[eDebate] Challenge to the Community

[Andy Ellis]

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