[eDebate] Put the pie in the oven

Roy Eno Roy.Eno
Thu Mar 20 15:08:25 CDT 2008


In reference to Chief's response to the debate community concerning the pie in the face incident: I am the coach mentioned who is recruiting one of Chief's debaters and I sat in the room for the last two rebuttals, speeches from students involved that more than adequately addressed the divergent points of view.
 
I deeply believe in each person's right to be comfortable in the expectation that no physical assaults will occur before, during or after a debate round. I have taught and coached argumentation for nearly thirty years, and one of my prime goals is to provide alternatives to violence by using research, language and respect in essential conflicts. I don't believe a debater's private or personal space should be invaded by anyone during a debate round. If it is necessary to pass specific rules prohibiting such incursions, I support them, as long as they are carefully framed.
 
All disclaimers aside, I understand shock and anger as a response to the pie incident; however, I think that people who were not present and who are responding to hearsay should exercise restraint, especially when making attributions about the people involved. This argument environment is complex, one with a wider range of approaches than debate has ever seen, and that makes me happy. The way we make decisions is neither always ordered and rule bound, nor are our choices always devoid of conflicting and overlapping frames of reference. I don't want the arena minimized. That said, I also understand situations where students become frustrated and feel thwarted, caught in a web of adhesive arguments. I remember a round at Emporia many years ago when I had voted against UCO on a critique. In the after round discussion, Jason Russell passionately decried the circular nature of the critical theory trap and asked me how they could get out of it. Much to his frustration, I told him I didn't know, that these arguments were new for me too, and that I was certainly figuring ways to get into, out of, and around such constructs. We have all situated ourselves in different ways since that time--we have answers and strategies, but they aren't always obvious to young, early level debaters. It is little wonder that occasionally a debater stumbles into an entirely inappropriate, but not historically unknown, strategy, i.e.., pushing a pie into another debater's face. Obviously, the context of this debate provided ground for much larger allegations. Nevertheless, the incident did not spiral out of control to an escalated level of violence. The debaters, all of them, conducted themselves admirably. The underlying frustrations and feelings were bared. 
 
I am an old damn hippie. I can remember working in the civil rights movement and having conversations every day, hour after hour of them, where my associates pointed out and interrogated racism innate in my assumptions and behaviors, whether they were obvious or subliminal. I learned and the process was painful. I learned to carefully understand the line between racism, something we all have, and bigotry. In the debate round we are all talking about, I saw a frustrated, poorly thought out strategy to deal with a perceived "no win" argument situation, and it backfired because of the obvious reminders of historical oppression in a personal way. I did not see bigotry. 
 
The bright light I see in this forest is that the result was impassioned expression and rethinking from the participants. I think the outcome of the round was obvious and the consequences occurred immediately. The in-round process of adjudication worked. If we, as a community, believe we need to make rules, then let's do so, but I believe personalizing this to the offenders is inappropriate. Pass the rules and designate sanctioned consequences, but let the young people who handled themselves admirably make their peace between one another and internally without a firestorm of negative judgments.
 
I will still recruit this young man. I think he has had a valuable lesson, and I would hope that the debaters and coaches have privately made amends.
 
For those of you who didn't immediately delete or give up mid-way, thanks.
 
Skip Eno
UT-San Antonio
 
 

________________________________

From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com on behalf of edebate-request at www.ndtceda.com
Sent: Thu 3/20/2008 12:00 PM
To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com
Subject: eDebate Digest, Vol 30, Issue 20



Send eDebate mailing list submissions to
        edebate at www.ndtceda.com

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        edebate-request at www.ndtceda.com

You can reach the person managing the list at
        edebate-owner at www.ndtceda.com

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of eDebate digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Pie specifics, please (Alfred Snider)
   2. White Supremacy(was pies). (Andy Ellis)
   3. UWG speaker awards (michael hester)
   4. 2 rounds of judging available at the NDT (omar guevara)
   5. Recent 'pie' controversy (Gordon Stables)
   6. Re: Recent 'pie' controversy (Andy Ellis)
   7. VHSL Regional Tournament - March 29, 2008 - Need Judges
      (Duane Hyland)
   8. Graduate Assistantship in Miami (Steinberg, David L)
   9. Traveling to Wichita (Gary Larson)
  10. JCCC Thanks (Roy Eno)
  11. Bretthauer ONLY (Thomas Howard)
  12. Re: Recent 'pie' controversy (David Glass)
  13. Re: Recent 'pie' controversy (Gordon Stables)
  14. Prefs at CEDA Nats (Gary Larson)
  15. Pies, Privilege, and People (Darren Elliott)
  16. NDT Payment Forms (Sherry Hall)
  17. Prefs update - still 50 teams with prefs outstanding (Gary Larson)
  18. CEDA Nats Prefs (Joe Patrice)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:58:30 -0400
From: Alfred Snider <alfred.snider at uvm.edu>
Subject: [eDebate] Pie specifics, please
To: edebate at ndtceda.com, Megan Jean Harlow <mharlow at uvm.edu>,   Darren
        Elliott <delliott at kckcc.edu>
Message-ID: <47E15446.6040907 at uvm.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

I am astounded at Megan Harlow's description of what happened. I have
worked with Megan for years and know her to be a person very concerned
with integrity and the welfare of the students she works with.

Diante, hang in there friend, this incident has proven your point in a
very powerful fashion. I have been hearing about your advocacy and your
passion for debate, and I admire your advocacy and the way you handled
this unfortunate event.

I want to know some specifics:
1. The name of the student who threw the pie. Why did s/he think that
was appropriate?
2. What school is that student from? I heard KCKCC.
3. What does the coach have to say? Chief? What do you have to say? I
now understand you have made countercharges that Megan "coached" her
student while out of the room. Shame. Can my students dump sewage on
your students and then call them "cheaters" if they leave the room?
4. What did the tournament do?
5. Has there been an apology?
6. I heard that while a white student was speaking they pied the African
American student who was not speaking. Is that true?

Megan told me a lot in her post. I have since discovered that the Kansas
State team got to the final round. Congrats. I am not sure I would have
been able to carry on after being pied in a situation like that. It
certainly would have tested my avowed pacifism.

Time to name names and ask some questions. I am open to listening. But,
based on what I know already it is going to have to be good.

Tuna

--
Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna
Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics
University of Vermont
Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA
Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com <http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com/> 
Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu <http://debate.uvm.edu/> 
World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/
World Debate Institute Blog http://worlddebateinstitute.blogspot.com <http://worlddebateinstitute.blogspot.com/> 
802-656-0097 office telephone
802-656-4275 office fax



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:14:28 -0400
From: "Andy Ellis" <andy.edebate at gmail.com>
Subject: [eDebate] White Supremacy(was pies).
To: edebate <eDebate at www.ndtceda.com>
Message-ID:
        <9368bc9b0803191114t18450658re3db700adfa5c4d3 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Well i would suggest publicly that KCKCC not pref me this coming weekend.
And if they do i would suggest that anyone who debates them in front of me
call them out for this and make an argument about it...I like Tuna would be
willing to listen, though what i have seen so far indicates that this was a
straight act of white suprmacy at first inflicting symbolic violence on
those who may try to challenge the racial ordering of teh status quo. Then
in the typical community protection of the individuals involved...i hate
that..someone did something reprehensible and then we don't talk about them
in order to have ideal abstract discussions...thats another way we ensure
this type of thing continues...we can always say there are racists and white
supremacists but they are not we....nor people we know....of course it could
be that the debaters that did the pying where not the beneficiaries of such
a white supramcists system, but then again that context to is left out when
we are willing to hermetically seal the debate round and pretend that it is
neither pushed by or pushing toward a larger systematic problem...r
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080319/be7c6dc9/attachment.html

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:36:13 -0400
From: "michael hester" <uwgdebate at gmail.com>
Subject: [eDebate] UWG speaker awards
To: edebate at ndtceda.com
Message-ID:
        <2e0f7ba70803191136i35bd1f15i3ea6e1bcaa14cca6 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

For those who have not received their sword speaker award in the mail, i
apologize. their was a SNAFU in the process and we are having to start over
again. If you had asked me to mail your award to you, please send me the
address you want it mailed to and we'll get it to you asap after nationals.
sorry for the delay.

hester
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080319/f699f3ec/attachment-0001.htm

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:38:56 -0600
From: omar guevara <oguevara at hotmail.com>
Subject: [eDebate] 2 rounds of judging available at the NDT
To: <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Message-ID: <BAY138-W156DFEC3EB3535B1D44E9FD3070 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"


send me an email if interested.

OG





Omar G Guevara II
Director of Forensics
Department of Communication
College of Arts & Humanities
Weber State University
Ogden, Utah


801.626.6220 (Office)
801.668.6910 (Cell)

Oguevara at hotmail.com
Oguevara at weber.edu



"I am the stone that the builder refused..." 

_________________________________________________________________
Helping your favorite cause is as easy as instant messaging.?You IM, we give.
http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=text_hotmail_join
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080319/833d0821/attachment-0001.htm

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:55:12 -0700
From: Gordon Stables <stables at usc.edu>
Subject: [eDebate] Recent 'pie' controversy
To: edebate <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Message-ID: <006301c889f2$c2d9e550$488daff0$@edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I will apologize for the brevity of these comments, but I scheduled to leave
for CEDA shortly.



