Value Resolutions--how would one frame it?

[MWilliams]

How would you word a value resolution on this topic.
Just one to start the discussion: Resolved that race and/or gender equality is
more important than equal protection under the law.
Sort of a rehash of the Bakke decision.
Scott Elliott

>From "SEGASH (a) PO1%Bracewell & Patterson"@MCIMAIL.COM Thu Jun 11 10:18:00 1998
Message-Id: <THU.11.JUN.1998.101800.0400.SEGASHAPO1BRACEWELLPATTERSON at MCIMAIL.COM>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 53066 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 10:18:33
 -0400
Received: from gatekeeper2.mcimail.com (gatekeeper2.mcimail.com
 [192.147.45.10]) by list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id
 KAA82056 for <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 10:18:32 -0400
 (EDT)
Received: from mcimail.com (dgn1ig.mcimail.com [166.38.58.57]) by
 gatekeeper2.mcimail.com (8.6.12/8.6.10) with ESMTP id OAA15431; Thu,
 11 Jun 1998 14:31:10 GMT
Received: from mcimail.com by DGN0IG.mcimail.com (PMDF V5.1-8 #23099) id
 <01IY4319WKH8BQ1HD8 at DGN0IG.mcimail.com>; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 14:17:58 GMT
X-Mailer: TFS Gateway /221000000/221050508/221010333/221100275/
Priority: normal
Message-ID: <01IY4319WKHABQ1HD8 at DGN0IG.mcimail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 10:18:00 -0400
Reply-To: SEGASH <"SEGASH (a) PO1%Bracewell & Patterson"@MCIMAIL.COM>
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: SEGASH <"SEGASH (a) PO1%Bracewell & Patterson"@MCIMAIL.COM>
Subject: This is Simple -Reply
Comments: To: Scott Deatherage <lsd041 at NWU.EDU>

Amen, brother.  The term is broad, in and of itself.  BTW, the
justifications for particular mechanisms also reach into the
hundreds.  For once, let us not fear this kind of breadth.  Let's
cut the crap and start debatin'

Looking forward to judging again,

Segal

>>> " Scott Deatherage " 06/10/98 06:41pm >>>
Race is important.  Gender is important.  Sexual orientation is
important.

All three embrace essential questions.

We could read about race from now until season's end and not
scratch the
surface of all there is to know about race.  Gender ditto.  Sexual
orientation too.

The "race and/or gender based remedies" wording is the best
I've seen
becase it FORCES the essential question:  should public policy
be conscious
or blind to these fundamental qualities?

If we don't force the question by compelling affirmative choice
to this
central question, we won't debate about it, at least not as
frequently and
directly.

Some wish a wording to BROADEN this phrase.  BRAODEN?
BROADEN?  BROADEN?
I encourage anyone who is concerned that this wording isn't
broad enough to
spend a little more time checking out the volume of literature
on Critical
Race Theory, Critical Legal Studies, Feminist Theory, and
particularly the
MECHANISMS BY WHICH said theorists have proposed change.
The proposals
come by the THOUSANDS.

Keep in mind:  if we broaden the wording to a "protections"
based apporach,
we not only add exponentially to the volumous task ahead, BUT
WE DESTROY
THE STRATEGIC BENEFIT OF THE "RACE AND/OR GENDER BASED"
approach.  Without
that phrase, competitive choice between conscious and neutral
approaches is
not required by the topic wording.

If we don't force the question, we will be debating about Clinton
and the
Courts, NOT about any particular mechanism intrinsic to civil
rights
protections.  Surely that's not why we voted for "civil rights."

SD