Changes for page Appleton East Moorhead Aff
Summary
-
Objects (2 modified, 11 added, 4 removed)
- Caselist.CitesClass[17]
- Caselist.CitesClass[18]
- Caselist.CitesClass[20]
- Caselist.RoundClass[18]
- Caselist.RoundClass[19]
- Caselist.RoundClass[21]
- Caselist.CitesClass[22]
- Caselist.CitesClass[23]
- Caselist.CitesClass[24]
- Caselist.CitesClass[25]
- Caselist.CitesClass[26]
- Caselist.RoundClass[23]
- Caselist.RoundClass[24]
- Caselist.RoundClass[25]
- Caselist.RoundClass[26]
- Caselist.RoundClass[27]
- Caselist.RoundClass[28]
Details
- Caselist.CitesClass[17]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,102 +1,0 @@ 1 - 2 - 3 -FUCK YOUR WINGDINGS KEDRICK THIS SHIT IS THE DRAMATIC FUCKING INTERPRETATION 4 - 5 - 6 -Nov/Dec Shitstorm 1AC 7 - 8 -This is not just a regular speech, this is a proposal for change. This is not a white male standing up to win ballots, this is a white male standing up for the people. This is not an idea, this is a real world implication. This is NOT your typical 1AC, this is a movement. 9 -Thus, I affirm, I value morality because the resolution says ought 10 -The standard for the round is minimizing oppression towards marginalized groups through a deontological perspective 11 -First, Morality requires respect for self-ownership 12 -Quinn 89 13 -Quinn, Warren S. “Actions, Intentions, and Consequences: The Doctrine of Doing and Allowing.” The Philosophical Review, Vol. 98, No. 3, (Jul., 1989), pp. 287-312. JSTOR 14 -Whether we are speaking of ownership or more fundamental forms of possession, something is, morally speaking, his only if his say over what may be done to it (and thereby to him) can override the greater needs of others. A person is constituted by his body and mind. They are parts or aspects of him. For that very reason, it is fitting that he have primary say over what may be done to them-not because such an arrangement best promotes overall human welfare, but because any arrangement that denied him that say would be a grave indignity. In giving him this authority, morality recognizes his existence as an individual with ends of his own—an independent being. Since that is what he is, he deserves this recognition. Were morality to withhold it, were it to allow us to kill or injure him whenever that would be collectively best, it would picture him not as a being in his own right but as a cell in the collective whole. This last point can be illustrated not by thinking of bodies or minds but of lives. The moral sense in which your mind or body is yours seems to be the same as that in which your life is yours. And if your life is yours then there must be decisions concerning it that are yours to make-decisions protected by negative rights. One such matter is the choice of work or vocation. We think there is something morally amiss when people are forced to be farmers or flute players just because the balance of social needs tips in that direction. Barring great emergencies, we think people's lives must be theirs to lead. Not because that makes things go best in some independent sense but because the alternative seems to obliterate them as individuals. This obliteration, and not social inefficiency, is one of the things that strikes us as appalling in totalitarian social projects for example, in the Great Cultural Revolution. None of this, of course, denies the legitimate force of positive rights. They too are essential to the status we want as persons who matter, and they must be satisfied when it is morally possible to do so. But negative rights, for the reasons I have been giving, define the terms of moral possibility. Their precedence is essential to the moral fact of our lives, minds, and bodies really being ours. 15 - 16 -Second, It follows from practical reason that rational beings have inherent value. 17 -Korsgaard 96 18 -Korsgaard, Christine (Prof of Phil @ Harvard). “The Sources of Normativity.” 1996. 19 -This is just a fancy new model of an argument that first appeared in a much simpler form, Kant’s argument for his Formula of Humanity. The form of relativism with which Kant began was the most elementary one we encounter - the relativity of value to human desires and interests. He started from the fact that when we make a choice we must regard its object as good. His point is the one I have been making - that being human we must endorse our impulses before we can act on them. Kant asked what it is that makes these objects good, and, rejecting one form of realism, he decided that the goodness wais not in the objects themselves. Were it not for our desires and inclinations, we would not find their objects good. Kant saw that we take things to be important because they are important to us - and he concluded that we must therefore take ourselves to be important. In this way, the value of humanity itself is implicit in every human choice. If normative skepticism is to be avoided - if there is any such thing as a reason for action - then humanity as the source of all reasons and values must be valued for its own sake. 20 - 21 - 22 - 23 -Contention 1: Constitutionalism 24 -Oversight to police officers is critical yet is inconsistent across the US. 25 -Meltzer 16, Ryan. “Qualified Immunity And Constitutional-Norm Generation In The Post-Saucier Era: 'Clearly Establishing.” Texas Law Review Vol 92 No. 5. April 04, 2014. Web. October 06, 2016. https://www.google.com/url?sa=tandrct=jandq=andesrc=sandsource=webandcd=2andved=0ahUK Ewj2hqP18LPAhUEy2MKHejZDwcQFgglMAEandurl=http3A2F2Fwww.texaslrev.com2F wp-content2Fuploads2F20152F082FMeltzer-924.pdfandusg=AFQjCNFzctxOqmFgrXQn77xvda-qUhsvQandsig2=TQ0EGhcgJsWYQUZj_8NpGA. 26 -Civilian oversight represents a critical component of the patchwork of police regulation in the United States. Given the limited effect of constitutional criminal procedure, the problems inherent in internal police oversight mechanisms, and the de jure and de facto barriers to the successful assessment of criminal or civil sanctions on individual police officers or municipalities, external oversight bodies reach police conduct that might otherwise escape reproach. Further, given the rate at which municipalities settle lawsuits arising from police misconduct—in fiscal year 2012, the City of New York settled approximately $152 million in suits against the New York City Police Department (NYPD), arising from 9,570 claims—civilian oversight agencies play a vital role in developing the law of the police by addressing legal claims silenced by settlement in the civil arena. Moreover, civilian oversight has become commonplace in the United States since its emergence in the early twentieth century: There are now over one hundred civilian oversight bodies in the nation, covering cities in thirty-six different states— from Akron, Ohio, to Yonkers, New York. 27 - 28 -Qualified immunity has been designed to limit the routes that citizens can take in their legally allowed civil rights legal claims. 29 -Hassel 99, Diana. “Living A Lie: The Cost of Qualified Immunity.” Missouri Law Review Vol 64 Issue 1. 1999. Web. October 06, 2016. http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3402andcontext=mlr. 30 -This current critique of antidiscrimination law can be used to understand how the qualified immunity standard affects the system of compensation for constitutional wrongs. One major similarity is the way in which the existence of Section 1983 siphons off pressure to create some other system of redress. The open-ended language of the Section 1983 statute seems to promise a powerful remedy against governmental abuse. As we have seen, qualified immunity severely limits that remedy, but on a case-by-case basis. There is no general prohibition against certain types of civil rights claims, only the seemingly individualized application of the qualified immunity defense. The fact that some types of claims are destined to fail because of the type of claim they are, not because of the particularized behavior of the defendant, is hidden. Adding to the illusion of a generally available remedy is the spectacular success of a few high profile cases. A few large recoveries in cases that present particularly compelling facts obscure the reality of the fruitlessness of most 36 claims. 31 - 32 -Qualified immunity makes questions of civil rights irrelevant. It shuts down democratic debates about which rights we should value and prevents forms of activism that fight for legal recognition. Hassel ‘99 33 - 34 -Diana Hassel - Associate Professor, Roger Williams University School of Law. B.A. 1979, Mount Holyoke College; J.D. 1985, Rutgers, the State University of New JerseyNewark. “Living a Lie: The Cost of Qualified Immunity.” Missouri Law Review. Winter 1999. http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3402andcontext=mlr JJN 35 -IV. THE COST OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY Qualified immunity has not been universally admired. A large body of literature critiques the defense and calls for its modification, elimination, or expansion. While these critiques serve to illuminate some fundamental problems with the qualified immunity doctrine, they do not address the central problem with qualified immunity-its camouflaging effect. By camouflaging effect, I mean the ability of qualified immunity to make the underlying pattern of civil. rights doctrine undiscernible. The existing critical focus on the strengths and weaknesses of qualified immunity fails to uncover the underlying patterns in the availability of Section 1983 remedies. A. Current Critiques There are vociferous critics of the qualified immunity doctrine who attack the doctrine as a whole. This commentary suggests that the problem with the qualified immunity doctrine is that it is applied to the wrong group of defendants or that it should be eliminated entirely. Those who believe that it should be eliminated entirely generally seek to substitute governmental liability for that of individual government officials. 6 Others believe that the problem is not with the defense but that its application should be available only to a certain small group of government officials." 7 The bulk of the criticism of qualified immunity looks closely at the structure of the defense and argues that it is internally contradictory or should be modified to provide better results. This criticism breaks into two main areas: the problems inherent in the "reasonableness" element". of the qualified immunity defense and the difficulties that result from the attempt to define "clearly established""' 9 law. The complaints concerning the "reasonableness" element note that while the objective reasonableness element is designed to protect the defendant from protracted litigation, the defense does not really quickly resolve a lawsuit. 120 The fact issues raised by the reasonableness element of the defense require a fact-finding hearing which makes it difficult to end lawsuits prior to trial.' 2 ' In a contradictory approach, the objectively reasonable element also has been described as being essentially a bar to judgment for the plaintiff in a civil rights action. Because qualified immunity is designed to protect defendants notjust from liability, but from participation in litigation, some argue that qualified immunity has become essentially indistinguishable from absolute immunity.' 22 The objectively reasonable standard is also seen as a mechanism for the distortion of constitutional law. The focus on the question of what a reasonable official would have understood the law to require leads to a "redefining of the substantive constitutional law" in a way that gives little clear guidance as to what the constitution requires and thus provides little guidance for future actions.'23 Commentators similarly claim that the impact of the clearly established element of the qualified immunity defense is inefficient, distorts the law, and is too difficult a standard for plaintiffs to overcome. It is inefficient and distorting because courts spend their time reconstructing what the law was in the past rather than setting forth clear guidance as to what the law requires. 124 The qualified immunity defense has also been assailed because of its requirement that a constitutional right must be clearly established before any liability can attach. This is a difficult standard to overcome. 2 ' The difficulty in identifying clear legal authority establishing the unlawfulness of a particular official's act may be too difficult a task and thus exclude meritorious claims. 26 There is then a body of literature examining the discrepancy between what the qualified immunity defense was meant to accomplish and how it actually works. The defense does not protect defendants in a meaningful way. At the same time, it makes a judgment for the plaintiff almost impossible to obtain. Therefore, the defense seems to be serving no one's interests. These well documented weaknesses suggest that qualified immunity's role is not to allow for just outcomes, but to provide some other service. What is missing from these critiques is an analysis of what function the current doctrine serves. In the next section, I explain that while qualified immunity often results in unfairness or inefficiency, the doctrine also provides a flexible mechanism by which divisive issues are seemingly resolved. This mechanism, however, has a cost. B. Qualified Immunity as a Disquise The problem with qualified immunity is not so much that the outcomes are sometimes unfair but the fact that qualified immunity blocks a clear view of the real limitations that exist in civil rights law. Civil rights law is, in effect, being designed in the dark. Distinctions are being made about the types of cases that will receive compensation and the types that will not. These distinctions are not articulated as such; instead, the results are understood to be the result of the qualified immunity defense. As we have seen, for example, a procedural complaint in the context of an employment dispute is more likely to survive the qualified immunity defense than is a complaint about whether a police officer used excessive force in the arrest of a dangerous suspect. Rather than organizing civil rights law in these categorical ways, however, qualified immunity makes the civil rights remedial system appear to be about individual cases and the reasonableness of individual defendants. Current qualified immunity doctrine serves as a means to diffuse conflict. Without a clear rule that some kinds of civil rights harms will not be redressed, there is minimal pressure for change. This "hiding of the ball" quality of qualified immunity is why, in spite of many expressions of dissatisfaction with the system, there had been little effective rallying for change. The reason the discontent of the participants in this system has not led to a significant change is that the terms of the debate are defined by the immunity system rather than by the fundamental question of the extent of rights and liabilities in civil rights actions. The civil rights remedial scheme organized around qualified immunity thus has an inherently self-preserving or stabilizing quality. It allows for tinkering at the margins, but fundamental recasting of the terms of the debate is unlikely. My assertion that qualified immunity has a camouflaging effect on civil rights law is supported by a large body of scholarship that explores legal regimes that define reality in a way that limits the ability of the participants in the system to change it.'27 These scholars argue that when a legal system is accepted as being the only available way to organize an activity and thus seems inevitable, the legal system encourages acceptance of the status quo. 28 The insights gained by scholars working in this area are helpful to apply to the qualified immunity standard in order to explore its hold on the civil rights imagination. This analysis maps out the way a doctrine such as qualified immunity can develop into an obstacle to the very aims it professes to accomplish. Particularly apposite to an analysis of civil rights law is the work that has been done on the change-inhibiting impact of the development of antidiscrimination law.129 In commenting on the effect of the adoption of equal rights rhetoric on the struggle to end racial inequality, Kimberle Crenshaw has concluded that "society's adoption of the ambivalent rhetoric of equal opportunity law has made it that much more difficult for Black people to name their reality. While equal employment opportunity law has been adopted, the material reality of most Black people has not improved."'30 In fact, improvement may be hindered by the existence of the equal opportunity law since it may undermine the political consensus necessary for change.' 3 ' Another commentator has suggested that "the language of rights undermines efforts to change things by absorbing real demands, experiences, and concerns into a vacuous and indeterminate discourse. The discourse abstracts real experience and clouds the ability of those who invoke rights rhetoric to think concretely about real confrontations and real circumstances.' 32 The existence of antidiscrimination law can thus create the appearance of improvements in racial equality while at the same time not encouraging fundamental change. 33 The focus on the intent of the actor in equal protection claims rather than the impact on the person experiencing the discrimination has also been criticized as an inhibitor to the elimination of racial inequality. 3 By paying exclusive attention to the blameworthiness of the defendant, an examination of the impact of the challenged practice on those complaining about it is lost. Fairness to the defendant, rather than eliminating discriminatory effect, is the central concern. These commentators suggest that the economic and social reality of race inequality is obscured by the existence of antidiscrimination law and by the success of a small exceptional group. As Derrick Bell has stated, "Discrimination claims when they are dramatic enough and do not threaten majority concerns, are given a sympathetic hearing, but there is a pervasive sense that definite limits have been set on the weight that minority claims receive when balanced against majority interests."'35 While it is unclear what the alternative to antidiscrimination law is, these critiques strongly argue that antidiscrimination law does not do what it suggests it will do and may, in fact, make a better system more difficult to imagine and thus to create. This current critique of antidiscrmination law can be used to understand how the qualified immunity standard affects the system of compensation for constitutional wrongs. One major similarity is the way in which the existence of Section 1983 siphons off pressure to create some other system of redress. The open-ended language of the Section 1983 statute seems to promise a powerful remedy against governmental abuse. As we have seen, qualified immunity severely limits that remedy, but on a case-by-case basis. There is no general prohibition against certain types of civil rights claims, only the seemingly individualized application of the qualified immunity defense. The fact that some types of claims are destined to fail because of the type of claim they are, not because of the particularized behavior of the defendant, is hidden. Adding to the illusion of a generally available remedy is the spectacular success of a few high profile cases. A few large recoveries in cases that present particularly compelling facts obscure the reality of the fruitlessness of most claims. 