison Newcomers' Award. The Garrison Newcomers' Award is
given annually to the school with highest sweepstakes points who has never
previously earned 20 CEDA points in a single season.
Section 5: Brownlee Award. The Brownlee Award is given annually to a
forensic educator who demonstrates outstanding achievement in scholarship,
education and service to CEDA.
Section 6: Future engraving costs for any travelling awards presented by
CEDA shall be borne by the CEDA treasury as an annual expense.
Section 7: Teams that attend and participate in six or fewer CEDA
sanctioned debate tournaments, excluding the CEDA National Tournament,
will be eligible for the Select Sweepstakes award. The same formula for
determining the national sweepstakes will be used. Teams eligible for the
Select Sweepstakes award will be equally eligible for national and
regional awards. The top ten teams in the division will receive awards.
Section 8: The National Public Debate Award.
A. This award is given to the intercollegiate debate program which, over the
course of the past academic year, has best advanced the values of debate in
the public sphere through sponsorship of one or more public debate
activities including international public debates, radio or television
debates, public debates on campus or for community groups, and through
general promotion of public discourse through diverse fora to promote
critical examination of public issues for general audiences.
B. Programs seeking this recognition should submit a portfolio including a
narrative description of their public debate activities. Programs are also
asked to submit supporting materials of their choosing which might include
participant lists, publicity and promotional materials, attendance figures,
transcripts or recordings (audio, video, CD, etc.), commendations and
letters of appreciation, and any other materials that they feel are
appropriate.
C. The CEDA President shall designate appropriate individuals or a committee
to receive, evaluate, and archive materials. The individuals or committee
may elect to give up to three awards (recognized by plaques or trophies) and
may also recognize as many Honorable Mention entrants as they deem
appropriate. Each recipient and Honorable Mention will receive recognition
through letters sent to the appropriate officers of their academic
institutions. Portfolios will be submitted to the designated individual or
committee representative no later than the entry due date of the CEDA
national tournament.
XIII. CONTEMPORARY ARGUMENTATION AND DEBATE
Contemporary Argumentation and Debate is the official journal of the
Association. The Editor serves a three-year term. The Editor is chosen by
the Executive Council from the pool of applicants and nominees for the
position. Duties of the editor include:
Section 1: Selection of an Editorial Board: The selection will be at the
discretion of the editor. However, all should be members of the forensics
staffs at CEDA member schools and an attempt should be made to include
persons from a variety of CEDA regions.
Section 2. Responsibility for all aspects of preparation and printing of
the Journal, including adherence to a timely publication schedule.
Section 3: The Editor shall consult with the President, Executive Secretary
and Treasurer about the financial needs associated with the Journal.
XIV. NATIONAL TOPIC ELECTRONIC JOURNAL
Issues and Advocates is the official electronic journal of the Association.
Its purpose is to serve as a vehicle for bringing the student-produced
work on a given topic to a wider audience. The electronic journal will
invite submissions from the intercollegiate debate community of cases,
briefs, and other prepared arguments on the CEDA debate resolution for the
purpose of making public advocacy materials available public agencies,
non-governmental organizations, and other interested organizations and
individuals seeking synioptic research and critical advocacy strategies in
areas related to the national debate resolution.
Section 1: Submissions must include full citations for all quoted material,
should include annotation of author's qualifications, an should utilize
great care in accurately representing the context of authorial opinion.
Extensive quotation of single publications should be evaluated for
compliance with copywrite regulations. All submissions will be evaluated
for inclusion by an appropriately designated editor or editorial staff.
The electronic journal will be made available by subscription registration
(such as currently done with listserves). Although conceived as a free
service to interested parties in the public sphere, a nominal user fee may
be established, if approved by the CEDA Executive Council, to offset
editorial costs. While, at the editor's discretion, electronic journal
posting may occur as they become available, final submission deadlines
will be set by the editor to permit a completed annual publication to
occur by the last week of June. The Editor is chosen by the Executive
Council from the pool of applicants and nominees for the position and
serves a one year term.
Section 2: The Editor will solicit, receive, and review submissions for the
journal.
Targeted submissions include cases and negative arguments which were
developed for use on the current debate topic. Original essays and
research papers may be considered as well. Review of essays will check
for complete and accurate citation as well as adherence to U.S. Copyright
Law.
Section 3: The Editor will select an editorial board to assist with the
duties in section 1. All should be members of the forensics staffs at CEDA
member schools and an attempt should be made to include persons from a
variety of CEDA regions.
Section 4: The Editor will be responsible for completing one issue of the
electronic journal and uploading it to the CEDA Web site or another
appropriate address once the
competitive debate season has ended.
