MAHARASHTRA DEBATE OPEN 2020 EQUITY POLICY
(I) PREAMBLE
(i) Purpose
(ii) Scope
(II) PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT
(i) Definitions
(ii) Protected Attributes
(III) CODE OF CONDUCT
(i) General Conduct
(ii) Language Guidelines
(iii) Gender Pronoun Policy
(iv) Policy of Clashes
(v) Misuse of Technology
(IV) COMPLAINT PROCEDURE
(i) Raising a complaint
(ii) Progressing a complaint
(V) REDRESSAL MECHANISMS
(VI) APPEAL PROCEDURE
(VII) CONTACT DETAILS OF EQUITY OFFICERS
Page 1
I. PREAMBLE
(i) Purpose
Maharashtra Debate Open 2020 aims to provide an inclusive, safe, equitable, and respectful
environment for everyone irrespective of any sort of differences. This Equity Policy articulates
the behaviours that will not be tolerated, in order to prevent potential equity violations from
arising and to resolve complaints through due process should they arise. The Equity Policy is not
exhaustive and does not include all possible breaches or remedies. During the course of the
tournament, we seek to be available to assist with all equity-related issues, rather than merely at
points where they have escalated to be worthy of a complaint. Hence, we encourage individuals to
feel free in bringing all equity-related incidents to our attention, even if they might not seek
to make a complaint or demand punitive action. This Policy is a crystallisation of these
principles, and it seeks to protect all participants of this tournament from conduct that would
make them feel uncomfortable or unsafe, to encourage and facilitate discussion and
education and ultimately to make this Tournament a safe space for all.
The Equity Committee of Maharashtra Debate Open 2020 shall comprise of Anoushka
(ii) Scope
The policy applies to all individuals participating in Maharashtra Debate Open 2020, in any
capacity including but not limited to debaters, adjudicators, core adjudicators, members of the
organising committee, the tab team as well as observers; henceforth referred to as
participants of the tournament. By virtue of being a participant, assent is held to have been given
to the terms of this policy and participants are bound to it.
This policy applies for the entire duration of the tournament, which is included but not limited to
registrations, briefings, during rounds, in between rounds, and any/all interactions
between participants in the context of the tournament, on Discord, and/or any other medium
used for the same.
II. PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT
Unequitable behaviour encompasses a range of behaviours, from entirely unintentional to
purposeful, from misunderstandings to malice. There is no implication of equivalence between the
same behaviours in different instances or different prohibited behaviours. All cases will be treated
on the basis of their specifics.
All information we are given will be treated confidentially, and shall be shared with the
Core Adjudicators and Organisation Committee only when the situation requires us to do so,
and with the consent of the complainant.
(i) Definitions of Prohibited Behaviours
Page 2
1. Bullying/Ragging
Bullying is repeated and/or unreasonable behaviour by an individual or group, directed
towards another individual or group that might be either physical or psychological. This
involves behaviours that intimidate, offend, degrade, humiliate, undermine or threaten. It
includes pressuring another individual or group to do something that they are uncomfortable
with.
2. Direct Discrimination
Direct discrimination is treating another individual/group less favourably on the basis of a
protected attribute, than someone without that attribute in the same circumstances or
circumstances not materially different. (Example: Giving a loss to a debater because they are
a member of the LGBTQIA+ community).
Discrimination on the basis of Language status and proficiency- Language status/
proficiency/ an individual‟s accent are protected attributes under the Code of Conduct.
Treating someone in a discriminatory manner on the basis of their accent, their national
origin or their fluency in English is grounds for an Equity Complaint. When done by
adjudicators, it‟s also something the Adjudication Core is going to want to hear about – and
will act on. This includes, but is not limited to:
● Penalising speakers for having accents you are personally not familiar with,
● Imposing your personal preferences or your culture‟s conceptions of what persuasive style
looks like on all participants, and
● Imposing your personal preferences or your culture‟s conceptions of what arguments are
capable of being persuasive on all participants, etc.
We also acknowledge that certain individuals are more vulnerable to face discrimination
on multiple facets of their identity. These factors don‟t just “add up”, they‟re
multiplicative. Discrimination individual‟s face is intersectional (for instance, an ESL/EFL
speaker who is also a gender minority is vulnerable to discrimination on account of their
language proficiency as well as their gender status). Undervaluing the contributions of a
speaker – or adjudicator – because of their background or identity happens in a wide range
of ways, and it‟s on participants to stop it from happening. It requires introspection, it
requires practice, and it requires hard work: we don‟t expect anyone to become perfect
overnight, but we do expect that all participants be engaged in that process of
improvement, alert to their own failures, and eager to listen and learn from others when
they fall short.
