Harris, Scott L sharris
Fri Apr 7 00:48:17 CDT 2006

Whether the general practice of the debate community is in compliance with the AFA code is irrelevant.   There is nothing in the squo Standing Rules that authorize a violation of the code in a manner inconsistent with the NDT Charter's restriction on the power of the NDT Committee.  The claim that this rule is designed to move toward compliance with the code is utter nonsense.  It is intended to promote equality among researchers not to stop non competitor research.  The nature of the compromise between Duck and Mancuso makes this readily apparent.  The compromise rule allows a school like Northwestern to bring an unlimited number of undergraduate researchers to the tournament.  The compromise rule is no longer aimed at a program with the resources of a Northwestern.  It is instead aimed at a program like Kansas who with an annual travel budget of 40,000 can't afford to bring a boatload of undergraduate researchers to the NDT.  Instead we are punished for bringing judges to help the tournament by being told that our GTA's aren't allowed to coach at the NDT.  To claim this rule is about enforcing the code of ethics is one of the most disingenuous claims made in this whole debate.  I admit that I am disengenuous in using it to argue the rule is illegal but I still believe that as written it is clearly a breach of the NDT Charter.  Under next year's round requirements every school that qualifies two teams will have to bring four judges and will have to ban two of them from looking up cites they get from rounds they judge.  This effort to promote "equality" locks in systemic equality.  I will make any argument I can to convince people that this rule has to be changed.  Its that or go find a new career.

More information about the Mailman mailing list