36 On the other side of the lawsuit, qualified immunity promises much more to the defendant than it delivers. The defense is supposed to protect government actors not only from liability but also from entanglement with litigation. The promise is often not kept because the qualified immunity defense presents a combination of fact and law questions that cannot be quickly disposed of prior to trial. However, the theoretical protection offered by the defense and the low incidence of actual judgments against government actors lulls government employees into acquiescence to the system. The emphasis that qualified immunity places on the reasonableness of the defendant's actions rather than on whether a constitutional right was violated is another way in which qualified immunity distorts civil rights law. Qualified immunity makes the essential issue of a civil rights claim the question of whether it would be too much of an inhibitor of government action to require a particular defendant to pay damages to the plaintiff. The focus is not, at least initially, on whether the plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated. This emphasis also makes it difficult to discern and consider which rights are or should be protected and which we are content not to protect with monetary compensation. Qualified immunity's harm is that it makes it difficult to see the policy choices made by courts in civil rights actions. Cloaking these policy choices in the qualified immunity doctrine avoids the possibility of an open debate concerning which civil rights should be protected and how. VI. CONCLUSION Given its obvious flaws, the continuation of qualified immunity as the key legal issue in civil rights cases can only be explained by the hidden purpose it serves; it avoids the divisive and perhaps unresolvable conflicts among participants in civil rights litigation. Qualified immunity accomplishes this conflict-avoiding function by giving judges wide latitude in making determinations about its application and by couching the outcomes of civil rights litigation in terms that make the substantive results difficult to perceive. These qualities account for the faithful adherence to a doctrine that is regarded as so unsatisfactory to so many. The problem with this conflict avoidance mechanism is that it allows unarticulated decisions to be made about the extent of liability for civil rights violations. Civil rights litigation does have limitations to it; every case is not given an opportunity to succeed. These determinations are being made; they are just not described as such. Using qualified immunity as a shield from the truth may buy us peace, but it keeps from us the tools required for reform. 36 - 37 - 38 - 39 - 40 -Part of the problem with qualified immunity is that it places to much burden on the defendant- this stifles civil rights action. 41 -Hassel 99, Diana. “Living A Lie: The Cost of Qualified Immunity.” Missouri Law Review Vol 64 Issue 1. 1999. Web. October 06, 2016. http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3402andcontext=mlr. 42 -The emphasis that qualified immunity places on the reasonableness of the defendant's actions rather than on whether a constitutional right was violated is another way in which qualified immunity distorts civil rights law. Qualified immunity makes the essential issue of a civil rights claim the question of whether it would be too much of an inhibitor of government action to require a particular defendant to pay damages to the plaintiff. The focus is not, at least initially, on whether the plaintiffs constitutional rights were violated. This emphasis also makes it difficult to discern and consider which rights are or should be protected and which we are content not to protect with monetary compensation. Qualified immunity's harm is that it makes it difficult to see the policy choices made by courts in civil rights actions. Cloaking these policy choices in the qualified immunity doctrine avoids the possibility of an open debate concerning which civil rights should be protected and how. 43 - 44 - 45 -Qualified immunity has allowed brutal practices such as chokeholds to persist within police departments. 46 -Rudovsky 16, David. “The Qualified Immunity Doctrine In The Supreme Court: Judicial Activism And The Restriction of Constitutional Rights.” Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. 1989. Web. October 06, 2016. http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2508andcontext=faculty_sc holarship. 47 -The issue of governmental authorization is also an integral factor in the constitutional calculus regarding standing in equitable actions under § 1983. The Court has ruled that plaintiffs have standing in § 1983 injunctive actions only where they can demonstrate a likelihood of future harm.6 ° In City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, the Court refused to grant injunctive relief to a plaintiff who had suffered permanent physical injuries when a police officer administered a “chokehold” in effecting an arrest, even though the record demonstrated that this police practice was commonly used in circumstances not justifying such force. The practice had caused sixteen deaths during a period of several years. The Court determined that the past injury had no continuing effects sufficient to provide standing for prospective relief and that the plaintiff was unable to show that he, as opposed to any other citizen, would again suffer the same unconstitutional conduct. Of particular significance to the Court was Lyons' failure to show that the chokehold was authorized by city policy. The Court viewed the use of the chokehold in the circumtances of the particular case, in which the plaintiff alleged no provocation or resistance on his part, as aberrational and unauthorized. Equitable relief was justified only if ”the City ordered or authorized police officers to act in such manner.” 48 - 49 -Contention 2: Racism (eric gardner, tamir rice) 50 - 51 -Qualified immunity reflects a culture of policing that justifies terrorizing black neighborhoods and lets police know they can get away with anything. Carter ‘15 52 -Tom Carter – WSWS Legal Correspondent, a lawyer (https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/02/24/cart-f24.html). “US Supreme Court Expands Immunity for Killer Cops.” Center for Research on Globalization. November 12, 2015. http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-supreme-court-expands-immunity-for-killer-cops/5488366 JJN 53 -When a civil rights case is summarily dismissed by a judge on the grounds of “qualified immunity,” the case is legally terminated. It never goes to trial before a jury and is never decided on its constitutional merits. In March of 2010, Texas Department of Public Safety Trooper Chadrin Mullenix climbed onto an overpass with a rifle and, disobeying a direct order from his supervisor, fired six shots at a vehicle that the police were pursuing. Mullenix was not in any danger, and his supervisor had told him to wait until other officers tried to stop the car using spike strips. Four shots struck Israel Leija, Jr., killing him and causing the car, which was going 85 miles per hour, to crash. After the shooting, Mullenix boasted to his supervisor, “How’s that for proactive?” The Luna v. Mullenix case was filed by Leija’s family members, who claimed that Mullenix used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights. The district court that originally heard the case, together with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, denied immunity to Mullenix on the grounds that his conduct violated clearly established law. The Supreme Court intervened to uphold the Mullenix’s entitlement to immunity—a decision that will set a precedent for the summary dismissal of civil rights lawsuits against police brutality around the country. This is the Supreme Court’s response to the ongoing wave of police mayhem and murder. The message is clear: The killings will continue. Do not question the police. If you disobey the police, you forfeit your life. So far this year, more than 1,000 people have been killed by the police in America. Almost every day, there are new videos posted online showing police shootings, intrusions into homes and cars, asphyxiations, beatings and taserings. Last week, two police officers in Louisiana opened fire on Jeremy Mardis, a six-year-old autistic boy, and his father Chris Few. The boy’s father had his hands up during the shooting and is currently hospitalized with serious injuries. His son succumbed to the police bullets while still buckled into the front seat of the car. The Supreme Court’s decision reflects the fact that in the face of rising popular anger over police killings, the entire political apparatus—including all of the branches of government—is closing ranks behind the police. This includes the establishment media, which has largely remained silent about Monday’s pro-police Supreme Court decision. The police operate with almost total impunity, confident that no matter what they do, they will have the backing of the state. Two weeks ago, a South Carolina grand jury refused to return an indictment against the officer who was caught on video killing 19-year-old Zachary Hammond. This follows the exoneration of the police who killed Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, Eric Garner in New York City and Tamir Rice in Cleveland. The Obama administration’s position regarding the surge of police violence was most clearly and simply articulated by FBI director James Comey in aspeech on October 23. “May God protect our cops,” Comey declared. He went on to accuse those who film the police of promoting violent crime. Meanwhile, in virtually every police brutality case that has come before the federal courts, the Obama administration has taken the side of the police. On Monday, the Supreme Court went out of its way to cite approvingly anamicus curiae (friend of court) brief filed by the National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO), which defended Mullenix. With this citation, notwithstanding its ostensible role as a neutral arbiter and guarantor of the Constitution, the Supreme Court sent a clear signal as to which side it is on. During the imposition of de facto martial law in Ferguson last year, NAPO issued statements vociferously defending Michael Brown’s killer, labeling demonstrators as “violent outsiders,” and denouncing “the violent idiots on the street chanting ‘time to kill a cop!’” “Qualified immunity” is a reactionary doctrine invented by judges in the later part of the 20th century to shield public officials from lawsuits. As a practical matter, this doctrine allows judges to toss out civil rights cases without a jury trial if, in the judge’s opinion, the official misconduct in question was not “plainly incompetent” or a “knowing violation of clearly established law.” Over recent decades, the doctrine has been stretched to Kafkaesque proportions to shield police officers from accountability. In the landmark case ofTennessee v. Garner (1985), the Supreme Court held that it violates the Constitution to shoot an “unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect,” and required an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury before the police could open fire. But the Supreme Court in its decision on Monday dismissed this language as constituting a “high level of generality” that was not “particular” enough to “clearly establish” any particular constitutional rights. Since cases that are dismissed on the grounds of qualified immunity do not result in decisions on the constitutional issues, this circular pseudo-logic ensures that no rights will ever be “clearly established.” It also ensures that, instead of the democratic procedure of a jury trial, cases involving the police will be decided by judges. The Supreme Court issued Monday’s decision without full briefing or oral argument, designating it “per curiam,” i.e., in the name of the court, not any specific judges. Justice Antonin Scalia filed a concurring opinion, displaying his trademark sophistry. According to Scalia, Mullenix did not use “deadly force” within the meaning of the Supreme Court’s prior cases, since he was shooting at a car, not a person. (Four bullets struck Leija, but none of the six shots struck the engine block at which Mullenix was supposedly aiming.) Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed the sole dissent, noting that this decision “renders the protections of the Fourth Amendment hollow,” and sanctions a “shoot first, think later” approach to policing. However, Sotomayor wrote that she would have used a “balancing” analysis instead, in which a “particular government interest” would need to be “balanced” against the use of deadly force. This “balancing” rhetoric mirrors the Obama administration’s justifications for assassination and domestic spying, according to which national security is balanced against democratic rights. The Bill of Rights itself—that old, yellow, forgotten piece of paper—does not make itself contingent on the subjective mental states of police officers, “clearly established law,” or the “balancing” of “government interests.” America confronts a massive social crisis. Decades of endless war and occupations abroad, the degradation of wages and living conditions at home, the enrichment of a tiny layer of financial criminals at the expense of the rest of the society, rampant speculation and corruption at the highest levels—these factors contribute to mounting social tensions and the danger, from the standpoint of the ruling class, of the growth of social opposition. Such opposition can already be seen, in its earliest stages, in the struggle by autoworkers against the sellout contract being imposed by the United Auto Workers union. Like the tyrant who proposes to solve the problem of hunger by imposing a hefty fine on everyone who starves, the Supreme Court’s decision Monday confirms that the entire social system has nothing to offer by way of a solution to the crisis except more of the same. The abrogation of democratic rights, torture, military commissions, drone assassinations, unlimited surveillance, the lockdown of entire cities, internment camps, beatings, murder, martial law, war—this is how the ruling class plans to deal with the social crisis. Notwithstanding the epidemic of police violence, the flow of unlimited cash and military hardware to police departments from the Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon continues unabated. The buildup of the police as a militarized occupation force operating outside the law, pumped up and ready to kill, must be seen as a part of preparations by the ruling class for mass repression and dictatorship in response to the growth of working class opposition. 54 - 55 -The court has a long history of discounting the interests of minority populations–qualified immunity just exacerbates racism entrenched in the system. 56 -Reinhardt 15 57 -Stephen R. Reinhardt, Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, “The Demise of Habeas Corpus and the Rise of Qualified Immunity: The Court’s Ever Increasing Lim-itations on the Development and Enforcement of Constitutional Rights and some Particularly Unfortunate Consequences,” Michigan Law Review, Vol. 113, 2015. 58 - 59 -The Court has often remarked that “to perform its high function in the best way, ’justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.”‘6 In a country in which a disproportionate number of individ-uals who are behind bars or have been treated unlawfully by law enforcement are minorities-indeed, a country in which black juveniles are more than four times as likely as white juveniles to be incarcerated, even though evidence shows that they commit many offenses at similar rates’ 66-satisfying the appearance of justice means ensuring that individuals do not remain in prison in violation of the Constitution or face excessive force at the hands of law enforcement without a proper remedy. On this score, the Court has simply failed in its mission. Unfortunately, the Court’s recent treatment of federal habeas law and qualified immunity shows a lack of sensitivity to the unequal treatment of minorities in our criminal justice system similar to that which has pervaded many of the Court’s decisions following the end of the Warren Court. The Burger Court, for example, effectively prevented federal courts from enjoining police forces from using dangerous chokeholds’ 67-the very practice that led to the death of Eric Garnerl 68-while show-ing no regard for the fact that black men make up 9 of Los Angeles’s population at the time, but “account for 75 of the deaths resulting from the use of chokeholds.” 69 The Rehnquist Court saw no Equal Protection Clause issue with the death penalty despite being presented with evidence that “defendants charged with killing white victims were 4.3 times as likely to receive a death sentence as defendants charged with killing blacks.”17o Nor was the Rehnquist Court will-ing to allow black defendants to proceed on a claim of race-based, selective prosecution, despite the fact that prosecutions for distributing cocaine base under the harsher federal statute, rather than the more lenient state statute, were seemingly reserved for black defendants alone.171 60 - 61 -Qualified immunity stacks the deck against minorities 62 -Reinhardt 15 63 -Stephen R. Reinhardt, Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, “The Demise of Habeas Corpus and the Rise of Qualified Immunity: The Court’s Ever Increasing Lim-itations on the Development and Enforcement of Constitutional Rights and some Particularly Unfortunate Consequences,” Michigan Law Review, Vol. 113, 2015. 64 -This is an especially unfortunate time to be limiting the opportunities of those who have been unconstitutionally convicted or sentenced by the courts to gain their freedom. It is an equally unfortunate time to be preventing those who have been unlawfully treated by law enforcement from seeking the remedies provided under one of our first civil rights acts.‘6’ Both movements are taking our law in the wrong direction. Confidence in our legal system is probably at an all-time low among minorities, while their belief that they receive unfair and unequal treatment at the hands of law enforcement may well be at an all-time high. This is a particularly sensitive matter, as so disproportionate a number of those incarcerated in our penal institutionsl62 and so disproportionate a number of those subjected to excessive force by law enforcement are members of minority groups.‘6 3 The clear perception of the minority community, right or wrong, is that justice in this nation is stacked against them.’” 65 - 66 -Contention 3: Queer Oppression 67 -Judges fail to protect queer bodies under heavy usage of qualified immunity 68 -Wagner 14 69 -Robin B. Wagner, (J.D. Candidate 2014, DePaul University College of Law.) Are Gay Rights Clearly Established?: The Problems with the Qualified Immunity Doctrine, 63 DePaul L. Rev. 869 (2014) Available at: http://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol63/iss3/7 70 -Therefore, when three cases on facts that easily sufficed for allegations¶ of equal protection violations came before 71 -three courts in three¶ different circuits in the same year and resulted in three different outcomes,¶ it is clear that there is a problem with the qualified immunity¶ doctrine. Under the Roberts Court, the qualified immunity doctrine¶ has become more generous to defendants with an increasing requirement¶ for circuit unanimity and an emerging approach to rational-basis¶ review that protects decision makers’ discretion. The problems arising¶ in qualified immunity doctrine are particularly apparent when evaluating¶ constitutional rights related to queer bodies, because the key Supreme Court cases did not rely wholly on the established methodologies¶ for equal protection and due process analysis.¶ In the hands of judges who under no consent apply precedent or¶ wish to avoid hot-button social policy topics, the qualified immunity¶ doctrine can prevent plaintiffs from vindicating their rights and further¶ weaken the “private attorney general” approach to rights claims.