3. Indirect Discrimination
Indirect discrimination is imposing, or proposing to impose, a requirement, condition or
practice that has, or is likely to have the effect of disadvantaging an individual or group with a
particular protected attribute, and which is not reasonable in the circumstances. (Example:
Believing that only debaters who do not have a speech impediment can score above 77)
Page 3
4. Harassment
Harassment is any unwelcome, offensive, abusive, belittling or threatening behaviour that
humiliates, offends or intimidates an individual or group on the basis of a protected attribute.
5. Sexual Harassment
Sexual harassment includes, but is not limited to, any one or more of the following unwelcome
and/or non-consensual acts or behaviours (whether directly or by implication):
a) a demand or request for sexual favours;
b) making sexually coloured remarks
c) sharing pornography or sexually explicit material; or
d) any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature.
6. Vilification
Vilification is the public incitement of hatred, contempt or severe ridicule of another
individual or group on the basis of a protected attribute.
7. Victimisation
Victimisation is to cause detriment to a person on the basis of any protected attribute and/or if
they have initiated a complaint procedure.
8. Heckling Adjudicators
Heckling refers to the practice of repeatedly engaging in behaviour that causes disturbance to
an adjudicator during their Oral Adjudication. This includes all activities & actions that may
serve as an obstruction, such as discussing the verdict with your teammates during feedback
when your microphone is unmuted, speaking over the judge, constantly interrupting and
badgering the adjudicator questions before they have completed feedback. Heckling, in any
manner or form, is not allowed at the tournament. Intentionally leaving the room prior to
completion of feedback due to dissatisfaction is also considered offensive and is disallowed.
Participants are required to be respectful while asking any questions to the adjudicator, either
as constructive or general feedback.
ii) Protected Attributes
It is important to note that different individuals experience different barriers to successfully
engaging with competitive debating. It is a violation of this Equity Policy to treat individuals
differently on the basis of differences in one or more of the protected attributes below. There
shall be zero tolerance for the same. This Policy prohibits any participant or group of
individuals from discriminating (either directly or indirectly), harassing, bullying or vilifying
another participant or group of participants on the basis of the following protected attributes:
1. Age or age group
2. Caste, Indigenous culture and/or Identity
Page 4
3. Debating Ability or Institutional Affiliation
4. Disability (including but not limited to past, present and future disabilities, genetic
predispositions to a disability and behaviour that is a manifestation of a disability)
5. Gender Identity (the gender-related identity, appearance or mannerisms or other gender
related characteristics of a person, including but not limited to the way people express or
present their gender and recognising that a person‟s gender identity may be non-binary) 6.
Infectious disease (for example, HIV status)
7. Intersex Status
8. Language Proficiency and/or Accents
9. Marital or relationship status
10. Mental health status
11. Sexual practices or experience (for example, previous partner(s) or lack thereof,
experiences of sexual assault or harassment)
12. Political affiliations, beliefs, or ideologies
13. Pregnancy or personal experiences of abortion
14. Race, colour, descent, national, regional or ethnic origin, or ethno-religious background
15. Religious affiliation, belief, views or practice
16. Sexual orientation
17. Socio-economic status and background (including a person‟s accent and proficiency in
English).
18. Any other attribute where discrimination causes or perpetuates systemic disadvantage,
undermines human dignity or adversely affects the equal enjoyment of a person‟s rights and
freedoms in a serious manner that is comparable to discrimination on a protected attribute
listed above.
The above list is non-exhaustive, and the final decision with regard to the consideration of a
ground shall lay with the Equity Team.
The victimization of those who initiate complaints or take part in complaints proceedings is
also prohibited under this policy.
III. CODE OF CONDUCT
Page 5
(i) General Conduct
Participants of this tournament are required to treat each other with respect. This includes, but
is not limited to respecting the rules of the tournament, refraining from disrupting or
distracting other debaters or adjudicators, accepting the decision of the adjudicator(s) and
refraining from insulting or providing non-constructive commentary on speeches or
feedbacks.
(ii) Language Guidelines
Generalizations
Avoid generalizations on the basis of protected attributes when referring to groups of people.
Generalizations attempt broad sweeping assessments where none are possible, and are hence
inaccurate and ill-conceived, and may thus be offensive to both judges and other speakers.
Statements should be phrased as “some members of X community” rather than “all X
people”.
