[eDebate] Challenge to the Community
Andy Ellis
andy.edebate
Wed Apr 4 21:13:55 CDT 2007
Does that mean you think that institutions that dont meet those criteria,
that legal action could be a good strategy?
On 4/4/07, Jim Hanson <hansonjb at whitman.edu> wrote:
>
> not really at least for whitman.
>
> whitman provides a lot of financial aid.
>
> the barrier to getting into whitman is good grades/good sat scores (which
> excludes all kinds of students) and that ethnic minorities frequently aren't
> all that plused about coming to southeast washington small town. some of
> that barrier may be defacto racial exclusion but I kind of doubt it--the
> school is very proactive in seeking more ethnic diversity including
> providing quite a bit of ethnic diversity based financial aid. again, it is
> not perfect by any means but this is a pretty liberal school and there have
> been complaints that too much financial aid is given to ethnically diverse
> individuals (at the expense of upper middle and middle income white
> students). I obviously don't agree with those complaints but they are
> indicative of why legal action is not necessary against whitman (nor would
> it have a chance of winning).
>
> jim :)
> hansonjb at whitman.edu
>
> ----- Original Message ----- *From:* Andy Ellis <andy.edebate at gmail.com>
> *To:* Josh Hoe <jbhdb8 at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Jim Hanson <hansonjb at whitman.edu> ; edebate at ndtceda.com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 04, 2007 7:00 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [eDebate] Challenge to the Community
>
> i will be brief.
>
> All of the benefits that jim and josh enumerate to intercolegiate policy
> debate seem to be material reasons why my case for legal action to access
> the community makes sense. Material realities are excluding particpation and
> access to levers of good memeber of community status and graduate school
> preperation. Thats a material educational denial based on defacto racial
> exclusion.
>
>
>
> On 4/4/07, Josh Hoe <jbhdb8 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Another example, Rachel Saloom works at a major law firm in Atlanta -
> > but has used her position to get on the recruiting committee and work to
> > increase race and gender diversity in that law firm......So, at the same
> > time she uses her debate training to help her be a better lawyer she also
> > uses things she debated about to improve her law firm.
> >
> > Josh
> >
> >
> > On 4/4/07, Jim Hanson <hansonjb at whitman.edu > wrote:
> > >
> > > if you want a leftist revolution--then, yes, there are better uses of
> > > the millions spent on debate each year.
> > >
> > > if you want students who become successful, contributing members of
> > > our community--then debate is one of the most fantastic activities I am
> > > aware of.
> > >
> > > three alums of our program joined me at the ndt and went on and on and
> > > on about how much debate had transformed their lives, made them successful,
> > > and gave them self-fufillment unmatched by any other thing they do.
> > >
> > > many of our alumni consider debate hands down the most educational
> > > "course" they took while at whitman college. several say that they learned
> > > more from debate than in all their other courses.
> > >
> > > and these folks are making changes in the world including directly
> > > reducing sexual and racial harassment at companies, including gay/lesbian
> > > perspectives in company planning, outreach to disadvantaged youth,
> > > environmental planning and activism, etc. and NO they are not all white,
> > > straight males. they represent a multitude of differing ethnic, sexual,
> > > gender, income characteristics.
> > >
> > > they are not revolutionizing the world by ending defacto segregration.
> > >
> > > but they are making quiet, steady changes that MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
> > >
> > > jim :)
> > > hansonjb at whitman.edu
> > > ----- Original Message ----- *From:* Beth Skinner<beth.skinner at gmail.com>
> > > *To:* Steven D'Amico <stevendamico at gmail.com>
> > > *Cc:* edebate at ndtceda.com
> > > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 04, 2007 5:43 PM
> > > *Subject:* Re: [eDebate] Challenge to the Community
> > >
> > >
> > > To me, the larger point is that when we select law-focused,
> > > USFG-focused resolutions one of the reasons people give is that it will help
> > > us to be better advocates if we understand the intricacies of government
> > > action. If this is a good reason then we SHOULD ask how people are going to
> > > use a season's worth of education in practical ways. If the reaction is
> > > 'well, we really can't accomplish change this way' then why do we keep
> > > selecting these topics? How many years does it take to learn the futility
> > > of activism through state channels? If the reaction is 'we're too lazy to
> > > do actually do anything with the knowledge we gain' or 'I just like sounding
> > > good in rounds when I read cool cards' then that is sad. Millions of
> > > dollars are spent each year on college debate. Maybe there are better uses
> > > for that money.
