DOCSLIB.ORG

Yale Debate Association Twenty-Eighth Annual Yale Invitational Tournament

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Yale Debate Association Twenty-Eighth Annual Yale Invitational Tournament Yale Debate Association Twenty-Eighth Annual Yale Invitational Tournament October 2020 Dear Speech and Debate Coach: TOURNAMENT DIRECTORS On behalf of the Yale Debate Association, Alan Joaquin George we invite you and your team to the Zhengdong Wang Twenty-Eighth Annual Yale University 2020 EXECUTIVE BOARD Invitational Tournament from Friday, Ellie Singer October 2nd, 2020 to Sunday, October 4, President 2020. The tournament will consist of competition in Varsity and JV Lincoln Alex Gordon Douglas Debate, Varsity and JV Policy Tournaments Coordinator Debate, Varsity and JV Public Forum Jack Kelly Debate, an open division in Congressional Membership Director Debate, an open division in Parliamentary Debate, and eight Speech events (DEC, DI, Ko Lyn Cheang EX, HI, INF, OI, POI, and OO). Treasurer Trent Kannegieter This year, due to the ongoing COVID-19 Development Director pandemic, we have decided it is in the best interest of the health of those who attend our tournament for the Yale Invitational to be a virtual tournament. Although we are The Yale Debate Association (YDA) is an undergraduate organization of Yale University in disappointed that we will not be able to New Haven, CT. Every year, the YDA travels welcome you to our beautiful campus this throughout the United States and the world to fall, we are encouraged by the success of compete in Parliamentary Debate. online tournaments that have been held so far, and are confident in our ability to offer a To encourage speech and debate activities among high school and college students, the YDA hosts top-notch competitive experience and a safe several tournaments each year. Our five annual online environment for a virtual Yale tournaments are the Yale Invitational Invitational. This invitation details our plan Tournament, the Adam’s Cup Tournament, the for hosting this tournament online, and Osterweis Tournament, the Yale APDA debate further information about our technology tournament, and the Yale College Intervarsity Tournament. protocol is forthcoming. 1 Year after year, our tournament grows and gains more national recognition for its high level of competition. Like last year, quarterfinalists in Varsity Lincoln Douglas Debate, octofinalists in ​ ​ Varsity Public Forum Debate, and the Top 60 in Congressional Debate will earn bids to the Tournament of Champions. In addition, top finishers in DI, EX, HI, INF, OI, OO, and POI will earn a bid to the University of Kentucky TOC, depending on the number of entries. We will be ​ ​ the first major invitational to conduct all speech events LIVE. We will be using the NSDA ​ Campus video conferencing software, integrated with Tabroom.com. We are pleased to offer a team of nationally recognized and successful tab coordinators. Lincoln Douglas Debate tab will be led by Crawford Leavoy, Policy Debate by Sheryl Kaczmarek, and Public Forum Debate by Jeffrey Kahn. Congressional Debate will be led by Kimberly Bayan-Berlat, and Parliamentary Debate by Everett Rutan. Speech tab will be led by Joe Vaughan. The ability of our tab staff, as well as an excellent pool of judges, will help to ensure a smooth tournament. The information provided within this invitation and on our tournament website should answer any initial questions you may have about our tournament. If you need additional assistance, please email us at: [email protected] . We also ​ ​ welcome any ideas, concerns, questions, or suggestions you may have as the tournament approaches. Please do not hesitate to contact us by September 1 if your team is experiencing financial difficulties. Best wishes for a restful and enjoyable summer. We look forward to having many of you come and compete with us. Sincerely, Alan George and Zhengdong Wang Tournament Directors 2 Table of Contents Guide to the Invitation 4 Competition 5 Division Eligibility 5 Lincoln Douglas Debate 5 Policy Debate 5 Public Forum Debate 6 Congressional Debate 6 Parliamentary Debate 6 Speech Events 6 Source Integrity 7 Evidence Ethics 7 Results, Awards, and Ballots 8 Judging 10 Obligations by Entry 10 Judge Expectations 11 Hired Judging 11 Lincoln Douglas Mutually Preferred Judging 12 Registration 13 Caps and Limits 13 Forms and Permissions 14 Safety 15 Fees 15 Deadlines 17 Independent Entries 18 Online Platform 19 Platform 19 Equity 19 Online Best Practices and Regulations 20 Schedule 21 3 Guide to the Invitation PUBLIC FORM LIVE DOC LINCOLN-DOUGLAS LIVE DOC POLICY LIVE DOC CONGRESS LIVE DOC PARLI