Section 5: The Editor will be responsible for advertising the journal
(through web page links, for example) to groups which have an interest in
the subject areas covered by the debate topic.
Section 6: The Editor will consult with the President, Executive Secretary
and Treasurer if any financial needs arise associated with the electronic
journal.
XV. STATEMENT OF ETHICAL PRINCIPLES
Preamble: The Cross Examination Debate Association is committed to
promoting ethical communication behavior. Its members recognize that the
adversarial and competitive nature of academic debate places participants
students, educators, judges and tournament administrators in the position
of having to weigh the merits of competing strategies that may have ethical
implications. This Article attempts to set forth the aspirations of the
Association for ethical and educational debate activity. It is hoped that
this statement of ethical principles will promote behavior and discussion
which ensure the long-term growth and survival of intercollegiate debate.
Section 1: Competitor Practices
Students competing in CEDA debate contests share a unique opportunity to
develop their abilities to analyze, research, organize, evaluate and
communicate ideas and to experience personal growth. This opportunity is
maximized when participants recognize their responsibility to preserve and
promote the educational benefits of intercollegiate debate.
A. Participation
Participants in CEDA debate should recognize that their academic program is
more important than their competitive success. Minimally, students who
compete in CEDA debate should be in good standing at and be making normal
progress toward a degree from the institution which they represent in
competition. Maximally, students who compete in CEDA debate will apply
their developing abilities in such a way as to achieve the very best
academic standing of which they are capable. Sacrificing one's academic
progress for competitive success, or extending one's college career to
excessive length in order to go on debating are behaviors contrary to the
goals of this organization While there are exceptional occasions in which a
student with a baccalaureate degree wishes to participate in debate (e.g. a
non-traditional student seeking certification to teach), CEDA debate is
designed to be primarily an undergraduate activity. Competitive fairness is
best maintained for all students when eligibility standards and division
definitions are respected by all participants. Students should be familiar
with the eligibility provisions and division definitions of the CEDA
constitution and bylaws and of individual tournaments and should abide by
those limits.
B. Competitive Behavior
Students participating in CEDA debate are obligated to adhere to high
ethical standards. Such an ethical commitment by debaters is essential
because the value of tournament activity is directly dependent upon the
integrity of those involved. For that reason, it is the duty of each
debater to participate honestly and fairly. Furthermore, students should
remember that debate is an oral, interactive process. It is the debater's
duty to aspire to the objective of effective oral expression of ideas.
Behaviors which belittle, degrade, demean, or otherwise dehumanize others
are not in the best interest of the activity because they interfere with
the goals of education and personal growth. The ethical CEDA debater
recognizes the rights of others and communicates with respect for
opponents, colleagues, critics and audience members. Communication which
engenders ill-will and disrespect for forensics ultimately reduces the
utility of forensics for all who participate in it and should, therefore,
be avoided. Students should recognize the importance of judges to the
debate activity. Students should be willing to listen to judges'
statements regarding conduct of rounds suggestions for improvement and
reasons for decisions. While debaters should feel free to ask questions of
judges, they should be wary of badgering judges for decisions and comments
during the course of a tournament; they should recognize that the written
ballot is the primary means of communicating reasons for decision and that
tournament rules often prohibit revelation of decisions.
C. Use of Debate Materials
The primary creation of argument and the primary research effort in CEDA
debate must be the student's. Students who rely on briefs written or
evidence researched by faculty or graduate assistants, on handbook
evidence rather than library research, or materials and evidence traded
among programs fall short of the goal of maximizing their development as
competent arguers and users of evidence. Evidence plays a key role in
debate. It is important, therefore, that debaters use evidence
responsibly. Responsible use of evidence includes accurate recording and
documenting of material, as well as avoidance of plagiarism,
misrepresentation, distortion, or fabrication. Debaters are responsible for
the integrity of all the evidence they use. Debaters should clearly
identify and qualify, during their speeches, the source of all the evidence
they use. Omitting the source of evidence denies opponents, judges and the
audience the opportunity to evaluate the quality of the information.
