As a debater who is genderqueer, I found the suspension of the Debate Team devastating. Debate offered me a safe space where I could explore my identity. Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the suspension is that the administration never bothered to learn about debate; they never came to a tournament, practice or our presentation at the Undergraduate Conference. If they had, I cannot imagine how they could indict the entirety of the team’s culture, especially since they did not meet with all the members of the policy team, or anyone on the parliamentary team.
The best thing about debate is that it is, by its nature, immensely self-reflective. Debate is a unique activity because it invites challenges to the typical norms of the activity, particularly surrounding accessibility for debaters of underprivileged identities, and constantly searches for methods to end exclusion. For example, the Whitman team has made arguments about how solely discussing issues along the public/private divide can lead to debates that focus only on macro effects of policy, which can reinforce sexist ideas about who counts as important. Through these self-reflective debates, the Whitman team gained skills and knowledge that we used during the Title IX process we went through last year, and then applied the Title IX training we received to workshops at the summer debate camp, the high school tournament and the team prep session. Both the administration and independent reviewers praised our progress.
This year we hired a coach who specialized in debating about how to make debate more inclusive for women. During her college career, Kendra read arguments about gendered language and how to combat sexism and sexual violence. Kevin (the debate director) hired Kendra largely because he knew there were members of our team who wanted to read similar arguments. Indeed, one debater spent the season making arguments about how to make debate a home for women. She had the whole team behind her –– she was paired with the most experienced debater on the team and consistently received extra coaching to ensure she had the support she needed. One of my fondest memories of this year was the first time she and her partner made it to an elimination round. The whole team was in the room, doing last-minute research, helping them prepare for the debate and cheering them along.
Two more women debaters joined the policy team in October and immediately traveled to the UPS tournament. They decided to take some time off from debate and came back again shortly before the Texas tournament. Because Texas does not offer a JV section and is known for being a challenging tournament, the coaches and Kevin decided to only send varsity debaters. However, both the coaches and Kevin wanted to make sure the two of them, as well as the two other JV debaters, got enough chances to debate, so they decided to send the four of them to the JV Championships at Sacramento State as an additional unscheduled tournament. In a further effort to support the three women on the team, the coaches started offering additional drills specifically for women. While the JV teams were at Sacramento State, the rest of the team was excitedly following their success, sending a barrage of emails offering help in research. Ultimately, the other JV team let the two newer women advance ahead of them despite being higher in the bracket, citing their support for the arguments the women were reading about disrupting phallocentrism.
I do not know what the specific allegations against the team are, but I find the administration’s assertion of a blanket sexist culture against every experience I have had in debate. I cannot help but conclude that the administration, in suspending the entire team, has thrown the baby out with the bath water and suspended participation in one of the most useful activities for challenging discrimination.
Emma Thompson ’16
Correction: This printing originally said Emma Thompson was in the class of 2015. They are graduating in 2016.
Debate team member • May 1, 2015 at 5:26 pm
In regard to Benjamin’s comment–every indication made by the administration, both publicly and to the debate team, has been that this suspension was specifically made because of alcohol violations. In the Pio article Benjamin cites above, Juli Dunn (Whitman’s Title IX Administrator) says that the administration never confirmed the accusations of other behavoirs or problems on the team. Members of the administration told the team that the only investigation(s) done this year were into alcohol violations on the policy team. Many administrators said those additional allegations factored into their decision, but they have made clear those allegations were not investigated or confirmed and they have not explained how those additional allegations factored into the decision, though of course that may be at least partially due to the concerns and constraints that the First Anonymous commenter noted.
Benjamin Limpich • Apr 28, 2015 at 10:32 pm
I do not have the ties that you have, but with the limited information out there I dug up as much as I could, and apparently John Bogley (Vice President for Development and College Relations) said that “The decision to suspend the team was not related to Title IX. It was based on alcohol-related violations of the agreement debaters agreed to follow.” according to Sean Harris-Campf who claimed to have talk to him.
