[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: Berkeley eligibility





As former officers and/or members of the Berkeley Debate team, we would 
like to give some background and correct some "mistakes" from Erica 
Grosjean's report on recent events in the UC Berkeley Debate team.

We have every interest in seeing (and we hope to see in the future) the UC 
Berkeley Debate team rid itself of the legacy of the cheating that has 
occurred in the past few years.  But Erica's letter, a
sugar-coated milieu of mis-statements, exaggerations, and 
half-truths, works to undermine the goal of creating an honest, 
trustworthy team.   This type of attempt to sweep the team's problems 
under the rug works to the detriment of that goal, and contributed to our 
quitting the team in disgust last month.

First, it is important to understand the depth of the illegal debating 
that went on.  At the end of the Spring 1996 semester--after constant 
battles between those of us on the team intolerant to cheating debaters 
and those cheating--the following incidents of cheating were reported to 
the UC administration:

Zack Brown.  Unregistered and debating for six consecutive semesters: 
Fall 92, Spring 93, Fall 93, Spring 94, Fall 94, Spring 95.  Illegally 
attended the 1993 and 1994 Nationals and advanced to out rounds at both 
tournaments.  Advanced at and/or won numerous tournaments.

David Brenigar.  Unregistered and debating for two consecutive semesters: 
Fall 95 and Spring 96.  Advanced to out rounds at numerous competitions, 
including the final round of the Spring 1996 Northwest Championships.  
Also debated illegally at NDT tournaments during Fall 1995.  Was 
illegally registered for the 1996 CEDA nationals.

Jason Nordwick.  Unregistered and debating for three consecutive 
semesters: Spring 95, Fall 95, and Spring 96.  Illegally attended the 
1995 CEDA nationals.

Megan Fahlstrom.  Unregistered and debating for two consecutive 
semesters: Fall 94 and Spring 95.  Debated while unregistered at 
Parliamentary tournaments in Fall 95.

Evan Rumberger.  Unregistered and debating for two consecutive semesters: 
Fall 94 and Spring 95.

Forensics at Berkeley is divided into three separate categories: IE's. 
NDT, and CEDA.  All three were tainted by cheating.   Misters Brown and 
Brenigar were, respectively, presidents of CEDA and NDT while they were 
illegally debating.  Ms. Fahlstrom was known to be unregistered when she 
competed for the parliamentary section.  Illegal Berkeley CEDA Debaters 
participated in three consecutive national championships: 1993, 1994, and 
1995 -- and an illegal debater was registered for the 1996 championship 
until he was exposed and the team was forced to cancel his registration.  

Rumberger was never a student at UC Berkeley.  He was a UCSD 
student taking a year off and rooming with some Berkeley debaters. 
He asked for and received permission from the team's then-ruling 
council to compete for Berkeley.  Fahlstrom tried to hide her
lack of registration and was forced off the team when it was
revealed.  That was not, however, common procedure:  Brown tried
to hide his lack of registration from new members of the team,
and established members assisted him in his deception, but by Fall 
94 everyone knew about it.  He kept debating.  Both Nordwick and Brenigar 
hid their lack of registration, but once exposed, Nordwick was allowed to 
debate at three more tournaments; and there was a major push among some 
members of the team (to our extreme disappointment) to also allow 
Brinegar to continue debating.  There was also great resentment expressed 
by some members of the team (most still running the team today) after the 
exposure of the cheating.  But the resentment was not directed toward the 
cheaters, but toward the man who had tried to stop the cheating--Sherman 
Boyson, volunteer novice teacher.

With these facts (which are easily conformed, as UC Berkeley has a 
policy of making registration a matter of public record,)  we would like 
to comment on certain statements made be Erica in her post:

"The majority of these violations happened in years past at a time when 
our regulatory knowledge and enforcement ability was much smaller than it 
is today."

No.  Simply not true.  In the two most recent academic years (94-95 and 
95-96) there were five illegal debaters representing Berkeley.  All of 
the violators debated for multiple semesters.  Of the 15 total semesters 
of illegal debate violations compiled by those five, only four occurred 
prior to Fall 1994.  Four out of fifteen is not a "majority."  It's about 
25 percent, which means that 75 percent of the cheating has occurred 
relatively recently.





"Most of the violations concerned students who, for various reasons, were 
not officially registered at the time of debating."

ALL of the incidents of illegal debating the were reported to the 
administration (and that we have detailed above) involved non-registration.

"Most were attending classes and taking tests thoughout this time but had 
financial aid blocks or other extraneous circumstances which prevented 
them from being officially registered."

Again, not true.  While two students claimed financial aid blocks once 
exposed and scrambling for an excuse for their non-registration, no one 
ever provided proof of a financial aid block to the team.  Both were 
asked to furnish this proof but could not.  One student even forged a 
letter from the university claiming such a block.  The President of the 
Senior Council, to our chagrin, accepted that letter even through a) it 
was not on letterhead, and b) it was printed on a colored piece of 
paper.  It was an obvious forgery (that was understood by all the members 
of the governing body).  The student even admitted later, to some, that 
it was a forgery.  Moreover, no one has "registration blocks" that allow 
you to attend classes without registration for two, three, or six 
semesters.  Two of the violators blatantly stopped attending school but 
continued to debate--and one loudly asserted that he had the right to be 
on the team while not attending school.  The fifth violator, as we have 
said, was given permission by the team to compete while ineligible.