>From the accounts so far made available, it does appear as though an
incident last weekend has created hard feelings and left many of us looking
for more information. Justin has provided some information and I echo Tuna's
call for additional details before folks provide public judgments on the
individuals and the specific activity.



The numerous sarcastic postings of the last few days do little to help this
situation and ignore the human beings involved. Megan's email should remind
everyone that careless comments or actions can be very hurtful. I commend
those who have taken the higher road in discussing the matter with a needed
respect for all involved.



I would caution those involved in a more extensive discussion of this, or
any serious matter, to minimize using this forum, especially as the primary
means of consideration. The nature of this space tends to generally
encourage those who are least familiar with the details and most interested
in inflammatory commentary.



Justin provided an important frame for the event when he first posted. He
asked questions about the nature and acceptability of such satirical
practices. David engaged in a line of conversation that I believe Tuna and
others reinforced - satire is an element of political commentary that has
plenty of value  in specific settings, but physical conduct in a debate
setting appears unnecessary and harmful.



The question that Justin opened with, and seems relevant today, is the
nature of satire that crosses into the physical and demeaning conduct of an
opponent. The references to the CEDA constitution speak to the importance of
providing an environment where competitors respect each other.



It is undeniable that when debaters engage questions of class and privilege
that debaters will feel a great deal of personal accountability in those
debates. Indeed I would imagine that coaches supporting these arguments seek
to have a conversation about these issues. We should all be aware of the
significance and complexity of these matters as we discuss this issue. It is
not easy to confront an opponent that contends you are in some way involved
in class or structural bias, especially if you also feel aggrieved.



This should not, however,  encourage students to cross the line into
physical conduct against other students. I have tried to learn more about
this incident, but I also acknowledge my very limited grasp of the details.



At this point I would just encourage students and coaches alike to seriously
consider the problems of such approaches. A variety of personal and
professional ethical norms should cause great caution when encouraging a
student to physically confront another in any form.



I know some have already made claims that this line between speech and
conduct isn't very meaningful. It is hard to dispute that some forms of
language can, and does, create such harm to others. None of this, however,
should be read as a rationale to simply ignore the question of dissuading
individuals from engaging in physical forms of conduct.



The basic unit of our activity is the ability to provide a political space
for students to engage each other. We are passionate in the ways that we
feel that space should be evaluated. We must remember, however, that without
a common willingness to share that space we don't have much of community.



Many of our community understand this fragile trust and work to protect it.
This conversation stems from a single, yet important, debate and ideally the
reflection posed by this conversation allows folks to look at it as a means
of appreciating the boundaries of our activity.



It is not to dismiss or belittle to issue to say that the individual
incident should be further discussed and also that coaches and students
consider these boundaries in their arguments and performances.  I am very
eager to continue this discussion both with folks at CEDA and those who are
not attending. Just please heed the call of the many voices in this
conversation who encourage everyone to see the real people involved in this
matter.



Travel safely to Wichita.

Gordon



Gordon Stables, Ph.D.
Director of Debate and Forensics
Annenberg School for Communication
University of Southern California
Office: 213 740 2759               Fax: 213 740 3913
 <http://usctrojandebate.com/> http://usctrojandebate.com <http://usctrojandebate.com/> 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080319/828ca251/attachment-0001.htm

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:22:45 -0400
From: "Andy Ellis" <andy.edebate at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Recent 'pie' controversy
To: edebate <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Message-ID:
        <9368bc9b0803191222lc3a413fpf940712a48b31394 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

I think that gordons call to not use this forum is a dangerous one...this is
the largest broadcast forum we have and risks the most eyes seeing
it...hiding and sequestering the conversation on different forums allows
what appears to be an archetypal display of privilege protecting a system of
racial ordering to avoid scrutiny. This seems to be one of the hallmarks of
contemporary debate practices, the sealing off of rounds as if they occurred
in a laboratory isolated from society around them, gives the space for those
operating as beneficiaries of an unjust order to distance themselves from
their actions...i respect grodons call for balance but think in this
instance it might server the purpose of protecting a form of symbolic
violence that ideal and neutral discussions cannot account for.

On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Gordon Stables <stables at usc.edu> wrote:

>  I will apologize for the brevity of these comments, but I scheduled to
> leave for CEDA shortly.
>
>
>
> From the accounts so far made available, it does appear as though an
> incident last weekend has created hard feelings and left many of us looking
> for more information. Justin has provided some information and I echo Tuna's
> call for additional details before folks provide public judgments on the
> individuals and the specific activity.
>
>
>
> The numerous sarcastic postings of the last few days do little to help
> this situation and ignore the human beings involved. Megan's email should
> remind everyone that careless comments or actions can be very hurtful. I
> commend those who have taken the higher road in discussing the matter with a
> needed respect for all involved.
>
>
>
> I would caution those involved in a more extensive discussion of this, or
> any serious matter, to minimize using this forum, especially as the primary
> means of consideration. The nature of this space tends to generally
> encourage those who are least familiar with the details and most interested
> in inflammatory commentary.
>
>
>
> Justin provided an important frame for the event when he first posted. He
> asked questions about the nature and acceptability of such satirical
> practices. David engaged in a line of conversation that I believe Tuna and
> others reinforced ? satire is an element of political commentary that has
> plenty of value  in specific settings, but physical conduct in a debate
> setting appears unnecessary and harmful.
>
>
>
> The question that Justin opened with, and seems relevant today, is the
> nature of satire that crosses into the physical and demeaning conduct of an
> opponent. The references to the CEDA constitution speak to the importance of
> providing an environment where competitors respect each other.
>
>
>
> It is undeniable that when debaters engage questions of class and
> privilege that debaters will feel a great deal of personal accountability in
> those debates. Indeed I would imagine that coaches supporting these
> arguments seek to have a conversation about these issues. We should all be
> aware of the significance and complexity of these matters as we discuss this
> issue. It is not easy to confront an opponent that contends you are in some
> way involved in class or structural bias, especially if you also feel
> aggrieved.
>
>
>
> This should not, however,  encourage students to cross the line into
> physical conduct against other students. I have tried to learn more about
> this incident, but I also acknowledge my very limited grasp of the details.
>
>
>
> At this point I would just encourage students and coaches alike to
> seriously consider the problems of such approaches. A variety of personal
> and professional ethical norms should cause great caution when encouraging a
> student to physically confront another in any form.
>
>
>
> I know some have already made claims that this line between speech and
> conduct isn't very meaningful. It is hard to dispute that some forms of
> language can, and does, create such harm to others. None of this, however,
> should be read as a rationale to simply ignore the question of dissuading
> individuals from engaging in physical forms of conduct.
>
>
>
> The basic unit of our activity is the ability to provide a political space
> for students to engage each other. We are passionate in the ways that we
> feel that space should be evaluated. We must remember, however, that without
> a common willingness to share that space we don't have much of community.
>
>
>
> Many of our community understand this fragile trust and work to protect
> it. This conversation stems from a single, yet important, debate and ideally
> the reflection posed by this conversation allows folks to look at it as a
> means of appreciating the boundaries of our activity.
>
>
>
> It is not to dismiss or belittle to issue to say that the individual
> incident should be further discussed and also that coaches and students
> consider these boundaries in their arguments and performances.  I am very
> eager to continue this discussion both with folks at CEDA and those who are
> not attending. Just please heed the call of the many voices in this
> conversation who encourage everyone to see the real people involved in this
> matter.
>
>
>
> Travel safely to Wichita.
>
> Gordon
>
>
>
> Gordon Stables, Ph.D.
> Director of Debate and Forensics
> Annenberg School for Communication
> University of Southern California
> Office: 213 740 2759               Fax: 213 740 3913
> http://usctrojandebate.com <http://usctrojandebate.com/> 
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080319/d9a3a497/attachment-0001.htm

------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:23:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Duane Hyland <privethedge at yahoo.com>
Subject: [eDebate] VHSL Regional Tournament - March 29, 2008 - Need
        Judges
To: edebate at ndtceda.com
Message-ID: <912097.10007.qm at web50912.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Hi, The Virginia High School League needs to hire policy debate judges for the VSHL Northern Region AAA Tournament. This is being held on March 29th at Westfield High School. This tournament determines the teams that will represent the Northern Virginia region at the VHSL State Tournament in April. We need to hire  several judges. Pay is normally about $80.00 for the day (4 rounds of judging)

If you are interested and can help the League, please let me know so I can put you in touch with the tournament organizer - I'm just passing this information along for them.

Thanks, Duane


        "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson"
 "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by  its collision with error." John S. Mill
  Who said Dr. Who isn't Funny: "Rose: You Didn't Have to Kill him! Dalek: "Neither did we need him to live."
Dalek to Cyberman: :"You are Superior to us in one respect." Cyberman: "What is that?" Dalek: "Dying!"










      
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing.   Make Yahoo your homepage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080319/3c1f8303/attachment-0001.htm

------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:51:16 -0400
From: "Steinberg, David L" <dave at miami.edu>
Subject: [eDebate] Graduate Assistantship in Miami
To: "edebate at ndtceda.com" <edebate at ndtceda.com>,
        "'ceda-l at ndtceda.com'"  <ceda-l at ndtceda.com>
Message-ID:
        <EB3D49006247924F9AEF11B8C594618B62E8E4FF at MBX03.cgcent.miami.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

The University of Miami is still searching for a graduate assistant debate coach for next year.  We have a generous assistantship package
from the University, which pays full tuition and a $15,000 stipend. There are no teaching requirements, only working with the team and
traveling to tournaments.