¶ During the civil rights 72 -era, the courts played a leading role in recognizing¶ and expanding civil rights for people of color. In this era of gay¶ civil rights, the courts should not be the slower and less reliable vehicle¶ for recognizing implicit rights. If courts were to more regularly¶ apply the prong-one analysis of qualified immunity and faithfully adhere¶ to the actual holdings of Supreme Court precedent, the law related¶ to civil rights violations under § 1983 could provide both parties¶ with the predictability they need and deserve from the law. 73 -LGBTQ Rights are crucial 74 -Tatchell ’89 75 -Peter Tatchell - is a British human rights campaignerbest known for his work with LGBT social movements, was selected as Labour Party Parliamentary candidate for Bermondsey. “Gay Liberation is Central to Human Emancipation.” Peter Tatchell.net. However, note at the bottom: “An edited version of this article was published in "Labour Briefing", 1989. See also "Beyond lesbian and gay rights", Interlink. May /June 1989.” http://www.petertatchell.net/masculinity/gay_liberation.htm JJN *bracketed for offensive language 76 -Lesbian and gay LGTBQ liberation is of critical importance to the broader project of human emancipation. It is not merely a minority issue, nor purely a question of civil rights and sexual freedom. The ultimate aim is a cultural revolution to end heterosexual supremacism and the concomitant cult of heterosexual masculinity which underpins all relations of oppression and exploitation. This was the revolutionary agenda of the lesbian and gay liberation movement which emerged 20 years ago following the Stonewall Riots in New York in June 1969. In contrast to earlier liberal-oriented movements for homosexual equality, the lesbian and gay liberation movement did not seek to ape heterosexual values or secure the acceptance of homosexuals within the existing sexual conventions. Indeed, it repudiated the prevailing sexual morality and institutions - rejecting not only heterosexism but also heterosexual masculinity with its oppressive predisposition to rivalry, toughness and aggression (most potently symbolised by the rapist and the queer-basher). In contrast the "radical drag" and''gender-bender" politics of the Gay Liberation Front glorified male gentleness. It was a conscious, if sometimes exaggerated, attempt to renounce the oppressiveness of masculinity and subvert the way masculinity functions to buttress the subordination of women and gay men. Lesbian and gay liberation is therefore truly revolutionary because it specifically rejects the male heterosexual cult of masculine competitiveness, domination and violence. Instead, it affirms the worthwhileness of male sensitivity and affection between men and, in the case of lesbians, the intrinsic value of an eroticism and love independent of heterosexual men. By challenging heterosexual masculinity, the politics of lesbian and gay liberation has profound radical implications for oppressed peoples everywhere: it actively subverts the male heterosexual machismo' values which lie at the heart of all systems of domination, exploitation and oppression. Lesbian and gay liberation is therefore not an issue which is peripheral. It is, indeed absolutely central to revolutionary change and human liberation in general. Without the successful construction of a cult of heterosexual masculinity and a mass of aggressive male egos, neither sexual, class, racial, species, nor imperialist oppression are possible. All these different forms of oppression depend on two factors for their continued maintenance. First, on specific economic and political structures. And second, on a significant proportion of the population, mainly heterosexual men, being socialised into the acceptance of harsh masculine values which involve the legitimisation of aggression and the suppression of gentleness and emotion. The embracing of these culturally-conditioned macho values, whether consciously or unconsciously, is what makes so many millions of people able to participate in repressive regimes. (This interaction between social structures, ideology and individual psychology was a thesis which the communist psychologist, Wilhelm Reich, was attempting to articulate nearly 60 years ago in his book, The Mass Psychology of Fascism). In the case of German fascism, what Nazism did was merely awake and excite the latent brutality which is intrinsic to heterosexual masculinity in class societies. It then systematically manipulated and organised this unleashed masculine violence into a fascist regime of terror and torture which culminated in the holocaust. Since it is the internalisation of the masculine cult of toughness and domination which makes people psychologically suited and willing to be part of oppressive relations of exploitation and subjection, repressive states invariably glorify masculine "warrior" ideals and legally and ideologically suppress those men - mainly homosexuals - who fail to conform to them. Given that this internalisation of masculine aggression within the male population is a prerequisite for injustice and tyranny, love and tenderness between men ceases to be a purely private matter or simply a question of personal lifestyle. Instead, it objectively becomes an act of subversion which undermines the very foundations of oppression. Hence the Nazis' vilification of gay men as "sexual subversives" and "sexual saboteurs" who, in the words of Heinrich Himmler, had to be "exterminated- root and branch." In conclusion: the goal of eradicating injustice and exploitation requires us to change both the social structure and the individual personality to create people who, liberated from masculinity, no longer psychologically crave the power to dominate and exploit others and who are therefore unwilling to be the agents of oppressive regimes (whether as soldiers, police, gaolers and censors or as routine civil servants and state administrators who act as the passive agents of repression by keeping the day-to-day machinery of unjust government ticking over). By challenging the cult of heterosexual masculinity, lesbian and gay liberation politics is about much more than the limited agenda of human rights. It offers a unique and revolutionary contribution to the emancipation of the whole of humanity from all forms of oppression and subjugation. 77 - 78 -Contention 4: Ableism (Latonya Davis) 79 -Qualified immunity goes against actions for damages brought under American’s with disabilities 80 -Gildin 99 81 -Gildin, Gary S. (Professor of Law, The Dickinson School of Law of the Pennsylvania State 82 -University.) "Dis-Qualified Immunity for Discrimination against the Disabled." University of Illinois Law Review 1999.3 (1999): 897-948. 83 -In his article Professor Gildin challenges the applicability of¶ the qualified immunity defense in actions brought under the federal¶ disability statutes. Specifically, he contends that the qualified immunity¶ defense should not be available in actions for damages¶ brought under the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities¶ Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.¶ Although these acts are very powerful tools to protect the rights of¶ disabled individuals, lower courts have slowly eviscerated a key enforcement¶ mechanism-the remedy of money damages-by transferring¶ the qualified immunity defense permitted in § 1983 actions¶ to actions brought under 84 -these acts. In support of his thesis, Professor¶ Gildin analyzes the text and legislative histories of these acts¶ and argues that neither of these supports the existence of the qualified¶ immunity defense. He also finds that there is no historical¶ linkage between § 1983 and the disability statutes that justifies borrowing¶ qualified immunity from § 1983. Finally, Professor Gildin¶ argues that judges should not legislate this defense as Congress at¶ the time it enacted the disability statutes did not intend for this defense¶ to be available. 85 - 86 -Qualified immunity is totally unjustified in this context – prevents discrimination suits 87 -Gildin 99 88 -Gildin, Gary S. (Professor of Law, The Dickinson School of Law of the Pennsylvania State 89 -University.) "Dis-Qualified Immunity for Discrimination against the Disabled." University of Illinois Law Review 1999.3 (1999): 897-948. 90 -The legislative instruction that the Acts be broadly construed to¶ afford relief to victims of disability discrimination obviously repudiates¶ a qualified immunity defense that does not appear on the face of¶ the statutes. Rather than promote relief, the qualified immunity defense¶ deprives the victim of a damage remedy against the government¶ official who intentionally engaged in the proscribed discrimination on¶ the basis of 91 -disability. In fact, in two circumstances the immunity defense¶ would have the effect of entirely barring recovery of the damages¶ caused by intentional discrimination. First, because damages may not be obtained from the federal government¶ under the Rehabilitation Act or the ADA,165 a disabled person¶ would be left without compensation for harms suffered as a¶ consequence of intentional discrimination caused by a federal official¶ who successfully asserts the qualified immunity defense. Second, immunity¶ may have the effect of precluding recovery of damages for 92 -discriminatory¶ acts of state and local officials. Although state and local¶ governmental entities are not sheltered by any immunity, the courts¶ may require that plaintiff prove that the discrimination was inflicted¶ pursuant to a governmental 93 -custom or policy before the entity will be¶ held liable.166 If the discriminatory acts of a public official do not represent¶ governmental custom or policy, the entity may not be liable. If¶ at the same time the state or local official is exonerated under the¶ qualified immunity defense, the risk of loss from violations of the disability¶ discrimination statutes will be borne by the least appropriate¶ party, the victim of discrimination. Congress has repeatedly made¶ plain its intent that the Acts should be construed, without exception,¶ to afford relief when public officials discriminate against the disabled.¶ Because qualified immunity impedes, and in some cases defeats, recovery of the damages caused by violation of the Acts, the defense¶ must not be made available to those who discriminate. 94 - 95 -Underview 96 -Limiting qualified immunity is key for change 97 -Wright 15 Sam Wright (Public Interest Lawyer). “Want to Fight Police Misconduct? Reform Qualified Immunity.” Above the Law. 3 November 2015. http://abovethelaw.com/2015/11/want-to-fight-police-misconduct-reform-qualified-immunity/ 98 - 99 -In order to truly hold police accountable for bad acts, civilians must be able to bring, and win, civil rights suits themselves — not rely on the Department of Justice, or special prosecutors, or civilian review boards to hold officers accountable. And in order to both bring and win civil rights suits, civilians need a level playing field in court. Right now, they don’t have one. Instead, police officers have recourse to the broad protections of the judicially established doctrine of qualified immunity. Under this doctrine, state actors are protected from suit even if they’ve violated the law by, say, using excessive force, or performing an unwarranted body cavity search — as long as their violation was not one of “clearly established law of which a reasonable officer would be aware.” In other words, if there’s not already a case where a court has held that an officer’s identical or near-identical conduct rose to the level of a constitutional violation, there’s a good chance that even an officer will avoid liability — will avoid accountability. To bring about true accountability and change police behavior, this needs to change. And change should begin with an act of Congress rolling back qualified immunity. Removing the “clearly established” element of qualified immunity would be a good start — after all, shouldn’t it be enough to deviate from a basic standard of care, to engage in conduct that a reasonable officer would know is illegal, without having to show that that conduct’s illegality has already been clearly established in the courts? That’s just a start. There are plenty of other reforms that could open up civil rights lawsuits and help ensure police accountability for bad conduct. Two posts (one, two) at Balkinization by City University of New York professor Lynda Dodd provide a good overview. Campaign Zero should consider adding civil rights litigation reform to its platform, our policymakers should consider making civil rights litigation more robust, and, if we want to see justice done, we should push to make it happen. 100 -The AFF changes culture – it is a form of social condemnation that validates the claims of the survivor. Armacost 98 101 -Aramco’s 98 Barbara Armacost, Vanderbilt Law Review, April, 1998, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=90852, “Qualified Immunity: Ignorance Excused,” WP 102 -If constitutional rights are especially valued in comparison with other kinds of rights, it follows that constitutional violations would be viewed by society as especially serious and deserving of opprobrium. There is reason to think this is so. Constitutional violations, especially those that are likely to give rise to section 1983 suits, involve abuses of power by governmental actors. The implications of official misconduct go far beyond the concrete harm to persons or property suffered by any one individual. Public officials are, after all, charged with upholding and enforcing the law and acting for the public good. When officials use their public offices to engage in lawbreaking, there is a betrayal of trust that is experienced not only by the individual, but by the entire community. n432 Consider, for example, *675 the public outcry that was engendered by the beating of Rodney King by Los Angeles police officers. The image of a circle of uniformed law enforcement officials beating an unarmed man lying crumpled on the ground is troubling in a way that a private beating is not. Similar reactions accompanied recent allegations that New York City police officers openly beat and sodomized (with a toilet plunger) a young Haitian immigrant in the bathroom at the police station. n433 When the malefactor is a governmental official whose injurious conduct was made possible by her official authority and position, "ordinary injury is augmented by the abuse of governmental power." n434 In such cases wrongdoing that could "be described as trespass, assault and battery, false imprisonment, or defamation takes on new urgency." n435 If the law-enforcers cannot be trusted to conduct themselves according to the law, then who can? Governmental abuse of power creates a sense of indignation on the part of the governed, and special opprobrium is reserved for abusers of the public trust. n436∂ If individual liability for constitutional violations entails wrongdoing and signals societal condemnation, then it would make sense to retain such liability even if the financial burden is ultimately borne by the governmental employer rather than by the individual official. n437 Indeed, in the criminal context it has been argued that the *676 moral blame entailed by a criminal conviction is more important in discouraging antisocial conduct than the threat of official sanctions. n438 One need not go that far to accept that the human desire to avoid societal opprobrium plays an important role in gaining compliance with the criminal law. n439 Similarly, the societal condemnation accompanying damages liability for constitutional violations enhances the law's power to reduce unconstitutional conduct and reinforce constitutional norms. Moreover, the stigma entailed in such liability plays an important role in communicating those norms, not only through final verdicts in courts but through public reaction to reported allegations of clear constitutional impropriety. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-02 19:51:51.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Kimberly Herrera - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Whitefish Bay RD - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -18 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Appleton East Moorhead Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -NOVDEC- TheDramaticInterpretation - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -West Bend
- Caselist.CitesClass[18]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,4 +1,0 @@ 1 -1. Education 2 -2. Fairness 3 -3. Skills 4 -4. Ground - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-02 19:52:37.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Brian Devine - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Brookfield East TG - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -19 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Octas - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Appleton East Moorhead Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -0- No Condo Pls - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Alexandra Hoechrel Challenge
- Caselist.CitesClass[20]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -2017-01-02 19:55:14. 5091 +2017-01-02 19:55:14.0
- Caselist.RoundClass[18]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -17 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-02 19:51:50.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Kimberly Herrera - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Whitefish Bay RD - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -West Bend
- Caselist.RoundClass[19]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -18 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-02 19:52:35.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Brian Devine - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Brookfield East TG - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Octas - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Alexandra Hoechrel Challenge
- Caselist.RoundClass[21]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +20
- Caselist.CitesClass[22]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,6 @@ 1 +Interp: debaters not run more than one conditional advocacy 2 + 3 +1. Education 4 +2. Fairness 5 +3. Ground 6 +4. Skills - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-17 00:03:10.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Brian Devine - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Brookfield East TG - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +23 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Octas - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Appleton East Moorhead Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +0- no condo pls - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Alexandra Hoechrel Challenge
