Sexual Harassment in Forensics - 6 years later…

In relation to this previous post on a study from 1994 on coaching debate and raising children, I thought I might post some other studies that deserve revisiting.  This post refers to a study done by Pamela Stepp, former Director of Forensics at Cornell University, the results of which were published in an article in the journal Communication Education, in the January 2001 issue. 

Here is the abstract:

Recent court rulings have made incidents of sexual harassment more worrisome for professors, particularly those who coach students in forensics (individual speaking events and intercollegiate debate extra-curricular activities).  Participants were 611 students and coaches from four national forensics organizations who filled out a modified version of the Sexual Experience Questionnaire to assess understanding and experiences of sexual harassment.  Results indicated that sexual harassment is widespread in forensics, that women are harassed more than men, and that women in intercollegiate debate are harassed more than women in individual speaking events.

The study included behavior ranging from the quid pro quo harassment to sexually inappropriate behavior and talk that created a hostile environment.  Here is an excerpt from one of the narratives in a survey:

One of the worst experiences I had in college was at a large national NDT Tournament.  A debater from another school had expressed an interest in me.  When a judge from his school judged me, the judge began to question me before the round about my relationship with the debater.  This happened in front of my partner (a male) and the other team (both male).  The judge asked me if I had sex with him, if I was planning to have sex with him, if I wanted the judge to arrange for us to be alone at the hotel that night. . .I was so embarrassed that he was asking me these questions, and I didn’t know what to do.  (NDT female debater)

Whenever I read things like this, I wonder if incidences such as these are result of ignorance or malice.  I have to think it is often ignorance.  What I mean by this is in many of these situations if you spoke to the person who behaved inappropriately after the incident, they would have no awareness of how they made the other person feel.  And if they did know how it made them feel before they said it, they would never say it.  Obviously, there are those who are malicious and who do say things like this to hurt the other person, but much of the time in our community I think these things happen because the person thinks they’re being funny, and that everyone is enjoying the joke.  And they continue to think that because so many of us remain silent about our objections in order to “keep the peace” or to “fit in”.  Its a difficult place for one to be located.

Although Stepp recognizes that surveys are not the best way to collect information, as those who were harassed may be more likely to respond than those who were not, I think it would be interesting to have some similar studies done as a point of comparison.  In the article, there is a suggestion that would be interesting to explore in this era of “self-disclosure debate,” (for lack of a better term), where teams are choosing to disclose their personal experiences, including past sexual experiences, as narratives in policy debate rounds.  Although this is not what I would call widespread, it has appeared enough to become relatively known within the community.  The suggestion from the article is:

Research should explore the sexualized atmosphere of sexual talking and jokes, which appears to be so common in the forensics community.  Gutek (1985) claims that when women have a male supervisor more co-workers are likely to harass.  This may mean that forensics coaches can have an influence on the climate in their organizations in terms of the types of behavior that is encouraged or forbidden.  Lack of action represents tolerance for sexual harassment.  Fitzgerald and Shullman (1993) claim a dire need for a method to assess organizational climates and environments for these behaviors.

I am a strong believer in organizational culture and the leadership of an organization being responsible for that culture.  So, I agree that on teams, the coach can do much to alleviate the problems of harassment.  In addition, we can be the person to speak up in gatherings where inappropriate sexualized comments are being made.  But, with the new personal disclosure in rounds, it becomes a whole different concern of who is the manager of that environment?  Should the judge be responsible for that?  How do you know when disclosure crosses over into harassment?  As a coach and as an educator, I have responsibilities to my team and my classes, but as a judge, to whom am I responsible?  What about my debaters?  If they feel a disclosure crosses a line, how should they handle that?   I don’t have firm answers to these questions at this point, but I do think they are something that needs to be discussed for the forensics organizational culture, as the 2001 results indicate. 

I think this is worthwhile of research so we have an idea of where we stand as organizations (CEDA, NDT, AFA, NPDA, etc.) in the area of sexual harassment.

Coaching intercollegiate debate and raising a family… 13 years later

This article is from the Winter, 1994 National Forensic Journal.  It was written by Ann Burnett Pettus, then Assistant Professor and Director of Forensics at U. of Nebraska, Lincoln and Mary Ann Danielson, then Instructor and Director of Forensics at Creighton University. 

