In this era of Snowflake mentality and political correctness a couple of shopworn tropes have emerged: blaming the victim and playing the victim, sometimes deployed concurrently. Both gambits have been in play in the ongoing AWMA debacle, which began with a well-known west coast provocateur (David Feliciano) putting up photos of Waine Singleton's girlfriend on Monty Ellison's Facebook group, labeled as Waine's bitch. Not nice, but this was apparently his idea of a joke. To Ellison's credit the photos were immediately removed and the action condemned, but the cat was out of the bag, for this was only the first of what would turn out to be several points where a little common sense and clear thinking could well have contained and defused the situation, only to see the opportunity for peaceful resolution somehow slip away.
Singleton's predictable private confrontation with Feliciano ensued with very crude language, but in the end it concluded with a Feliciano apology and an agreement between the two men to let that be the end of it. It should have stopped there, and did for several weeks. This turned out to be the last moment for clear thinking to bring a merciful end to a more or less run of the mill internet drama, which had pretty much run its course.
But in an act of inconceivable rashness Anne Camper yet again shot herself in the foot by provocatively bringing Board of Inquiry charges against Singleton for one occurrence of the word "faggot" buried deep in the until then private exchange with Feliciano. This eventually led to what we see before us today, that is the AWMA with no standing judges (every single one having been expelled or resigned in protest), membership in an avalanche of protest and the ongoing viability of the club in question, with sentiment for a new club emerging in the background.
So who are the provocateurs and who are the victims in this comedy of stupidity? Was the mortal sin the entry of the naughty word into a private message, or is it to lie at the feet of those whose manipulations and deceits brought it into the public view? Was there really a mortal sin at all or is this just much ado about nothing, the whole thing being little more than a maneuver to employ the corrupting power of office to emasculate an inconveniently irksome person, to muzzle opposing political views?
Clearly the act of entering the naughty word and sending it to another party in a private conversation was vulgar, but nothing more. The plain truth is that Singleton did nothing beyond this and thus can have no responsibility for subsequent acts of others, just as if someone had broken in and taken a diary from a locked safe and published titillating excerpts. The blame, such as it is, must be apportioned among those whose subsequent actions caused it to come into the public sphere, that is Feliciano, Ellison and Camper. There has been much bickering about the details of how this played out, but it is irrelevant, for it all occurred when the matter had gone beyond Singleton's ability to influence the chain of events.
Thus the wronged party, the victim as it were, is without question Mr. Singleton, for he can be assigned no responsibility for subsequent ensuing events beyond his influence or control. The idea of Waine as a victim will naturally strike those who know him as a bit incredulous, for having emerged from the south side of Chicago with a well cultivated hard ball persona and the physique to back it up he would seem to have little vulnerability. Most certainly there is little need of concern for damage to a fragile Singleton psyche; there is no wounded snowflake here. But the fact remains that he has been manipulated and dealt with unjustly, and this needs to be understood both in justice to him and to bring a rational resolution to the ensuing turmoil in the AWMA. Perhaps one could make the case that the Singleton brand of flaunted machismo is not in keeping with the necessity of a certain amount of gravitas in a working trial judge, but this was well known from the get go, not something to base a case on now.
Beyond the tortured process by which the naughty word came to public view there is the question of seriousness. This is clearly vulgar, but the idea of some sort of "public slur to the gay community at large" is beyond absurd, comparable to a verbal report of a naughty word seen looking over a shoulder at a mobile phone screen. The images remained private, and arguably privileged, as they were subsequently conveyed to Ellison and then eventually Camper, and only became public as an intended consequence of her actions. So far what we have is vulgar and tawdry, reflecting little credit on anybody, an embarrassing but still inherently private episode, several weeks in the past. It should have been allowed to die.
But Camper saw and grasped at an opportunity to discredit and silence opposition and demonstrate the consequences of opposition to Queen Anne. Her Board of Inquiry charges—based on a single, private naughty word—were about to cast the AWMA into the current existential crisis. Indeed, it blew up in her face immediately, creating such extreme turmoil that ongoing operation of routine club affairs is in jeopardy and ongoing viability is questionable.
Just as Camper's offensive strategy was to blame the victim, confident that Singleton could be portrayed as the bully, her defense was to play the victim, the virtuous and brave defender of the sport courageously standing up for principle and decency, but it rings hollow. This manipulative and entitled mentality is the consequence of the spread of the college campus snowflake culture with its safe places, trigger words and fragile students needing protection from the real world, complete with disparagement of middle class American values of rugged individualism and responsibility for one's self and family. Camper found out, apparently to her confusion and dismay, that creeping out of academia where arguments are easy when you are the one giving a final grade does not play well in the rough and tumble world the rest of us live in.
The blow back has been intense and escalating, with immediate letters of resignation in protest by one officer, Secretary Kim Yeager, and IGP judge Tim Karchnak. This was followed the next morning by the resignation letter of Glen Stephenson, the most senior judge and the incumbent Director of Judges. In an especially dramatic move Mr. Stephenson, a club founder and the ultimate insider, also resigned his membership. The outcry has been ongoing and escalating.
The unimaginable consequence is that all but one of the AWMA IGP judging licenses had been withdrawn or resigned in protest. And then there were none, as the name of the last judge standing disappeared from the web page the next day, apparently another resignation.
The future remains murky. There seem to be two ongoing efforts to resolve the crisis, one pressuring Camper and Smith to resign for the good of the club and the breed and the other focused on a new, alternative club. It would all seem to hinge on which effort comes to fruition first.
Were a new club to emerge it would likely establish a relationship with USCA and immediately become an integral part of a higher level entity which would be by far the largest in terms of membership, local training clubs, judges and annual trials. Perhaps Mr. Alloway's proposed new all-breed national level entity will come to fruition after all. If this should somehow come to pass, he will in all fairness have to share credit with Anne Camper.