Claiming another's written or spoken words as one's own is plagiarism, a
very serious offense against responsible scholarship. Debaters should use
only evidence which is in the public domain and, hence, open to critical
evaluation by others. Debaters should not fabricate, distort, or
misrepresent evidence. If evidence is misrepresented, distorted, or
fabricated, the conclusions drawn from it are meaningless and ethically
suspect. Fabrication of evidence refers to falsely representing a cited
fact or statement of opinion as evidence when the material in question is
not authentic. Distorted evidence refers to misrepresenting the actual or
implied content of the factual or opinion evidence. In determining whether
evidence has been distorted, debaters should ask if the evidence deviates
from the quality, quantity, probability, or degree of force of the author's
position on the particular point in question. Any such deviation should be
avoided because such alteration can give undue rhetorical force to an
advocate's argument. Distortions include, but are not limited to:
1. quoting out of context;
2. misinterpreting the evidence so as to alter its meaning;
3. omitting salient information from quotations or
paraphrases;
4. adding words to a quotation which were not present in
the original source of the evidence without identifying such as addition;
5. failure to provide within a reasonable time complete
documentation of the evidence [name of author(s), source of publication,
full date, page numbers and author(s) credentials when available in the
original] when challenged.
D. Commitment to Program
Debaters should recognize that when they join a forensics program, that
program commits substantial teaching and monetary resources to their
education and personal growth. Consequently, transferring from one CEDA
debate program to another is not encouraged. A student who is considering
transferring to another debate program should notify his/her current coach
as soon as possible. The student should consult with his/her coach about
the desirability of the transfer prior to making the final decision and
should notify the former coach as soon as possible after the final
decision is made.
Section 2: Educator Practices
Because CEDA debate is primarily an educational activity, forensics
educators should emphasize learning before competitive success and should
try to pass on this view to their students. It is the responsibility of
the forensics educator to maximize the opportunity for ethical development
and behavior among all debate participants. Ethical principles for
forensics educators participating in CEDA include:
A. Forensics educators should enter student competitors in
accordance with national, regional and individual tournament regulations
for eligibility.
B. Forensics educators should encourage their students to compete
honestly, fairly and ethically in each and every competitive debate round
in which they participate.
C. Because students differ in talent, experience, motivation and
purpose, forensic educators should adapt pedagogical methods to student
needs. In all cases, however, coaching efforts should supplement, not
substitute for, student efforts. The primary creation of argument and the
primary research effort in debate must be the student's. Forensics
educators may engage in limited research designed to teach students
research techniques, demonstrate model evidence or briefs, or identify key
areas of argument while teaching scholarly techniques in debate, but the
fundamental arguments, cases, briefs and research must be the students' own.
D. Forensics educators should maintain and teach their students to
maintain, the highest ethical principles of logic and reasoning, evidence
and behavior in debate. Forensics educators should teach students the
principles and objectives of sound reasoning and the value of rigorous
scholarship.
E. Forensics educators should encourage behavior that will insure
ordinary progress towards the completion of students' undergraduate
degrees. Forensics educators should also recognize the importance of
students' development as whole persons, including positive relationships
with family, friends, employers and community.
F. Because all students can benefit from debate experience
at some level and because all students, at whatever level, require and
deserve coaches' attention and efforts, forensics educators should treat
all students fairly and promote equality of opportunity for appropriate and
challenging learning experiences for all students.
G. Forensics educators should recognize that the
recruiting and transfer issues in collegiate debate are sensitive ones.
The standard in recruiting and transfer should always be the overall best
interests of the student. CEDA endorses the following guidelines for
forensics educators:
1. Forensics educators should be honest with
students concerning the educational opportunities of their schools and of
their forensics programs and of the educational opportunities and forensics
programs of other institutions
2. Forensics educators should avoid unduly influencing students from
another program. When transfer between programs becomes a serious
possibility, the student's new coach should seek professional contact with
the student's current coach to discuss the matter.
3. Forensics educators should avoid conflict of
interest vis a vis their recruiting efforts when running a workshop or
tournament (e.g., granting potential recruits special jobs or
opportunities), or when judging (e.g., rewarding decisions or high points
to promote recruiting goals).
Section 3: Judge Practices
Judges are important to the debate activity. In addition to supplying
decisions as judges, they educate the student participants through their
reasons for decision and suggestions for improvement. CEDA recognizes the
inherent tension and potential conflict between these two roles. In an
attempt to facilitate both functions, CEDA encourages judge-educators to
acknowledge their two-fold responsibility and act with competence,
integrity, fairness and courtesy before, during and after each debate
round. Debate seeks to be a full, free testing of ideas. Yet as educators,
some feel a responsibility to discourage student behavior they find to be
counterproductive. Often judges must delicately balance these two
considerations: the need for rigorous examination of any and all views,
however unpopular or unrealistic and the guidance and direction of student
behavior. If undesirable behavior is discouraged in a positive, fair and
courteous manner, the judge/educator roles can be simultaneously satisfied.
Ethical principles for judges participating in CEDA include:
A. Judges should strive at all times to render
impartial decisions. Judges should excuse themselves from rounds they do
not feel they could judge fairly.