The study only included five narratives, which represented a 60% return rate.  The authors note that there were not that many women that fell into the category of mother and debate coach in 1994.  That number should be a little higher today. I think this would be a great piece of research to do an update of and see where we are in 2007 with these particular issues. 

Some highlights from the article I found particularly interesting:

Stewart (1989) discovered that women who were satisfied with their decision to have a career and family had “flexible or adjustable work hours, supervisors’ understanding and cooperation when emergencies arise or children are ill, job hours compatible with school and day care hours, adequate pay to obtain domestic help, and willingness of co-workers to help meet deadlines when emergencies arise” (p. 30).

A career in academics does tend to provide you with a more flexible work schedule, but involvement in forensics tends to skew that flexibility.  Depending on whether you are in a program with assistants or not, you may have a lot of flexibility or no flexibility at all in attending tournaments, running practice rounds, meeting with students, etc.  So, being at a program that provides assistantships is a key factor in being able to balance forensics and children effectively.  The hours of day care are also not forensics friendly.  Most day cares do not offer weekend services and those that do are often very expensive.  In addition, overnight stays are virtually unavoidable in forensics, so having someone to care day and night for your children is necessary. 

Or, you can take them with you.  But, this effects one’s ability to judge, sometimes can effect one’s ability to coach teams, and certainly can be an additional stressor in an already incredibly stressful and exhausting situation.  I definitely have seen some coaches do this successfully, but it required either having assistants to cover the judging, buying out of that judging, or working in the tab room in order to have more flexibility to deal with issues that might arise with their children.  With the time commitment required of forensics, it seems necessary to start a discussion of how people deal with this successfully without feeling like they are neglecting their families.

As some women in this study point out, the already-tough expectations of debate coaching may be more demanding for a woman than a man, and, at the same time, the woman still has the burden of caring for her family. More importantly, the small number of women debate coaches should be of concern to the community, and this essay provides some initial insight into why more women may not be involved.

This is an interesting commentary.  Is coaching debate more demanding for a woman than a man?  If so, why?  What are the things that are required of women, or what is the additional burdens placed on women that are not required of or placed on men?  Perhaps this has changed since 1994.  What about equity in responsibilities at home?  It would be interesting to see if there is more of that among women coaching debate than there is among the typical population.  But, one thing definitely has not changed since 1994 - the concern about small numbers of women debate coaches.  Although I’m sure there has been an increase in these numbers since 1994, I wonder how significant that increase has been.  I wonder if those statistics are held somewhere. 

If I hear anything back from Pettus, I will let you know.  In the meantime, if anyone out there is looking for areas to research or problems to solve, this article might provide you with some starting points.

Laws get tangled up in lawmakers’ words

As a communication professor who coaches policy debate, I am always fascinated to find “real-world” examples of how important the debate basics are to being effective. For example, defining terms so everyone is on the same page; being specific in your advocacy so others understand exactly what they are supporting or rejecting, etc.  The attached article provides some ofthe frustrations that can occur without these basics being met.

read more | digg story

Judge with your right ear…

Literally!  According to a list from http://www.egodialogues.com/blog/item-106.html if you’re having problems hearing someone speaking, you should “lean in with your right ear. It’s better than your left at following the rapid rhythms of speech, according to researchers at the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine.”  So, when you are judging the fast speakers with soft voices, make sure you are using your right ear! 

Practice is not enough…

In any competitive activity, the first thing competitors are told is typically, “practice, practice, practice…”  But, I think its important to recognize that practice is not necessarily enough or even good for you.  I used to be a swimmer and swim coach, and in swimming, when you practice wrong, its worse than not practicing at all.  It is much the same in speech and debate.  Practicing without focusing on the quality of the practice can actually make you worse.  A few examples:

• Practicing your speech with “uh”s and “like”s in it will make you more likely to use those fillers in competition.  This, to me, is WORSE than not being memorized.  If memorizing your speech entails developing bad habits, I would rather have you practicing continually with your index cards.  So, when working on memorization, always have someone listening.  You may start using these fillers without realizing otherwise.
• Practicing speed drills without focusing on clarity can make you a worse speaker.  I don’t know how many times I have told debaters that they would be faster and more effective if they actually SLOWED down.  Some debaters pick up hitches as they develop speed.  Others have breathing issues.  Without building your speed along with developing your clarity and breathing and stamina, you are likely to make yourself slower and less understandable in the end.
• Writing arguments/speeches.  Of course there is some truth in saying that writing, rewriting and rewriting makes you better automatically.  But, without proper direction and feedback and improvements, these rewrites become a practice in futility.  Whether it is feedback and direction from a coach or just a “fresh set of eyes” from a peer, you have to seek out others’ opinions in order to make improvements in your arguments and speeches. 