"In the last few years, we have substantially increased the checks 
regarding the eligibility of debaters.  We now regularly check the 
registration status of all people interested in debating through the 
office of the registrar and we submit these results to our University 
advisor."

This policy was in effect during the Spring 1996 semester when two 
students were cheating and attending tournaments.  It was never 
enforced.  In fact, this year, it has only been enforced sporadically, 
and the current Secretary was not initially informed of what to do as the 
person designated to check such registration.  Brinegar was registered 
for the 1996 Nationals in spite of a registration form that requires 
certification of full registration.   This was not an isolated
occurrence:  it also happened at the previous three nationals;
the forms were signed despite the knowledge of most members of 
the team that the debaters were unregistered.





"In fact, during our last year, when it was discovered that people were 
competing while ineligible, our governing body immediately took action to 
stop those people from debating.  No one debated whom we discovered to be 
ineligible."

Absolutely untrue.  Sherman Boyson informed Dan Spillane (then president),
Erica Grosjean (Nordwick's then partner) and Ratha Pathak (then national
treasurer) in January 1996 that Mr. Nordwick was unregistered and had been so
during his three 
semesters of debating.  Instead of suspending him immediately, he was allowed

to attend the Southern Utah tournament, where, we agreed, he would
be confronted about his lack of registration.  Somehow, no
one at the tournament had the time, despite the agreement of the 
governing body, to question him that weekend.  Next, the governing body 
passed a new policy that all student registrations would be checked 
within two weeks.  After two weeks passed, Nordwick was still 
unregistered and everyone knew it.  He was STILL allowed to compete at 
UMKC.   After his return from UMKC, the same majority of the governing 
body voted against our objections and allowed Nordwick to attend yet 
another tournament, since it was felt by them that Mr. Nordwick would 
soon clear up his registration problems.  It was a well-known fact that 
Mr. Nordwick was unregistered, yet he was still allowed to go to three 
tournaments after this fact was disclosed.

In light of this, it is somewhat incredible, to say the least, that 
Erica asserts that "during the past year...no one debated whom we 
discovered to be ineligible.  It was well known by Erica that Nordwick 
was unregistered -- Nordwick was her debate partner.  Moreover, previous 
illegal debating by Misters Rumberger and Brown were also 
well known on the team.  




"The office of student conduct concluded that our team should continue 
debating fully.  The office was impressed by our measures to correct the 
problem and displayed understanding for our circumstances."

The office of student conduct put the debate team on probation.  Any 
further problems, and the office of student conduct will censure the 
debate team.   

Moreover, what are some of these "measures?"  They include electing a six 
semester violator as a current officer of the team, the violator making 
the policy to curb the violations.  (Would you trust a violator of the 
law to write the legislation punishing his violation?)  Other current 
officers on the team were among the most vocal advocates of allowing 
Nordwick and Brinegar to continue competing after their ineligibility was 
exposed.

But the "measures" do not stop there.  At the first meeting after he reported
the violations, Erica, Zack & Ratha retaliated by leading the team to ban
Sherman 
Boyson from any further participation in the team, forever.  When a 
motion was presented to ban Zack, the current officer who cheated for three
straight years, as well, it 
was soundly defeated.

At this point, it became apparent to all of us that the effort to reform 
the debate team was a lost cause.  Instead of punishing the offenders, 
the team has chosen to punish those who tried to stop 
the corruption while rewarding those who cheated.  We all quit in disgust.
 Those of us who had positions as officers resigned from those positions.






Some of the most significant wins by the Berkeley team in recent years should
be our pride, but instead those wins are a source of shame.  The
pervasiveness of the cheating and the lax response to the offenders is
astounding.   None of the debaters who cheated have been sanctioned in any
way.  If they just registered for school, they could debate for Berkeley
again.  After all, the most extreme offender is a team officer now.  

It was interesting to read the initial responses to Erica's posting.  One
person wondered how Berkeley does so well without coaches and there have been
many admirable examples of true achievement at Berkeley.  The novice team
that lost to UVM in the final round of Novice Nationals last spring was
comprised of two true novices -- fully registered and fresh to the activity.
    But other Berkeley wins on the varsity level carry a stain.   It is a bit
of an advantage when you don't have to worry about studying or missing
classes or having to work to pay for tuition.  Especially when you don't have
to worry about it for three long years.

We all want a UC Berkeley debate team free of corruption.  If we thought 
there were a reasonable chance of such an occurrence, we would probably 
still be on the debate team.   But Erica's posting is proof that the team 
is moving in the opposite direction.  Berkeley's problems will not be 
solved by sweeping past violations under the rug with outright lies, 
misstatements, and half-truths.  Doing so will only exacerbate past 
problems.  Only when the truth is known and individual offenders are punished
will the Berkeley Debate Team's problems cease.

      Sincerely,
     
Wynn Wilcox,  Former Novice Coach, UC Berkeley Debate Team
Chia-Jung Yang, Former Local Treasurer, UC Berkeley Debate Team
Elizabeth Phu, Former Local Treasurer & Former Publicity/Fund-raiser, UC
Berkeley Debate Team
Mary Tsai, Former Member, UC Berkeley Debate Team
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page