LIVE DOC - Yale Parli procedures can be found here ​ ​ ​ SPEECH LIVE DOC Please read the entire invitation. Even if you’ve been at the tournament before, some ​ information has changed. All rules and procedures in this invitation are also subject to change at the tournament directors’ discretion without notice. All subsequent updates to this invitation will be highlighted in yellow, and an update will be posted on the main page of our Tabroom. The online nature of our tournament this year presents many challenges, but it also creates many opportunities for us to create a better experience for all participants. As we hope to return to hosting our tournament on Yale's campus in future years, we have tried to maintain the competition you are familiar with as much as possible, where it makes sense. In addition, after much discussion with our tab directors and the community, we have also made some changes in order to better accommodate the online format. Please note that we plan to revert many of these changes when we return to an in-person tournament. While we are constantly looking to improve our tournament year after year, do not consider any differences between this invitation and previous years as guarantees moving forward. We welcome your feedback. Please take special care to read the rules of events you plan to participate in, our judging expectations, registration limits, etc. Here you will find many important changes reflecting the new environment of competing online. Many of our other policies, such as our registration process, and expectations for ethics and integrity, are similar to our policies of previous years. However, please note that they are more important than ever before, to ensure a smooth and fair virtual experience. Familiarity with these policies is expected of all participants. Thank you for your attention to this year's unique tournament. 4 Technology Desk and Event Hotlines Always try email first, then text as a backup, but DO NOT CALL Please identify yourself with your name, status (student, judge, coach), school, and NSDA Campus room number (if applicable) TOURNAMENT-WIDE TECHNOLOGY CONTACT for NSDA Campus problems, Tabroom/ballot problems, or personal computer/internet problems. Email: [email protected] ​ Text: (203) 493-1873 Public Forum Congress [email protected] [email protected] Text: (215) 436-9130 Text: (203) 397-6018 Lincoln-Douglas Parli [email protected] [email protected] Text: (919) 666-7223 Text: (646) 345-6628 Policy Individual Events/Speech [email protected] [email protected] Text: (845) 541-6242 Text: (914) 715-7337 5 Competition Division Eligibility We will have two divisions for Lincoln Douglas Debate, Policy Debate, and Public Forum Debate (Varsity and Junior Varsity): ● Varsity: Level of competition that is awarded bids (in LD and PF). This division is for more experienced debaters. ● Junior Varsity: Open to students in their first two years of experience in a debate event. This means that who would be considered varsity status in a debate event should not enter in any Junior Varsity division. Any student who broke at a national tournament in JV last year should enter the Varsity division, if competing in that same event. Students in middle school are welcome to register for this division. We strongly encourage coaches to choose divisions with the educational purpose of debate in mind. That purpose is hurt if overqualified debaters compete in JV. Students should not enter these divisions to win trophies; they are learning divisions. In extraordinary cases, schools should reach out to the tournament directors to request exemptions. The level of break for each speech and debate division will be determined based on entry totals. We will make that information publicly available in advance of the tournament. For this year only, all debate events will be single-flighted. This means that all preliminary rounds will be single-flighted. However, we reserve the right to double-flight early elimination rounds, which will be announced ahead of time. We think it is important not to overburden our students and judges, and a day of debate with 10 rounds of judging online is not fair to those judges volunteering their time to be of service to the activity. The well-being of participants and judges is important. Consequently, we had to adjust our judge obligation ratio and pricing to accommodate this change. Lincoln Douglas Debate The resolution will be the 2020 September-October National Speech and Debate Association (NSDA) topic. Both LD divisions will follow the 6-3-7-3-4-6-3 format. Debaters will have five ​ minutes of prep time. Ties will be broken based on record, high/low adjusted points, total points, ​ opponent’s record, z-score, and coin flip, in that order. There will be six prelim rounds. Policy Debate The resolution will be the 2020-2021 NSDA resolution. Teams will give eight minute constructive speeches, three minute cross-examinations, and five minute rebuttals and will have nine minutes of prep time. Ties will be broken using the same criteria as Lincoln Douglas ​ Debate. There will be six prelim rounds. We reserve the right to collapse Policy Debate into one open division depending on the number of entries. 