> > >
> > > Beth
> > >
> > > p.s. congratulations to Omri on making Andy seem like the reasonable
> > > one - not a lot of people are capable of that
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/4/07, Steven D'Amico < stevendamico at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > does anyone else find this similar to Stalin arguing with Hitler?
> > > > As an Italian I'll just side with whoever wins.
> > > >
> > > > On 4/4/07, Andy Ellis < andy.edebate at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thank you Omri, i do indeed feel more informed. But really this is
> > > > > the last time...so sad...
> > > > >
> > > > > On 4/4/07, Omri Ceren < ceren at usc.edu > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK. Now we're going to discuss "tone".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When I said "seriously", it worked because I made your position
> > > > > > seem
> > > > > > obviously absurd and kind of stupid. I accomplished that by
> > > > > > juxtaposing
> > > > > > and re-characterizing your positions in such a way as to make
> > > > > > you seem
> > > > > > nonsensical.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When you said "seriously", you followed it up by whining that
> > > > > > "the
> > > > > > debates you see are more ideologically determined and
> > > > > > constrained than
> > > > > > the ones i see." This, to put it mildly, failed to really
> > > > > > provide the
> > > > > > rhetorical umpff that you were looking for.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let's try this again (but, honestly, this is going to have to be
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > last time): the conceit by which you take it upon yourself to
> > > > > > challenge
> > > > > > the debate community to attack itself emerges from a combination
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > ignorance, smugness, and pretension that makes me almost feel
> > > > > > bad about
> > > > > > publicly mocking you. You need the debate community to be as
> > > > > > dull and
> > > > > > unnuanced as you are so that you can continue in this pathetic
> > > > > > moral
> > > > > > exhibitionism, where your desperate need to convince yourself of
> > > > > > your
> > > > > > own superiority comes together with an inchoate sense of what
> > > > > > counts as
> > > > > > political activism.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You really should stop pretending that you have either the
> > > > > > authority or
> > > > > > credibility to challenge anybody to do anything. It's getting to
> > > > > > be kind
> > > > > > of sad.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Omri.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 4/4/2007 3:26 PM Andy Ellis wrote:
> > > > > > > Seriously? are you really saying people dont make that answer
> > > > > > and win a
> > > > > > > lot of debates on it? The debates you see are more
> > > > > > ideologically
> > > > > > > determined and constrained than the ones i see. And yes at
> > > > > > least those
> > > > > > > folks who debated milliken have a great legal knowledge to
> > > > > > provide to
> > > > > > > their campuses...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 4/4/07, *Omri Ceren* < ceren at usc.edu <mailto: ceren at usc.edu>>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Seriously? This year's Milliken affirmatives advocated
> > > > > > using the USSC to
> > > > > > > address de facto segregation in school districts. You
> > > > > > think that this
> > > > > > > means that they said that the "the law is the best way to
> > > > > > end racial
> > > > > > > discrimination in education", and in response you
> > > > > > petulantly chellenged
> > > > > > > the community to sue... itself. And you can't understand
> > > > > > why this is an
> > > > > > > example of how you don't get nuance?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Seriously?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Omri.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 4/4/2007 3:17 PM Andy Ellis wrote:
> > > > > > > > Also, what is it exactly that i am doing that you are
> > > > > > elaborating a
> > > > > > > > community critique of?...like is this a criticism that
> > > > > > goes andy
> > > > > > > ellis
> > > > > > > > is a wacko or does it actualy engage the work being
> > > > > > done on the
> > > > > > > ground
> > > > > > > > in baltimore to further this goal,if its the former i
> > > > > > know that
> > > > > > > stuff if
> > > > > > > > its the latter, id like to hear your version of that
> > > > > > criticism....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 4/4/07, *Andy Ellis* < andy.edebate at gmail.com
> > > > > > > <mailto:andy.edebate at gmail.com >
> > > > > > > > <mailto: andy.edebate at gmail.com <mailto:
> > > > > > andy.edebate at gmail.com>>>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So tell me omri (and i dont ask this with the lazy
> > > > > > revolutionary
> > > > > > > > bombast i often espouse) what have you learned from
> > > > > > a year of
> > > > > > > > milliken debates that you are now using and working
> > > > > > with your
> > > > > > > > debaters on to address racial discrimination in
> > > > > > education?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 4/4/07, *Omri Ceren* < ceren at usc.edu
> > > > > > > <mailto: ceren at usc.edu> <mailto: ceren at usc.edu
> > > > > > > <mailto: ceren at usc.edu>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No. You just don't get it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There's actually a relatively robust criticism
> > > > > > to be made
> > > > > > > of you,
> > > > > > > > tracing how risk-free revolutionary posturing
> > > > > > can hold
> > > > > > > the good
> > > > > > > > hostage
> > > > > > > > to the perfect while using aggressive smugness
> > > > > > to insulate
> > > > > > > > intellectual
> > > > > > > > laziness. So for instance, no one of any
> > > > > > intellectual
> > > > > > > care would
> > > > > > > > claim
> > > > > > > > to have seen the best debaters in the country
> > > > > > claiming
> > > > > > > that "law
> > > > > > > > is [the
> > > > > > > > best method]... of pursuing racial justice in
> > > > > > education".