- Caselist.CitesClass[23]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,84 @@ 1 +The role of the ballot is to vote for the best political strategy for liberation of the oppressed and that creates the best framework for education 2 +Giroux 10 3 +Henry Giroux. “Rethinking Education As The Practice of Freedom: Paulo Freire and the Promise of Critical Pedagogy.” Truthout. January 3rd, 2010. http://archive.truthout.org/10309_Giroux_Freire 4 +a) Paulo was a cosmopolitan intellectual, who never overlooked the details in everyday life and 5 +b) AND 6 +c) we are unlikely to get the truth since we aren’t considering all perspectives. 7 + 8 +This requires a change in the way education itself is conceived. The education system is dominated by Neoliberal ideology, which has been indoctrinated through public education Hyslop 12 9 +Hyslop-Margison, Emery. "Post Neo-Liberalism And The Humanities: What The Repressive State Apparatus Means For Universities." Canadian Journal of Higher Education. 2012. 10 +The discourse that dominates current public education policy development suggests that neo-liberal logic 11 +AND 12 +and political studies, might be eliminated through a lack of public funding. 13 + 14 +The ideology created in public education celebrates neoliberalism, while professors breaking down oppressive structures are fired by powerful lobbyist groups, a democratized version of free speech is key to breaking down oppression Khan 15 15 +http://www.anarchistagency.com/commentary/masking-oppression-as-free-speech-an-anarchist-take/ “MASKING OPPRESSION AS “FREE SPEECH”: AN ANARCHIST TAKE”; October 28, 2015 Tariq Khan 16 +Last year the American Indian Studies Program at the University of Illinois, Urbana- 17 +AND 18 +go unchecked under the guise of a disingenuous notion of “free speech.” 19 + 20 +Neoliberalist public education is only being used as a tool to destroy education and eliminate critical ideas Hyslop 12 21 +Hyslop-Margison, Emery. "Post Neo-Liberalism And The Humanities: What The Repressive State Apparatus Means For Universities." Canadian Journal of Higher Education. 2012. 22 +We believe the importance of public discursive spaces to democratic society and the current threats 23 +AND 24 +the pressure to say something false or hasty” (p. 51). 25 + 26 +The attack on the university has led to the government restricting the free flow of scholarly ideas, using the war on terror to justify the denial of intellectual’s visa’s and destroying any critical thought Giroux 06 27 +“Henry A. Giroux” “Fall 2006 “Academic Freedom Under Fire: The Case for Critical Pedagogy; pp. 1-42 | 10.1353/lit.2006.0051 28 +In light if this authoritarian agenda, the Bush administration has made it difficult for 29 +AND 30 +restricting open inquiry, critical knowledge, and dissent in the United States. 31 + 32 +Part 2 is Solvency 33 + 34 +Plan Text: Public Colleges and Universities ought to critically interrogate educational perspectives to respect the constitutional rights for free speech to help oppressed fringes of society 35 + 36 +Critical Pedagogy is necessary for educators to break down oppressive structures throughout society, it is the imperative of educators to endorse a critical pedagogy Giroux 06 37 +“Henry A. Giroux” “Fall 2006 “Academic Freedom Under Fire: The Case for Critical Pedagogy; pp. 1-42 | 10.1353/lit.2006.0051 38 +While most defenders of the university as a democratic public sphere rightly argue that the 39 +AND 40 +now at risk in the latest and most dangerous attack on higher education. 41 + 42 +The purpose of the university is to challenge student’s worldview, not inoculate current ideologies Giroux 06 43 +“Henry A. Giroux” “Fall 2006 “Academic Freedom Under Fire: The Case for Critical Pedagogy; pp. 1-42 | 10.1353/lit.2006.0051 44 +What is disturbing about these instances is that aggrieved students and their sympathizers appear entirely 45 +AND 46 +Politcal Correctness is a tool used right win pundits to suppress oppressed people’s voices 47 + 48 +The assault of right wing organization on freedom in the academy epistemologically corrupt knowledge and perpetuate oppressive norms, we need to endorse a different form of education to fix the assault on higher education Giroux 06 49 +“Henry A. Giroux” “Fall 2006 “Academic Freedom Under Fire: The Case for Critical Pedagogy; pp. 1-42 | 10.1353/lit.2006.0051 50 +One gets the sense that conservative educators from Lynne Cheney to Ann D. Neal 51 +AND 52 +one of the very few remaining democratic public spheres in the United States today 53 + 54 +Today ideas of political correctness are used as a tool used right win pundits to suppress oppressed people’s voices Bryant Williams et al 16 55 +Bryant William Sculos and Sean Noah Walsh (2016): The Counterrevolutionary Campus: Herbert Marcuse and the Suppression of Student Protest Movements, New Political Science, DOI: 10.1080/07393148.2016.1228580 56 +Besides the hypocritical critiques from right-wing pundits and presidential candidates, what the 57 +AND 58 +are threatened to be silenced, and silenced as university or state policy. 59 + 60 +Balance is a flawed concept that is used to censor liberal ideas Giroux 06 61 +“Henry A. Giroux” “Fall 2006 “Academic Freedom Under Fire: The Case for Critical Pedagogy; pp. 1-42 | 10.1353/lit.2006.0051 62 +As Stanley Fish has argued, balance is a flawed concept and should be understood 63 +AND 64 +interlocutors presume that liberal academics are to be equated with an evil menace. 65 + 66 +Part 3 is the Underview 67 + 68 +Aff gets RVIs on I meets and counter-interps because 69 +(a) 1AR timeskew means I can’t cover theory and still have a fair shot on substance. 70 +(b) no risk theory would give neg a free source of no risk offense which allows him to moot the AC. 71 +2. The neg must defend one unconditional advocacy. Conditionality is bad because it makes the neg a moving target which kills 1AR strategy. He’ll kick it if I cover it and extend it if I undercover it, meaning I have no strategic options. Also, it’s unreciprocal because I can’t kick the AC. 72 +Kritik without real solutions is doomed to fail, we need to start building real solutions to the problem, liberating against oppression requires material change in ideological spaces Bryan William et al 16 73 +Bryant William Sculos and Sean Noah Walsh (2016): The Counterrevolutionary Campus: Herbert Marcuse and the Suppression of Student Protest Movements, New Political Science, DOI: 10.1080/07393148.2016.1228580 74 +Importantly, we must not limit ourselves to merely critiquing existing oppressions, or just 75 +AND 76 +embodied that impetus here and shown it to be more relevant than ever. 77 + 78 +Higher educational facilities destroy environmental policy discussion Khan 16 79 +Kahn, Richard. "Operation Get Fired: A Chronicle Of The Academic Repression Of Radical 80 +Environmentalist And Animal R." Antioch University. November 2016. 81 +http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.492.988andrep=rep1andtype=pdf 82 +In closing this section, attention must be paid to the manner in which higher 83 +AND 84 +which works in ways that serve to damage academia’s intellectual and civic mission. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-17 00:07:20.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Josh You - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +La Canada AZ - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +24 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Appleton East Moorhead Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB- Pedagogy AC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Blake
- Caselist.CitesClass[24]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,58 @@ 1 +Part 1 is Neoliberalism 2 + 3 +In the status quo Neoliberalism has led to the rise of Trump and destroyed critical thought, destroying culture and making ethical calculations impossible leading to the militarization of society, action now is key to breaking down this structure Giroux 16 4 +Henry A Giroux; "Donald Trump and the Plague of Atomization in a Neoliberal Age"; August 8th 2016; (www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/37133-donald-trump-and-the-plague-of-atomization-in-a- neoliberal-age) 5 + 6 +This week, Donald Trump lowered the bar even further by attacking the Muslim parents of US Army Captain Humayan Khan, who was killed in 2004 by a suicide bomber while he was trying to save the lives of the men in his unit. This stunt was just the latest example of his chillingly successful media strategy, which is based not on changing consciousness but on freezing it within a flood of shocks, sensations and simplistic views. It was of a piece with Trump's past provocations, such as his assertion that Mexicans who illegally entered the country are rapists and drug dealers, his effort to defame Fox News host Megyn Kelly by referring to her menstrual cycle, and his questioning of the heroism and bravery of former prisoner-of-war Senator John McCain. This media strategy only succeeds due to the deep cultural and political effects of neoliberalism in our society ~-~- effects that include widespread atomization and depoliticization. For more original Truthout election coverage, check out our election section, "Beyond the Sound Bites: Election 2016." I have recently returned to reading Leo Lowenthal, particularly his insightful essay, "Terror's Atomization of Man," first published in the January 1, 1946 issue of Commentary and reprinted in his book, False Prophets: Studies in Authoritarianism. He writes about the atomization of human beings under a state of fear that approximates a kind of updated fascist terror. What he understood with great insight, even in 1946, is that democracy cannot exist without the educational, political and formative cultures and institutions that make it possible. He observed that atomized individuals are not only prone to the forces of depoliticization but also to the false swindle and spirit of demagogues, to discourses of hate, and to appeals that demonize and objectify the Other. Lowenthal is helpful in illuminating the relationship between the underlying isolation individuals feel in an age of precarity, uncertainty and disposability and the dark shadows of authoritarianism threatening to overcome the United States. Within this new historical conjuncture, finance capital rules, producing extremes of wealth for the 1 percent, promoting cuts to government services, and defunding investments in public goods, such as public and higher education, in order to offset tax reductions for the ultra-rich and big corporations. Meanwhile millions are plunged into either the end-station of poverty or become part of the mass incarceration state. Mass fear is normalized as violence increasingly becomes the default logic for handling social problems. In an age where everything is for sale, ethical accountability is rendered a liability and the vocabulary of empathy is viewed as a weakness, reinforced by the view that individual happiness and its endless search for instant gratification is more important than supporting the public good and embracing an obligation to care for others. Americans are now pitted against each other as neoliberalism puts a premium on competitive cage-like relations that degrade collaboration and the public spheres that support it. To read more articles by Henry A. Giroux and other authors in the Public Intellectual Project, click here. Within neoliberal ideology, an emphasis on competition in every sphere of life promotes a winner-take-all ethos that finds its ultimate expression in the assertion that fairness has no place in a society dominated by winners and losers. As William Davies points out, competition in a market-driven social order allows a small group of winners to emerge while at the same time sorting out and condemning the vast majority of institutions, organizations and individuals "to the status of losers." As has been made clear in the much publicized language of Donald Trump, both as a reality TV host of "The Apprentice" and as a presidential candidate, calling someone a "loser" has little to do with them losing in the more general sense of the term. On the contrary, in a culture that trades in cruelty and divorces politics from matters of ethics and social responsibility, "loser" is now elevated to a pejorative insult that humiliates and justifies not only symbolic violence, but also (as Trump has made clear in many of his rallies) real acts of violence waged against his critics, such as members of the Movement for Black Lives. As Greg Elmer and Paula Todd observe, "to lose is possible, but to be a 'loser' is the ultimate humiliation that justifies taking extreme, even immoral measures." They write: We argue that the Trumpesque "loser" serves as a potent new political symbol, a caricature that Trump has previously deployed in his television and business careers to sidestep complex social issues and justify winning at all costs. As the commercial for his 1980s board game "Trump" enthused, "It's not whether you win or lose, but whether you win!" Indeed, in Trump's world, for some to win many more must lose, which helps explain the breath-taking embrace by some of his racist, xenophobic, and misogynist communication strategy. The more losers ~-~- delineated by Trump based on every form of "otherism" ~-~- the better the odds of victory. Atomization fueled by a fervor for unbridled individualism produces a pathological disdain for community, public values and the public good. As democratic pressures are weakened, authoritarian societies resort to fear, so as to ward off any room for ideals, visions and hope. Efforts to keep this room open are made all the more difficult by the ethically tranquilizing presence of a celebrity and commodity culture that works to depoliticize people. The realms of the political and the social imagination wither as shared responsibilities and obligations give way to an individualized society that elevates selfishness, avarice and militaristic modes of competition as its highest organizing principles. Under such circumstances, the foundations for stability are being destroyed, with jobs being shipped overseas, social provisions destroyed, the social state hollowed out, public servants and workers under a relentless attack, students burdened with the rise of a neoliberal debt machine, and many groups considered disposable. At the same time, these acts of permanent repression are coupled with new configurations of power and militarization normalized by a neoliberal regime in which an ideology of mercilessness has become normalized; under such conditions, one dispenses with any notion of compassion and holds others responsible for problems they face, problems over which they have no control. In this case, shared responsibilities and hopes have been replaced by the isolating logic of individual responsibility, a false notion of resiliency, and a growing resentment toward those viewed as strangers. We live in an age of death-dealing loneliness, isolation and militarized atomization. If you believe the popular press, loneliness is reaching epidemic proportions in advanced industrial societies. A few indices include the climbing suicide rate of adolescent girls; the rising deaths of working-class, less-educated white men; and the growing drug overdose crises raging across small towns and cities throughout America. Meanwhile, many people often interact more with their cell phones, tablets and computers than they do with embodied subjects. Disembodiment in this view is at the heart of a deeply alienating neoliberal society in which people shun in-person relationships for virtual ones. In this view, the warm glow of the computer screen can produce and reinforce a new type of alienation, isolation and sense of loneliness. At the same time, it is important to note that in some cases digital technologies have also enabled young people who are hyper-connected to their peers online to increase their face-to-face time by coordinating spontaneous meetups, in addition to staying connected with each other near-constantly virtually. How this dialectic plays out will in part be determined by the degree to which young people can be educated to embrace modes of agency in which a connection to other human beings, however diverse, becomes central to their understanding of the value of creating bonds of sociality. Needless to say, however, blaming the internet itself ~-~- which has also helped forge connections, and has facilitated movement-building and much wider accessibility of information ~-~- is too easy. We live in a society in which notions of dependence, compassion, mutuality, care for the other and sociality are undermined by a neoliberal ethic in which self-interest and greed become the organizing principles of one's life and a survival-of-the fittest ethic breeds a culture that at best promotes an indifference to the plight of others and at worst, a disdain for the less fortunate and support for a widespread culture of cruelty. Isolated individuals do not make up a healthy democratic society. New Forms of Alienation and Isolation A more theoretical language produced by Marx talked about alienation as a separation from the fruits of one's labor. While that is certainly truer than ever, the separation and isolation now is more extensive and governs the entirety of social life in a consumer-based society run by the demands of commerce and the financialization of everything. Isolation, privatization and the cold logic of instrumental rationality have created a new kind of social formation and social order in which it becomes difficult to form communal bonds, deep connections, a sense of intimacy, and long term commitments. Neoliberalism fosters the viewing of pain and suffering as entertainment, warfare a permanent state of existence, and militarism as the most powerful force shaping masculinity. Politics has taken an exit from ethics and thus the issue of social costs is divorced from any form of intervention in the world. For example, under neoliberalism, economic activity is removed from its ethical and social consequences and takes a flight from any type of moral consideration. This is the ideological metrics of political zombies. The key word here is atomization, and it is the defining feature of neoliberal societies and the scourge of democracy. At the heart of any type of politics wishing to challenge this flight into authoritarianism is not merely the recognition of economic structures of domination, but something more profound ~-~- a politics which points to the construction of particular identities, values, social relations, or more broadly, agency itself. Central to such a recognition is the fact that politics cannot exist without people investing something of themselves in the discourses, images and representations that come at them daily. Rather than suffering alone, lured into the frenzy of hateful emotion, individuals need to be able to identify ~-~- see themselves and their daily lives ~-~- within progressive critiques of existing forms of domination and how they might address such issues not individually but collectively. This is a particularly difficult challenge today because the menace of atomization is reinforced daily not only by a coordinated neoliberal assault against any viable notion of the social but also by an authoritarian and finance-based culture that couples a rigid notion of privatization with a flight from any sense of social and moral responsibility. The culture apparatuses controlled by the 1 percent, including the mainstream media and entertainment industries, are the most powerful educational forces in society and they have become disimagination machines ~-~- apparatuses of misrecognition and brutality. Collective agency is now atomized, devoid of any viable embrace of the social. Under such circumstances, domination does not merely repress through its apparatuses of terror and violence, but also ~-~- as Pierre Bourdieu argues ~-~- through the intellectual and pedagogical, which "lie on the side of belief and persuasion." Too many people on the left have defaulted on this enormous responsibility for recognizing the educative nature of politics and the need for appropriating the tools, if not weapons, provided by the symbolic and pedagogical for challenging this form of domination, working 7 + 8 + 9 +Neoliberalism shapes any other moral framework, achieving morality is impossible if we do not address neoliberalism 10 +Thus, the role of the ballot is to vote for the debater best who resists neoliberalism to reclaim higher education 11 +Prefer my FW because any other ethical criteria refuses to question the power relations in society destroying education 12 +Giroux 13 (Henry, American scholar and cultural critic. One of the founding theorists of critical pedagogy in the United States, he is best known for his pioneering work in public pedagogy, “Public Intellectuals Against the Neoliberal University,” 29 October 2013, http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/19654-public-intellectuals-against-the-neoliberal-university)// 13 + 14 +Increasingly, as universities are shaped by an audit culture, the call to be objective and impartial, whatever one's intentions, can easily echo what George Orwell called the official truth or the establishment point of view. Lacking a self-consciously democratic political focus, teachers are often reduced, or reduce themselves, to the role of a technician or functionary engaged in formalistic rituals, unconcerned with the disturbing and urgent problems that confront the larger society or the consequences of one's pedagogical practices and research undertakings. Hiding behind appeals to balance and objectivity, too many scholars refuse to recognize that being committed to something does not cancel out what C. Wright Mills once called hard thinking. Teaching needs to be rigorous, self-reflective, and committed not to the dead zone of instrumental rationality but to the practice of freedom, to a critical sensibility capable of advancing the parameters of knowledge, addressing crucial social issues, and connecting private troubles and public issues. In opposition to the instrumental model of teaching, with its conceit of political neutrality and its fetishization of measurement, I argue that academics should combine the mutually interdependent roles of critical educator and active citizen. This requires finding ways to connect the practice of classroom teaching with important social problems and the operation of power in the larger society while providing the conditions for students to