[eDebate] NDT COMMITTEE ACTION ITEMS IN EVANSTON

[Josh Hoe]

I think his point is that the sq is literally 100% not in compliance with
the rule while the proposal is an attempt to be more compliant....Either
way, using the ADA as an argument for not regulating non-student research
seems a bit silly...Not that I am necessarily pro-the ADA rule.

J


On 4/7/06, Harris, Scott L <sharris at ku.edu> wrote:

>

> Joe I believe you are incorrect.  While the intent of the rule may be to

> limit the number of researchers, the rule as written explicitly authorizes

> the use of researchers and argument writers.  The rule states: At tournament

> registration, schools must identify, by name, the

> individuals who will be designated as their NDT Workers. An "NDT

> Worker" is defined as a person who is not a competitor in the tournament

> and who researches and/or writes any arguments during the tournament,

> including evenings.

>

>

> b. Undergraduates. A school may designate any number of

> undergraduate NDT Workers ...

>

> This wording explicitly authorizes schools to designate non competitors as

> researchers and argument writers.  This wording codifies a violation of the

> code of ethics.  I think it is a clear starter and think the rule as written

> is illegal.

>

> _______________________________________________

> eDebate mailing list

> eDebate at ndtceda.com

> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060407/fbb500c5/attachment.html