6 Public Forum Debate The tournament will be using the NSDA topic for September/October of 2020. We will follow the NSDA format, with three minute summary speeches.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • College Historical Society
    COLLEGE HISTORICAL SOCIETY LAWS OF THE SOCIETY Chapter I Fundamental Regulations The following shall be considered the fundamental regulations of the College Historical Society and no Law or resolution in anywise contradicting, suspending or repealing them, or any part of them, shall be valid without the consent of the Board. 1. All persons paying the capital levy shall be eligible for the ordinary Membership of the Society. 2. Topics of religious controversy and present party politics shall be prohibited at the meetings of the Society. 3. Every meeting of the Society shall terminate not later than twelve o’clock by College time. 4. No person can be elected an Officer of the Historical Society without the sanction of the Board unless he be either officially connected with the University or be a member of the Society. This law shall not apply to the election of Vice-Presidents. Chapter II Annual Members 1. The amount of the annual subscription shall be determined by the General Committee in advance of the first of October of each session. 2. All persons who are eligible shall become Annual Members immediately upon paying their annual subscription. 3. The membership of every Annual Member shall lapse at the end of the sixth week of Michaelmas Term in the session following that in which his annual subscription was last paid. Every person whose membership shall have so lapsed shall be re-admissible on payment of the annual subscription. 4. Any member who is neither indebted to the Society in any amount, nor has in his possession any book from the Society’s Library, nor has any key belonging to the Society may resign from membership of the Society on notifying in writing the Record Secretary of his wish to do so.
    [Show full text]
  • Debate Academy Guide
    Debate Academy Guide 29 July to 3 August 2019, Uppingham School Introduction from the Course Director Debate Academy is an annual, week-long summer school in the United Kingdom dedicated to improving young people’s debating skills. It is held each year in late July to early August at Uppingham School in Rutland. Students aged 14-18 receive tuition from expert debating mentors in a variety of competitive debating formats. Whether you have little or no experience, or are getting ready for trials for your national debating team, Debate Academy will offer a tailored experience to suit you. This document is designed to provide additional information and hopefully to answer any questions you may have about Debate Academy. For the most up to date information on this year’s Debate Academy or to sign up for a place, please visit our website: http://www.esu.org/programmes/debate-academy If you have any further questions or queries about Debate Academy feel free to get in touch with me at [email protected]. I look forward to seeing you there! Bob Saull Debating Programmes Officer English-Speaking Union 1 Contents Learning at Debate Academy 3 Which ‘Track’ is for Me? 4 Which ‘Stream’ is for Me? 5 Living at Debate Academy 6 Applying to Debate Academy 9 2 Learning at Debate Academy At Debate Academy you will receive expert tuition on debating from some of the best debaters in the country. You will get the chance to discuss world issues, sharpen your analytical, reasoning and public speaking skills, and spar with other students from all over the world in competitive debates.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018-2019 Newsletter