B. Judges should be willing to inform debaters, either
through a statement of philosophy or through response to student questions,
of strongly held beliefs or standards that could affect the outcome of the
debate round.
C. Judges should evaluate debate rounds on the
arguments as they are presented by the debaters, rather than on personal
knowledge of or opinion about particular substantive arguments. Judges need
not be "tabula rasa" but do need to be fair.
D. Judges should provide detailed and constructive
criticism of any and all rounds of debate they evaluate. Reasons for
decision should be in accordance with any beliefs or standards announced at
the outset of the round. Judges are expected to provide written comments
on the ballots provided by the tournament, even if they also provide an
oral critique. These written comments should be made available to all the
debaters a judge has heard by the conclusion of the tournament.
E. Judges have an ethical obligation to uphold without exception the
tournament rules. Judges should inform the tournament director of any
conflicts which could prevent them from carrying out this duty.
F. Judges who have the misfortune of witnessing fraudulent behavior on the
part of competitors they are judging should:
1. conform to tournament rules (if any), and
2. act in accordance with their consciences in assessing appropriate
sanctions.
Section 4: Tournament Administration Recommendations
In administering tournaments, educators should strive to insure that all
students have an equal opportunity to excel. Educators should be
particularly cognizant of the issues involved in scheduling and judge
assignment. Tournament administration should seek to promote high quality
and fair learning experiences for all debaters. Tournaments should be
hosted for educational, not profit-making, reasons.
A. In order to give all participants equal information about tournament
procedures, tournament invitations should include clear definitions of
events and divisions, clear explanations of matching and judge assignment
systems, clear explanations of criteria for advancement to elimination
rounds and for awards, clear announcements of fees and schedules and a
clear statement of tournament rules.
B. In order to provide a fair and educational tournament,
administrators matching debate rounds should attempt to allow students an
equal number of rounds on each side of the resolution and should maximize
insofar as possible the range of opponents encountered by each team.
C. In order to provide a fair and educational tournament,
judge assignment insofar as possible should be systematic, bsed upon a
predefined process. Debaters should have equal opportunity to be heard by
a range of judges and to be protected from judges who might have a conflict
of interest.
D. In order to maximize the educational function of
tournaments, administrators should make results and ballots available to
all participants as soon as possible at the end of competition.
Section 5: Epilogue
Provisions of this article are not subject to adjudication. For specific
standards regarding eligibility and their adjudication, participants should
consult the CEDA bylaws. Resources used in the preparation of this document
include the American Forensic Association Professional Relations Committee
Code of Forensics Program and Forensics Tournament Standards for Colleges
and Universities (1982), American Forensics in Perspective: Papers from
the Second National Conference on Forensics (1984) and the Statement of
Ethics for the Northwest Forensic Conference (1985).
XVI. STATEMENT ON SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION
Preamble: The Cross Examination Debate Association is dedicated to the
principle of free expression and exploration of ideas in an atmosphere of
civility and mutual respect. Related to this principle is the belief that
all members of this community will have access to CEDA debate activities
without regard to race, creed, age, sex, national origin, sexual or
affectional preference, or non-disqualifying handicap. These principles
should guide the behavior of the organization's members and participants.
Section 1: The Nature of the Academic Debate Community
It is the nature of the academic debate community to provide a forum for
the robust expression, criticism and discussion (and for the tolerance) of
the widest range of opinions. It does not provide a license for bigotry in
the form of demeaning, discriminatory speech actions and it does not
tolerate sexual harassment. Any member of this community who is threatened
by discrimination or harassment is liable to be harmed in mind, body or
performance and is denied the guarantee of an equal opportunity to work,
learn and grow inherent in the above principles. In the debate community,
the presentation of a reasoned or evidenced claim about a societal group
that offends members of that group is to be distinguished from a gratuitous
denigrating claim about, or addressed to, an individual or group such as
those enumerated above. The former is bona fide academic behavior while
the latter may demean, degrade or victimize in a discriminatory manner and,
if so, undermines the above principles. Sexual harassment is a form of
discrimination and consists of verbal or physical conduct of a sexual
nature, imposed on the basis of sex, that has the effect of denying or
limiting one's right to participate in the activity, or creates a hostile,
intimidating or offensive environment that places the victim in an
untenable situation and/or diminishes the victim's opportunity to
participate fairly. Sexual conduct can become discriminatory and harassing
when the nature of the interaction is unwelcome, or when a pattern of
behavior that is offensive to a "reasonable woman" exists. Discrimination
or harassment by one person against another is particularly abhorrent when
the first person is in a position of power with respect to the second. At
the same time, it should be understood that false accusations, whether
malicious or fanciful, have serious far-reaching effects. A deliberate
false accusation will be regarded as a very serious matter, as will threats
of retaliation by the accused against individuals who have filed complaints
of discrimination or harassment. In formulating a policy on discrimination
and sexual harassment, CEDA hopes to eliminate a rather narrow range of
behaviors and actions from this activity. But, we cannot guarantee that
the environment will be comfortable for all members of the community all
the time. Often, arguments in debate are unsettling and disturbing. When
one's ideas are under attack the experience can be both painful and highly
educational. The simple fact that a situation is uncomfortable does not
automatically make it discriminatory or harassing. In this regard, it is
central to debate that teachers and students should be able to take
controversial positions without fear, in accordance with the principles of
academic freedom. Being able to determine when something is outside the
bounds of academic legitimate debate strategy or argumentation, or simple
civility and good taste comes with education, experience and social
maturity. The following policy is designed to foster education and provide
grievance procedures for discrimination and sexual harassment complaints
and help reestablish a working and learning environment free of harassment.