Recognize that many conditions are externally imposed. For example, instead of saying “X
people are bad at long-term planning,” say “X makes long-term planning difficult for some
individuals.” There is a subtle but important difference between the phrase “X person” and
the phrase “person who is X.” The former presents the protected attribute as a defining
characteristic, while the latter leads with a recognition of personhood. As a general principle,
phrase everything as if you are talking about someone in the room. If you feel what you say
might offend them, rephrase it.
● Graphic Language
Using vivid or graphic language to illustrate the impact or truth of your argument is a
common and effective rhetorical tool in debating. However, we urge participants to be
considerate in their choice of language, especially since aggressive rhetoric may be traumatic
for other participants. We especially urge speakers to think about language use when motions
involve bodily integrity, minority cultures, class, war and gender issues. Unnecessarily
graphic descriptions of traumatic events run the risk of violating this policy, and should be
avoided. Try and use less visceral terms that may be triggering to individuals, for instance,
use terms such as sexual assault/sexual violence in place of words like r*pe.
Personal Attacks
Stating that a person doesn‟t have the appropriate background to have a valid argument in the
debate (i.e. “what do you know about policy X, you‟re from Y!) is almost always of no
argumentative value. That is also the case for personal attacks (i.e. “people like you shouldn‟t
even be saying things like X because you‟re a Y”). Such arguments do not address the
content of an argument, nor do they address its logical structure. Both these types of
argumentation can traumatize a person, since you are referring to their background as if it is
relevant for their chances of winning or losing the argument.
Page 6
Slurs and Reclaimed language
The policy recognises that certain words have been reclaimed by members of that community
(such as f*g, the n* slur, etc.). This does not make the usage of these words by members of
other communities appropriate, such language should never be used by people who do not
belong to the relevant marginalised group. In order to ensure sensitivity, we actively
discourage the usage of such reclaimed terms during the tournament, as communities are not
cohesive in their usage of such language and this can be perceived as offensive and
derogatory.
(iii) Gender Pronoun Policy
We request all participants to use gender neutral language as a default in rounds. You are
encouraged to refer to other speakers in the room using their position in the debate (“first
affirmative speaker”, “second negative speaker”, “judging panel”, etc.). Chairs should leave
the opportunity for speakers to declare their pronouns, without explicitly requiring them to do
so, when asking for speaking positions. Speakers are at liberty to either state the pronoun they
wish to be addressed as, not state their pronoun, state that they don‟t want to be gendered or
state „no preference‟. Do not assume people‟s pronouns based on previous interactions with
them or their appearances; you are expected to listen to and respect their specific preferences in
each debate. Do not misgender any individual after they have explicitly informed you of their
pronouns either. This policy is adopted to make people of all different gender identities feel
welcomed at the competition. If you misgender someone please seek to rectify your mistake. If
have been misgendered, you can communicate this to the person who caused it. As in all
circumstances, the Equity Officers are available for these types of situations as well
All speakers are expected to use gender neutral language as the standard
unless a speaker or judge explicitly indicates otherwise.
(iv) Misuse of Technology
We acknowledge that there are a myriad of technical hindrances that might arise during an
online Tournament; however we expect Participants to behave responsibly and respectfully
while engaging in the online sphere.
Microphone Usage: Using your technology, specifically microphone, in such a way that other
speeches become inaudible for the rest of the debate hinders fair competition and is therefore
not allowed. Always mute yourself unless speaking.
Misuse of the chat: Everything that is written online can be read at a later point in time.
Therefore we ask you to not say offensive things within a chat when you are in a debate or
watching a debate. Violations of this will be treated in a similar way as bullying, direct
discrimination, unwanted (sexual) advances and other forms of prohibited behaviour as
mentioned above. This applies to both public chats as well as private chats when people would
report these.
Page 7
Non-consensual recording: No Participant is permitted to record any part of the
debate (ranging from speeches to Adjudicator feedback) without the consent of the Persons
involved. If anyone is found doing this, strict action will be taken against them.
(v) Policy on Clashes
The institutional clash (an adjudicator who belongs from or used to belong from a
certain institution is not allowed to adjudicate any team belonging from that certain
institution) is going to be taken into account. Beyond that, clashes between teams and judges
can be used in situations where individuals feel that a fair adjudication cannot take
place. For instance, through emotional ties between teams and judges, due to discomfort,
due to behaviour that constitutes Equity violation (past or present), due to present/past
romantic or sexual relations, etc.