    2018-2019 Newsletter The YDA by the Numbers: Another Outstanding Year The Yale Debate Association continued to dominate both at 1 home and abroad this year. The The YDA’s US team snagged its tenth consecutive Ranking Club of the Year Award and broke three teams and five judges at the World Universities Debating Championships among a long list 10 of its other stellar accomplishments Years in a Row from this year. as Top US Team The team excelled once more at APDA Nationals, with one team reaching semifinals, and one team reaching quarterfinals. By stay- ing on top of the ranks throughout the season, Yale also keep its COTY status for the tenth year in a row, leading second place team 8 Harvard by over 40 points. Tournaments Won Yale also performed strongly at WUDC. Three of five teams broke to elimination rounds, with Yale B reaching quarterfinals, and Yale A and Yale C both reaching double-octafinals. All five Yale-affiliat- 5 ed judges also judge broke. Top Speaker Awards The YDA had another oustanding year, and is looking forward to the next! Excellence at APDA Nationals The YDA had another incredible year at APDA Nationals. Eleven 11 team members qualified, and five Debaters teams competed at Nationals, Qualified to including two novices. Yale's Nationals competitors performed very well. Three debaters earned top twenty speaker awards: Will Arnesen ('20), also 10th Speaker of the Year, was 2nd speaker, Ellie Singer ('21) was 6th speaker, and Jack Kelly ('21) was 16th speaker. Two teams also broke to elimination rounds.
    [Show full text]
  • Marking 200 Years of Legal Education: Traditions of Change, Reasoned Debate, and Finding Differences and Commonalities
    MARKING 200 YEARS OF LEGAL EDUCATION: TRADITIONS OF CHANGE, REASONED DEBATE, AND FINDING DIFFERENCES AND COMMONALITIES Martha Minow∗ What is the significance of legal education? “Plato tells us that, of all kinds of knowledge, the knowledge of good laws may do most for the learner. A deep study of the science of law, he adds, may do more than all other writing to give soundness to our judgment and stability to the state.”1 So explained Dean Roscoe Pound of Harvard Law School in 1923,2 and his words resonate nearly a century later. But missing are three other possibilities regarding the value of legal education: To assess, critique, and improve laws and legal institutions; To train those who pursue careers based on legal training, which may mean work as lawyers and judges; leaders of businesses, civic institutions, and political bodies; legal academics; or entre- preneurs, writers, and social critics; and To advance the practice in and study of reasoned arguments used to express and resolve disputes, to identify commonalities and dif- ferences, to build institutions of governance within and between communities, and to model alternatives to violence in the inevi- table differences that people, groups, and nations see and feel with one another. The bicentennial of Harvard Law School prompts this brief explo- ration of the past, present, and future of legal education and scholarship, with what I hope readers will not begrudge is a special focus on one particular law school in Cambridge, Massachusetts. ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ∗ Carter Professor of General Jurisprudence; until July 1, 2017, Morgan and Helen Chu Dean and Professor, Harvard Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • Scrutinised Long Manifestos - Tt20 (2Nd Election)
    SCRUTINISED LONG MANIFESTOS - TT20 (2ND ELECTION) CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT-ELECT Amy Gregg (Ex-Treasurer, Exeter College ) - Candidate for President-Elect - Long Manifesto The Union has had significant setbacks in the last few years. I did not intend to run this term, but it is clear that the Union needs a President who has the experience and the capability to set it back on the right course. The Union can do so much better, and the Union must do so much better. As an undergraduate, I was President of the Cambridge Union. During this time I ran a record-setting membership drive, managed a £100,000 budget, and hosted over thirty speakers including Stephen Fry, Quentin Blake and Moazzam Begg. After leaving Cambridge I was a trainee solicitor at a Magic Circle Law firm, and I now hold an offer for a pupillage to be a barrister. I have real world experience which I can use to improve our Union as well. I previously served on committee for 7 terms. In this time I arranged 5 debates, including confirming 5/6 speakers for the Comedy debate. I ran Debates, Panels and Speaker events, confirmed multiple speakers and chaired the Union’s largest committee. I also spent over 50 days of vacation working for the Union and made 3 winning paper speeches. As Treasurer I secured 29 debate Floor Prizes, 12 New Treasurer’s Treats and coordinated sponsorship from a major Scholarship fund - ensuring transparency by publishing the audited accounts on the app. This demonstrates that I have the ability to run the Union, but it also made me realise: the Union needs real change - change only an experienced President can bring.