The assistantship covers any program in the School of Communication. Interested applicants can pursue degrees in:

M.A. TV Broadcast Journalism
M.A. Communication Studies
M.A. Print Journalism
M.F.A. Motion Picture Production
M.F.A. Motion Picture Producing
M.F.A. Screenwriting
M.A. Periodismo
M.A. Public Relations
M.A. Film Studies

The assistantship package is really good for grad students, the team is fun and enjoyable and the location is ideal.  Miami is a truly
unique and exciting place to live - there is never a dull moment.

Interested applicants should email Dave Steinberg at dave at miami.edu<mailto:dave at miami.edu>. For questions about the position, you can also email the team's
current graduate assistants John Prieur at johnprieur at gmail.com<mailto:johnprieur at gmail.com>,Kenny McCaffrey at kmccaffrey at gmail.com<mailto:kmccaffrey at gmail.com>, or Nicole Richter at nrichter at umsis.miami.edu<mailto:nrichter at umsis.miami.edu>.

Technically, the application deadline has already passed.  The team does have some influence in continuing to accept applications, but you
should apply soon to ensure that you are considered.  Even if your application is not quite ready, email Dave Steinberg now to alert him
of your interest.

And, talk to us at CEDA Nats!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080319/bac476b9/attachment-0001.htm

------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:28:17 -0500
From: "Gary Larson" <Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu>
Subject: [eDebate] Traveling to Wichita
To: "Edebate" <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Message-ID: <47E13F21.3F5C.0033.0 at wheaton.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

I will be traveling from 5:00 PM until 10:00 PM tonight.  If you have questions regarding the tournament (your entry, constraints, prefs, etc), I'll get back to you later this evening.

GARY



------------------------------

Message: 10
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:29:12 -0500
From: "Roy Eno" <Roy.Eno at utsa.edu>
Subject: [eDebate] JCCC Thanks
To: <edebate at www.ndtceda.com>,  <edebate at www.ndtceda.com>
Message-ID:
        <7CE039ACB3DF9645B48718D2FDB21DCA315257 at opal1604.UTSARR.NET>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Thanks so much from the UTSA squad for the very hospitable and highly competent hosting and tournament management by Terri and Jeff and all who worked so hard--well done!

Thank you!

Skip Eno for UTSA Roadrunner Squad
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080319/ba5efca6/attachment-0001.htm

------------------------------

Message: 11
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:53:37 -0600
From: "Thomas Howard" <thowarddebates at gmail.com>
Subject: [eDebate] Bretthauer ONLY
To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com
Message-ID:
        <db769e7c0803191453s2e46a84aq5fd1a9333090689d at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

John Bretthauer, please backchannel.
-Tom Howard
ENMU Debate
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080319/b1707dd2/attachment-0001.htm

------------------------------

Message: 12
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 19:41:20 -0400
From: "David Glass" <gacggc at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Recent 'pie' controversy
To: "Gordon Stables" <stables at usc.edu>
Cc: edebate <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Message-ID:
        <8371758b0803191641m564bcb35x75f14cb7111886b6 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

Hi Gordon,

With respect, it seems this forum is a unique tool that allows the entire
community to reach out to Megan and Diante and let them know what happened
is not acceptable.

The specifics as reported further emphasize the need for the line that Tuna
& I have been discussing - and they do so in a particularly dramatic way,
since of course the history of racism is that its critics, and most
particularly its targets, have been silenced by violence and intimidation.

The pie and the laughter is an example of that.

So even if one takes an extreme position and says the details as reported
never happened, or did not happen as reported, the narative is still useful
in that it illustrates the way such physical acts cause chilling and
silencing.

Therefore...  yes...   it does seem important to reach out publicly to Megan
and Diante and let them know such actions can't be tolerated; these types of
actions in debate rounds  should not be viewed as tolerable or legitimate
approaches, and rules should be adopted to ban such actions and guarantee
that debate rounds are safe for freedom of  VERBAL expression; while there
are laws to prevent assault and battery, an explicit stand should be taken
by debate's governing bodies on this point.

In light of Megan's email, it seems that community silence at this point
might imply indifference; that would be bad.

David

On 3/19/08, Gordon Stables <stables at usc.edu> wrote:
>
>  I will apologize for the brevity of these comments, but I scheduled to
> leave for CEDA shortly.
>
>
>
> From the accounts so far made available, it does appear as though an
> incident last weekend has created hard feelings and left many of us looking
> for more information. Justin has provided some information and I echo Tuna's
> call for additional details before folks provide public judgments on the
> individuals and the specific activity.
>
>
>
> The numerous sarcastic postings of the last few days do little to help
> this situation and ignore the human beings involved. Megan's email should
> remind everyone that careless comments or actions can be very hurtful. I
> commend those who have taken the higher road in discussing the matter with a
> needed respect for all involved.
>
>
>
> I would caution those involved in a more extensive discussion of this, or
> any serious matter, to minimize using this forum, especially as the primary
> means of consideration. The nature of this space tends to generally
> encourage those who are least familiar with the details and most interested
> in inflammatory commentary.
>
>
>
> Justin provided an important frame for the event when he first posted. He
> asked questions about the nature and acceptability of such satirical
> practices. David engaged in a line of conversation that I believe Tuna and
> others reinforced ? satire is an element of political commentary that has
> plenty of value  in specific settings, but physical conduct in a debate
> setting appears unnecessary and harmful.
>
>
>
> The question that Justin opened with, and seems relevant today, is the
> nature of satire that crosses into the physical and demeaning conduct of an
> opponent. The references to the CEDA constitution speak to the importance of
> providing an environment where competitors respect each other.
>
>
>
> It is undeniable that when debaters engage questions of class and
> privilege that debaters will feel a great deal of personal accountability in
> those debates. Indeed I would imagine that coaches supporting these
> arguments seek to have a conversation about these issues. We should all be
> aware of the significance and complexity of these matters as we discuss this
> issue. It is not easy to confront an opponent that contends you are in some
> way involved in class or structural bias, especially if you also feel
> aggrieved.
>
>
>
> This should not, however,  encourage students to cross the line into
> physical conduct against other students. I have tried to learn more about
> this incident, but I also acknowledge my very limited grasp of the details.
>
>
>
> At this point I would just encourage students and coaches alike to
> seriously consider the problems of such approaches. A variety of personal
> and professional ethical norms should cause great caution when encouraging a
> student to physically confront another in any form.
>
>
>
> I know some have already made claims that this line between speech and
> conduct isn't very meaningful. It is hard to dispute that some forms of
> language can, and does, create such harm to others. None of this, however,
> should be read as a rationale to simply ignore the question of dissuading
> individuals from engaging in physical forms of conduct.
>
>
>
> The basic unit of our activity is the ability to provide a political space
> for students to engage each other. We are passionate in the ways that we
> feel that space should be evaluated. We must remember, however, that without
> a common willingness to share that space we don't have much of community.
>
>
>
> Many of our community understand this fragile trust and work to protect
> it. This conversation stems from a single, yet important, debate and ideally
> the reflection posed by this conversation allows folks to look at it as a
> means of appreciating the boundaries of our activity.
>
>
>
> It is not to dismiss or belittle to issue to say that the individual
> incident should be further discussed and also that coaches and students
> consider these boundaries in their arguments and performances.  I am very
> eager to continue this discussion both with folks at CEDA and those who are
> not attending. Just please heed the call of the many voices in this
> conversation who encourage everyone to see the real people involved in this
> matter.
>
>
>
> Travel safely to Wichita.
>
> Gordon
>
>
>
> Gordon Stables, Ph.D.
> Director of Debate and Forensics
> Annenberg School for Communication
> University of Southern California
> Office: 213 740 2759               Fax: 213 740 3913
> http://usctrojandebate.com <http://usctrojandebate.com/> 
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080319/add75c11/attachment-0001.htm

------------------------------

Message: 13
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:43:42 -0700
From: Gordon Stables <stables at usc.edu>
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Recent 'pie' controversy
To: David Glass <gacggc at gmail.com>
Cc: edebate <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Message-ID: <de79bdb011ad9.47e150ce at usc.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252

David,

Thanks for your note. It is important that we speak carefully on this matter and I am happy to clarify my remarks.

I think you and Andy both misstate my position as some form of 'community silence.' That appears to be an unfair reading of comments. I acknowledged, like several others who spoke about the issue, that my own lack of
familiarity with the circumstances makes me hesitant to make blanket statements about what did or did not happen. I engaged Justin's call for a general assessment of the types of practices referenced. I encouraged students
and coaches alike to carefully consider their actions and I fully agreed with the general call for respecting one's opponents, as stated in the CEDA constitution.

I contend it is unfair and misleading to read my comments as anything other than a strong rebuke to the idea of physically confronting any student in any debate.