> > > > > > > First
> > > > > > > > of all,
> > > > > > > > outside of a very precise use in pyschoanalytic
> > > > > > critical
> > > > > > > literature,
> > > > > > > > "the Law" isn't a meaningful category. There
> > > > > > are multiple
> > > > > > > > branches and
> > > > > > > > levels of government empowered to enforce
> > > > > > legislative and
> > > > > > > judicial
> > > > > > > > decisions - and while I know that most of the
> > > > > > debates
> > > > > > > that you
> > > > > > > > saw this
> > > > > > > > year didn't really think that those
> > > > > > distinctions mattered,
> > > > > > > > that's kind
> > > > > > > > of my point too.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Anyway, like I said - there's a relatively
> > > > > > robust
> > > > > > > criticism of your
> > > > > > > > personal sensibility, political ideology, and
> > > > > > interpersonal
> > > > > > > > community.
> > > > > > > > But I doubt you'd get it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Omri.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 4/4/2007 3:00 PM Andy Ellis wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Uh right, i will continue to do the work
> > > > > > outside of
> > > > > > > the legal
> > > > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > > and in it when necessary to increase
> > > > > > minority access
> > > > > > > to and
> > > > > > > > completion
> > > > > > > > > of college. I dont doubt the efficacy of my
> > > > > > methods,
> > > > > > > and sure
> > > > > > > > i didnt
> > > > > > > > > see the same debates you saw but my term
> > > > > > heard and i
> > > > > > > saw many
> > > > > > > > teams
> > > > > > > > > adamently defending the necessity of using
> > > > > > the law to
> > > > > > > > challenege racial
> > > > > > > > > discrimination and i am simply asking those
> > > > > > that made the
> > > > > > > > claims to
> > > > > > > > > follow up on them.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Furthermore i understand debaters cant sue
> > > > > > for other
> > > > > > > peoples
> > > > > > > > > inclusion(in a basic sense of the term i
> > > > > > think there
> > > > > > > could be
> > > > > > > > a claimant
> > > > > > > > > who suggested that they where damaged by the
> > > > > > lack of
> > > > > > > minority
> > > > > > > > inclusion
> > > > > > > > > in the community, but im probably wrong like
> > > > > > you said
> > > > > > > im not
> > > > > > > > in the
> > > > > > > > > highly technical debates) but there are
> > > > > > legal cases and
> > > > > > > > movements that
> > > > > > > > > debaters can contribute their skills and
> > > > > > dedication to
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > furthermore
> > > > > > > > > if through those super high end debates you
> > > > > > saw
> > > > > > > provide the
> > > > > > > > training
> > > > > > > > > they promise then it seems as if you can
> > > > > > figure out how to
> > > > > > > > uses cases on
> > > > > > > > > your campus as entree points to legal
> > > > > > justice movements.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > or maybe all those things i heard in debates
> > > > > > where
> > > > > > > just lies
> > > > > > > > and nods to
> > > > > > > > > racial inclusion?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 4/4/07, *Omri Ceren* < ceren at usc.edu
> > > > > > > <mailto: ceren at usc.edu> <mailto: ceren at usc.edu <mailto:
> > > > > > ceren at usc.edu>>
> > > > > > > > <mailto: ceren at usc.edu <mailto: ceren at usc.edu>
> > > > > > > <mailto: ceren at usc.edu <mailto: ceren at usc.edu>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Andy,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Surely you should be leading this effort,
> > > > > > what with
> > > > > > > all of the
> > > > > > > > > topic-specific research that I'm sure you
> > > > > > did this
> > > > > > > year.