In addition to this, a private source told me that the administration was vague when describing their justification for suspension, and as even the writer of this article says “I do not know what the specific allegations against the team are”. Even in the original news article about the suspension Margaret Rockey said “It was not explained to us [debaters] what those violations were”. This all creates the image that the admin didn’t specify whether the suspension was majorly, partly, or at all impacted by sexual misconduct allegations.
I have no doubt that you have more knowledge pertaining to the situation, but with what is publicly available my perspective was that officially the decision was made based off the alcohol-policy violation. Of course I don’t have the information you have, but I wanted to give what a public eye sees the situation as.
First Anonymous • Apr 27, 2015 at 4:25 pm
Also while the focus of this article was the benefits lost due to the teams suspension, it was done so in a way that says, “they got extra help and support anyway so they have no reason to complain” which is bullshit considering the fact that the writer started off with wanting to talk about her own wonderful experiences and instead made a dig at someone else. While the team may have been supportive of said member of the team, it was not mentioned how easy it was to turn their back on each other.
Anonymous • Apr 27, 2015 at 4:19 pm
Benjamin, I am the first anonymous and I have remained anonymous due to my knowledge of the situation. I have close friendships with people on the team and in order to respect their privacy, I will simply tell you that there is in fact substantial information. This is not something that should have been decided by “everyone” whether or not the suspension was right. There is a long list of things that led up to the teams suspension. Maybe you’re not privy to this info. And the sexual misconduct happens to be on the list of reasons why they were suspended the problem with the alcohol was the last straw.
Benjamin Limpich • Apr 26, 2015 at 1:03 pm
@Anonymous (the first one) Whitman didn’t get rid of debate because of sexual misconduct, it was because of an alcohol policy violation(s). The focus of this article is the benefits lost due to the teams suspension, not to diminish allegations.
“there was obviously some substantial information leading to the inevitable cancellation of the whole team”
You cannot assume this without evidence. Substantiating a not fully justified stance gives undeserved merit to the decision. If the administration gave a more detailed explanation of their suspension then everyone could decide for themselves if they thought it was right, but you shouldn’t assume that the Admin MUST be correct just because they are the admin, that’s a logical fallacy.
Anon • Apr 25, 2015 at 3:31 pm
Points docked for lies
Anonymous • Apr 25, 2015 at 3:30 pm
20.00
Anonymous • Apr 25, 2015 at 3:30 pm
21.1
Anonymous • Apr 24, 2015 at 9:26 pm
Perhaps you should have been clearer indeed.
Anonymous • Apr 24, 2015 at 10:22 am
Sounds to me like the Title IX training everyone supposedly got went to waste when some people were assaulted. With all this talk of so much support of some women on the team, I can’t help but think that is a lie. How is the school going to just say, “oh someone complained about sexual misconduct better get rid of debateâ€. Whitman would not do that, there was obviously some substantial information leading to the inevitable cancellation of the whole team. I would hope that you would at least know that before defending this program. Lastly, how interesting it is that the women on this team do not tell such high praises of debate like you.
Emma Thompson • Apr 23, 2015 at 5:44 pm
As much as I wish I were already done with my thesis and all I’m actually in the class of 2016, but I appreciate the advancement.
With regards to Lauren’s comment, perhaps I should have been clearer- the debate community defines JV as those in their first 2 years of college policy debate assuming you didn’t have significant debate experience in high school, a category both Emma N. and Lauren fall into (both of them spent some time in Parli). I apologize sincerely if I made it sound like either of you are in your first year of debate. Thank you for pointing out the confusion.
Lauren Hauck • Apr 23, 2015 at 4:24 pm
To correct the false information in this op-ed neither Emma Newmark nor I, who were the two women debaters at Sacramento State, are in our first year of debate. I have been debating for 3 years at Whitman and Emma 2.