I did include a call for careful, and yes in some cases circumspect use, of this forum. This is not a call that I have made about only this issue. Those with too much free time can google previous remarks bemoaning the
weaknesses of this free speech site that intentionally avoids regulation because it needs to do so to avoid liability. As much as this environment provides space for discussion, it also suffers from ab ability for crude and hurtful
remarks, often made behind anonymous names. This is not a classroom or even a debate office.

Both you and Andy have, to a degree, idealized the conversation on this issue over the last few days. A big motivation of my remarks was to appeal for a reasoned dialogue. I am not seeking community silence, but it is important
to discourage voices who served to belittle this situation. One only needs to review the archives from the past few days to review the 'tone' of this conversation. For every email like Meagan's that spoke to the event in question
there were several more from folks who 'enjoyed' adding sarcasm and adolescent humor to the forum.

I believe I specifically cautioned the reliance on this forum because, as much as we like to pretend otherwise, this forum is not a formal site of deliberation. This site is not governed, managed or regulated by any debate
organization. Over its long history, the extremes of many destructive conversations have instead often driven the most eloquent voices away. It was only weeks ago that a former debater made a powerful appeal for others to be
careful in how their 'legacy' is preserved on this forum. I know many other folks could speak to the litigation, and threats of litigation, that have emanated from this forum. Several years ago, I specifically set up a list for
professional communication among debate coaches because I am so deeply worried that this site becomes, in any way, seen as 'official.' I wish I could offer powerful testimony to the way that edebate provides the best of our
community, but all too often it is quite the opposite.

Today I tried to outline a general position that acknowledged my limited understanding of the individual event, but more broadly to the types of principles that coaches and students should promote. It may not be as emotionally
satisfying as some inflammatory comments, but I believe it is appropriate in this setting at this time. As an elected CEDA official I can assure you that this issue is not only 'taking place' on this list. We do everyone a disservice
when we measure the state of debate based solely or largely on edebate.

I encourage anyone who has read this far to seriously consider both the issues raised by these comments and the most appropriate means of having that conversation.
Gordon


Gordon Stables, Ph.D.
Director of Debate & Forensics
Annenberg School for Communication
University of Southern California
Office: 213 740 2759
Fax: 213 740 3913
www.usctrojandebate.com

----- Original Message -----
From: David Glass <gacggc at gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 4:41 pm
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Recent 'pie' controversy
To: Gordon Stables <stables at usc.edu>
Cc: edebate <edebate at ndtceda.com>

> Hi Gordon,
>
> With respect, it seems this forum is a unique tool that allows the
> entirecommunity to reach out to Megan and Diante and let them know
> what happened
> is not acceptable.
>
> The specifics as reported further emphasize the need for the line
> that Tuna
> & I have been discussing - and they do so in a particularly
> dramatic way,
> since of course the history of racism is that its critics, and most
> particularly its targets, have been silenced by violence and
> intimidation.
> The pie and the laughter is an example of that.
>
> So even if one takes an extreme position and says the details as
> reportednever happened, or did not happen as reported, the
> narative is still useful
> in that it illustrates the way such physical acts cause chilling and
> silencing.
>
> Therefore...  yes...   it does seem important to reach out
> publicly to Megan
> and Diante and let them know such actions can't be tolerated;
> these types of
> actions in debate rounds  should not be viewed as tolerable or
> legitimateapproaches, and rules should be adopted to ban such
> actions and guarantee
> that debate rounds are safe for freedom of  VERBAL expression;
> while there
> are laws to prevent assault and battery, an explicit stand should
> be taken
> by debate's governing bodies on this point.
>
> In light of Megan's email, it seems that community silence at this
> pointmight imply indifference; that would be bad.
>
> David
>
> On 3/19/08, Gordon Stables <stables at usc.edu> wrote:
> >
> >  I will apologize for the brevity of these comments, but I
> scheduled to
> > leave for CEDA shortly.
> >
> >
> >
> > From the accounts so far made available, it does appear as
> though an
> > incident last weekend has created hard feelings and left many of
> us looking
> > for more information. Justin has provided some information and I
> echo Tuna's
> > call for additional details before folks provide public
> judgments on the
> > individuals and the specific activity.
> >
> >
> >
> > The numerous sarcastic postings of the last few days do little
> to help
> > this situation and ignore the human beings involved. Megan's
> email should
> > remind everyone that careless comments or actions can be very
> hurtful. I
> > commend those who have taken the higher road in discussing the
> matter with a
> > needed respect for all involved.
> >
> >
> >
> > I would caution those involved in a more extensive discussion of
> this, or
> > any serious matter, to minimize using this forum, especially as
> the primary
> > means of consideration. The nature of this space tends to generally
> > encourage those who are least familiar with the details and most
> interested> in inflammatory commentary.
> >
> >
> >
> > Justin provided an important frame for the event when he first
> posted. He
> > asked questions about the nature and acceptability of such satirical
> > practices. David engaged in a line of conversation that I
> believe Tuna and
> > others reinforced ??? satire is an element of political commentary
> that has
> > plenty of value  in specific settings, but physical conduct in a
> debate> setting appears unnecessary and harmful.
> >
> >
> >
> > The question that Justin opened with, and seems relevant today,
> is the
> > nature of satire that crosses into the physical and demeaning
> conduct of an
> > opponent. The references to the CEDA constitution speak to the
> importance of
> > providing an environment where competitors respect each other.
> >
> >
> >
> > It is undeniable that when debaters engage questions of class and
> > privilege that debaters will feel a great deal of personal
> accountability in
> > those debates. Indeed I would imagine that coaches supporting these
> > arguments seek to have a conversation about these issues. We
> should all be
> > aware of the significance and complexity of these matters as we
> discuss this
> > issue. It is not easy to confront an opponent that contends you
> are in some
> > way involved in class or structural bias, especially if you also
> feel> aggrieved.
> >
> >
> >
> > This should not, however,  encourage students to cross the line into
> > physical conduct against other students. I have tried to learn
> more about
> > this incident, but I also acknowledge my very limited grasp of
> the details.
> >
> >
> >
> > At this point I would just encourage students and coaches alike to
> > seriously consider the problems of such approaches. A variety of
> personal> and professional ethical norms should cause great
> caution when encouraging a
> > student to physically confront another in any form.
> >
> >
> >
> > I know some have already made claims that this line between
> speech and
> > conduct isn't very meaningful. It is hard to dispute that some
> forms of
> > language can, and does, create such harm to others. None of
> this, however,
> > should be read as a rationale to simply ignore the question of
> dissuading> individuals from engaging in physical forms of conduct.
> >
> >
> >
> > The basic unit of our activity is the ability to provide a
> political space
> > for students to engage each other. We are passionate in the ways
> that we
> > feel that space should be evaluated. We must remember, however,
> that without
> > a common willingness to share that space we don't have much of
> community.>
> >
> >
> > Many of our community understand this fragile trust and work to
> protect> it. This conversation stems from a single, yet important,
> debate and ideally
> > the reflection posed by this conversation allows folks to look
> at it as a
> > means of appreciating the boundaries of our activity.
> >
> >
> >
> > It is not to dismiss or belittle to issue to say that the individual
> > incident should be further discussed and also that coaches and
> students> consider these boundaries in their arguments and
> performances.  I am very
> > eager to continue this discussion both with folks at CEDA and
> those who are
> > not attending. Just please heed the call of the many voices in this
> > conversation who encourage everyone to see the real people
> involved in this
> > matter.
> >
> >
> >
> > Travel safely to Wichita.
> >
> > Gordon
> >
> >
> >
> > Gordon Stables, Ph.D.
> > Director of Debate and Forensics
> > Annenberg School for Communication
> > University of Southern California
> > Office: 213 740 2759               Fax: 213 740 3913
> > http://usctrojandebate.com <http://usctrojandebate.com/> 
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > eDebate mailing list
> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> >
>


------------------------------

Message: 14
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:10:06 -0500
From: "Gary Larson" <Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu>
Subject: [eDebate] Prefs at CEDA Nats
To: "Edebate" <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Message-ID: <47E19D4E.3F5C.0033.0 at wheaton.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

The following prefs have been entered.  For each team the number of judges rated is listed (out of 159 judges in the pool)

The computer connection is a bit slow so don't wait until the last minute.