view themselves as critical agents capable of making those who exercise authority and power answerable for their actions. Higher education cannot be decoupled from what Jacques Derrida calls a democracy to come, that is, a democracy that must always "be open to the possibility of being contested, of contesting itself, of criticizing and indefinitely improving itself."33 Within this project of possibility and impossibility, critical pedagogy must be understood as a deliberately informed and purposeful political and moral practice, as opposed to one that is either doctrinaire, instrumentalized or both. Moreover, a critical pedagogy should also gain part of its momentum in higher education among students who will go back to the schools, churches, synagogues and workplaces to produce new ideas, concepts and critical ways of understanding the world in which young people and adults live. This is a notion of intellectual practice and responsibility that refuses the professional neutrality and privileged isolation of the academy. It also affirms a broader vision of learning that links knowledge to the power of self-definition and to the capacities of students to expand the scope of democratic freedoms, particularly those that address the crisis of education, politics, and the social as part and parcel of the crisis of democracy itself. In order for critical pedagogy, dialogue and thought to have real effects, they must advocate that all citizens, old and young, are equally entitled, if not equally empowered, to shape the society in which they live. This is a commitment we heard articulated by the brave students who fought tuition hikes and the destruction of civil liberties and social provisions in Quebec and to a lesser degree in the Occupy Wall Street movement. If educators are to function as public intellectuals, they need to listen to young people who are producing a new language in order to talk about inequality and power relations, attempting to create alternative democratic public spaces, rethinking the very nature of politics, and asking serious questions about what democracy is and why it no longer exists in many neoliberal societies. These young people who are protesting the 1 recognize that they have been written out of the discourses of justice, equality and democracy and are not only resisting how neoliberalism has made them expendable, they are arguing for a collective future very different from the one that is on display in the current political and economic systems in which they feel trapped. These brave youth are insisting that the relationship between knowledge and power can be emancipatory, that their histories and experiences matter, and that what they say and do counts in their struggle to unlearn dominating privileges, productively reconstruct their relations with others, and transform, when necessary, the world around them 15 + 16 +Current norms use free speech zones to justify the repression of free speech, the law justifies this oppression, claiming that civil disobedience is an act of terrorism. Mitchell 03 17 +Don Mitchell, Distinguished Professor of Geography at Syracuse’s Maxwell School: 2003 (“The Liberalization of Free Speech: Or, How Protest in Public Space is Silenced” Stanford Agora Vol. 4 p.43-45 Available at agora.stanford.edu/agora/volume4/articles/mitchell/mitchell.pdf Accessed on 12/11/16) 18 + 19 +As the preceding argument has indicated, the liberalization of free speech has not always been progressive. And it has not been progressive in both senses of the term. It has not marched steadily forward, uninterrupted, towards the shining light of freedom, to become ever more liberal, ever more just. Rather, to the degree it has been liberalized, this has occurred in fits and starts, with frequent steps backwards or to the side rather than forward. Like any social history, that is, the history of free speech is not a linear one of ever-expanding enlightenment; like any social history it is a history of ongoing struggle. Nor has it been progressive in the sense of necessarily more just, as a close focus on the geography of speech makes clear. Geographical analysis has shown that what sometimes appears as a progressive reinforcement of a right to speech and assembly is really (or is also) in fact a means towards its suppression.169 Nonetheless, whatever rights have been won, have been won through struggle and often not by following the law, but by breaking it. Civil disobedience, by labor activists and other picketers, by civil rights marchers, by anti-war protesters, and by Free Speech activists (as with the Free Speech Movement in Berkeley in the sixties), has forced often illiberal theories of speech and assembly to be reconsidered. But against these struggles has to be set a history of governmental recidivism: the Palmer raids and Red Scare of 1919-1920, the Smith Act of 1940, the McCarthy era, and the antics of COINTELPRO in the 1960s and 1970s, are just a few of the more well-known moments of repression, often cloaked in law and justified as urgent “legitimate state interests” at a time when serious challenges were being made to the “established order” or when other exigent factors induced panic within the government and the public at large. The history of speech and assembly, that is, can be told as an on-going struggle against recurring illiberalism. We are, most likely, now reentering an illiberal phase, and if I am right that civil disobedience has always been necessary to winning and securing rights to assembly and speech, there is a great deal to be deeply concerned about. For the closing off of space to protest has made civil disobedience all the more necessary right at the moment when new laws make civil disobedience not just illegal, but potentially terroristic. The witch’s brew of Supreme Court spatial regulation of speech and assembly and new antiterrorism laws portends deep trouble for those of us who think we have a duty as well as a right to transform our government when we think it is in the wrong, a duty and a right for which street protest is sometimes the only resource. Within six weeks of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress had passed, and the President signed into law, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act).170 Among its many provisions, the Act defines as domestic terrorism, and therefore covered under the Act, “acts dangerous to human life that are in violation of the criminal laws,” if they “appear to be intended … to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion” and if they “occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”171 As Nancy Chang argues: Acts of civil disobedience that take place in the United States necessarily meet three of the five elements in the definition of domestic terrorism: they constitute a “violation of the criminal laws,” they are “intended … to influence the policy of a government,” and they “occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” Many acts of civil disobedience, including the blocking of streets and points of egress by nonviolent means during a demonstration or sit-in, could be construed as “acts dangerous to human life” that appear to be intended to influence the policy of a government “by intimidation or coercion,” which case they would meet the crimes remaining elements…. As a result, protest activities that previously would most likely have ended with a charge of disorderly conduct under a local ordinance can now lead to federal prosecution and conviction for terrorism.172 As the space for protest has become more and more tightly zoned, the likelihood that laws will be broken in the course of a demonstration – a demonstration seeking to “influence a policy of government” – increases. And, of course, the very reason for engaging in a demonstration is to coerce, even if it is not to directly “intimidate.” One should not be sanguine about the “or” placed between intimidate and coerce. It means just what it says: coercion or intimidation will be enough for prosecution.173 Now even civil disobedience can be construed as an act of terrorism. The intersection of the new repressive state apparatus being constructed in the wake of September 11 with nearly a century of speech and assembly “liberalization” portends a frightening new era in the history of speech and assembly in America. We may soon come to long for those days when protest in public space was only silenced through the strategic geography of the public forum doctrine. 20 + 21 +This ideology criminalizes free speech when it becomes effective destroying the possibility of discourse to fight against neoliberalism Mitchell 03 22 +Don Mitchell, Distinguished Professor of Geography at Syracuse’s Maxwell School: 2003 (“The Liberalization of Free Speech: Or, How Protest in Public Space is Silenced” Stanford Agora Vol. 4 p.9-14 Available at agora.stanford.edu/agora/volume4/articles/mitchell/mitchell.pdf Accessed on 12/11/16) 23 + 24 +There is an additional result of Holmes’s declaration about the value of speech in Abrams. Whereas the First Amendment is silent on why speech is to be protected from Congressional interference,44 Holmes makes it clear that the protection of speech serves a particular purpose: improving the state.45 Indeed, he quickly admits that speech likely to harm the state can be outlawed.46 And neither he nor the Court ever moved away from the “clear and present danger” test of Schenck.47 Speech, Holmes argues, is a good insofar as it helps promote and protect the “truth” of the state.48 There is a large amount of room allowed here for criticism of the state, but it can still be quieted by anything that can reasonably construed as a “legitimate state interest” (like protecting the property rights of a company subject to a strike).49 According to the Gitlow Court (if not Holmes, who did not see in Gitlow’s pamphlet enough of a clear and present danger), any speech that “endangers the foundations of organized government and threatens its overthrow by unlawful means” can be banned.50 Note here that speech does not have to advocate the overthrow of government; rather, it can be banned if through its persuasiveness others might seek to overthrow the government.51 On such grounds all manner of manifestos, and many types of street speaking, may be banned. And more broadly, as evidenced in picketing cases like American Steel Foundries, a similar prohibition may be placed on speech that, again through its persuasiveness (e.g. as to the unjustness of some practice or event) rather than through direct exhortation, may incite people to violence. Of course, speech (and its sister right, assembly), must take place somewhere and it must implicate some set of spatial relations, some regime of control over access to places to speak and places to listen.52 Consequently, the limits to speech, or more accurately the means of limiting speech, become increasingly geographic beginning in utopian. 13 25 +1939 in the case Hague v. CIO, when the Supreme Court finally recognized that public spaces like streets and parks were necessary not only to speech itself but to political organizing.53 The problem is not always exactly what is said, but where it is said. At issue in Hague was whether the rights to speech and assembly extends to the use of the streets and other public places for political purposes, and in what ways that use could be regulated. The Court based its decision in a language of common law, arguing that “wherever the title of the streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.”54 But whatever the roots for such a claim may be in common law, it hardly stands historical scrutiny in the United States, where the violent repression of street politics has always been as much a feature of urban life as its promotion.55 That makes Hague v. CIO a landmark decision: it states clearly for the first time that “the use of the streets and parks for the communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all … but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied.”56 At the same time, the Court made it clear that protected speech in public spaces was always to be “exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and good order….”57 The question, then, became one of finding the ways to regulate speech (and associated conduct) such that order – and even “general comfort” – was always maintained. The answers to that question were spatial. They were based on a regulation of urban geography in the name of both “good order” and “general comfort” and of the rights to speech and assembly. Speech rights needed to be balanced against other interests and desires. But order and comfort, it ought to go without saying, suggest a much lower threshold than does “clear and present danger.” While recognizing in a new way a fundamental right to speech and assembly, that is, the Hague court in fact found a language to severely limit that right, and perhaps even to limit it more effectively than had heretofore been possible. To put this another way (and as I will argue more fully below), the new spatial order of speech and assembly that the Court began constructing in Hague allowed for the full flowering of a truly liberal speech regime: a regime for which we are all, in fact, the poorer. 26 + 27 +The silencing of free speech has spread through education, which has been coopted by neoliberalism, protests and free speech are key to democratize education, Chile proves Williams 15 28 +Jo Williams (Lecturer, College of Education at Victoria University), "Remaking education from below: the Chilean student movement as public pedagogy," Australian Journal of Adult Learning, November 2015 29 + 30 +More than ever the crisis of schooling represents, at large, the crisis of democracy itself and any attempt to understand the attack on public schooling and higher education cannot be separated from the wider assault on all forms of public life not driven by the logic of the market (Giroux, 2003:7) “Fin al lucro en educación, nuestros sueños no les pertenecen” (end profit making in education, nobody owns our dreams 1 ) (slogan of the Chilean student movement, inspired by the French student uprisings of May-June 1968) Over the past four decades, as the economic and ideological depravity of neoliberal policy and its market-driven logic (D. W. Hursh and Henderson, 2011) has been brought to bear on every aspect of education, the very concept of ‘public’ has been negated. Characteristics such as user-pays, competition, assaults on teachers, and mass standardised-testing and rankings, are among the features of a schooling, which is now very much seen as a private rather than public good (Giroux, 2003). The question of public education as a democratic force for the radical transformation of a violently unjust society seems rarely if ever asked, and a dangerous co-option and weakening of the language and practice of progressive pedagogy has occurred to the extent that notions of inclusion and success are increasingly limited to narrowly conceived individualist and competitive measures of market advantage. As Giroux notes “the forces of neo-liberalism dissolve public issues into utterly privatised and individualistic concerns (2004:62), and despite ongoing official rhetoric “the only form of citizenship increasingly being offered to young people is consumerism” (2003:7). Neoliberal education sees students and young people as passive consumers, the emphasis of schooling on learning how to be governed rather than how to govern (Giroux, 2003:7). In such a context the space for a public pedagogy, based on challenging the hegemony of neoliberal ideology and aligned with collective resistance, appears limited at best. And yet, every day people, teachers, students and communities do engage in political struggle, enacting pedagogies that seek to unveil rather than continue to mask the political structures and organisation that ensures power remains in the hands of the few, and at the service of the few, at the expense of the rest of us. Giroux characterises public pedagogies as defined by hope, struggle and a politicisation of the education process. He argues for …a politics of resistance that extends beyond the classroom as part of a broader struggle to challenge those forces of neo-liberalism that currently wage war against all collective structures capable of defending vital social institutions as a public good (Giroux, 2003:14). Central to Giroux’s argument is the need for critical educators to look to, value, and engage in and with social movements as they emerge and develop as sites of resistance. To …take sides, speak out, and engage in the hard work of debunking corporate culture’s assault on teaching and learning, orient their teaching for social change, connect learning to public life and link knowledge to the operations of power (Giroux, 2004:77). He argues that “progressive education in an age of rampant neoliberalism requires an expanded notion of the public, pedagogy, solidarity, and democratic struggle” (Giroux, 2003:13), and that moreover, educators need to work against a “politics of certainty” and instead develop and engage in pedagogical practice that problematises the world and fosters a sense of collective resistance and hope (2003:14). A neoliberal vision of the ‘good citizen’ and ‘good student’ presumes passivity, acceptance of the status quo and an individualistic disposition. Critical pedagogues must seek out and embrace opportunities to support and celebrate collective political action, not only because it develops a sense of social and political agency but also because it constitutes a powerful basis for authentic learning and active and critical citizenship in an unjust world (Freire, 1970). The Chilean student movement stands as one such example of challenging and inspiring counter-practice and a reclaiming of pedagogy as political and public. For ten years students have filled Chile’s streets, occupied their schools and universities, and organised conferences, public Remaking education from below: the Chilean student movement as public pedagogy 499 meetings, political stunts, creative actions and protests. Students and young people have been at the centre of the largest and most sustained political action seen in Chile since the democratic movement of the 80s, which eventually forced out the Pinochet dictatorship. Despite global trends in the opposite direction, the Chilean students have fundamentally influenced a nationwide education reform program constituting significant changes to the existing system which has been described as an extreme example of market-driven policy (Valenzuela, Bellei, and Ríos, 2014:220). Most importantly, they have forced and led a nationwide dialogue on the question of education and social justice in Chile and an interrogation of the current, grossly inequitable and elitist model (Falabella, 2008). This article begins by reviewing the experiences of the Chilean student movement to date and offering a brief explanation of the historical development of the education system it seeks to dismantle. It then considers the movement as an example of public pedagogies, concluding with a discussion of how it might inform notions of radical educational practice and a return of the student and pedagogue as authentic and critical subjects. 31 + 32 + 33 + 34 +Neoliberal globalization is the root of cause of poverty, exploitation, environmental degradation, and violence; the only solution is to eradicate neoliberalism 35 +Szentes, Professor Emeritus of the Corvinus University of Budapest and member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 2008 36 +(Tamas, “Globalisation and prospects of the world society,” CENTRAL EUROPEAN POLITICAL SCIENCE, Vol. 9, pp 1-3, http://cepsr.