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

[Andy Ellis]

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