I think there are two important things to consider.  First, practice is important.  This is not meant to say that you should quit practicing!  Far from it.  What I’m saying is that practice only makes perfect when the practice itself is designed to reach perfection.  That means reflecting on where you are, where you need to be, and how to get there.  I would suggest a few ways of helping out with this:

1. Structure practices to include reflection, de-briefing and goal setting for improving.  Most speech and debate competitors read their ballots or listen to their post-round decisions, most even understand what the judge is saying, but the big step is figuring out how to make the improvements that are necessary.  Make sure that these reflections and de-briefings include the last part - setting goals and designing activities to fix the problems that judges identify. 
2. Seek feedback.  Competitions are great for providing feedback on your speeches and arguments and speaking, but if you wait until you get to the competition to get the feedback, you’re wasting a lot of in-between time.  So, design practices to include feedback.  Practice in front of different people.  If you can find people who are not affiliated with the team, even better.  Getting some unbiased and unrelated feedback can help.  For debaters, this may mean submitting your argument briefs to an expert on the topic for suggestions rather than actually debating in front of them.  
3. Self-evaluation is important.  Usually, competitors are their own harshest critics.  So, videotape yourself speaking, being cross-examined, etc.  Then, make sure you watch it and make changes based on what you see and hear.  Your perspective dramatically changes when you see and hear yourself.  This can be a great coaching aid.  It is even better if you can videotape some rounds at tournaments so you can see and hear what you sound like in actual competitions. 

This is obviously just a start, but gives you a good idea of why just scheduling practice time or doing speaking drills every day is not enough.  You have to do these things with a purpose in mind and you should discover that purpose through reflection, feedback, and self-evaluation.

Speaking Skills = Success for Women

Yet another reason to support your local speech and debate program!  A recent study of 100 female executives in Southern California (not the most representative sample perhaps, but this could be impetus for a study of former participants in speech and debate) showed that public speaking skills were considered the MOST important factor determining professional success.  The results of the study have a few findings that relate to our activity:

1. Public speaking skills are a “must have” and not a “nice to have” for a professional women today.
2. Public speaking skills are the “breakthrough” skills that create new opportunities for women.
3. Public speaking skills are the “breakthrough” skills that allow women to shatter the glass ceiling.

The opportunities that women are provided in developing these skills in high school and college through speech and debate can not only be touted as beneficial, but may be seen as key to overcoming the inequalities that still exist in the workplace.  A recent US Census Bureau report showed women making only 77 cents for every dollar made by a man. 

Although we constantly discuss the importance of women in our activity, perhaps we would do well to tout the importance of our activity to women! An interesting perspective to consider.  I would like to see if the study would hold up in a broader and more academic application.  Something to consider for future study.

Women in Debate - Some New Perspectives

A few things I have read this week have resonated with me, making me recognize some things about the discussion of women in debate that is constantly being replayed within the intercollegiate policy debate community.  I thought I would take this opportunity to share them.  I’m not sure they will help to solve any problems, but I think a truly effective solution always requires us to first understand the problems/issues.  This is an area where I think our community SEES the problem, but can not UNDERSTAND the problem.  Without understanding, identification of problems will never lend themselves to a solution.

The first thing I found of interest was a study done by Jennifer L. Berdahl from the University of Toronto, published in the Journal of Applied Psychology.  The article’s title, “The Sexual Harassment of Uppity Women,” is sure to capture people’s attention, but the findings can be appropriately applied to intercollegiate debate.  The study was actually three studies.  The first looked at female and male college students, finding that “women with relatively masculine personalities (e.g., assertive, dominant, and independent) experienced the most sexual harassment.”  The second evaluated why this was the case, finding that “women with relatively masculine personalities were more likely than others to negatively evaluate potentially harassing scenarios.”  The third and final study, and the one which I think is most important when looking at college debate, “included male and female employees at 5 organizations” and showed that “women in male-dominated organizations who had relatively masculine personalities were sexually harassed the most.”

