Author Topic: CSUF Diversity-Enriching judge experiemnt  (Read 3274 times)


  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 38
CSUF Diversity-Enriching judge experiemnt
« on: January 15, 2014, 12:43:46 PM »
DATA: There were 11 judges who self-identified as diverse (9.4% of the pool); here is the raw data with all non-diverse judges included in parentheses:  Average rating 4.7 (4.7), judged 97.5% of their commitment (95.5%), 26.9% of the teams judged had 4 wins or more (32.3%).  The figures combine both open and novice.  In doubles, placed 6 in doubles (1 novice), 9 in octos (2 novice), 3 in quarters, 1 in semis, 1 in finals.

COMMENTS: 11 judges just isn't very many; as the experiment moves forward, who self-identifies seems crucial.  It was, however, very useful to have a community mandate to actively try to place new faces on the elim panels; having the 5-judge panels did much to further that goal.  In short, I found the 5-judge elims and "Everyone judges a full commitment" system in place did much to provide new blood throughout the judging panels and the mandate to consider diversity enrichment is a good one.

Finally, having had another run at this since USC, I'll restate my position that while judge placement plays some role we're really only talking about 5 judges (accounting for diversity-enhancing judges who probably fit in any system) at tournaments with more than 100 judges; at smaller tournaments the figures are even more tiny.  It may well matter how we place those judges, but the much larger issue is that the judge pool overall is about 75% white male.


RW Evans

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: CSUF Diversity-Enriching judge experiemnt
« Reply #1 on: January 15, 2014, 05:15:14 PM »
Do you have any information regarding these diverse judges?  What made them diverse?  Under what conditions did the tournament approve them as diverse?  I know you claim that it's self identification, but you also require that each person be approved, so in effect these 11 people are individuals that the tournament deemed diverse.  In your invite, you claimed to be looking for new thinking, in your post write-up you claimed to have offered "new blood."  Was this about thinking or blood?  I am really confused because your sneaky but feel good policy seems fucking scary to me, largely because I don't know what the fuck you are doing over there, but you are really trying hard to make it feel good and sound right.

Also, do you know what effect your policy really had on diversity?  For instance, there is ZERO.  I MEAN ABSOLUTELY ZERO relationship between the people you think add diversity and the people in the pool with the dirty and contaminated blood.  New blood is fine, so long as its not black blood.  You can have diversity and anti-blackness.  Diversity is anti-black.

Final Round:  Towson JR vs NU MV.  
Judges:  Kennedy, Davis, Garret, Shook, Woodward

Semifinals:  Towson JR vs Mary Washington
Judges:  Turner, Davis, Quigly, Garret, Murillo

Quarterfinals:  Rutgers RS vs Michigan AP
Judges:  Quigly, Antonucci, Kennedy, Kennedy, Feldman

First, where is the new blood for the Black debaters in these debates?  Will they ever get a shot at a top team with a Black judge?  Why you are championing diversity have you allowed or encouraged teams like Michigan, Mary Washington and Northwestern to strike all the Black judges to ensure that this never happens?  Does your policy do anything for these debaters in these circumstances?

Second, did you make any attempts to get any Black blood into the debates between white teams?  Towson & Harvard had a mutual 7 in the semis of USC.  Diverse teams are constantly forced to take non-mutual 6s and 7s under your policy where you attempt to use everyone commitment and make no distinction between who is racist and who is diverse.  So, diverse teams are forced to have judges that they do not want at all.  While, anti-black teams can ensure that they never have a Black judge.  Does this matter at all?  For instance, Michigan & Northwestern don't actually need a 5 judge panel of their top choices in the semi-finals.  Certainly not as a diversity experiment.  Were there no Black mutual 7s for this debate?  Is it because they were all striken?  Or because these teams already agree and therefore should have judges that reflect similarly agree?  How is that diversity?

What is especially disgusting about this is that teams have specific strategies that deploy against Black teams and all of these strategies envision and require a white judge.  These teams can also ensure that they will NEVER have to debate a Black team with a Black judge.  Note:  teams don't have their "diversity strat," but a Black strat.  Why on eartha kitt are we talking about diversity?  We don't have a diversity problem.  We have an anti-Blackness problem and your policy contributes to that.  

Do you have any details as to why this was a good idea?  Or, who this worked out for?    

You seem to be thinking about diversity in three conflicting and racist ways:  blood ("new blood" comment), body ("pool is 75% white male"), mind ("if you think you add diversity").  There is zero precision to your policy or analysis, but it's apparently a good idea.  Why?

Like, when you say the pool is 75% white male, who do you include as white and how do you know they are white?  Also, can a white male not think in diverse terms?  For instance, what about the gay white men in that group?  What if they think queerly?  Also, what are your thoughts on gay blood?  Can the blood be gay?  What does diverse thinking LOOK like?  No really, what is this.

« Last Edit: January 15, 2014, 05:41:06 PM by RW Evans »


  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: CSUF Diversity-Enriching judge experiemnt
« Reply #2 on: January 16, 2014, 10:20:15 PM »
As per our policy, judges self-identified.  We did not identify judges since we do not wish to force individuals into identity categories they may not be comfortable with, nor did we wish to exclude identities that we hadn't thought of or that constitute small or non-visible portion of the pool.  Eleven judges self-identified as diversity enhancing, and out of respect for their decisions we will not reveal the names of individuals, although we welcome any of those judges who wish to identify themselves.  It goes without saying that not all 11 judges were available for all elim rounds.

We did not exclude any judge who self-identified as diverse, and took great pains to include them in important debates whenever we could.  All judges who made themselves available and were a plausible fit anywhere were placed, and diversity-enhancing judges were placed at a far higher rate than other judges, including the elim rounds. 

As a side note, I very much enjoyed watching part of the final round and did find the Towson strategy to challenge my own whiteness and make me think about some things.  I also very much enjoyed all the (limited time) I had to spend with the debaters over the weekend.  There are some very cool people on all sides of the argument strategy spectrum.