Appalachian State       Rachel Ford & Ryan Lucas        159
Bard College    Cassie Cornell & Mike Dickerson 159
Bard College    Zachary Heller & Julian Letton  159
Baylor  Michael Butera & Nathan Ford    159
Baylor  John Cook & Amanda Luppes       159
Binghamton      Ben Crossan & Alan Ostrovsky    0
Binghamton      Jake Gartman & Matt Malia       0
Binghamton      Matthew Torsiello & Caitlin Brophy      0
Binghamton      Sebestian Rodriguez & Tansy Woan        0
Binghamton      Bill Sebelle & Pete Groh        0
Binghamton      Ting Ting Tam & Andrea Passantino       0
Cal Poly SLO    Wende Cooper & Chloe Fox        159
Cal Poly SLO    Dominic Surano & Krista Walton  159
Cal. State Chico        Nolan Cox & Joey Cullis 121
Cal. State Chico        Amro Jayousi & Michael Hoopingarner     0
Cal. State Chico        Christianna Reinstien & Ashley Giammona 0
Cal. State Chico        Michelle LaPrade & Samantha Rodriquez   0
Cal. State Chico        Jeremy Benintende & Jenna Harvey        0
Cal. State Chico        Tabitha Palmer & Samantha Wolf  0
Case Western    David Mattern & Andrew Wolf     159
Central Oklahoma (Un    Scott Ketchum & Stacy Spomer    159
Concordia       Dana Rognlie & Heath Marso      159
Concordia       Tony Tracy & Tyler Simmons      159
Concordia       Mason Maxwell & Brett Lind      159
Cornell University      Dan Himmelstein & John Karin    0
Cornell University      Zain Pasha & Vinay Prabhu       0
CSU Fullerton   Joel Salcedo & Jeanette Rodriguez       159
CSU Fullerton   Bryce Bridge & Danny Stambaugh  159
CSU Fullerton   Nicole Davidow & Amy Wooten     159
CSU Fullerton   Luis Magallon & Caitlin Gray    159
CSU Fullerton   Eleecia Barksdale & Eliza Ramirez       159
CSU Sacramento  Chantel Crane & David Rekow     157
CSU Sacramento  Julia Wobbe & Lillie Jared      0
Dartmouth       Jamie Berk & David Mainiero     0
Dartmouth       Shane Avidan & Caroline Harkins 159
Dartmouth       Cyrus Akrami & Joel Butterly    71
Dartmouth       Josh Kernoff & Kade Olsen       159
Denver  Logan Martin & Tyler Warner     159
Eastern New Mexico U    Christopher Kelley & Dawn Zumwalt       0
Emory   Matt Laskey & Makaela Malsin    159
Emory   Rob Mills & JT Thomas   159
Emory   Sam Caproal & Pradeep Pramanick 159
Emory   Scott Movens & Briana Wood      0
Emory   Ali Madani & Carson Dimmick     159
Emporia State U.        Kurt Fifelski & Kelly Thompson  159
Florida Blake Tanase & Zachary Ullman   159
Florida Amanda Kelly & Kyle Robisch     159
Fordham University      Hiram Arnaud & Stephanie Cordero        0
Fort Hays       avery henry & chris spurlock    159
Georgia Andrew Hart & Maggy Warden      159
Georgia Brian Leary & Hayley Nelson     159
Georgia State   Kirk Gibson & Joel Lemuel       0
Georgia State   Kevin Bottoms & Chris Pozzi     0
Gonzaga Nick Bormann & Grace Saez       159
Gonzaga Karina Momary & Garry Padrta    105
Gonzaga Jim Sydnor & Melissa Hanna      159
Idaho State     Paul Montreuil & Danielle Jennings      159
Idaho State     Lindsay Vanluvanee & Rachel Nicholas    159
Idaho State     Hannah Dunlop & Stefan Meneses  159
Idaho State     Andrew Ridgeway & Megan DeMasters       159
Illinois (University of)        Eric Ranz & Charlie Clark       159
Illinois State University       Scott Siebert & Patrick Milott  159
Illinois State University       Alex Berger & Robert Kosic      159
James Madison   Tiffany Pryce & Marie Eszenyi   159
James Madison   Tori Federwisch & Jeremy Lawson 159
James Madison   Zoheb Nensey & Matt Hudson      159
James Madison   Sean Lowry & Mary Mosley        159
Johnson County  Sahir Ijaz & Brandon Sparks     159
Johnson County  Zac Hartkopp & Brad Jacobs      159
Kansas (Univ. of)       Nate Johnson & Chris Stone      159
Kansas (Univ. of)       Andrew Jack & Mathew Petersen   159
Kansas (Univ. of)       Chris Thomas & Kyle Shernuk     159
Kansas (Univ. of)       Erum Shah & Mark Wilkins        159
Kansas (Univ. of)       Joel Kasten & Sean Kennedy      159
Kansas (Univ. of)       Dylan Quigley & Ronnie Press    159
Kansas (Univ. of)       Brett Bricker & Andrew Jennings 159
Kansas City Kansas C    Anthony Dubin & Austin Montee   0
Kansas City Kansas C    Andy Montee & Chris Rohan       0
Kansas City Kansas C    Noah Fugate & Miranda Nichols   0
Kansas State    Beth Mendenhall & Kyle Zarazan  159
Kansas State    Gloria Funcheon & Kara Thiele   159
Kansas State    Jordan Hanson & Derek Ziegler   159
Kansas State    George Hodges & Heather Woods   159
Los Rios Colleges       Tina Law & Matt Nguyen  0
Los Rios Colleges       Amara Larpthavesarp & Chris Duffy       159
Louisiana-Lafayette     Samantha Marks & Brandy Stanton 159
Louisiana-Lafayette     Justin Cantu & Chapman Matis    159
Louisville      Kayla Stalnaker & Juanita Scott 0
Louisville      Jordan Garza & Njoud Dajani     0
Louisville      Paige Quiggins & Sarah Powell   0
Louisville      Angela White & Sam Gates        0
Louisville      Jason Walker & Brian Huot       0
Louisville      Rosie Washington & Aaron Price  0
Louisville      Ebony Rose & Tiffany McCollum   0
Macalester      Jon Chen & Talon-John Powers    159
Marist College  Margeaux Lippman & Sam Timinsky 159
Miami (Florida) Simone Branch & Carrie Hanson   159
Miami (Florida) Mark Daniels & Nalisa Saati     159
Miami (Florida) Robert Levine & Christopher Torres      0
Michigan State Univ.    Jeremy Hammond & Abby Schirmer  0
Michigan State Univ.    Debbie Lai & Athena Murray      0
Minnesota       Arif Hasan & Daryl Pinto        0
Minnesota       Mike Steffan & Ryun Thronson    0
Minnesota       Logan Chin & Aneesh Sohoni      159
Missouri State  Jordan Foley & Jessica Johnson  159
Missouri State  Josh Gardner & Judith Rowland   159
Missouri State  Kristen Stout & Aaron Kruse     159
Missouri State  Meggie Mapes & Michael Mapes    0
Missouri State  Rebecca Husney & Jarid Kinder   159
Missouri State  Martin Osborn & Clay Webb       159
Missouri-Kansas City    Toni Jantz & Desmond Mason      159
Missouri-Kansas City    John Beatty & Rachel Stevens    159
Nevada Las Vegas        Cory Anderlohr & Tim Jeffries   157
Nevada Las Vegas        Michael Eisenstadt & Ryan Morgan        157
New York Univ.  Kate Ortiz & Aubrey Semple      0
New York Univ.  Ashlee Vega & Dima Povazhuk     0
New York Univ.  Shree Asware & Dima Povazhuk    0
New York Univ.  Cedric Allen & Christopher Meisel       159
New York Univ.  Arnav Chakravarty & Alec Wright 159
North Texas (Univ.)     Kuntal Cholera & John Elson     159
North Texas (Univ.)     Cameron Vaziri & Daniel Elliot  0
Northern Iowa (Univ.)   Ian Beier & Michael Pham        159
Oklahoma        Ben Dabari & Koroosh Zahrai     159
Oklahoma        Jennifer Cox & Lindsay Nordstrom        159
Oklahoma        Paul Eicher & Nathan Eicher     159
Oklahoma        Shae Bunas & Keegan Tomik       159
Oklahoma        Scott Koslow & Garrison Warren  159
Oklahoma        Nick Watts & R.J. Giglio        159
Pepperdine      Nick Stewart & Carina Yagheszian        82
Pepperdine      Jaimie Franklin & Cameron Kirkland      0
Pittsburgh      John Karlovic & Guy Risko       159
Puget Sound     Brittannia James & Philip Johnson-Freyd 0
Redlands        Alyssa Bolin & Jordan Bunger    159
Richmond (Univ. of)     James Farr & Ashley Fortner     159
Richmond (Univ. of)     Liz Lauzon & Callie Dowdy       159
Rochester       Libia Jimenez & Lori Mullins    0
Rochester       Buddy Khan & David Merkle       6
Rochester       Wan Cha & Rona Yang     0
Rochester       Kevin Diamond & Ryan Bach       0
San Francisco State     Vince Alvarez & Jeff Martin     3
San Francisco State     Stephanie Eisenberg & Jessica Whittle   0
Southern California     Clare Velasquez & Candice Yip   159
Southern California     Monica Do & Stephanie Scott     159
Southern California     Marilyn Katzman & Dayton Thorpe 159
Southwestern (Califo    Isaac Peck & David Peck 0
Stanford        Patrick Mahoney & Ben Picozzi   159
Texas   Chris Thiele & Nick Whitaker    0
Texas   Teddy Cross & Jenny Davis       159
Texas   David Gross & Alex Savage       0
Texas   Laura Boyle & Desiree Hooper    159
Texas   Kenny Cauthen & Drew McNeil     0
Texas San Antonio       Derek Liles & Rene Naud 159
Texas-Dallas    Matthew Carswell & Jillay Cluff 159
Texas-Dallas    Danny Abbas & Andrew Baker      159
Texas-Dallas    Brian Rubaie & Sara Stephens    159
Towson  Andreea Militaru & Lia Voinova  159
Towson  Ben Morgan & Hong-Mei Pang      159
Towson  Evelin Andrespok & Barbora Ondruskova   159
Towson  Camelia Hostinar & Simonida Subotic     159
Towson  Adam Jackson & Deverick Murray  159
Towson  Deven Cooper & Dayvon Love      159
U.S. Military Academy   Brian Chung & Alicia Chan       0
U.S. Military Academy   McKinsey Hulen & Kier Elmonairy 0
U.S. Military Academy   Anthony Rowles & Mitch Suliman  48
Vanderbilt      Cameron Norris & Devin Lyon     159
Vanderbilt      Phil Rappmund & Nicholas Brown  159
Vermont Stephanie Kimerer & Josid Rodolfo       159
Vermont Kristance Harlow & Marnie Ritchie       0
Wake Forest     Sean Ridley & Kurt Zemlicka     159
Weber State Univ.       Micah Heaton & Steve Pope       159
Weber State Univ.       Ryan Cheek & Stacy Dawson       159
West Georgia    Jadon Marianetti & Zak Schaller 159
West Georgia    Geoff Lundeen & Jim Schultz     159
West Virginia Univer    Samantha Godbey & Kayden Skinner        159
Whitman College Jonathan Dentler & Robby White  0
Whitman College Sam Allen & Luke Sanford        80
Whitman College Nate Cohn & Daniel Straus       0
Whitman College Nick Griffin & Spencer Janyk    0
Whitman College Dave Mathews & Lewis Silver     0
Whitman College Eric Chalfant & Mike Meredith   0
Wichita State   Zach Brown & Patrick Rinker     0
Wichita State   Matt Coleman & Eric Robinson    0
Wichita State   Brian Box & Grant Brazill       0
Wyoming Travis Cram & Will Jensen       159
Wyoming Kelly Nickel & Jamie Piechura   159