Section 2: Methods of Dealing with Harassment and Discrimination
A. Direct, Personal Strategies--the Preferred Model
1. You can sometimes stop harassment by taking
direct action. Past experience within organizations and academic
institutions indicates that many grievances can be resolved without
resorting to a formal investigation. Therefore, this section outlines a
series of steps that might be followed in an attempt to reach a
satisfactory resolution when an individual chooses not to follow formal
grievance procedures immediately.
a. Say "No" to the harasser. Ignoring the
situation will not make it go away.
b. Ask the judge to intervene. Sexual harassment
is a case when judge intervention may be required to comply with the letter
of the law.
c. Write a note to the harasser. Describe the
incident and how it made you feel. State that you want the harassment to
stop. Keep a copy.
d. Keep a record of what happened, when it
happened and who might have witnessed the event.
e. Ask another person (coach, friend, trusted
colleague, the judge in the round) to intervene in your behalf--make good
use of the fact that we are people trained in or learning about argument
and conflict resolution. Talk out as many cases as possible.
2. In the event that a personal approach is
inappropriate or unlikely to produce change, resort to filing a formal
complaint as outlined below.
B. Strategies: Administrative Structure and Duties;
1. The President of the Cross Examination Debate
Association will appoint a Sexual Harassment Officer (SHO), preferably a
woman, who will chair the Committee on Discrimination and Sexual Harassment
(CDSH). The CDSH will consist of no fewer than three and no more than five
active CEDA members. The CDSH will be provided with adequate and
appropriate training.
2. The names of the SHO and CDSH members will be widely published: listed
in newsletters, included in the national tournament invitation and made
known in other appropriate ways.
3. The SHO and CDSH members shall be available to
consult with complainants within the procedure as outlined in this
procedure. (It is particularly important that the SHO be available at the
National Tournament.)
4. The CDSH shall facilitate and review an educational program annually,
informing members of the CEDA debate community about the definitions and
interpretations of discrimination and sexual harassment and about
procedures for initiating complaints.
C. Procedures in Cases of Discrimination or Sexual Harassment
(these rules apply most directly to the National Tournament but might be
adapted to fit other forensic related events):
1. Complaints may be brought by any member of the
CEDA community. Complaints will not be pursued when more than one year has
elapsed following the alleged incident.
2. At any point during the proceedings any of the
parties involved may choose to be accompanied by an adviser. All parties
are free to consult with an attorney, if they choose to do so, but the
investigation and hearing procedure is not a legal proceeding and attorneys
may not be present or participate.
3. At all times throughout the procedures outlined
below confidentiality will be preserved carefully whenever appropriate.
4. All written records pertaining to case shall be
kept permanently in a confidential file held by the CEDA Executive Secretary.
5. Procedures:
a. The complainant submits a detailed complaint,
in writing, to the SHO.
b. Once the complaint has been filed and accepted
by the SHO, the complainant shall be considered solely as a witness in an
investigation by the CDSH.
c. As expeditiously as possible, the SHO and CDSH
(or appropriate replacements) will investigate, meet with all parties
involved and ensuring that the accused has an opportunity to see and
respond to all statements made against him or her.
d. If the CDSH finds that no discrimination or
harassment has taken place, the matter will stop at this point and the
immediate parties shall receive notification that the case will go no
further. Copier of this report and other relevant information will be kept
on file permanently.
e. If the CDSH is convinced that discrimination
or harassment has occurred, they will prepare a complete report including
their findings, the statements of the accused party as well as the other
witnesses and their conclusions about the nature and seriousness of the
event that has taken place.
f. This report shall be submitted to the
President, who shall review the evidence and, if necessary, request
additional information.
g. In consultation with the CDSH, the President shall determine an
appropriate sanction. Depending on the severity of the event, this
sanction may include any of the following (this should not be viewed as an
exhaustive listing of all possible sanctions, just the most likely): oral
reprimands; written reprimands to be sent to directors of forensics and/or
Deans of Faculty or Students and/or College or University Presidents;
removal from future participation at the National Tournament (either
competing or judging); removal of CEDA points; or suspension of membership
in CEDA.
