[eDebate] Bueller.... bueller....

Andy Ellis andy.edebate
Wed Apr 4 18:15:52 CDT 2007


If the intent standard of milliken was somehow overturned would it change
your view on the viability of the tort claim?

On 4/4/07, Eli Brennan <elibrennan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Let me take a crack at this:
>
> I wish i had had a chance to research Milliken from a policy perspective.
> I did some work vs critical versions... but that research is useful maybe in
> other ways.
>
> But I took a look at the caselist to see what I could find.   Here's my
> impression of what it says about Andy's Challenge.
>
> 1.  Overturning Milliken might be a good place to start.  I know at Broken
> Arrow High, outside of Tulsa, there were very few minority students to
> recruit for the debate team.  I don't honestly know how hard anybody was
> trying (this is an honest knowledge gap- not a hidden assertion)... but If I
> were coaching there, it would be a real challenge just because a small
> percentage of ANY demographic want to spend their weekends with us.   A lot
> of minority students were going to school on the "north side" where the
> schools were less supportive of debate (resources being a key reason, i
> would guess).  Certainly the debate coach must still do their job... and the
> community would do well to make itself an inviting place to be... but if
> it's a matter just not having access to debate early, here I suspect that
> legal action of just the sort Andy saw debated may be helpful. [though not
> having judged/traveled- i'd rather hear from someone who ran the aff]
>
> 2.  There may be an context problem.  Saying that the law is crucial in
> area X needn't imply it is the best path in area Y.  Obvie.   My guess is
> that the debate community's problems with diversity have something to do
> with the legacy of segregation (hence #1), and something to do with our
> culture, habits, and outreach efforts.   The tort angle seems forced.   It
> could be that there's some illegal aspect to the habits of our institutions,
> but I don't think anybody has ever argued that to me.  I'd certainly be open
> to the idea.   Sexual harassment, I think, may have something to do with why
> we don't have as many women in debate as would seem healthy... and if there
> were legal change that would make it easier to attack that problem (i'm
> cautious about my view here), I'd likely be for it.
>
> Anywho... that's my attempt to Answer the Challenge without personal
> attack.
> I bet many would have bet against me in this effort.
> And at you I smile.
>
> best,
> eli brennan
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/e143d436/attachment.html 



More information about the Mailman mailing list