------------------------------

Message: 15
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 01:13:43 -0500
From: "Darren Elliott" <delliott at kckcc.edu>
Subject: [eDebate] Pies, Privilege, and People
To: <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Message-ID: <47E1BA470200009300010772 at mymail.kckcc.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

I have given a lot of thought to this email.  I have a lot of things for
interested parties to consider.  I have gone back and forth between
allowing my anger and sometimes disgust, determine the tone of this
email.  I have tried to garner the serenity needed in moments like this,
to make sure the email had both purpose and message.  I hope to maintain
that purpose and message throughout. 

I want to begin with telling you about 3 important people in my life.
Number 1 is my daughter.  She is 4 years old.  Her name is Ashley.  She
is intelligent, beautiful, and a wonderful inspiration.  I love her with
all my heart.  When I watched her play today, and realized I was taking
time away from her--precious moments--I wondered why.  Why is this game
of debate so consuming, so heart breaking, and so wonderful all at the
same time.  The sadness I have felt over the last few days surely
weighed on my mind.  She was now an unknowing participant as my mind
often wandered.  I have felt sadness for a sub-culture that is often
more focused on hurting and not healing.  I felt sadness for people I
have known for years, friends, who have had sharp tongues on this forum
in the last few days.  I felt sadness for the other 2 people I want to
talk about.  These 2 happen to be on my debate team.  They, like my
daughter, are intelligent and wonderful inspirations.  I wont call them
beautiful, but you get the point.  I am not ashamed to say they are part
of my extended family and I love them as I do anyone in my family.
Today they hurt too.  I write this for them.  I write this in the hopes
that my time stolen from my daughter somehow serves another purpose.  I
write this for a community I love.

By now the controversy has taken all shapes and forms.  There is
probably more fiction than truth in all of the side conversations going
on.  I will address some thoughts I have had and specifically some
concerns raised by those whose tongues have been the sharpest.  Please
indulge me if you have been a part of this discussion.  First I want to
thank the literally dozens of you who have expressed support in private
emails.  The message seemed consistent.  This community is sometimes so
political it is feared that public support will lead to damage to your
own students.  More sadness.  Those who have publicly commented, thank
you. 

PRIVILEGE--I have thought a lot about this concept over the years.  I
have given it special attention in the last few days.  I believe we all
have a choice when it comes to our privilege.  I believe some friends of
mine, while calling out the privilege of debaters they know nothing of,
have lost the moment to recognize their own privilege.  When you are an
adult, employed by an Institution of Higher Learning, you have
privilege.  You have the privilege of being in a position of power.
With that power comes great responsibility.  I believe that
responsibility is shattered when you use that position to demand names,
demand details, and turn that demand into a call for what I believe is
an incitement to harass.  Harassment at any level is an abdication of
your responsibility to your privilege.  My initial thought was perhaps I
misread the intent of that author.  Then another in a place of
privilege, without firsthand knowledge, followed through on the call to
harass.  His email specifically stated that he would exact revenge on
the program he felt responsible.  He would vote against the deed doers
should they not strike him.  He furthered the incitement by encouraging
others to, in debates, use this as a reason for decision.  Another
person in a place of privilege encouraging harassment and vigilante
justice.  Sad indeed.  I cannot comprehend why it is ok to use privilege
to incite harassment as a way to justify punishment for other
transgressions.   I would ask them to reconsider their approach.  In the
meantime, I would encourage others to not go down that path.  Continued
harassment is not only unproductive, but does real damage.  Anyone
conducting themselvebehalf of others is probably not your place.  Beyond that it is in
violation of the very code of ethics cited in the first email on this
subject,  Certainly the 2 people referenced above cannot ask for
violation of those codes as a way to enforce them.  Hopefully calmer
heads will prevail.  If not, I am confident in the organization?s
ability to ensure a harassment free tournament for all participants.

STUDENTS--They are what keep us going.  I often think about debates as
an extension of the classroom and a laboratory experiment.  What happens
when students make mistakes?  How do we handle it?  I recall a situation
where a College newspaper Editor made a bad choice recently.  She
decided to publish a story for condom promotion next to an ad for the
Catholic schools.  To top it off she included a cartoon that included an
obese woman being rejected by a condom machine.  The ?f? word was
prominently displayed throughout the cartoon.  This caused a stir in the
campus and public community.  Emails poured in calling for the student
to be suspended and the journalism advisor to be fired.  The law and
free speech was on their side.  But the nasty emails about the student
especially, were downright sad.  Adults, people in places of privilege,
people charged with the duty of educating were willing to abdicate that
responsibility, because punishment and public ridicule was easier.
Shame on them.  The journalism Advisor responded to the outcry and made
a good point.  One worth repeating.  When students (kids) screw up in
our classrooms, make bad decisions, write bad papers, include nasty
language, make disparaging comments about their classmates, etc. we deal
with that in private. Federal Law prevents us from announcing to the
campus community what happened.  But unfortunately when journalists make
mistakes its in the public view.  Like debaters, the debate round and
word of mouth, makes similar issues more public.  But like the student
in our classroom, students have rights even if they make mistakes.  No
adult in authority has the right to publically chastise when we are
talking about an educational situation and opportunity.  The problem
with those posting such negative attacks is they want to be the judge,
jury, and executioner.  They want to know all the details because the
pain it inflicts means nothing and the sickness it invokes gives them a
?cause?, something to feel good about themselves about.  But these
are students we are talking about.  The Federal Privacy Law issues
aside, students have a right to make mistakes. Educators have a
responsibility to discuss and fix those mistakes.  This should not take
place in the court of public opinion.  Like any student in a Comp class
or a History class, all students have rights. 

HYPOCRISY-- I often wonder why things play out like they do in our
community.  In the Fall I had people tell me they would never vote for
San Francisco State due to an incident that was put on public trial in
this forum.  I told them that their strategy was morally bankrupt.  They
had an obligation to not ?take a stand? when they were unaware of what
really happened, but to remove themselves from the equation.  Strike
themselves from SFSU.  I hope they did.  Similarly in this situation, I
hope adults with responsibilities and privilege will do the right thing
if their judgment is clouded.  I also think CEDA has a right and
responsibility to make sure when public utterances of intended
unfairness and harassment are to occur, that they act appropriately and
swiftly.  I wonder where the outcry was the first time a pie was used in
a debate.  Were the programs involved too prestigious to get attacked?
I heard someone once defecated in a bag and touched an opponent with it.
 Where were the folks who so vehemently have attacked 2 students they
know virtually nothing about?  2 years ago I had 2 women who experienced
severe harassment in a debate with the other team expressing how much
fun it was to make fun of these women?s sexualitthey thought it appropriate to tell sexist jokes, all the while with
these two women in tears.  3 judges and only 1 with the courage to say
no.  The others thought it was cool.  A room full of people laughed at
the strategy.  Where was the outcry?  When I mentioned the women had
considered pressing sexual harassment charges at CEDA should this
happen, the response (from one of the most harsh posters on this pie
thread) was to be careful because they would hate to see it threaten the
viability of the offending program.  Imagine my shock when I checked in
today to see what was written about this situation however.  Recently I
viewed 2 coaches, in front of students, engage in a physical
altercation.  I was saddened that day as well. 