An attempt to insert a clash for reasons that don‟t fall under the purview of Equity/are not
in the spirit of the competition (for example, clashing judges tactically because you
dislike them/think they are not good, or judges clashing teams they do not want to judge them)
will be considered wholly invalid. Abusing the clash policy (e.g. using it to optimize the
judges allocated to you) is a violation akin to cheating. Such action can trigger punitive
measures against the judge/team pursuing such strategy.
Prior to the tournament, the tab team shall release a list of individuals participating. Teams and
judges may then submit the clash form, and the conflict will be recorded. The Tab team will
also be adding clashes during the tournament; however clashes submitted during the
tournament will require Equity approval, so they might not instantly go into effect. In
case there is an oversight, there will be a member of the Equity or tab team available to fix
clashes or any other issues when the draw is being run and after the motion has been
announced.
There shall be no limit to the number of clashes that may be filed by a team or judge; however,
each clash submitted shall be scrutinised by the equity committee before being confirmed.
In order of resolution - conflict Issues that teams have will be resolved before resolving
judge conflict issues. The rationale is to allow speakers the full extent of their prep time.
IV. COMPLAINT PROCEDURE
(i) Raising an Equity Complaint
Any Individual aggrieved by a breach of the Policy may approach the Equity Team. All
complaints raised are treated as confidential, and due regard will be given to the
complainant's wishes as to whether or not a complaint is investigated further. Complaints
may be made in the following forms:
Informal Complaint
Page 8
An Informal Complaint is akin to a discussion. It is one that raises concerns, but an individual
is unsure if it constitutes an equity or not, and would like clarity regarding the situation. In
such a scenario, they may approach any or all equity officers and have a discussion. Equity
Officers may recommend future course of action, including but not limited to, facilitating a
formal complaint.
Formal Complaint
A formal complaint is where the complainant would like a formal response such as
conciliation or disciplinary action. Individuals wishing to make a formal complaint alleging a
breach of the Code of Conduct may narrate the incident to the equity committee with the
express purpose of seeking redressal under this Policy.
Anonymous Complaints
In order to accommodate the possibility that certain complainants may not be comfortable
revealing their identities while filing complaints a procedure has been devised to allow them
to register complaints anonymously. In such a situation, the complainant is required to
appoint a Point of Contact who will be able to communicate with the equity team on their
behalf. This Point of Contact can reach out to the Equity Team using any of the methods
available to other participants. The complaint will then be resolved in keeping with the
procedures outlined for all other complaints, with the Point of Contact being involved at
every step to represent the complainant‟s perspective, and relay any required testimonies on
their behalf.
Members of the Equity Team will recuse themselves from investigating and handling
complaints that are made against them personally, or where a personal conflict arises, or in
any situation where they cannot adjudicate impartially (e.g. one of the parties belongs to an
institution they are affiliated with or they have a close personal relationship with one of the
parties.
(ii) Progressing an Equity Complaint
If the complainant wishes to proceed with a complaint, they may notify the Equity Team of
the same. At any point during this process prior to resolution, a complainant may withdraw
their complaint. At such a point, any investigation automatically ceases. The process
followed after receiving a complaint will be as follows:-
(a) Conduct a hearing with the complainant to obtain full details of the incident,
(b) Conduct a hearing with the offending participant to hear their side of the story,
(c) Conduct a hearing with any other participant(s) as required by the circumstances.
Page 9
V. REDRESSAL MECHANISM
The Equity Committee is empowered to do the following (post investigation if a breach of
this policy is found to have occurred):-
1. Make a general announcement
2. Explain the complaint to the offending participant and have a discussion with them
regarding the reason their remark or action was inappropriate.
3. Issue a warning to the offending participant
4. Request that the offending participant provide an apology
5. Bring the relevant participants together to conciliate the dispute
1. Barring from any formal or informal event organised by the tournament.
2. Expulsion from the tournament.
3. Removal from the tab.
4. Blacklisting of the team from future editions of the tournament
In determining the appropriate resolution mechanism, the Equity Team shall regard factors
including, but not limited to:
The context of the offence
The wishes of the victim, including the impact or likely impact on them
The position of the complainant in society and whether they suffer from patterns of
disadvantage or belongs to a group that suffers from such patterns of disadvantage
Whether the violation that has occurred is part of an ongoing pattern of behaviour.
VII. CONTACT DETAILS OF EQUITY OFFICERS
Given below are the contact details of each member on the Equity Team, as well as
a common email address. However, if any participant is uncomfortable approaching the
equity team as a whole, they may contact any of the members separately via the details
provided.
Page
10
Please feel free to reach out to any members of the Equity Committee. Their contact details are
given below:
Name Email WhatsApp
Page
11