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ATT81762.pdf#page=9)// 37 + 38 +It’ s a common place thathuman society can survive and develop only in a lasting real peace. Without peace countries cannot develop. Althoughsince 1945 there has been no world war, but • numerous local wars took place, • terrorism has spread all over the world, undermining security even in the most developed and powerful countries, • arms race and militarisation have not ended with the collapse of the Soviet bloc,but escalated and continued, extending also to weapons of mass destruction and misusing enormous resources badly needed for development, •many “invisible wars”1 are suffered by the poor and oppressed people, manifested in mass misery, poverty, unemployment, homelessness, starvation and malnutrition, epidemics and poor health conditions, exploitation and oppression,racial and other discrimination, physical terror, organised injustice, disguised forms of violence, the denial or regular infringement of the democratic rights of citizens, women, youth, ethnic or religious minorities, etc., and last but not least, in the degradation of human environment,which means that • the “war against Nature”, i.e. the disturbance of ecological balance, wasteful management of natural resources, and large-scale pollution of our environment, is still going on, causing also losses and fatal dangers for human life. Behind global terrorism and “invisible wars”we find striking international and intra- society inequities and distorted development patterns2, which tend to generate social as well as international tensions,thus paving the way for unrest and “visible” wars. It is a commonplace now that peace is not merely the absence of war.The prerequisites of a lasting peace between and within societies involvenot only - though, of course, necessarily -demilitarisation, but also a systematic and gradualelimination of the roots of violence, of the causes of “invisible wars”, of thestructural and institutional bases of large-scale internationaland intra-society inequalities, exploitation and oppression. Peace requires a process of social and national emancipation, a progressive, democratic transformation of societies and the world bringing about equal rights and opportunities for all people, sovereign participation and mutually advantageous co-operation among nations. It further requires a pluralistic democracy on global level with an appropriate system of proportional representation of the world society, articulation of diverse interests and their peaceful reconciliation, by non-violent conflict management, and thus also a global governance with a really global institutional system. Under the contemporary conditions of accelerating globalisation and deepening global interdependencies in our world, peace is indivisible in both time and space. It cannot exist if reduced to a period only after or before war, and cannot be safeguarded in one part of the world when some others suffer visible or invisible wars.Thus, peace requires, indeed, a new, demilitarised and democratic world order, which can provide equal opportunities for sustainable development. “Sustainabilityof development” (both on national and world level)is often interpretedasan issue of environmental protection only and reduced to the need for preserving the ecological balance and delivering the next generationsnot a destroyed Nature with over- exhausted resources and polluted environment.However, no ecological balance can be ensured, unless the deep international development gap and intra-society inequalities are substantially reduced. Owing to global interdependencies there may exist hardly any “zero-sum-games”, in which one can gain at the expense of others, but, instead, the “negative-sum-games” tend to predominate, in which everybody must suffer, later or sooner, directly or indirectly, losses. Therefore, the actual question is not about “sustainability of development” but rather about the “sustainability of human life”, i.e. survival of mankind – because of ecological imbalance and globalised terrorism. When Professor Louk de la Rive Box was the president of EADI, one day we had an exchange of views on the state and future of development studies. We agreed that development studies are not any more restricted to the case of underdeveloped countries, as the developed ones (as well as the former “socialist” countries) are also facing development problems, such as those of structural and institutional (and even system-) transformation, requirements of changes in development patterns, and concerns about natural environment.While all these are true, today I would dare say that besides (or even instead of) “development studies” we must speak about and make “survival studies”.While the monetary, financial, and debt crises are cyclical,we live in an almost permanent crisis of the world society, which is multidimensional in nature, involving not only economic but also socio-psychological, behavioural, cultural and political aspects. The narrow-minded, election-oriented, selfish behaviour motivated by thirst for power and wealth, which still characterise the political leadership almost all over the world, paves the way for the final, last catastrophe.Under the circumstances provided by rapidly progressing science and technological revolutions, human society cannot survive unless such profound intra-society and international inequalities prevailing today are soon eliminated. Like a single spacecraft,the Earth can no longer afford to have a 'crew' divided into two parts: the rich, privileged, well- fed, well-educated, on the one hand, and the poor, deprived, starving, sick and uneducated, on the other. Dangerous 'zero-sum-games' (which mostly prove to be “negative-sum-games”) can hardly be played any more by visible or invisible wars in the world society.Because of global interdependencies, the apparent winner becomes also a loser. The real choice for the world society is between negative- and positive-sum-games:i.e. between, on the one hand, continuation of visible and “invisible wars”, as long as this is possible at all, and, on the other, transformation of the world order by demilitarisation and democratization.No ideological or terminological camouflage can conceal this real dilemma any more, which is to be faced not in the distant future, by the next generations, but in the coming years, because of global terrorism soon having nuclear and other mass destructive weapons, and also due to irreversible changes in natural environment. It is, of course, far easier to outline the normative principles of a peaceful democratic social and world order than to state the ways and means of how to achieve it. The causes of inequalities on local, national, regional and world levels are often interlinked.Dominance and exploitation relations go across country boundaries; oppressors are supporting each other and oppressing other oppressors. Societies that exploit others can hardly stay free of exploitation, themselves. Nations that hinder others in democratic transformation can hardly live in democracy. Monopolies induce also others to monopolise. Narrow, selfish interests generate narrow, selfish interest. Discrimination gives birth to discrimination. And so on... The “national societies” of the contemporary world show a great many differences, stemming partly from their own past, partly from their recent transformation.Differences appear not only in the level of economic and technological development and the related world-economic position (as between the “North” and the ”South”)or in respect of the socio- economic system and the related political regime(as in the past between the “East” and the “West”), but also within these groups of countries in terms of natural endowment, geographical and demographic dimensions, historical traditions, cultures, mechanism of management and governance, policy of leadership, etc.At the same time, all societies are subject to the increasing effect of each other and to the impact of globalisation. 39 + 40 +Part 2 is Solvency 41 + 42 +Thus the plan –Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict constitutionally protected speech to free speech zones 43 + 44 +Free speech zones destroy students discourse and should be prohibited Hudson 16 45 +(David L. Hudson Jr. is a First Amendment expert and law professor who serves as First Amendment Ombudsman for the Newseum Institute’s First Amendment Center. He contributes research and commentary, provides analysis and information to news media. He is an author, co-author or co-editor of more than 40 books, including Let The Students Speak: A History of the Fight for Free Expression in American Schools (Beacon Press, 2011), The Encyclopedia of the First Amendment (CQ Press, 2008) (one of three co-editors), The Rehnquist Court: Understanding Its Impact and Legacy (Praeger, 2006), and The Handy Supreme Court Answer Book (Visible Ink Press, 2008). He has written several books devoted to student-speech issues and others areas of student rights. He writes regularly for the ABA Journal and the American Bar Association’s Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases. He has served as a senior law clerk at the Tennessee Supreme Court, and teaches First Amendment and Professional Responsibility classes at Vanderbilt Law School and various classes at the Nashville School of Law), "How Campus Policies Limit Free Speech," Huffington Post, 6/1/2016 46 + 47 +Restricting where students can have free speech. In addition, many colleges and universities have free speech zones. Under these policies, people can speak at places of higher learning in only certain, specific locations or zones. While there are remnants of these policies from the 1960s, they grew in number in the late 1990s and early 2000s as a way for administrators to deal with controversial expression. These policies may have a seductive appeal for administrators, as they claim to advance the cause of free speech. But, free speech zones often limit speech by relegating expression to just a few locations. For example, some colleges began by having only two or three free speech zones on campus. The idea of zoning speech is not unique to colleges and universities. Government officials have sought to diminish the impact of different types of expression by zoning adult-oriented expression, antiabortion protestors and political demonstrators outside political conventions. In a particularly egregious example, a student at Modesto Junior College in California named Robert Van Tuinen was prohibited from handing out copies of the United States Constitution on September 17, 2013 - the anniversary of the signing of the Constitution. Van Tuinen was informed that he could get permission to distribute the Constitution if he preregistered for time in the “free speech zone.” But later, Van Tuinen was told by an administrator that he would have to wait, possibly until the next month. In the words of First Amendment expert Charles Haynes, “the entire campus should be a free speech zone.” In other words, the default position of school administrators should be to allow speech, not limit it. Zoning speech is troubling, particularly when it reduces the overall amount of speech on campus. And many free speech experts view the idea of a free speech zone as “moronic and oxymoronic.” College or university campuses should be a place where free speech not only survives but thrives. 48 + 49 + 50 +Student protest oppose the neoliberal structures in education, translating theory into concrete solutions Delgado and Ross 16 51 +Sandra Delgado (doctoral student in curriculum studies at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada) and E. Wayne Ross (Professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada), "Students in Revolt: The Pedagogical Potential of Student Collective Action in the Age of the Corporate University" 2016 (published on Academia.edu) 52 + 53 +As students’ collective actions keep gaining more political relevance, student and university movements also establish themselves as spaces of counter-hegemony (Sotiris, 2014). Students are constantly opening new possibilities to displace and resist the commodification of education offered by mainstream educational institutions. As Sotiris (2014) convincingly argues, movements within the university have not only the potential to subvert educational reforms, but in addition, they have become “strategic nodes” for the transformation of the processes and practices in higher education, and most importantly for the constant re-imagination and the recreation of “new forms of subaltern counter-hegemony” (p. 1). The strategic importance of university and college based moments lays precisely in the role that higher education plays in contemporary societies, namely their role in “the development of new technologies, new forms of production and for the articulation of discourses and theories on contemporary issues and their role in the reproduction of state and business personnel.” (p.8) Universities and colleges therefore, have a crucial contribution in “the development of class strategies (both dominant and subaltern), in the production of subjectivities, (and) in the transformation of collective practices” (p.8) The main objective of this paper is to examine how contemporary student movements are disrupting, opposing and displacing entrenched oppressive and dehumanizing reforms, practices and frames in today’s corporate academia. This work is divided in four sections. The first is an introduction to student movements and an overview of how student political action has been approached and researched. The second and third sections take a closer look at the repertoires of contention used by contemporary student movements and propose a framework based on radical praxis that allows us to better understand the pedagogical potential of student disruptive action. The last section contains a series of examples of students’ repertoires or tactics of contention that exemplifies the pedagogical potential of student social and political action. An Overview of Student Movements Generally speaking, students are well positioned as political actors. They have been actively involved in the politics of education since the beginnings of the university, but more broadly, students have played a significant role in defining social, cultural and political environments around the world (Altbach, 1966; Boren, 2001). The contributions and influences of students and student movements to revolutionary efforts and political movements beyond the university context are undeniable. One example is the role that students have played in the leadership and membership of the political left (e.g. students’ role in the Movimiento 26 de Julio - M-26-7 in Cuba during the 50’s and in the formation of The New Left in the United States, among others). Similarly, several political and social movements have either established alliances with student organizations or created their own chapters on campuses to recruit new members, mobilize their agendas in education and foster earlier student’s involvement in politics2 (Altbach, 1966; Lipset, 1969). Students are often considered to be “catalysts” of political and social action or “barometers” of the social unrest and political tension accumulated in society (Barker, 2008). Throughout history student movements have had a diverse and sometimes contradictory range of political commitments. Usually, student organizations and movements find grounding and inspiration in Anarchism and Marxism, however it is also common to see movements leaning towards liberal and conservative approaches. Hence, student political action has not always been aligned with social movements or organizations from the political left. In various moments in history students have joined or been linked to rightist movements, reactionary organizations and conservative parties (Altbach, 1966; Barker, 2008). Students, unlike workers, come from different social classes and seemly different cultural backgrounds. As a particularly diverse social group, students are distinguished for being heterogeneous and pluralists in their values, interests and commitments (Boren, 2001). Such diversity has been a constant challenge for maintaining unity, which has been particularly problematic in cases of national or transnational student organizations (Prusinowska, Kowzan, and Zielińska, 2012; Somma, 2012). To clarify, social classes are defined by the specific relationship that people have with the means of production. In the case of students, they are not a social class by themselves, but a social layer or social group that is identifiable by their common function in society (Stedman, 1969). The main or central aspect that unites student is the transitory social condition of being a student. In other words, students are a social group who have a common function, role in society or social objective, which is “to study” something (Lewis, 2013; Simons and Masschelein, 2009). Student movements can be understood as a form of social movement (LuesherMamashela, 2015). They have an internal organization that varies from traditionally hierarchical structures, organizational schemes based on representative democracy with charismatic leadership, to horizontal forms of decision-making (Altbach, 1966; Lipset, 1969). As many other movements, student movements have standing claims, organize different type of actions, tactics or repertoires of contention, 3 and they advocate for political, social or/and educational agendas, programs or pleas. 54 + 55 +Student protest combats racial inequality by sparking national dialogue leading to cultural movements Curwen 15 56 +Thomas Curwen, Jason Song and Larry Gordon (reporters), "What's different about the latest wave of college activism," LA Times, 11/18/2015 57 + 58 +Although some of the strategies may seem familiar, it is the speed and the urgency of today's protests that are different. "What is unique about these issues is how social media has changed the way protests take place on college campuses," said Tyrone Howard, associate dean of equity, diversity and inclusion at UCLA. "A protest goes viral in no time flat. With Instagram and Twitter, you're in an immediate news cycle. This was not how it was 20 or 30 years ago." Howard also believes that the effectiveness of the actions at the University of Missouri has encouraged students on other campuses to raise their voices. "A president stepping down is a huge step," he said. "Students elsewhere have to wonder, 'Wow, if that can happen there, why can't we bring out our issues to the forefront as well?'" Shaun R. Harper, executive director of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for the Study of Race and Equity in Education, agrees. The resignation of two top Missouri administrators, Harper said, showed students and athletes around the country that they have power they may not have realized before. The protests show "we're all together and we have the power to make the change we deserve," said Lindsay Opoku-Acheampong, a senior studying biology at Occidental. "It's affirming," said Dalin Celamy, also a senior at the college. "It lets us know we're not crazy; it's happening to people who are just like you all over the country." Celamy, along with other students, not only watched the unfolding protests across the country, but also looked to earlier protests, including an occupation of an administrative building at Occidental in 1968. Echoes of the 1960s in today's actions are clear, said Robert Cohen, a history professor at New York University and author of "Freedom's Orator," a biography of Mario Savio, who led the Free Speech Movement at UC Berkeley in the 1960s. "The tactical dynamism of these nonviolent protests and the public criticism of them are in important ways reminiscent of the 1960s," Cohen said. "Today's protests, like those in the '60s, are memorable because they have been effective in pushing for change and sparking dialogue as well as polarization." Although the targets of these protests are the blatant and subtle forms of racism and inequity that affect the students' lives, the message of the protests resonates with the recent incidents of intolerance and racial inequity on the streets of America. There is a reason for this, Howard said. Campuses are microcosms of society, he said, and are often comparable in terms of representation and opportunity. "So there is a similar fight for more representation, acceptance and inclusion." The dynamic can create a complicated and sensitive social order for students of color to negotiate. "Latino and African American students are often under the belief if they leave their community and go to colleges, that it will be better," Howard said. "They believe it will be an upgrade over the challenges that they saw in underserved and understaffed schools. But if the colleges and universities are the same as those schools, then there is disappointment and frustration." In addition, Howard said, when these students leave their community to go to a university, they often feel conflicted. "So when injustice comes up," he said, "they are quick to respond because it is what they saw in their community. On some level, it is their chance to let their parents and peers know that they have not forgotten the struggle in the community." On campuses and off, Harper, of the University of Pennsylvania center, finds a rising sense of impatience among African Americans about social change. "As a black person, I think black people are just fed up. It's time out for ignoring these issues," he said. While protests in the 1960s helped create specific safeguards for universities today, such as Title IX, guaranteeing equal access for all students to any educational program or activity receiving federal financial assistance, a gap has widened over the years between students and administrators over perceptions of bias. Institutions often valued for their support of free speech find themselves wrestling with the prospect of limiting free speech, but to focus on what is or isn't politically correct avoids the more important issue, Cohen said: whether campuses are diverse enough or how to reduce racism. Occidental student Raihana Haynes-Venerable has heard criticism that modern students are too sensitive, but she argues that subtle forms of discrimination still have a profound effect. She pointed to women making less than men and fewer minorities getting jobs as examples. "This is the new form of racism," she said. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-24 14:05:18.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Vrana, Snyder, Broomfield - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Sheboygan North RW - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +25 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Semis - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Appleton East Moorhead Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB- Neolib AC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +NFL Quals