RIGHTS and RULES--I hope the conversation about what is appropriate can
continue.  I hope it can do so without sacrificing the rights of any
student.  No student?s rights are more important than any others, and
that is where I am most dismayed in this outcry.  CEDA needs to get on
with the business of writing rules about what is tolerated and not.  I
am fully behind that effort.  Write a rule that says ?no touching? ?no
stealing evidence? ?no hovering? ?no physical contact at all including
the use of foreign objects, pies, etc?.  Write those rules and I will
vote for them.  I hope those on the far left, those who often despise
debate in its current format and call for the abolition of all rules and
structure, will rethink.  What has often come from this is the belief
that it is ok to steal the ballot and sign it, that it is ok to dump out
the other teams? tubs, that you can yell and slam doors during speeches.
 I agree that is not acceptable.  Consider those things when asking for
strict enforcement.  But at the end of the day, wherever you stand, get
on with the business of making these decisions and stop the tactics of
harassment and intimidation.

THE LAW, BOTH WRITTEN AND MORAL-- As educators we are bound by Federal
Law when it comes to privacy and students rights.  I wont violate that
now or ever.  To provide details of everything ever demanded on edebate,
would I feel be a violation of that law.  Why people think they have the
inalienable right to that information is beyond me.  As an educator and
an organization, if we allow this information to be demanded lest
punishment ensue, we are liable under the law as well.  If we are the
demanding party, you are also likely liable.  Perhaps hand in hand with
hypocrisy, you cannot use the law only when it benefits you.  That said,
I think one other thing we should give serious consideration to.  When
we engage in rhetoric that calls someone a racist, or calls someone a
thief, or calls someone a cheater, etc. we are liable for our choices.
Whether on this forum, very public and archived, or in a debate, there
is liability attached.  As a judge, endorsing or saying in a post round
critique that someone is one of the above, attaches liability.  In this
case, for example, someone recruiting one of these debaters to their 4
year institution was present for the post round discussion.  What if the
charges made or upheld by the critics, who assign their name to a
ballot, effect the decision of that recruiter?  Does that liability
become one that can be charged?  Many in the legal field feel yes.
Something to consider as we throw around accusations about real people.
This is also something to consider as we write the rules about what will
and not be allowed in debates.  We also have a moral duty however to
enact.  That is to be sure that everyone has the right to participate
freely and fairly.  I assume this goes without saying and that the vast
majority of you in the community see things this way and have no
interest in being embattled in a controversy that ends in the incitement
to harassment.  I applaud you for that and encourage you to steer clear
of those on the opposite side.

FINALLY-- My name was invoked in one of the emails and some demands were
made.  I will address those the best I can while preserving the rights
of all involved, such as the right to not be harassed.   Demand 1--the
name of the student and why did they think it appropriate?  I?m sure
your backchannel discussions (despite your demand this be in the public)
can inform you who was involved.  I will reference Federal Law above
about divulging student information.  As to why they thought this a
debate strategy, you can ask them as long as you do so in a courteous
and educationally sound manner.  Do it as intimidation or in a harassing
manner, don?t expect cooperation.  Demand 2--what does Chief have to
say?  That should be clear by now.  You also claim I accused Megan of
cheating.  Again I wont name names to protect those who should not be
harassed         and I wont name the name of the KSU coach in question.
What I can tell you, is that 3 independent sources (2 not affiliated
with me or my school) indicated that coaching about specific arguments
went on in the hallway, then again in the room where judges could not
see it.  I wasn?t there so I cannot say and as such I wont publicly
chastise anyone.  Advice others would be prudent to take.  If you want
to dump sewage on us then accuse us of cheating, do so if we cheat.
Finally I will address the question regarding an apology.  All of the
students in this debate talked about it in depth afterwards.  They
continue to have that discussion and I believe have great respect for
each other.  I judged that KSU team 2 rounds later.  The squad made
jokes about the situation during the round.  Does this make you feel
better? 

Ultimately I think that some people on here hope there was no apology.
I think it makes it better for YOU if people who engage in offensive
acts never apologize.  I think you want them to not be sorry.  It makes
it easier to chastise and harass them.  That is a sad statement, but
true.  The Soap Opera is never as good unless the line between villain
and victim can be clearly drawn.  Finally, and make this crystal clear.
No argument or strategy engaged in had anything to do with the fact one
team said race was important as an issue.  To claim otherwise or to
spread that belief to incite punishment or harassment is a lie and does
damage to real examples of those kind of acts.  The vitriol spewed in
the last few days has blurred the line between villain and victim.  You
have only yourself to blame.

Diante and I have shared numerous discussions, emails, etc. Diante knows
where my heart and mind is.  This community has a lot of work to do.  I
prepare to engage in that work with you.  I will conclude with this.  If
you have read this far, I thank you.  I truly hope as an organization we
can engage in dialogue about what we should allow in debates and not.  I
hope it can be free from intimidation or harassment of any of our
students.  I hope that if my 4 year old grows up to debate, she finds an
environment free of all harassment, free of all intimidation, and filled
with adults who cherish their privilege and responsibility and can
temper it in a way that makes them role models to be looked up to.  In
the end, if she turns out to be the kind, caring, loving person I know
she will be, then she will make me just as proud as the other 2 people I
began this story about.  I hope my daughter will be the kind of people
they turned out to be.  Despite the hatred put forth by some, they are 2
of the most kind, caring, and genuine people you will ever meet.   They
deserve healing and not hate.  They are part of my extended family, and
they are why I do what I do. 

Sincerely,
Darren Elliott
?Chief?
CEDA 1st VP


------------------------------

Message: 16
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 05:49:24 -0500
From: "Sherry Hall" <shahall at comcast.net>
Subject: [eDebate] NDT Payment Forms
To: <edebate at ndtceda.com>,      <ceda-l at ndtceda.com>
Message-ID: <039f01c88a78$10eac8b0$6902a8c0 at PowerspecPc>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

If you have not yet sent me a copy of your payment form, please do so today.  I need to get the final numbers for the opening night reception to the hotel by this week.

You can email the form back to me, or fax it to 617-876-1360.


Thanks,

Sherry
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080320/b483b827/attachment-0001.htm
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2009 Credit Card Authorization Form.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 20992 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080320/b483b827/attachment-0001.doc

------------------------------

Message: 17
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 07:49:27 -0500
From: "Gary Larson" <Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu>
Subject: [eDebate] Prefs update - still 50 teams with prefs
        outstanding
To: "Edebate" <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Message-ID: <47E21707.3F5C.0033.0 at wheaton.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Number indicates "judges ranked" - should be 159