D. Appeals Procedures:
1. If the individual(s) found guilty of
discrimination or harassment wishes to appeal the President's decision,
he/she or they may request that a hearing be held to review the decision.
Ordinarily, such an appeal will be possible only if the individual(s)
involved can present new evidence not previously considered or evidence of
procedural violations during the formal procedures.
2. The Appeals Board will consist of those
available members of the Executive Committee, not previously involved in
the formal hearing and not having conflicts of interest. Replacements may
need to be appointed to produce a committee of at least five members.
3. The Appeals Board shall review the written
evidence in the case, consider new evidence provided to them, interview
witnesses as they deem necessary and shall consider the proposed
disciplinary action in relation to the evidence provided.
4. The findings and recommendations from the
Appeals Board are considered final.
5. All reports are to be filed permanently with
the Executive Secretary
Section 3: Epilogue:
Resources used in preparing this document include Sexual Harassment in
Higher Education: Concepts and Issues, NEA, 1992; Sexual Harassment: It's
Not Academic, Dept. of Education, 1984; Sexual Harassment, Cornell
University, 1990; Statement on Discrimination and Academic Freedom,
Carleton College, 1990; and Whitman College Staff Handbook, 1992.
XVII. SUGGESTIONS FOR TOURNAMENT ADMINISTRATION
Many items related to tournament administration are not ethical issues.
Furthermore, except for provisions contained in Bylaws V of the CEDA
Constitution, the Cross Examination Debate Association leaves tournament
administration procedures to local hosts. In order to assist students and
coaches who seek information about tournament procedures, this Suggestions
for Tournament Administration sets forth some guidelines which typify the
operations of many debate tournaments.
Section 1. Guidelines for debate tournament matching which protect
equality of competition include:
A. A debate team should not meet the same team during
preliminary rounds of a tournament unless:
1. There are so few teams entered that it would be
impossible for the tournament to proceed, in which case the two teams
should switch sides the second time they meet, or
2. The schools entering the tournament have agreed
to suspend the provision that teams not debate each other twice in
preliminary rounds.
B. So far as possible, debate teams should debate an
equal number of preliminary rounds on each side of the debate proposition.
Rounds on each side of the question should generally alternate. In
tournaments with an odd number of preliminary rounds, efforts should be
made to balance a team's total of affirmative and negative contests when
matching even numbered rounds.
C. Tournament round matching procedures should be advertised
in the invitation to include:
1. The number of rounds pre-set with the
principles guiding pre-set assignment (i.e.,"random," "geographic
distribution," "approximate strength of schedule," etc.).
2. The number of power matched rounds and
principles guiding power-matching (i.e.,"high-low," "high-high,"
"lag-power," etc.).
Section 2. Guidelines for judge assignment which protect equality of
competition include:
A. A judge should not be assigned to judge his/her own team.
B. A judge should not judge the same debate team twice during
a tournament's preliminary rounds unless there is no way to avoid this
conflict. In such cases, the judge should hear the debate team on the
opposite side, unless it is impossible to do this, or the schools competing
agree to suspend this provision.
C. A judge should not judge the same debate team in
elimination rounds that s/he has previously heard in the preliminary rounds
or in successive elimination rounds if it can be avoided.
D.. A judge should not judge debaters when there is a conflict
of interest, such as:
1. The judge has previously coached in college a
debater s/he is to hear.
2. The judge was, within the last two years, the coach of the
school whose team s/he is about to hear.
3. The judge was, within the last two years, an undergraduate forensics
competitor at the school whose team s/he is about to hear.
E. Prior to the start of the tournament, all judges
should have the opportunity to declare themselves ineligible to hear
specific debate teams due to conflict of interest.
F. The practice of allowing debate teams to prevent a
specific judge from hearing a particular team should be permitted only when:
1. All teams are given an equal chance to declare
judge strikes prior to the start of the tournament.
2. All teams are granted the same number of strikes.
3. Once a judge is struck, s/he should not be
assigned to judge those teams who struck him/her at any time during the
tournament.
4. Any procedures for removing strikes should be stated openly to all
competitors.
Section 3:. Guidelines for tournament invitations which promote fair
competition should include:
A. Specification of the level of competition expected
(i.e., "Open," "Novice," Lincoln-Douglas,"etc.).