So, you may be wondering why I’m discussing this study in the context of intercollegiate debate.  A few reasons actually come to mind.  First, I think that most traditional gender analyses would find that what we do in intercollegiate debate is often masculine in tone and execution.  This means that women would often be perceived as demonstrating the masculine traits identified in the study.  In addition, debate is still largely male-dominated (although this is not true at every level or in every context, in a broad sense, it is true).  If we are to accept the findings of the study, this means that there is a high likelihood of women being sexually harassed in debate.  I agree with the author of the study that, “Viewing sexual harassment as the insensitive or nefarious pursuit of sexual expression and gratification has generated much confusion and controversy about why and whether sexual harassment constitutes sex discrimination and has led to policies that focus on policing sexual behavior at work rather than acts that perpetuate sex inequality.”  This calls into question the expectations that all of us have for women in debate.  Do we expect them to behave differently than men in debate?  Do we judge them differently?  I believe that there have been studies that have shown that the answer to these questions is a definitive yes.  Now we need to start asking what we can do about it.

The second item that made me think of the Women in Debate issue, was an online article from Pink Magazine (a publication that is new to me and one of my favorites) about Amparo Moraleda, General Manager, IBM Spain, Portugal, Greece, Israel and Turkey.  She does a good job of summing up one of the reasons the mentoring program is so important to me:

“I believe that each of us – every woman who has achieved certain milestones and has been able to differentiate herself in the business world – has a duty to become a role model for other women and to show it’s possible to be successful [and have] a personal or family life. Women lack role models. Many think it’s impossible because they don’t see a lot of women doing it. And I want to share that success is about determination, resiliency and passion…”

 I strongly believe that women role models are one of the most important ways we can improve participation levels and success levels of women in debate.  This past year, a two-woman team from Emory won the prestigious NDT.  Which is great.  But the question becomes, will those women stick around debate in the future or will they go on to “bigger and better things”?  Because if exceptional women have exceptional success and then move on, it is more difficult to establish a role model situation.  There are a lot of men who stick around the activity to coach and for graduate assistantships, but the number of women who do that is even lower than the number of women who find success while competing.  Again, I’m sure there are numerous reasons this is true, but I think its an important issue to understand in order to improve participation levels among women.

Well, I haven’t solved any of the world’s or debate’s problems in this post, but maybe these references will spark some ideas in me or someone else and we can start moving towards better understanding for better solutions. 

Short note - Southwest Airlines College Traveler Program

I just saw this and thought I would post it, as it may save students some money and for teams with tight budgets, may mean another flying tournament you can attend.  Southwest is currently running a special for 18-23 year old college students that allows them to get four free flight credits plus the typical double credits for booking flights online - which means three round trips and they get a free roundtrip voucher.  I tried looking to see if you had to be new to Rapid Rewards to get the benefit, but I could not find anything to indicate that.  So, if you plan to fly your students to three tournaments during the year, they would then have a voucher they could use for a fourth tournament.  Not a bad deal…especially with Southwest’s vouchers as their pretty liberal about usage compared with other airlines’ points plans.

Students can sign up here. 

Things to do in June…

Well, another month is gone and in the world of speech and debate, the long year is finally over.  Most colleges are out for the summer and the year of tournaments, practices and endless research is over (high schools, if attending NFLs, still have a few more weeks).  But, as the saying goes, there is no rest for the weary - and I think we can all agree that speech and debate coaches are some of the most weary people in America!  I am going to make it a goal to post a message at the beginning of each month discussing what a coach/director should be considering in that month. 

Since June is a “slow” month in the world of speech and debate, this month’s list will not be terribly long.  I may even forget a few things, but I’ll come back to the list if I think of something that I have forgotten.