Appalachian State       Rachel Ford & Ryan Lucas        159
Bard College    Cassie Cornell & Mike Dickerson 159
Bard College    Zachary Heller & Julian Letton  159
Baylor  Michael Butera & Nathan Ford    159
Baylor  John Cook & Amanda Luppes       159
Binghamton      Ben Crossan & Alan Ostrovsky    0
Binghamton      Jake Gartman & Matt Malia       86
Binghamton      Matthew Torsiello & Caitlin Brophy      0
Binghamton      Sebestian Rodriguez & Tansy Woan        0
Binghamton      Bill Sebelle & Pete Groh        0
Binghamton      Ting Ting Tam & Andrea Passantino       0
Cal Poly SLO    Wende Cooper & Chloe Fox        159
Cal Poly SLO    Dominic Surano & Krista Walton  159
Cal. State Chico        Nolan Cox & Joey Cullis 121
Cal. State Chico        Amro Jayousi & Michael Hoopingarner     0
Cal. State Chico        Christianna Reinstien & Ashley Giammona 0
Cal. State Chico        Michelle LaPrade & Samantha Rodriquez   0
Cal. State Chico        Jeremy Benintende & Jenna Harvey        0
Cal. State Chico        Tabitha Palmer & Samantha Wolf  0
Case Western    David Mattern & Andrew Wolf     159
Central Oklahoma (Un    Scott Ketchum & Stacy Spomer    159
Concordia       Dana Rognlie & Heath Marso      159
Concordia       Tony Tracy & Tyler Simmons      159
Concordia       Mason Maxwell & Brett Lind      159
Cornell University      Dan Himmelstein & John Karin    0
Cornell University      Zain Pasha & Vinay Prabhu       0
CSU Fullerton   Joel Salcedo & Jeanette Rodriguez       159
CSU Fullerton   Bryce Bridge & Danny Stambaugh  159
CSU Fullerton   Nicole Davidow & Amy Wooten     159
CSU Fullerton   Luis Magallon & Caitlin Gray    159
CSU Fullerton   Eleecia Barksdale & Eliza Ramirez       159
CSU Sacramento  Chantel Crane & David Rekow     159
CSU Sacramento  Julia Wobbe & Lillie Jared      159
Dartmouth       Shane Avidan & Caroline Harkins 159
Dartmouth       Cyrus Akrami & Joel Butterly    159
Dartmouth       Josh Kernoff & Kade Olsen       159
Denver  Logan Martin & Tyler Warner     159
Eastern New Mexico U    Christopher Kelley & Dawn Zumwalt       0
Emory   Matt Laskey & Makaela Malsin    159
Emory   Rob Mills & JT Thomas   159
Emory   Sam Caproal & Pradeep Pramanick 159
Emory   Scott Movens & Briana Wood      0
Emory   Ali Madani & Carson Dimmick     159
Emporia State U.        Kurt Fifelski & Kelly Thompson  159
Florida Blake Tanase & Zachary Ullman   159
Florida Amanda Kelly & Kyle Robisch     159
Fordham University      Hiram Arnaud & Stephanie Cordero        0
Fort Hays       avery henry & chris spurlock    159
Georgia Andrew Hart & Maggy Warden      159
Georgia Brian Leary & Hayley Nelson     159
Georgia State   Kirk Gibson & Joel Lemuel       0
Georgia State   Kevin Bottoms & Chris Pozzi     0
Gonzaga Nick Bormann & Grace Saez       159
Gonzaga Karina Momary & Garry Padrta    159
Gonzaga Jim Sydnor & Melissa Hanna      159
Idaho State     Paul Montreuil & Danielle Jennings      159
Idaho State     Lindsay Vanluvanee & Rachel Nicholas    159
Idaho State     Hannah Dunlop & Stefan Meneses  159
Idaho State     Andrew Ridgeway & Megan DeMasters       159
Illinois (University of)        Eric Ranz & Charlie Clark       159
Illinois State University       Scott Siebert & Patrick Milott  159
Illinois State University       Alex Berger & Robert Kosic      159
James Madison   Tiffany Pryce & Marie Eszenyi   159
James Madison   Tori Federwisch & Jeremy Lawson 159
James Madison   Zoheb Nensey & Matt Hudson      159
James Madison   Sean Lowry & Mary Mosley        159
Johnson County  Sahir Ijaz & Brandon Sparks     159
Johnson County  Zac Hartkopp & Brad Jacobs      159
Kansas (Univ. of)       Nate Johnson & Chris Stone      159
Kansas (Univ. of)       Andrew Jack & Mathew Petersen   159
Kansas (Univ. of)       Chris Thomas & Kyle Shernuk     159
Kansas (Univ. of)       Erum Shah & Mark Wilkins        159
Kansas (Univ. of)       Joel Kasten & Sean Kennedy      159
Kansas (Univ. of)       Dylan Quigley & Ronnie Press    159
Kansas (Univ. of)       Brett Bricker & Andrew Jennings 159
Kansas City Kansas C    Anthony Dubin & Austin Montee   0
Kansas City Kansas C    Andy Montee & Chris Rohan       38
Kansas City Kansas C    Noah Fugate & Miranda Nichols   0
Kansas State    Beth Mendenhall & Kyle Zarazan  159
Kansas State    Gloria Funcheon & Kara Thiele   159
Kansas State    Jordan Hanson & Derek Ziegler   159
Kansas State    George Hodges & Heather Woods   159
Los Rios Colleges       Amara Larpthavesarp & Chris Duffy       159
Louisiana-Lafayette     Samantha Marks & Brandy Stanton 159
Louisiana-Lafayette     Justin Cantu & Chapman Matis    159
Louisville      Kayla Stalnaker & Juanita Scott 0
Louisville      Jordan Garza & Njoud Dajani     0
Louisville      Paige Quiggins & Sarah Powell   0
Louisville      Angela White & Sam Gates        0
Louisville      Jason Walker & Brian Huot       0
Louisville      Rosie Washington & Aaron Price  0
Louisville      Ebony Rose & Tiffany McCollum   0
Macalester      Jon Chen & Talon-John Powers    159
Marist College  Margeaux Lippman & Sam Timinsky 159
Miami (Florida) Simone Branch & Carrie Hanson   159
Miami (Florida) Mark Daniels & Nalisa Saati     159
Miami (Florida) Robert Levine & Christopher Torres      159
Michigan State Univ.    Jeremy Hammond & Abby Schirmer  159
Michigan State Univ.    Debbie Lai & Athena Murray      159
Minnesota       Arif Hasan & Daryl Pinto        0
Minnesota       Mike Steffan & Ryun Thronson    0
Minnesota       Logan Chin & Aneesh Sohoni      159
Missouri State  Jordan Foley & Jessica Johnson  159
Missouri State  Josh Gardner & Judith Rowland   159
Missouri State  Kristen Stout & Aaron Kruse     159
Missouri State  Rebecca Husney & Jarid Kinder   159
Missouri State  Martin Osborn & Clay Webb       159
Missouri-Kansas City    Toni Jantz & Desmond Mason      159
Missouri-Kansas City    John Beatty & Rachel Stevens    159
Nevada Las Vegas        Cory Anderlohr & Tim Jeffries   157
Nevada Las Vegas        Michael Eisenstadt & Ryan Morgan        157
New York Univ.  Kate Ortiz & Aubrey Semple      0
New York Univ.  Ashlee Vega & Dima Povazhuk     0
New York Univ.  Shree Asware & Dima Povazhuk    0
New York Univ.  Cedric Allen & Christopher Meisel       159
New York Univ.  Arnav Chakravarty & Alec Wright 159
North Texas (Univ.)     Kuntal Cholera & John Elson     159
North Texas (Univ.)     Cameron Vaziri & Daniel Elliot  0
Northern Iowa (Univ.)   Ian Beier & Michael Pham        159
Oklahoma        Ben Dabari & Koroosh Zahrai     159
Oklahoma        Jennifer Cox & Lindsay Nordstrom        159
Oklahoma        Paul Eicher & Nathan Eicher     159
Oklahoma        Shae Bunas & Keegan Tomik       159
Oklahoma        Scott Koslow & Garrison Warren  159
Oklahoma        Nick Watts & R.J. Giglio        159
Pepperdine      Nick Stewart & Carina Yagheszian        159
Pepperdine      Jaimie Franklin & Cameron Kirkland      159
Pittsburgh      John Karlovic & Guy Risko       159
Puget Sound     Brittannia James & Philip Johnson-Freyd 159
Redlands        Alyssa Bolin & Jordan Bunger    159
Richmond (Univ. of)     James Farr & Ashley Fortner     159
Richmond (Univ. of)     Liz Lauzon & Callie Dowdy       159
Rochester       Libia Jimenez & Lori Mullins    0
Rochester       Buddy Khan & David Merkle       6
Rochester       Wan Cha & Rona Yang     0
Rochester       Kevin Diamond & Ryan Bach       0
San Francisco State     Vince Alvarez & Jeff Martin     3
San Francisco State     Stephanie Eisenberg & Jessica Whittle   0
Southern California     Clare Velasquez & Candice Yip   159
Southern California     Monica Do & Stephanie Scott     159
Southern California     Marilyn Katzman & Dayton Thorpe 159
Southwestern (Califo    Isaac Peck & David Peck 0
Stanford        Patrick Mahoney & Ben Picozzi   159
Texas   Chris Thiele & Nick Whitaker    159
Texas   Teddy Cross & Jenny Davis       159
Texas   David Gross & Alex Savage       159
Texas   Laura Boyle & Desiree Hooper    159
Texas   Kenny Cauthen & Drew McNeil     159
Texas San Antonio       Derek Liles & Rene Naud 159
Texas-Dallas    Matthew Carswell & Jillay Cluff 159
Texas-Dallas    Danny Abbas & Andrew Baker      159
Texas-Dallas    Brian Rubaie & Sara Stephens    159
Towson  Andreea Militaru & Lia Voinova  159
Towson  Ben Morgan & Hong-Mei Pang      159
Towson  Evelin Andrespok & Barbora Ondruskova   159
Towson  Camelia Hostinar & Simonida Subotic     159
Towson  Adam Jackson & Deverick Murray  159
Towson  Deven Cooper & Dayvon Love      159
U.S. Military Academy   Brian Chung & Alicia Chan       0
U.S. Military Academy   McKinsey Hulen & Kier Elmonairy 0
U.S. Military Academy   Anthony Rowles & Mitch Suliman  48
Vanderbilt      Cameron Norris & Devin Lyon     159
Vanderbilt      Phil Rappmund & Nicholas Brown  159
Vermont Stephanie Kimerer & Josid Rodolfo       159
Vermont Kristance Harlow & Marnie Ritchie       159
Wake Forest     Sean Ridley & Kurt Zemlicka     159
Weber State Univ.       Micah Heaton & Steve Pope       159
Weber State Univ.       Ryan Cheek & Stacy Dawson       159
West Georgia    Jadon Marianetti & Zak Schaller 159
West Georgia    Geoff Lundeen & Jim Schultz     159
West Virginia Univer    Samantha Godbey & Kayden Skinner        159
Whitman College Jonathan Dentler & Robby White  0
Whitman College Sam Allen & Luke Sanford        80
Whitman College Nate Cohn & Daniel Straus       0
Whitman College Nick Griffin & Spencer Janyk    0
Whitman College Dave Mathews & Lewis Silver     0
Whitman College Eric Chalfant & Mike Meredith   0
Wichita State   Zach Brown & Patrick Rinker     159
Wichita State   Matt Coleman & Eric Robinson    159
Wichita State   Brian Box & Grant Brazill       159
Wyoming Travis Cram & Will Jensen       159
Wyoming Kelly Nickel & Jamie Piechura   159
               
               
               



------------------------------

Message: 18
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:10:24 -0400
From: "Joe Patrice" <joepatrice at gmail.com>
Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Nats Prefs
To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com, ceda-l at ndtceda.com
Message-ID:
        <f7194f2d0803200910l7e212b34oe348e75b7eb13c15 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

REMINDER -- Many teams have yet to enter prefs.  Please do so...or don't, I
guess I don't care if you get judges you don't want.  But if you care about
your judges get these entered.
Joe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080320/43d79f5f/attachment-0001.htm

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

End of eDebate Digest, Vol 30, Issue 20
***************************************


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080320/8336cb95/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list