The logic below comes from watching L.A. Law and Ally McBeal a few times each. I also watched one episode of Perry Mason. *In response to Mr. Whited, and I know I open *myself up to a possible attack by saying this: *why even bother with CBI? What they don't know *can't hurt them. Correct. However, if CBI finds out, they can take action against the participating schools, possibly disqualifying players or suspending schools for a year: something about 'flagrant disregard'. While CBI probably can't suspend CBI competitors who run tournaments, they can do something about HCASC. Removing this can eliminate funding which is provided via the competition. *And if they protest against the school in *question, then we have a way to remove the law by *force (namely, someone points out the unfairness *inherent in the law, CBCI tries to defend it, the *school in trouble sues for the right to enter *Honda, while at the same time the host team sends *a little briefing over to the ACLU who of course *just LIVES to handle cases like this, and hey, no *more rule). That assumes that the school in question decides to back the people in question, and that CBI or Honda doesn't simply drop HCASC. A legal battle could also drag on for a long time, and whether the competitors get a restraining order allowing competition isn't a guarantee. There's also the possibility that CBI might win, ACLU or not. Since no one ever found out a specific rationale for the HCASC policy, CBI _may_ have a firm legal grounding on this case. If you disagree in principle with the rule, there are many avenues open which will not result in massive court wrangling and will not put students or schools up as (possibly unwilling) guinea pigs. I'd recommend trying these.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:42 AM EST EST