[eDebate] [CEDA-L] Accusations of Illegal Debating

NEIL BERCH berchnorto
Fri Nov 2 09:26:02 CDT 2007


Josh--It's my understanding that the CEDA Sexual Harassment Liaison is only 
for CEDA Nationals, or at least only has "authority" at CEDA Nationals.  
Perhaps Jan or one of her successors could comment.--Neil


>From: Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com>
>To: "Sherry Hall" <shahall at comcast.net>
>CC: Shawn T Whalen <swhalen at sfsu.edu>, eDebate at ndtceda.com,NEIL BERCH 
><berchnorto at msn.com>, ceda-l at ndtceda.com
>Subject: Re: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Accusations of Illegal Debating
>Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 10:16:58 -0400
>
>Hello,
>
>In no way am I taking a stance on the appropriateness of SFSU's affirmative
>(have not seen/heard it).
>
>I was at the meetings way back when the harassment policy was passed and I
>seem to recal that involved the tournament director being ready and in
>contact with the host schools sexual harassment officer/office in such
>instances.  I cannot remember how discretionary the policy was/is but I
>suspect a CEDA officer could answer this easily.  There is also supposed to
>be a CEDA sexual harrassment liason as well (I seem to remember Jan Hovden
>had this office at one point).
>
>Hope all goes well,
>
>Josh
>
>
>
>
>On 11/2/07, Sherry Hall <shahall at comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >  Just to play the advocate here, it is my understanding that CEDA has
> > specific policies against harassment in debate rounds.  I know when we 
>put
> > an invitation out to our tournament and claim to be "CEDA-sanctioned" we 
>are
> > agreeing that those policies will be enforced at the tournament that we 
>are
> > hosting.  If people feel that your argument is in violation of those 
>rules,
> > what's wrong with asking the tournament to take action.  I must also 
>confess
> > that I am not as familiar with the CEDA rules as I am with the NDT 
>governing
> > documents, and am not sure what a host is supposed to do in response to 
>such
> > accusations.  It is also the case that probably every University in the
> > United States has policies opposing harassing language on campus.  From 
>my
> > experience with various university policies that were implicated at 
>summer
> > debate camps over the years, most universities prefer that harassment 
>issues
> > be dealt with within the university before calling in law enforcement
> > (unless a physical assault was involved).  Is your objection to last
> > weekend's action that your arguments were characterized as "illegal"?  
>Would
> > you really have preferred that police be called?
> >
> > Sherry
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* Shawn T Whalen <swhalen at sfsu.edu>
> > *To:* Sherry Hall <shahall at comcast.net>
> > *Cc:* Shawn T Whalen <swhalen at sfsu.edu> ; NEIL BERCH 
><berchnorto at msn.com>;
> > eDebate at ndtceda.com ; ceda-l at ndtceda.com
> > *Sent:* Thursday, November 01, 2007 10:45 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Accusations of Illegal Debating
> >
> >
> >  Hi Sherry,
> >
> > I really don't think its necessary - my point is that if someone thinks
> > that the law has been violated and wants it enforced, they should call a 
>cop
> > and/or an attorney.  The debate tournament is not equiped to deal with 
>those
> > claims.
> >
> > That being said,  our debaters critique the heteronormativity in
> > traditional international relations scholarship and in traditional 
>academic
> > debating.  They suggest that the results of heteronormativity have 
>resulted
> > in the structuring of terrorism and queerness in similar ways.  They 
>attempt
> > to "interrupt these discourses, informed by queer pedagogy, by 
>performing a
> > narrative which involves explicit language and some abbreviated, fully
> > clothed similated sex acts.  The accusation was that our performance was
> > sexual harassment.
> >
> > Shawn
> >
> >
> > Shawn--
> >  I have to agree with Neil.  There is no way for anyone to add
> > constructive comments or opinions about this issue when they have no 
>idea
> > what you are talking about.  Whether you want to debate the merits of 
>the
> > claim or not, some brief explanation of what the issues are -- what is 
>your
> > argument?  what is the nature of the accusation of illegality?  -- is
> > necessary.  Surely, if someone threatens to kill someone else in a 
>debate
> > round, that is not protected speech just because it occurred in the 
>setting
> > of a debate round.
> >  Sherry
> > =
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CEDA-L mailing list
> > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com
> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
> >
> >


>_______________________________________________
>CEDA-L mailing list
>CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com
>http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l





More information about the Mailman mailing list