    [Show full text]
  • Debate Association & Debate Speech National ©
    © National SpeechDebate & Association DEBATE 101 Everything You Need to Know About Policy Debate: You Learned Here Bill Smelko & Will Smelko DEBATE 101 Everything You Need to Know About Policy Debate: You Learned Here Bill Smelko & Will Smelko © NATIONAL SPEECH & DEBATE ASSOCIATION DEBATE 101: Everything You Need to Know About Policy Debate: You Learned Here Copyright © 2013 by the National Speech & Debate Association All rights reserved. Published by National Speech & Debate Association 125 Watson Street, PO Box 38, Ripon, WI 54971-0038 USA Phone: (920) 748-6206 Fax: (920) 748-9478 [email protected] No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, now known or hereafter invented, including electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, information storage and retrieval, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without the prior written permission of the Publisher. The National Speech & Debate Association does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, gender identity, gender expression, affectional or sexual orientation, or disability in any of its policies, programs, and services. Printed and bound in the United States of America Contents Chapter 1: Debate Tournaments . .1 . Chapter 2: The Rudiments of Rhetoric . 5. Chapter 3: The Debate Process . .11 . Chapter 4: Debating, Negative Options and Approaches, or, THE BIG 6 . .13 . Chapter 5: Step By Step, Or, It’s My Turn & What Do I Do Now? . .41 . Chapter 6: Ten Helpful Little Hints . 63. Chapter 7: Public Speaking Made Easy .
    [Show full text]
  • 639 Bedford Rd Pocantico Hills, NY 10591 [email protected] Library
    639 Bedford Rd Pocantico Hills, NY 10591 [email protected] Library The Rollin G. Osterweis Washington Irving Collection Finding Aid Collection Overview Title: The Rollin G. Osterweis Washington Irving Collection, 1808-2012 (bulk 1808-1896) Creator: Osterweis, Rollin G. (Rollin Gustav), 1907- Extent : 159 volumes; 1 linear foot of archival material Repository: Historic Hudson Valley Library and Archives Abstract: This collection holds 159 volumes that make up the Rollin G. Osterweis Collection of Irving Editions and Irvingiana. It also contains one linear foot of archival materials related to the collection. Administrative Information Preferred Citation: Item title. (date) City: Publisher [if applicable]. The Rollin G. Osterweis Washington Irving Collection, 1808-2012, (Date of Access). Historic Hudson Valley Library and Archives. Historic Hudson Valley. Provenance: This collection was created by Rollin Gustav Osterweis and donated to Historic Hudson Valley by Ruth Osterweis Selig. 18 December 2012. Access: This collection is open for research with some restrictions based on the fragility of certain materials. Research restrictions for individual items are available on request. For more information contact the Historic Hudson Valley librarian, Catalina Hannan: [email protected]. Copyright: Copyright of materials belongs to Historic Hudson Valley. Permission to reprint materials must be obtained from Historic Hudson Valley. The collection contains some material copyrighted by other organizations and individuals. It is the responsibility of the researcher to obtain all permission(s) related to the reprinting or copying of materials. Processed by: Christina Neckles Kasman, February-August 2013 Osterweis Irving Collection - 1 Biographical Note Rollin Gustav Osterweis was a native of New Haven, Connecticut, where his grandfather had established a cigar factory in 1860.
