Re: re:EMILY SHARUM

[ResIpsaLoc@aol.com]

><<re:Two responses to the above. Response #1. I am not willing to grant you
>that offensive or insensitive statements are audience bound.  DOes it mean
>that if I call a woman a bitch that should stay home it is only insensitive
>when I am around a woman?  I think not.  If a debater is calling a gay
>individual a homo in the round I think that this type of insensitivity
>should be rewarded at the point level.  THe statement whether made in front
>of the group that would take offense to it or not is still the same
>statement, and it does add color to the arguments being made.  

	I would agree with you as far as using racial, sexual, religious or other
ephitets is concerned. However, this isn't the point. While I would deplore
calling a woman a bitch, I would have no problem with the statement that
women are generally inferior to men in terms of physical strength (certainly
not universally, but I believe the statement to be generally accurate). My
concern is over what happens when a debater, in a rush, just tags the card
"Women Inferior," or if thats all the judge hears. Once again, I don't think
this should preclude the topic from being debated, but it is something to
consider. 


>Response #2
>BY telling people to hide their homosexuality you are in effect telling
>them that intrinsically there is something wrong with them.  Are you asked
>to hide your heterosexuality?  How would you do that?  Do you know what in
>effect your satements legitimize?  BOth arguments above are not only weak
>but questionable in and of themselves.>>

	You are correct that the statemment legitimizes homophobia. You are utterly
missing the point, however. First of all, not everyone wants to fight the
battle you are, to your credit, fighting for equal rights for all. Second, in
the real world, people have to make choices with regard to factors other than
their desire for a world in which everyone is free to live as they choose. On
several occassions, I have represented homosexuals who were arrested because
a former boyfriend/girlfriend fought with them or caused a disturbance. In
that situation, it is my job to tell my clients what the impact of their
statements is likely to be. Unfortunately, in the community in which they
will face trial, explaining the relationship to the jury, which I would do if
they were hetrosexual, would hurt their case. For a single mother with
children, the choice between going to jail or standing up as a proud member
of the community is often a simple one. 
	I've marched against Nazi's, worked for the ACLU, and proudly acknowledge my
native American heritage, but as long as I practice law in a community where
high ranking members of the community feel comfortable using language that
would make Mark Fuhrman uncomfortable, my advice to my clients when they go
before the jury will remain the same: be well-dressed, respectful, and don't
tell the jury anything that will threaten them. 

Mike Morris
Asst. Coach, University of Miami

---

• Prev by Date: Treaties Paper
• Next by Date: Re: Treaties
• Prev by thread: What should we debate.
• Next by thread: Chico factoid
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page