Transfer - On Point

[jkshell@juno.com (Shelley D Newton)]

On the Ethics Trials Bad D.A. :

Arg. 1 - The community will default to ethics trials without a points ban
on transfers.  

First, this assumes that the community is not capable of implementing
other ways of dealing with unethical transfers.  Erasing the points ban
does not preclude creating other remedies.  This position seems to imply
that there is a points ban or ethics trials dichotomy.  

Second, As Greg pointed out, crisis creates opportunity.  Absent a points
ban on transfers members of the community may find better solutions. 
Greg also pointed out that the points ban on transfers masks the problem
of unethical transfers, so members of the community are deterred from
finding better solutions.  

Third, there is no reason to assume that without a points ban on
transfers the community will default to ethics trials.  There are many
possible futures for a world without a points ban on transfers.  

For example, transfers could be considered peachy keen regardless of how
they occur.  Since this is the possibility that either an ethics trial or
a points ban would be created to avoid, it is an interesting possibility
for evaluation and comparison.  What would be the disadvantage of this
possibility?  Unethical coaches might gobble up all the talent?  It can
happen under a points ban.  Not only that...a points ban does nothing to
address the ethical problem.  However, an ethics trial deals directly
with the problem.  Ethics trials can't solve?  I will address these
arguments below, but if ethics trials can't solve but address the problem
and points bans can't solve but mask the problem which do we choose? I
must ask...are we trying to avoid ethical problems or programs packed
full of talent? 

Arg. 2 - Unethical transfers are often done by proxy and can not be
proven.

First, not all unethical transfers are done by proxy, so even if you are
correct, there will still be some unethical transfers that can be proven
which is better than the s.q.  The s.q. simply avoids the issue of ethics
which we seem to agree is the source of the problem.

Second, unethical transfers done by proxy can be proven.  There is the
matter of testimony from witnesses including the proxy, other members of
the recruiting squad, anyone around during the "inticement", the debater
being recruited, the recruiting coach, the other coach, etc. 
Again...some instances will be proven and some won't.  However, this is
better than ignoring the problem.  

Arg. 3 - Assesing educational validity of transfers is relativistic.

I agree with this point.  However, it bears (bear?) no importance on the
issue of unethical transfers.  

Arg. 4 - Ethics trials do not provide due process and fairness.

First, this assumes a very poorly constructed trial procedure. Obviously,
there should be a burden of proof, and both sides should be allowed the
opportunity to provide evidence, etc.  Of course, people will be
considered innocent until proven guilty.  

Second, a points ban on transfers is the actual model of unfairness and
lack of due process.  All transfers are considered guilty without the
opportunity for a trial.  

Arg. 5 - Ethics trials create a bad image for CEDA.

First, I think the image of ethics and accountability would be a positive
image for CEDA.  

Second, this assumes that we should not unmask the problem.  How can we
solve the problem without unmasking it?

Third, ethics trials create a bad image for those found guilty of
unethical behavior.  This is why ethics trials address the problem. 
CEDA, however, enjoys the image of ethics and accountability which I
mentioned earlier.

Arg. 6 - What the hell...they're just points.

First, if they are just points, what's the point of banning them?

Second, we agree that the problem is one of ethics.  Unethical transfers
still occur under a points ban policy...I think we even agree on that. 
If a points ban does not address the issue of ethics, why is it in place?
 I'm assuming it's because at least these unethical coaches will not have
the benefit of gaining points.  What was you said?  What the
hell...they're just points.

Third, points ineligible students are hindered in movement and debate
opportunities; therefore, points are important even if a points ban does
not solve.

J.K.

---

• Prev by Date: s/he/she/they/it/RACE
• Next by Date: Re: He/she, Racism, and the Boundless Hipocrisy of the L
• Prev by thread: s/he/she/they/it/RACE
• Next by thread: Re: Transfer - On Point
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page