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitution of the Cambridge Union Society
    The Constitution of the Cambridge Union Society THE LAWS 0) Definitions 1) The Laws and Rules The Structure of The Cambridge Union 2) Membership 3) The Standing Committee 4) Officers 5) The Responsibilities of the Officers 6) The Review Committee Elections and Appointments 7) Elections Procedure 8) Charitable Points for Elections 9) Electoral Rules 10) Electoral Investigations 11) Appointments Procedure Codes and Policies 12) Code of Conduct 13) Code of Conduct Investigation 14) Principles of the Union 15) Restrictions on Invitations 16) Expenses Policy 17) Procedure for Main Debates 18) Policy on Reciprocal Membership Page 1 of 67 THE RULES Events Policies 1) Duty Officer 2) House Rules 3) Guest Policy Competitive Debating 4) Debating Team Selection and Reimbursement 5) Management of Debating Budget 6) Convenors 7) Convenors Positions and Responsibilities Organisational Committees 8) Full Committee 9) Full Committee Departments and Responsibilities 10) Sub-Committees 11) Budget Committee 12) Competitive Debating Committee 13) Vacation Committee 14) Executive Committee Miscellaneous 15) Handover 16) Social Events Planning Procedure Page 2 of 67 Definitions THE LAWS Definitions In these Laws and Rules the following expressions have the following means unless inconsistent with the context: 1) Accounts Manager means the individual hired by the Society to run its accounts. 2) Appeals Panel means the panel appointed in accordance with Law 13 which handles disciplinary appeals. 3) Appellant means a member of the Society who is seeking an appeal to a disciplinary decision. 4) Appointee means a member of the Society appointed to a formal position. 5) Board of Trustee-Directors means the group of individual trustee directors who have ultimate responsibility for directing the affairs of the charity from time to time in accordance with the Charities Act 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Resilience Debating Resource Pack for Primary Schools Contents
    community resilience debating resource pack for primary schools contents getting started what is debating? 4 game: if I ruled the world... 4 game: just a minute 4 planning your debates 5 looking at resilience group activity: how resilient is your community? 6 individual activity: how resilient are you? 8 people who help us debate format and planning 10 handout: people who help us debate 12 debate role cards 13 preparing the debate 14 handout: r.e.a.l. arguments & speech structure 15 debating techniques 16 speech plan & fish speech plan 18 summary speech plan 20 audience task 21 resilience role-plays role-play debate format 22 designing your own role-play 23 tourism impact role-play 24 local bypass role-play 26 handout: finding things out 28 handout: being persuasive 29 judging debates judging a debate 30 helping first time speakers 31 debating resilience and cfe literacy and english 32 social studies, health and wellbeing, expressive arts 33 welcome... ...to this Community Resilience Primary School Debating Resource, which has been developed by the English-Speaking Union Scotland for Education Scotland as part of their Community Resilience project. Community Resilience is a very broad topic and each community will face its own challenges. However, there are common threads: challenging situations and adversity; problem solving; being prepared; mitigating impact; overcoming a personal or community challenge or obstacle; and adapting and building resilience. In all of these situations it’s about communitities coming together to provide mutual support and build resilience. Debating is a great way of encouraging this process and there are many ways that the whole class can be involved in debating, building on the strengths of each individual pupil who will contribute to the activity in different ways, developing confidence and skills that will be useful to themselves and their communities throughout their lives.