B. Clear definitions of all divisions of competition.
C. Explanation of the basis of advancing competitors to
the elimination rounds and for determining awards:
1. For advancing teams to elimination rounds it is
assumed the win-loss record is the first criterion. Beyond win-loss
criterion, tournaments should specify the order of subordinate criteria
(i.e., team points, adjusted team points, opposition record, etc.).
2. For determining speaker awards, invitations
should specify the criteria for determining awards (i.e., speaker points,
adjusted speaker points, ranks, etc.).
D. Explanation of the basis for assigning sweepstakes
points if awarded.
E. Statement of time limits for all events including
preparation time (if used).
F. Explanation of judge assignment procedures used (i.e.,
"random," "mutually preferred," etc.). Invitations should indicate whether
a judge preference/strike system will be used.
G. Announcement of tab room staff and personnel if not
from the host school. Invitations should note if a computer package is used
to administer tournament.
H. Explanation of the nature of the anticipated judging pool (i.e.,
"attorneys," "lay persons," etc.).
I. Indication of whether results are to be kept secret.
J. Indication of whether the host school is eligible to
receive awards or participate in elimination rounds.
Section 4: Guidelines for general tournament administration practices
include:
A. Tournament directors should ensure that results and
ballots are made available to all contestants as soon as possible at the
end of the competition.
B. Tournaments should not be designed to operate at a
personal profit to any individual.
C. Tournaments should run smoothly and efficiently with
schedules realistically allowing:
1. Time for judges to complete their ballots;
2. Meal breaks at appropriate hours;
3. Power-matching (it is recommended that,
whenever possible, power-matching occur at the end of the day or during
meal breaks.); and
4. Beginning and ending times which allow
competitors and judges to rest.
XVIII. EVIDENCE POLICY
A. The following applies to CEDA's National Tournament only. Tournament
directors are encouraged to adopt these guidelines and procedures, with the
exception of D.4, at CEDA-sanctioned tournaments.
B. Competitors shall be prohibited from using fabricated or distorted
evidence.
1. "Evidence" is defined as material which is represented as published
fact or opinion testimony and offered in support of a debater's claim.
2. "Fabricated" evidence refers to the citing of a fact or opinion that is
either from a source that is found to be non-existent or not contained in
the original source of the material in question.
3. "Distorted" evidence refers to the misrepresentation of the actual or
implied content of factual or opinion evidence. Misrepresentations may
include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Quoting out of context: selecting text from an article in such a way
that the claim made with the selected text is clearly inconsistent with the
author's position as that position is manifest in the article, book, or
other source from which the quotation is drawn, when that material is taken
as a whole.
b. Internally omitting words from a quotation or adding words to a
quotation in such a way that the meaning evident in the resulting modified
quotation deviates substantially in quality, quantity, probability or
degree of force from the author's position as manifest in the quotation in
question prior to modification.
c. Internally omitting words from a quotation or adding words to a
quotation without indicating, either on the written form of the quotation
or orally when the quotation is delivered to an opponent or judge, that
such a deletion or addition has been.
4. Fabricated and distorted evidence are so defined without reference to
whether or not the debater using it was the person responsible for
originally misrepresenting it.
C. Competitors shall allow their judges and opponents to examine the
evidence on request, and provide on request sufficient documentation on the
source of the evidence which would allow another person to locate the
quotation in its original form.
D. Adjudication Procedures for by-law XVII:
1. In all cases, challenges to evidence use should include the following
considerations:
a. Challenges should be made only as a last resort after reasonable
attempts to secure a mutually acceptable resolution through private
discussion the evidence in question have failed.
b. Challenges should be supported by appropriate documentation (e.g., a
copy of the original source).
c. Challenges should be resolved through a process that allows both the
persons making the challenge as well as the persons whose evidence is
challenged to provide reasonable explanations.
d. Challenges should not be made carelessly or on unsubstantial grounds.
The penalty for a false and reckless accusation should be comparable in
severity to the penalty for committing the alleged abuse.
2. When a challenge is made within the time limits of a given round, the
challenge ought to be initiated by the opposing team and resolved by the
judge(s). Given the nature of the accusation, it is advised that the round
should focus solely on the challenge once that challenge has been made.
The round need not be halted, however, as both sides should be allowed to
provide full explanations. It is advised that if the challenge is found to
be true, the judge should award the offending team a loss and zero speaker
points, and if the challenge is found to be false or unsubstantiated, the
judge should award the accusing team a loss and zero speaker points.