- Caselist.CitesClass[25]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,50 @@ 1 +Interp: The affirmative/negative must defend the resolution and/or a hypothetical implementation of a plan by the United States Federal Government 2 + 3 +“Resolved” proves the framework for the resolution is to enact a policy. 4 +Words and Phrases 64 Permanent Edition 5 +Definition of the word “resolve,” given by Webster is “to express an opinion or determination by resolution or vote; as ‘it was resolved by the legislature;” It is of similar force to the word “enact,” which is defined by Bouvier as meaning “to establish by law”. 6 +“United States Federal Government should” means the debate is solely about the outcome of a policy established by governmental means 7 +Ericson, 03 (Jon M., Dean Emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts – California Polytechnic U., et al., The Debater’s Guide, Third Edition, p. 4) 8 +The Proposition of Policy: Urging Future Action In policy propositions, each topic contains certain key elements, although they have slightly different functions from comparable elements of value-oriented propositions. 1. An agent doing the acting ~-~--“The United States” in “The United States should adopt a policy of free trade.” Like the object of evaluation in a proposition of value, the agent is the subject of the sentence. 2. The verb should—the first part of a verb phrase that urges action. 3. An action verb to follow should in the should-verb combination. For example, should adopt here means to put a program or policy into action though governmental means. 4. A specification of directions or a limitation of the action desired. The phrase free trade, for example, gives direction and limits to the topic, which would, for example, eliminate consideration of increasing tariffs, discussing diplomatic recognition, or discussing interstate commerce. Propositions of policy deal with future action. Nothing has yet occurred. The entire debate is about whether something ought to occur. What you agree to do, then, when you accept the affirmative side in such a debate is to offer sufficient and compelling reasons for an audience to perform the future action that you propose. 9 +Violation: insert violation 10 +B. Reasons to Prefer: 11 + 12 +1 – Predictable ground 13 +A. Predictability: There is no predictable framework provided by a critical 1AC – they’re not tied to a stable advocacy so when we try to stick them to one they shift – they can take infinite unpredictable, non-falsifiable, totalizing, and personal claims 14 +B. Stable Link Ground: The aff can claim their “discourse” outweighs disads, counterplans, and case arguments by clarifying their advocacies throughout the round, skewing the 1NC and killing clash—in their version of debate, you’ll only hear core generics. 15 +C. Limits are key – infinite political theories exist, artificial limits are key 16 +Lutz 2k (Donald S. Professor of Polisci at Houston, Political Theory and Partisan Politics p. 39-40)JFS 17 +Aristotle notes in the Politics that political theory simultaneously proceeds at three levels—discourse about the ideal, about the best possible in the real world, and about existing political systems.4 Put another way, comprehensive political theory must ask several different kinds of questions that are linked, yet distinguishable. In order to understand the interlocking set of questions that political theory can ask, imagine a continuum stretching from left to right. At the end, to the right, is an ideal form of government, a perfectly wrought construct produced by the imagination. At the other end is the perfect dystopia, the most perfectly wretched system that the human imagination can produce. Stretching between these two extremes is an infinite set of possibilities, merging into one another, that describe the logical possibilities created by the characteristics defining the end points. For example, a political system defined primarily by equality would have a perfectly inegalitarian system described at the other end, and the possible states of being between them would vary primarily in the extent to which they embodied equality. An ideal defined primarily by liberty would create a different set of possibilities between the extremes. Of course, visions of the ideal often are inevitably more complex than these single-value examples indicate, but it is also true that in order to imagine an ideal state of affairs a kind of simplification is almost always required since normal states of affairs invariably present themselves to human consciousness as complicated, opaque, and to a significant extent indeterminate. A non-ironic reading of Plato's Republic leads one to conclude that the creation of these visions of the ideal characterizes political philosophy. This is not the case. Any person can generate a vision of the ideal. One job of political philosophy is to ask the question "Is this ideal worth pursuing?" Before the question can be pursued, however, the ideal state of affairs must be clarified, especially with respect to conceptual precision and the logical relationship between the propositions that describe the ideal. This pre-theoretical analysis raises the vision of the ideal from the mundane to a level where true philosophical analysis, and the careful comparison with existing systems can proceed fruitfully. The process of pre-theoretical analysis, probably because it works on clarifying ideas that most capture the human imagination, too often looks to some like the entire enterprise of political philosophy.5 However, the value of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's concept of the General Will, for example, lies not in its formal logical implications, nor in its compelling hold on the imagination, but on the power and clarity it lends to an analysis and comparison of actual political systems. 18 +D. Impacts: Ground is key to fairness – it keeps the playing field level - without ground, there’s no room for teams to compete, judges are forced to vote on discussion rather than debate. 19 +E. Predictable ground is the strongest internal link to clash, and a lack of clash leads to exclusion and alienation. 20 +Tonn ’05 (Mari Boor, Professor of Communication – University of Maryland, “Taking Conversation, Dialogue, and Therapy Public”, Rhetoric and Public Affairs, Vol. 8, Issue 3, Fall) 21 + 22 +Perhaps the most conspicuous effort at replacing public debate with therapeutic dialogue was President Clinton's Conversation on Race, launched in mid-1997. Controversial from its inception for its ideological bent, the initiative met further widespread criticism for its encounter-group approaches to racial stratification and strife, critiques echoing previously articulated concerns- my own among them6-that certain dangers lurk in employing private or social communication modes for public problem-solving.7 Since then, others have joined in contesting the treating of public problems with narrative and psychological approaches, which-in the name of promoting civility, cooperation, personal empowerment, and socially constructed or idiosyncratic truths-actually work to contain dissent, locate systemic social problems solely within individual neurosis, and otherwise fortify hegemony.8 Particularly noteworthy is Michael Schudson's challenge to the utopian equating of "conversation" with the "soul of democracy." Schudson points to pivotal differences in the goals and architecture of conversational and democratic deliberative processes. To him, political (or democratic) conversation is a contradiction in terms. Political deliberation entails a clear instrumental purpose, ideally remaining ever mindful of its implications beyond an individual case. Marked by disagreement-even pain-democratic deliberation contains transparent prescribed procedures governing participation and decision making so as to protect the timid or otherwise weak. In such processes, written records chronicle the interactional journey toward resolution, and in the case of writing law especially, provide accessible justification for decisions rendered. In sharp contrast, conversation is often "small talk" exchanged among family, friends, or candidates for intimacy, unbridled by set agendas, and prone to egocentric rather than altruistic goals. Subject only to unstated "rules" such as turn-taking and politeness, conversation tends to advantage the gregarious or articulate over the shy or slight of tongue.9 The events of 9/11, the onset of war with Afghanistan and Iraq, and the subsequent failure to locate Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have resuscitated some faith in debate, argument, warrant, and facts as crucial to the public sphere. Still, the romance with public conversation persists. As examples among communication scholars, Karlyn Kohrs Campbell's 2001 Carroll C. Arnold Distinguished Lecture treated what she termed "the rhetoric of conversation" as a means to "manage controversy" and empower non-dominant voices10; multiple essays in a 2002 special issue of Rhetoric and Public Affairs on deliberative democracy couch a deliberative democratic ideal in dialogic terms11; and the 2005 Southern States Communication Convention featured family therapist Sallyann Roth, founding member and trainer of the Public Conversations Project, as keynote speaker.12 Representative of the dialogic turn in deliberative democracy scholarship is Gerard A. Hauser and Chantal Benoit-Barne's critique of the traditional procedural, reasoning model of public problem solving: "A deliberative model of democracy . . . construes democracy in terms of participation in the ongoing conversation about how we shall act and interact-our political relations" and "Civil society redirects our attention to the language of social dialogue on which our understanding of political interests and possibility rests."13 And on the political front, British Prime Minister Tony Blair-facing declining poll numbers and mounting criticism of his indifference to public opinion on issues ranging from the Iraq war to steep tuition hike proposals-launched The Big Conversation on November 28, 2003. Trumpeted as "as way of enriching the Labour Party's policy making process by listening to the British public about their priorities," the initiative includes an interactive government website and community meetings ostensibly designed to solicit citizens' voices on public issues.14 In their own way, each treatment of public conversation positions it as a democratic good, a mode that heals divisions and carves out spaces wherein ordinary voices can be heard. In certain ways, Schudson's initial reluctance to dismiss public conversation echoes my own early reservations, given the ideals of egalitarianism, empowerment, and mutual respect conversational advocates champion. Still, in the spirit of the dialectic ostensibly underlying dialogic premises, this essay argues that various negative consequences can result from transporting conversational and therapeutic paradigms into public problem solving. In what follows, I extend Schudson's critique of a conversational model for democracy in two ways: First, whereas Schudson primarily offers a theoretical analysis, I interrogate public conversation as a praxis in a variety of venues, illustrating how public "conversation" and "dialogue" have been coopted to silence rather than empower marginalized or dissenting voices. In practice, public conversation easily can emulate what feminist political scientist Jo Freeman termed "the tyranny of structurelessness" in her classic 1970 critique of consciousness- raising groups in the women's liberation movement,15 as well as the key traits Irving L. Janis ascribes to "groupthink."16 Thus, contrary to its promotion as a means to neutralize hierarchy and exclusion in the public sphere, public conversation can and has accomplished the reverse. When such moves are rendered transparent, public conversation and dialogue, I contend, risk increasing rather than diminishing political cynicism and alienation. Continues… This widespread recognition that access to public deliberative processes and the ballot is a baseline of any genuine democracy points to the most curious irony of the conversation movement: portions of its constituency. Numbering among the most fervid dialogic loyalists have been some feminists and multiculturalists who represent groups historically denied both the right to speak in public and the ballot. Oddly, some feminists who championed the slogan "The Personal Is Political" to emphasize ways relational power can oppress tend to ignore similar dangers lurking in the appropriation of conversation and dialogue in public deliberation. Yet the conversational model's emphasis on empowerment through intimacy can duplicate the power networks that traditionally excluded females and nonwhites and gave rise to numerous, sometimes necessarily uncivil, demands for democratic inclusion. Formalized participation structures in deliberative processes obviously cannot ensure the elimination of relational power blocs, but, as Freeman pointed out, the absence of formal rules leaves relational power unchecked and potentially capricious. Moreover, the privileging of the self, personal experiences, and individual perspectives of reality intrinsic in the conversational paradigm mirrors justifications once used by dominant groups who used their own lives, beliefs, and interests as templates for hegemonic social premises to oppress women, the lower class, and people of color. Paradigms infused with the therapeutic language of emotional healing and coping likewise flirt with the type of psychological diagnoses once ascribed to disaffected women. But as Betty Friedan's landmark 1963 The Feminist Mystique argued, the cure for female alienation was neither tranquilizers nor attitude adjustments fostered through psychotherapy but, rather, unrestricted opportunities.102 23 + 24 + 25 +2- Methodology 26 + 27 +A.The structure of the debate forum is a prior question that must be resolved first – it is a pre-condition for debate to occur 28 +Shively, 2k (Assistant Prof Political Science at Texas AandM, Ruth Lessl, Partisan Politics and Political Theory, p. 181-2)JFS 29 + 30 +The requirements given thus far are primarily negative. The ambiguists must say "no" to-they must reject and limit-some ideas and actions. In what follows, we will also find that they must say "yes" to some things. In particular, they must say "yes" to the idea of rational persuasion. This means, first, that they must recognize the role of agreement in political contest, or the basic accord that is necessary to discord. The mistake that the ambiguists make here is a common one. The mistake is in thinking that agreement marks the end of contest-that consensus kills debate. But this is true only if the agreement is perfect-if there is nothing at all left to question or contest. In most cases, however, our agreements are highly imperfect. We agree on some matters but not on others, on generalities but not on specifics, on principles but not on their applications, and so on. And this kind of limited agreement is the starting condition of contest and debate. As John Courtney Murray writes: We hold certain truths; therefore we can argue about them. It seems to have been one of the corruptions of intelligence by positivism to assume that argument ends when agreement is reached. In a basic sense, the reverse is true. There can be no argument except on the premise, and within a context, of agreement. (Murray 1960, 10) In other words, we cannot argue about something if we are not communicating: if we cannot agree on the topic and terms of argument or if we have utterly different ideas about what counts as evidence or good argument. At the very least, we must agree about what it is that is being debated before we can debate it. For instance, one cannot have an argument about euthanasia with someone who thinks euthanasia is a musical group. One cannot successfully stage a sit-in if one's target audience simply thinks everyone is resting or if those doing the sitting have no complaints. Nor can one demonstrate resistance to a policy if no one knows that it is a policy. In other words, contest is meaningless if there is a lack of agreement or communication about what is being contested. Resisters, demonstrators, and debaters must have some shared ideas about the subject and/or the terms of their disagreements. The participants and the target of a sit-in must share an understanding of the complaint at hand. And a demonstrator's audience must know what is being resisted. In short, the contesting of an idea presumes some agreement about what that idea is and how one might go about intelligibly contesting it. In other words, contestation rests on some basic agreement or harmony. 31 + 32 +B. Turns the case- A lack of structure prevents their message from being heard in the long term - only the majority can be heard if there are no rules. That’s Tonn ’05. The discussion of the K in this debate is outweighed by the elimination of that discussion from any meaningful spheres 33 + 34 +C. Switch-side debate - You should evaluate this debate in the framework of switch-side analysis—following the rules and debating correctly is critical to effective space efforts and empathy. 