    [Show full text]
  • Yale Debate Association
    THE YALE DEBATE ASSOCIATION 2015-2016 Newsletter The YDA by the Yale Continues Reign as Top School on APDA Numbers: After a season that saw a hard fought race for APDA’s Club of the Year title, Yale runs to finals at the 1 United States Universities YDA’s US Rank- Debating Championships, ing begets a fantastic perfor- mance at the World Champi- onships, and finishes another successful year at the top of the list of the best debate teams in the country. In addition to its in- 7 Individual members of the YDA Years in a Row ternationally recognized success, the YDA were also greatly successful throughout continued its run of unprecedented do- as top US Team the year. Yale LZ, consisting of Diana Li mestic dominance. Breaking its own rec- and Henry Zhang, were APDA’s Team of ord for total points, Yale won APDA’s the Year (“TOTY”), winning back the coveted COTY award of the 2014-2015 award with 88 points. Additionally, most season, for the seventh year running, ac- of the best speakers at the 2015 National cumulating 66 more points than the sec- championships were from Yale. The 2016 ond ranked school, Brandeis. North American Championships also saw 11 As part of a record breaking year, Edwin Zhang and Tony Nguyen become Tournaments not only did Yale win its seventh consecu- finalists. Won tive COTY award from the American Par- Unsurprisingly, the YDA contin- liamentary Debate Association (“APDA”), ues to prove itself as the best team in the it is continuing the 2016 season as first United States this year, and the ranking place with 433 points, more than 160 also reflects an excellent class of new nov- points higher than the current second ices and the dedication and involvement place, with Brown University holding 286 of the YDA's members to every aspect of points.
    [Show full text]
  • Pamela Susan Karlan
    PAMELA SUSAN KARLAN Stanford Law School (650) 725-4851/0253 (fax) Stanford, CA 94305-8610 [email protected] ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS Stanford Law School Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law (since 1999); Co-Director, Supreme Court Litigation Clinic (since 2004); Associate Dean (1999-2000, 2005-06); Professor of Law (1998-99) University of Virginia School of Law Roy L. and Rosamond Woodruff Morgan Research Professor (1994-98); Professor of Law (1993-98); Associate Professor of Law (1988-93) Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School (1994-95); N.Y.U. School of Law (Spring 1993); Stanford Law School (Fall 1996); University of Virginia School of Law (Fall 2002); Yale Law School (Fall 1992, Fall 2006) Courses Taught: Civil Procedure; Classics in Constitutional Scholarship; Constitutional Law; Constitutional Litigation; Criminal Adjudication; Justice at Home and Abroad (undergraduate course); Regulation of the Political Process; Professional Responsibility; Sex Discrimination; Supreme Court Litigation Clinic; Supreme Court Term Seminar; Torts Coif Distinguished Visiting Professor (2006); John Bingham Hurlbut Award for Excellence in Teaching, Stanford (2002, 2009); State Council of Higher Education in Virginia Outstanding Faculty Award (1997); University of Virginia All-University Outstanding Teaching Award (1995-96); Elected Graduation Speaker, Yale Law School (2007), University of Virginia School of Law (1991) OTHER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Commissioner, California Fair Political Practices Commission (2003-05) (appointed
    [Show full text]
  • Democracy: the Missing Link in the Devolution Debate
    Democracy: the missing link in the devolution debate Devolution in England could change the way we are governed and create a fairer dispersion of power, with more opportunities for people outside of Westminster to have a say. An overriding focus on economic growth currently threatens to de-rail devolution by encouraging local governments to promise economic outcomes they could struggle to deliver, outcomes which are not necessarily in the residents’ best interests. Presently the debate on devolution neglects the • Environmental sustainability is part of just democratic transformations that could make 0.8% of arguments. devolution worthwhile. In this research, we map arguments in favour of devolution produced by • Only 2.9% of arguments address the central government, local government, think- potential downsides and risks of devolution. tanks, and civil society groups between 2011 and 2015. • Local governments in particular seldom consider the impact of devolution on democracy, discussing democratic outcomes Key findings less than central government or think-tanks. • Of the arguments made for devolution, 41.6% focus on achieving economic growth as the main justification for devolving Introduction power. Decentralising power from Westminster to • Only 12.9% of arguments make the case regions is a debate with a long history, one in for devolution in order to shift power, which numerous governments have engaged, strengthen democracy, and increase citizen offering various regional power structures involvement in decision-making. for the devolution of government functions and decisions – not least in Scotland, Wales, • Just 7.4% of arguments address inequalities and Northern Ireland. Following the 2014 in wealth and power between regions.
    [Show full text]