> > > > > > > > And with all
> > > > > > > > > the high-tech policy rounds that you
> > > > > > judged and
> > > > > > > scouted.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Omri.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 4/4/2007 9:55 AM Andy Ellis wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > So after a year of hearing debates
> > > > > > about how the
> > > > > > > law is
> > > > > > > > not only
> > > > > > > > > a good
> > > > > > > > > > means of pursuing racial justice in
> > > > > > education,
> > > > > > > but the
> > > > > > > > best method, i
> > > > > > > > > > have a challenge to offer. Use the
> > > > > > skills that
> > > > > > > you have
> > > > > > > > acquired in
> > > > > > > > > > debating about the law to craft a
> > > > > > strategy that
> > > > > > > uses the
> > > > > > > > law to
> > > > > > > > > increase
> > > > > > > > > > meaningful minority participation in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > community. The
> > > > > > > > NCAA has been
> > > > > > > > > > sued for admissions requirements that
> > > > > > preference
> > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > scores and
> > > > > > > > > gpa, if
> > > > > > > > > > there is precedent in that or other
> > > > > > cases there
> > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > be a case
> > > > > > > > > to sue
> > > > > > > > > > your university or your debate team or
> > > > > > ceda or
> > > > > > > the ndt,
> > > > > > > > if they have
> > > > > > > > > > those standards. But dont let my
> > > > > > suggestions
> > > > > > > limit you,
> > > > > > > > many many
> > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > of you have researched and learned a
> > > > > > whole lot about
> > > > > > > > using the
> > > > > > > > > law to
> > > > > > > > > > fight for racial justice in education,
> > > > > > you im
> > > > > > > sure can
> > > > > > > > come up with
> > > > > > > > > > something on your own.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > eDebate mailing list
> > > > > > > > > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > > > > > > <mailto: eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > <mailto:
> > > > > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > > > > > > <mailto: eDebate at www.ndtceda.com>>
> > > > > > > > <mailto: eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > > > > > > <mailto: eDebate at www.ndtceda.com> <mailto: eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > <mailto:eDebate at www.ndtceda.com>>>
> > > > > > > > > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming
> > > > > > message.
> > > > > > > > > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database:
> > > > > > 268.18.26/746 -
> > > > > > > > Release Date:
> > > > > > > > > 4/4/2007 1:09 PM
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --------------
> > > > > > > > > PhD Student, USC Annenberg School for
> > > > > > Communication
> > > > > > > > > Email: ceren at usc.edu <mailto:ceren at usc.edu
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <mailto:ceren at usc.edu <mailto: ceren at usc.edu>> <mailto:
> > > > > > > > ceren at usc.edu <mailto: ceren at usc.edu> <mailto:
> > > > > > > ceren at usc.edu <mailto: ceren at usc.edu>>>
> > > > > > > > > Mobile: 412-512-7256
> > > > > > > > > --------------
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > > > > > > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.26/746
> > > > > > - Release
> > > > > > > > Date: 4/4/2007 1:09 PM
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --------------
> > > > > > > > PhD Student, USC Annenberg School for
> > > > > > Communication
> > > > > > > > Email: ceren at usc.edu <mailto: ceren at usc.edu>
> > > > > > > <mailto: ceren at usc.edu <mailto: ceren at usc.edu>>
> > > > > > > > Mobile: 412-512-7256
> > > > > > > > --------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > > > > > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.26/746 -
> > > > > > Release Date:
> > > > > > > 4/4/2007 1:09 PM
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --------------
> > > > > > > PhD Student, USC Annenberg School for Communication
> > > > > > > Email: ceren at usc.edu <mailto:ceren at usc.edu>
> > > > > > > Mobile: 412-512-7256
> > > > > > > --------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > > > > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > > > > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.26/746 - Release
> > > > > > Date: 4/4/2007 1:09 PM
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --------------
> > > > > > PhD Student, USC Annenberg School for Communication
> > > > > > Email: ceren at usc.edu
> > > > > > Mobile: 412-512-7256
> > > > > > --------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > eDebate mailing list
> > > > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > > > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > eDebate mailing list
> > > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> > > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > eDebate mailing list
> > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > eDebate mailing list
> > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > eDebate mailing list
> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070404/1f700593/attachment.htm
More information about the Mailman
mailing list