Mas ADI aff stuff
Fri Aug 21 13:51:44 CDT 1998
Well, I've still got my disclosure outlines on my computer. Here they are:
OBSERVATION ONE: Confused courts.
Courts continue to have trouble interpreting and analyzing claims dealing with
Title VII categorization distorts women of color's experiences and
marginalizes their needs.
The status quo is hyper-racist. White males can claim discrimination, but
women of color cannot.
OBSERVATION TWO: The discrimination continues.
Because of the inconsistency of the courts, minority women are most likely to
be discriminated against and the legal system does not help them.
This lack of recognizing of race and gender leaves minorities and women to be
employed in the lower level jobs.
Women of color have a greater need to claim interactive discrimination.
The exclusion of women of color exacerbates the intensified discrimination.
Single character distorts and marginalizes women of color.
The exclusion of disadvantaged groups can frustrate and cause desperate acts
expressed by social explosion.
Discrimination leads to domestic abuse.
OBSERVATION THREE: Solvency.
Adding the phrase "or any combination thereof" to Title VII would give clear
Congressional direction to courts & would end divisions between circuit
A theory of liability would recognize different experiences suffered by
Distributive justice results in multiplier effects -- women of color advance
themselves and others.
The plan to this seems to have vanished, but it's effectively the same as the
Hingstman plan. They add the words "or any combination thereof" to Title VII
as per the recommendations of Castro & Corral in the 1993 La Raza Law Review
OBSERVATION ONE: Extraterritorial application of Title VII sux.
Currently, U.S. courts interpret the extraterritorial application of Title VII
allowing it to be superseded by the Friendship, Commerce & Navigation Treaty
Lack of a clear Congressional intent allows businesses to exploit loopholes in
the system, giving them a license to discriminate.*
PLAN: Through normal means, Congress will amend Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 to clarify its expression of intent regarding its extraterritorial
application, further clarification of what constitutes an "American employer,"
clarify the test of when an American employer controls a foreign employer, and
clarify the meaning of the term "law" for purposes of the foreign laws
OBSERVATION TWO: Legislative clarification solves.
Clarification of the extraterritorial application of Title VII prevents
Title VII protections must be extended to U.S. citizens working for both
domestic and international companies operating under U.S. jurisdiction to
maintain their competitiveness in the global market.
A clear statement of intent from Congress is necessary to create Title VII
authority over the FCN.
OBSERVATION THREE: The scenario. U.S. Protectionism.
Because of the Japanese recession, the U.S. is making every effort to maintain
open trade with Japan.
Further discrimination against U.S. citizens by Japanese companies risks a
protectionist backlash. Clear guidelines are necessary.
A move toward protectionism is a move against the U.S. national interest. Jobs
will be sacrificed and businesses will be hindered, causing a 1930-style
Trade wars inevitably turn into shooting wars. Protectionism creates ill-will
which escalates to war.
* The loophole that the plan closes goes like this: Domestic subsidiaries of
companies that are headquartered in Japan claim that they're foreign
companies, and thus are exempt from Title VII under Friendship, Commerce &
Navigation treaties. The solvency authors say that Congress ought to clarify
what a foreign company is, so that those companies can't invoke the treaty to
trump the law.
Far as I know, that just leaves Opsata's lab, the Alme-Congalton lab, and the
rest of Bruschke's Violence Against Women outline.
Opstata's lab had two affirmatives: one banned affirmative action, and the
other established conduct codes for overseas companies. Alme-Congalton let
women into the military (and yes, their 1AC cards said Title VII should be
used to do it), and also banned affirmative action.
Maybe some kind soul who came home from ADI with the Bruschke VAWA affirmative
could finish up the beginning of the outline that I sent earlier. Or you can
wait until I pick the ADI evidence up from Alpha Graphics this weekend, and
I'll complete it.
Negative arguments that I can remember:
Supreme Court Counterplan: The net benefit is The Moment, the Rebecca West
1990 article: progressive equal protection jurisprudence or something of that
Clinton with IMF & NMD.
CLS (mostly from Kimberle Crenshaw)
Critical Race Theory
There were more negative arguments, but that's all I remember hearing in the
More information about the Mailman