3. When a challenge is made during the tournament but outside the
time-constraints of a given debate round (e.g., if evidence misuse is
discovered after a given round) then the following procedures will apply:
a. A substantiated complaint of evidence fabrication or distortion as
defined above may be brought to the attention of the tournament director
and the judge(s) of the round in question.
b. The tournament director will direct the judge(s) involved to determine
whether the charges warrant consideration and, if so, to obtain input from
the teams involved. If a judge is unavailable, the tournament director
will appoint an agent to serve that judge's function.
c. Upon full review, the judge(s) may choose to reverse the points and
decision of the previous round in question or to let the points and
decision stand.
d. In so far as possible, the tournament will adjust future matches in
order to accommodate reversed decisions but will not re-pair or repeat any
rounds which have already begun.
4. When a challenge is made after the CEDA National Tournament, the following
procedures apply:
a. Any person from a CEDA member school who is party to a round in
question may initiate proceedings under this section for a violation of
by-law XVII by sending a complaint in writing to the President of CEDA.
Parties to a round in question will be taken to include the debaters and
coaches involved, the judge(s), and audience members. The complaint must
allege a fabrication or distortion of evidence as defined in section B
above.
b. The person(s) making the complaint shall attach to the complaint all
information leading to the filing of the complaint. This will include proof
that the evidence was actually used in a given round as well as proof that
the evidence was distorted or fabricated.
c. Upon receiving a substantiated complaint, the President shall notify in
writing the Director of Forensics of the student(s) alleged to have
violated by-law XVII. Any response from the parties to the President
concerning the complaint must be in writing and sent by registered mail.
d. Upon receiving a substantiated complaint, the President should forward
the complaint, together with any responses to members of CEDA's executive
council. Members of the Executive Council with a potential conflict of
interest should remove themselves from consideration of the issue.
Conflict of interest includes, but is not limited to affectional or
institutional affiliation with one or more of the parties involved in the
dispute.
e. The Executive Council is empowered to determine if a violation of
by-law XVII occurred, if that violation merits an institutional response,
and if so what that response should be. Possible responses include, but
are not limited to, reversing the recorded decision in past rounds,
adjusting relevant CEDA points, passing a motion of censure and publishing
it in CEDA's Newsletter, and notification of a school's Department Chair,
Dean, and/or President.
f. After a two-week review period, the CEDA President shall poll the
council members to determine if a majority decision can be rendered at that
time or if a hearing is necessary. If a majority votes in favor of a
hearing, the issue will be addressed at the next regular meeting of the
council. The hearing will be conducted in the manner described in Bylaw VII.
(1) The CEDA President will notify the parties involved by registered mail
of the time and place of the hearing, of the violation(s) which shall be
the subject of the hearing, of the names of witnesses who may possibly
appear at the hearing and of the right of the complainant(s), Director of
Forensics and/or student to be represented at the hearing by legal counsel.
(2) At the hearing, the CEDA President will read the complaint and
summarize supporting materials; allow Executive Council members to call
witnesses and receive documents into evidence; allow the complainant(s),
the Director of Forensics and/or the student to cross-examine witnesses and
examine documents; and keep a tape recording of the proceedings.
(3) At the conclusion of the hearing, the Executive Council will
render a decision by majority vote. The Executive Secretary will notify
all parties involved in writing of the decision and adjust CEDA points
consistent with the decision.
XIX. PUBLIC SPHERE DEBATE
Preamble: The Cross Examination Debate Association is committed to making
debate accessible to as many schools and students as possible. Recognizing
the variety which exists among schools, debaters, program & director goals,
and resources, as well as the need for an evidence based alternative, CEDA
will promote the offering of Public Sphere Debate at CEDA tournaments.
This article will set forth the aspiration of the Association for this type
of debate in hopes that this statement will promote more intercollegiate
debate and give guidance to those schools wishing to offer an alternative
at their intercollegiate tournaments.
Section 1: Individual tournament directors may modify time limits,
designate division(s) (e.g., open, junior, novice, etc.), and use one of
the official CEDA topics for Public Sphere Debate.
Section 2: Individual tournament directors should use as many
nontraditional judges as possible for Public Policy Debate.
Section 3: All rules and/or guidelines for Public Sphere Debate, including
time limits, topic, divisions, matching procedures, judge assignment
procedures, the nature of the judging pool, etc. should be made clear in
the tournament invitation.
Greg Simerly
Director of Debate, Idaho State University's James Rupp Debate Society
Executive-Secretary, Cross Examination Debate Association
Communication & Theatre
Box 8115-ISU
Pocatello, Idaho 83209
O (208) 282-5962
F 282-4598
C 847-5047
simegreg at isu.edu
More information about the Mailman
mailing list