ans Hanson

[Michael Miroslav Korcok <mk48@cornell.edu>]

my understanding is second-hand and it is largely from one of the
persons who was "taken to committee."  there may be a "not to be
discussed" agreement in place on the specific case.

my claim that there is a "precedent" set comes from discussion with
several folks directly involved in the matter.  as i understand it, the
committee dismissed because the charge was sexual harassment and there
was none:  it was just swearing with no "sexual" underpinning.

and you and i don't agree on whether or not cursing is "acceptable" in
debate (yeah, no surprise).  however, i do think that we can agree that
any formal attempt to "punish" or "discipline" or "reprimand" debaters
who curse would be found unconstitutional.  it would also open CEDA to
civil suits that it would lose.

michael korcok

---

• Prev by Date: ans Glen (2)
• Next by Date: Re: swearing goodRe: Korcok the Learned..
• Prev by thread: ans Glen (2)
• Next by thread: ECO Climate Newsletters from COP-2 (fwd)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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