Timmons on privacy

Once again, I'm putting a response from one of the main proponents of disclosure in the main body of the blog. As always, feel free to comment.

-----

To all that have written so far I am impressed with the tone, the
reflective thoughts, and the care all are taking in addressing the
issue of disclosure/case lists in Lincoln - Douglas debate. The
discussion is needed, and this blog has produced some of the best
discussion on this issue. Thank you!

I will address one issue in this post. My response will center on the
issue of the privacy concerns/violations that could potentially be
raised as a result of a mandatory case list at an invitational debate
tournament. In full disclosure (pun clearly intended), I don't have a
law degree (or to quote Jay Z, "I ain't passed the bar but I know a
little bit"), but I do have a few thoughts on this issue. My thoughts
are based on my personal understanding of the "reasonable expectation
of privacy" as it relates to invitational debate tournaments based on
my research before deciding to implement a case list last year at the
Greenhill Fall Classic, in addition to consulting with people who DO
have a legal degree and background in the area of constitutional law,
educational law and privacy law (and the inherent intersections of
those areas).

Simply put, the privacy argument has no merit as it relates to
mandatory case lists at invitational tournaments from a legal
perspective (in my humble opinion).

Initially, the first question is, does a student have a reasonable
expectation of privacy if they agree to attend a debate tournament
that requires them to disclose materials once that material is used in
a debate? I steadfastly believe the answer is a resounding no. Two
things are important. First, the student would have to prove that
cases are "educational records" based on the statutory definition of
the phrase AND that maintenance of those records is a violation of
either a constitutional violation of privacy and/or a violation of a
states legitimate expectation of privacy AND the potential impact to
disclosure justifies a rejection of the case list requirement by a
host of an invitational event on constitutional grounds. I think that
burden is impossible to meet. For most schools, the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) indicates that schools "may release
records (this even grants that cases are education records which is
quite the assumption) without consent, to school officials with
legitimate educational interests, specified officials for audit or
evaluation for purposes or organizations conducting certain studies
for or on behalf of the school". Based on the educational defenses of
case lists, they seem to meet the criteria out lined in statutory law.
Secondly, the idea that cases are required to be disclosed AFTER they
are read in public by the student seems to cut against "expectations
of privacy." The ideas have already been aired in public, and BY
CHOICE (as a result of attending that event, and agreeing to the
stipulations of the host), no right to privacy in the area of case
lists could be claimed. The idea that anyone can watch debates make
them public it seems. I will point out that if the individuals that
DO feel (and that interpretation is upheld by a legal challenge) that
the sharing of "educational records" in the context of disclosing
cases, are violations of privacy, we are in a world of hurt as a
community. Oral critiques, decisions being announced in the room with
an audience (a winner and a loser being announced after the students
engaged in academic competitions where their work is evaluated in
public, clearly violate this standard). So would results on any web
page (or printed packets for that matter). Tournaments also currently
ask for phone numbers, addresses and, if a tournament accepts personal
checks, checks with account numbers. Given new laws on identity theft
they would all seem to be much more a privacy concern that case lists.
These seem more closely worthy of evaluation/critique than kids who
agree to attend an event (which is invitational in nature).

Tournaments where case lists are required are not mandatory for any
debater to attend. Chris Palmer argues that "And as long as some kids
out there are graded in debate classes, we can't say with confidence
that they have a choice about attending any given tournament." My
retort is that as long as tournament hosts explain the expectation in
advance, parents can discuss with their child's coaches their
philosophy/concerns and reasonable accommodation could be made for
that student to attend other events. Chris also argues that "Besides,
giving them the choice to attend doesn't excuse putting a burden on
those attending if the burden proves harmful; especially if the
practice proliferates at bid tournaments". Proving harm seems to put
some burden on those defending (or questioning) potential privacy
violations that case lists are, in fact, violations of any "reasonable
expectation of privacy". Before spending more time on that portion of
the argument, perhaps more analysis or reference to HOW case lists
violate privacy would be in order. If a school/tournament host claims
that case lists serve "legitimate educational interests", which is
easy to defend for obvious reasons, the student has no leg to stand
on.

Let's just stay those who feel that case lists are a violation of
privacy are correct and the initial argumentative burden has been met.
The question at that point is does the student (and as a result the
parent by allowing then to attend the tournament in question), waive
any "right to privacy" (either implicitly or explicitly), as a
condition to participate in an invitational tournament. I think the
answer is a definitive yes. Just like we agree to searches at airports
as a condition of flying or walking through a metal detector for a
debate tournament in a "tough" neighborhood, agreeing to attend a
tournament with a case list waives any so called expectation of
privacy one might have.

The bottom line is that no one has a RIGHT to attend any tournament.
Any host gets to set reasonable expectations for their guests.

Again, I am not an attorney but a lifetime debate coach dedicated to
serving both my personal students, and the broader community. I would
respectfully submit that those that feel that case lists are a
violation of privacy need more of a warrant on the "why" to that
claim. Maybe it just "feels wrong" because it is new in the Lincoln -
Douglas community. As with weighing any competing claims, the impact
to "feeling wrong" is outweighed by the benefits to case lists from my
survey of their impact based on over 15 years of them operating in the
policy world. Many see that analogy as not relevant. I see it as
important to serve as a reference point to learn from as case lists
are tested in Lincoln - Douglas.

I have chosen NOT to address the side issue of if case lists create
obstacles for students once they leave the debate world in a lengthy
manner other than saying this, if President Obama can admit to taking
illicit drugs as a youth and still win the election, a high school kid
arguing "capitalism bad" will be ok in twenty years! As a final tongue
in cheek parting shot, perhaps kids watching what they put on their
Face book pages and /or vbd posts of old might be more of a concern to
them down the road than the "cap bad k". My experience is that many of
my former debaters have been googled by employers and asked about
their debate career. It led to great discussions, even about silly/out
there arguments they ran during their time in debate. In all cases I
have heard about, those conversations were all positive.

Case lists are no panacea for all that ails Lincoln - Douglas debate.
To say they should be rejected on "privacy grounds" doesn't seem like
the right voter to extend in the final rebuttal based on all
information I am able to surmise.

Again, thanks to all for a great civil dialogue on the issue. I look
forward to reading more.

Aaron Timmons