• Closing out last year’s accounts.  Most colleges have a July close date, but you don’t want to wait until the last minute, as many campuses have a purchase deadline a few weeks prior to close dates.  This is a great time to figure out (1) if you have money left over in the budget that may purchase you some hard goods, like printers, cartridges, copy cards, VA cases, etc.; (2) if you are short on money, so you can possibly go to alumni to ask for funding to cover the shortfall (or at least let your administrator know what is going on so they are not caught off guard by the shortfall); (3) finalized expenses for the last few tournaments (especially if you attended the IE national tournaments, which tend to fall late in the season and may have fallen through the finals/end-of-year cracks). 
• Once you’ve done that, you can start the next step in the process - figuring out any adjustments you need to make to the travel schedule for next year.  If you’ve underspent, look at tournaments you might be able to add to the schedule. If you’ve overspent (or came close to it), what tournaments can you possibly cut out next year?  Remember to consider your numbers for the following year - will they be the same?  More?  Less?  That definitely plays a big part in the expense of your tournament travel. 
• Now you can sit down with the next year’s calendar and decide on a tentative tournament schedule.  This may seem really early to be doing this, but its good for you and the students to have this information as early as possible.  In addition, recruits are usually really excited to see a tournament schedule (even if the places we travel to are not all that glamorous).  The Council of Forensics Organizations has a joint calendar for speech and debate tournaments located at http://fmp.mnsu.edu/cofo/ and the Cross Examination Debate Association has a calendar at http://debate.miami.edu/calendar/ (be sure to scroll down a little bit to reach the CEDA Calendar section) and the American Forensics Association includes their calendar in their June newsletter. 
• Next is encouraging your students to either attend a summer institute (for debate participants) OR to start writing speeches for next year (individual events).  Most of the institutes offer either early registration breaks or scholarships for students who register early.  I work at the ADI in Arizona, which is designed for policy debaters, but has a few parli debaters attend each summer.  When I was competing, I attended WDI at the University of Vermont.  They now include policy, parli and LD I believe.  Finally Wyoming offers a very economical choice with their WFI.  The offer both policy and parli tracks.  Individual events competitors do not attend summer institutes, but they can certainly start working on preparing speeches for the next year now.  That way, they don’t have to do as much work when the school year begins.
• Do a little self-reflection on the prior year.  What worked?  What didn’t work?  What did you wish you had done at some point that you might be able to get done during the summer?  It often seems to me that once the season begins, I am always behind.  So, if I think of something to do that would be valuable, I often can not find the time to do it.  Now, if I can remember that during the summer and do it, then it will be done.  Remembering it is the problem, which these periods of self-reflection will hopefully help.  I try to go back through the year tournament-by-tournament.  I might even go back through my sent emails to see if there are things I can streamline in the future.  The summer gives you some breathing room to really take it slow and get the systems set up for the next year.
• The final thing I have for June is a “year-end” brag sheet.  You may have already done this before school ended, but if you haven’t, now is the time.  This should go out to your alumni, your administrators, the parents of your students, any campus publications that might do a story on the team in the future, and even the local press.  The brag sheet can be simple - just list the competitive successes, academic awards received by and anything else about your students that would be impressive to these audiences.  Often, we work with extremely well-rounded students who are receiving scholarships, local awards for service, academic recognition like Dean’s List, etc. but no one ever knows because all we focus on is what they do in forensics.  I would suggest having each student complete a “brag” sheet at the final meeting you have with the team, where they can note their achievements from the past year, both forensics and other areas.  

Obviously, this is probably not a comprehensive list of everything that needs to be done in June.  But, it is a good place to start.  If anyone reading this has additional items they can think of, please feel free to add them in the comments section!

Enjoy the summer…the season grind will be starting once again all-too-soon…

Additional methods to increase reading speed…

Whether you are a debater, an indivdual events competitor, or just a regular student, being able to read faster and with better retention is key to success. It makes you able to perform research assignments as well as homework assignments faster and more effectively. I definitely think that the fast-talking in policy debate has its drawbacks, but it also seems to me that if speed-reading is viewed as a productivity plus, then developing faster reading skills aloud can not be all bad!  Zenhabits.net presents some methods for improving these skills…

By simply learning how to process information at a more rapid rate, you’re not only going to be able to move through books more quickly, but you will also be able to comprehend and process more of what you have read. Speed reading is an excellent skill that can be used in your workplace, your home life, as well as your personal hobbies….

read more | digg story