35 +HUNTLEY et al 2010 (Wade L. Huntley, US Naval Postgraduate School; Joseph G. Bock, Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies; Miranda Weingartner, Weingartner Consulting; “Planning the unplannable: Scenarios on the future of space,” Space Policy 26) 36 + 37 +As anticipated, one important merit of the process was that it generated constructive dialogue around complex issues. Common themes emerged even though participants came from diverse professional backgrounds. Thus there was a strong desire to continue the dialogue generated by the workshop, both to adjust for ongoing events and to examine some of the findings in more depth. Areas of potentially deeper analysis include specific turning points (such as those where conflict emerged), the implications of increasing the commercialization of space, and a breakdown of the involvement and interests of the various actors (states, institutions, non-state actors). The goal would be to project common elements likely to be in a family of international instruments cutting across public, private and communal sectors, or to identify codes of conduct. Workshop participants did note that most were from North America, and that different sets of assumptions and conclusions may have emerged if the process was held with Chinese, Indian or European participants. This observation reinforced the conveners’ pre-existing judgment: because successful scenario building depends upon the ‘‘friction’’ of diverse knowledge and outlooks, international participation would be vital to the success of more extensive exercises. Moreover, scenario analysis can also be an ideal vehicle for broaching sensitive topics in an international dialogue. Because the process is designed to identify shared critical uncertainties and focus on longer-term challenges, it is ideally suited to provide a forum wherein participants divided by contentious near-term issues can find a common basis for engagement. Thus, scenario-building exercises can yield community-building benefits independent of their substantive results. In this vein, the process can also help generate ‘‘buy-in’’ among divided parties with very different interests to the minimal objective of identifying a shared set of long-term future concerns (as the Mont Fleur experience shows). It is not necessary for participants to possess, at the outset, common core values. It is sufficient that there be agreement on common process values within the exercise, the most important being commitment to the goals of the exercise and a willingness to think about matters imaginatively. Participants do not need to leave their opinions at the door e indeed, the ‘‘friction’’ of that diverse input is vital to the success of the process. They need only be ready and able also to view things from others’ points of view. 38 + 39 +D. The 1AC movement away from conventional politics dooms their movement and recreates the worst forms of oppression 40 +McClean in 1 41 +David E. McClean, 2001, “The Cultural Left and the Limits of Social Hope,” Am. Phil. Conf., www.american-philosophy.org/archives/past_conference_programs/pc2001/Discussion20papers/david_mcclean.htm 42 + 43 +Yet for some reason, at least partially explicated in Richard Rorty's Achieving Our Country, a book that I think is long overdue, leftist critics continue to cite and refer to the eccentric and often a priori ruminations of people like those just mentioned, and a litany of others including Derrida, Deleuze, Lyotard, Jameson, and Lacan, who are to me hugely more irrelevant than Habermas in their narrative attempts to suggest policy prescriptions (when they actually do suggest them) aimed at curing the ills of homelessness, poverty, market greed, national belligerence and racism. I would like to suggest that it is time for American social critics who are enamored with this group, those who actually want to be relevant, to recognize that they have a disease, and a disease regarding which I myself must remember to stay faithful to my own twelve step program of recovery. The disease is the need for elaborate theoretical "remedies" wrapped in neological and multi-syllabic jargon. These elaborate theoretical remedies are more "interesting," to be sure, than the pragmatically settled questions about what shape democracy should take in various contexts, or whether private property should be protected by the state, or regarding our basic human nature (described, if not defined (heaven forbid!), in such statements as "We don't like to starve" and "We like to speak our minds without fear of death" and "We like to keep our children safe from poverty"). As Rorty puts it, "When one of today's academic leftists says that some topic has been 'inadequately theorized,' you can be pretty certain that he or she is going to drag in either philosophy of language, or Lacanian psychoanalysis, or some neo-Marxist version of economic determinism. . . . These futile attempts to philosophize one's way into political relevance are a symptom of what happens when a Left retreats from activism and adopts a spectatorial approach to the problems of its country. Disengagement from practice produces theoretical hallucinations"(italics mine).(1) Or as John Dewey put it in his The Need for a Recovery of Philosophy, "I believe that philosophy in America will be lost between chewing a historical cud long since reduced to woody fiber, or an apologetics for lost causes, . . . . or a scholastic, schematic formalism, unless it can somehow bring to consciousness America's own needs and its own implicit principle of successful action." Those who suffer or have suffered from this disease Rorty refers to as the Cultural Left, which left is juxtaposed to the Political Left that Rorty prefers and prefers for good reason. Another attribute of the Cultural Left is that its members fancy themselves pure culture critics who view the successes of America and the West, rather than some of the barbarous methods for achieving those successes, as mostly evil, and who view anything like national pride as equally evil even when that pride is tempered with the knowledge and admission of the nation's shortcomings. In other words, the Cultural Left, in this country, too often dismiss American society as beyond reform and redemption. And Rorty correctly argues that this is a disastrous conclusion, i.e. disastrous for the Cultural Left. I think it may also be disastrous for our social hopes, as I will explain. Leftist American culture critics might put their considerable talents to better use if they bury some of their cynicism about America's social and political prospects and help forge public and political possibilities in a spirit of determination to, indeed, achieve our country - the country of Jefferson and King; the country of John Dewey and Malcom X; the country of Franklin Roosevelt and Bayard Rustin, and of the later George Wallace and the later Barry Goldwater. To invoke the words of King, and with reference to the American society, the time is always ripe to seize the opportunity to help create the "beloved community," one woven with the thread of agape into a conceptually single yet diverse tapestry that shoots for nothing less than a true intra-American cosmopolitan ethos, one wherein both same sex unions and faith-based initiatives will be able to be part of the same social reality, one wherein business interests and the university are not seen as belonging to two separate galaxies but as part of the same answer to the threat of social and ethical nihilism. We who fancy ourselves philosophers would do well to create from within ourselves and from within our ranks a new kind of public intellectual who has both a hungry theoretical mind and who is yet capable of seeing the need to move past high theory to other important questions that are less bedazzling and "interesting" but more important to the prospect of our flourishing - questions such as "How is it possible to develop a citizenry that cherishes a certain hexis, one which prizes the character of the Samaritan on the road to Jericho almost more than any other?" or "How can we square the political dogma that undergirds the fantasy of a missile defense system with the need to treat America as but one member in a community of nations under a "law of peoples?"The new public philosopher might seek to understand labor law and military and trade theory and doctrine as much as theories of surplus value; the logic of international markets and trade agreements as much as critiques of commodification, and the politics of complexity as much as the politics of power (all of which can still be done from our arm chairs.) This means going down deep into the guts of our quotidian social institutions, into the grimy pragmatic details where intellectuals are loathe to dwell but where the officers and bureaucrats of those institutions take difficult and often unpleasant, imperfect decisions that affect other peoples' lives, and it means making honest attempts to truly understand how those institutions actually function in the actual world before howling for their overthrow commences. This might help keep us from being slapped down in debates by true policy pros who actually know what they are talking about but who lack awareness of the dogmatic assumptions from which they proceed, and who have not yet found a good reason to listen to jargon-riddled lectures from philosophers and culture critics with their snobish disrespect for the so-called "managerial class." 44 + 45 +E. We control external impacts – abandoning politics causes war, slavery, and authoritarianism 46 +Boggs 2k (CAROL BOGGS, PF POLITICAL SCIENCE – SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 00, THE END OF POLITICS, 250-1) 47 + 48 +But it is a very deceptive and misleading minimalism. While Oakeshott debunks political mechanisms and rational planning, as either useless or dangerous, the actually existing power structure-replete with its own centralized state apparatus, institutional hierarchies, conscious designs, and indeed, rational plans-remains fully intact, insulated from the minimalist critique. In other words, ideologies and plans are perfectly acceptable for elites who preside over established governing systems, but not for ordinary citizens or groups anxious to challenge the status quo. Such one-sided minimalism gives carte blanche to elites who naturally desire as much space to maneuver as possible. The flight from “abstract principles” rules out ethical attacks on injustices that may pervade the status quo (slavery or imperialist wars, for example) insofar as those injustices might be seen as too deeply embedded in the social and institutional matrix of the time to be the target of oppositional political action. If politics is reduced to nothing other than a process of everyday muddling-through, then people are condemned to accept the harsh realities of an exploitative and authoritarian system, with no choice but to yield to the dictates of “conventional wisdom”. Systematic attempts to ameliorate oppressive conditions would, in Oakeshott’s view, turn into a political nightmare. A belief that totalitarianism might results from extreme attempts to put society in order is one thing; to argue that all politicized efforts to change the world are necessary doomed either to impotence or totalitarianism requires a completely different (and indefensible) set of premises. Oakeshott’s minimalism poses yet another, but still related, range of problems: the shrinkage of politics hardly suggests that corporate colonization, social hierarchies, or centralized state and military institutions will magically disappear from people’s lives. Far from it: the public space vacated by ordinary citizens, well informed and ready to fight for their interests, simply gives elites more room to consolidate their own power and privilege. Beyond that, the fragmentation and chaos of a Hobbesian civil society, not too far removed from the excessive individualism, social Darwinism and urban violence of the American landscape could open the door to a modern Leviathan intent on restoring order and unity in the face of social disintegration. Viewed in this light, the contemporary drift towards antipolitics might set the stage for a reassertion of politics in more authoritarian and reactionary guise-or it could simply end up reinforcing the dominant state-corporate system. In either case, the state would probably become what Hobbes anticipated: the embodiment of those universal, collective interests that had vanished from civil society.16 And either outcome would run counter to the facile antirationalism of Oakeshott’s Burkean muddling-through theories. 49 +Framework is a voter for the reasons above: fairness, limits, and education 50 +Topicality before advocacy – vote negative to say that you think they are not topical, not that you don’t believe in their project - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-24 15:30:52.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Erika Schneider - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Golda Meir KP - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +26 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Appleton East Moorhead Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +0- Performance Theory - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +CFL Quals
- Caselist.CitesClass[26]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,66 @@ 1 +Framing 2 + 3 +Plan Text: Countries ought to prohibit the production of nuclear power, including weapons 4 + 5 +The ROTB is to vote for the debater that best maximizes wellbeing 6 + 7 +First, the obligation of the state is to protect citizen’s interests—individual obligations aren’t applicable in the public sphere 8 +Goodin 95. Philosopher of Political Theory, Public Policy, and Applied Ethics. Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 1995. p. 26-7, 1-2-16 9 +The great adventure of utilitarianism as a guide to public conduct is that it avoids gratuitous sacrifices, it ensures as best we are able to ensure in the uncertain world of public policy-making that policies are sensitive to people’s interests or desires or preferences. The great failing of more deontology theories, applied to those realms, is that they fixate upon duties done for the sake of duty rather than for the sake of any good that is done by doing one’s duty. Perhaps it is permissible (perhaps it is even proper) for private individuals in the course of their personal affairs to fetishize duties done for their own sake. It would be a mistake for public officials to do likewise, not least because it is impossible. The fixation on motives makes absolutely no sense in the public realm, and might make precious little sense in the private one even, as Chapter 3 shows. The reason public action is required at all arises from the inability of uncoordinated individual action to achieve certain morally desirable ends. Individuals are rightly excused from pursuing those ends. The inability is real; the excuses, perfectly valid. But libertarians are right in their diagnosis, wrong in their prescription. That is the message of Chapter 2. The same thing that makes those excuses valid at the individual level – the same thing that relieves individuals of responsibility – makes it morally incumbent upon individuals to organize themselves into collective units that are capable of acting where they as isolated individuals are not. When they organize themselves into these collective units, those collective deliberations inevitably take place under very different circumstances and their conclusions inevitably take very different forms. Individuals are morally required to operate in that collective manner, in certain crucial respects. But they are practically circumscribed in how they can operate, in their collective mode. And those special constraints characterizing the public sphere of decision-making give rise to the special circumstances that make utilitarianism peculiarly apt for public policy-making, in ways set out more fully in Chapter 4. Government house utilitarianism thus understood is, I would argue, a uniquely defensible public philosophy. 10 + 11 +Second, questions of public policy should be judged through a consequentialist lens. 12 +Woller 97, A Forum on the Role of Environmental Ethics, June 1997, pg. 10 13 +Appeals to a priori moral principles, such as environmental preservation, also often fail to acknowledge that public policies inevitably entail trade-offs among competing values. Thus since policymakers cannot justify inherent value conflicts to the public in any philosophical way sense, and since public policies inherently imply winners and losers, the policymakers' duty to the public interest requires them to demonstrate that the redistributive effects and value trade-offs implied by their policies are somehow to the overall advantage of society. At the same time, deontologically based ethical systems have severe practical limitations as a basis for public policy. At best, a priori moral principles provide only general guidance to ethical dilemmas in public affairs and do not themselves suggest appropriate public policies, and at worst, they create a regimen of regulatory unreasonableness while failing to adequately address the problem or actually making it worse. For example, a moral obligation to preserve the environment by no means implies the best way, or any way for that matter, to do so, just as there is no a priori reason to believe that any policy that claims to preserve the environment will actually do so. Any number of policies might work, and others, although seemingly consistent with the moral principle, will fail utterly. That deontological principles are an inadequate basis for environmental policy is evident in the rather significant irony that most forms of deontologically based environmental laws and regulations tend to be implemented in a very utilitarian manner by street-level enforcement officials. Moreover, ignoring the relevant costs and benefits of environmental policy and their attendant incentive structures can, as alluded to above, actually work at cross purposes to environmental preservation. (There exists an extensive literature on this aspect of regulatory enforcement and the often perverse outcomes of regulatory policy. See, for example, Ackerman, 1981; Bartrip and Fenn, 1983; Hawkins, 1983, 1984; Hawkins and Thomas, 1984.) Even the most die-hard preservationist/deontologist would, I believe, be troubled by this outcome. The above points are perhaps best expressed by Richard Flathman, The number of values typically involved in public policy decisions, the broad categories which must be employed and above all, the scope and complexity of the consequences to be anticipated militate against reasoning so conclusively that they generate an imperative to institute a specific policy. It is seldom the case that only one policy will meet the criteria of the public interest (1958, p. 12). It therefore follows that in a democracy, policymakers have an ethical duty to establish a plausible link between policy alternatives and the problems they address, and the public must be reasonably assured that a policy will actually do something about an existing problem; this requires the means-end language and methodology of utilitarian ethics. Good intentions, lofty rhetoric, and moral piety are an insufficient. 14 + 15 +Advantage 1: Nuclear Colonialism 16 + 17 +The legacy of nuclear colonialism is a legacy of systematic exploitation, destroying native culture and land. 18 +Endres 09 Danielle Endres (2009) The Rhetoric of Nuclear Colonialism: Rhetorical Exclusion of American Indian Arguments in the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Siting Decision, Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 6:1, 39-60, DOI: 10.1080/14791420802632103 19 +Before attending to the rhetorical nature of nuclear colonialism, it is important to emphasize the scope and material effects of nuclear technologies on indigenous peoples and their lands. This is a history of systematic oppression and resistance, spanning from the 1940s to present. As the Indigenous Environmental Network writes, the nuclear industry has waged a war against our Indigenous peoples and Pacific Islanders that has poisoned our communities worldwide. For more than 50 years, the legacy of the nuclear chain, from exploration to the dumping of radioactive waste has been proven, through documentation, to be genocide and a deadly enemy of Indigenous peoples. ... United States federal law and nuclear policy has not protected Indigenous peoples, and in fact has been created to allow the nuclear industry to continue operations at the expense of our land, territory, health and traditional ways of life. ... This disproportionate toxic burden*called environmental racism*has culminated in the current attempts to dump much of the nation’s nuclear waste in the homelands of the Indigenous peoples of the Great Basin region of the United States.4 From an indigenous perspective, the material consequences of nuclear colonialism have affected the vitality of indigenous peoples. This can be seen clearly in both uranium mining and nuclear testing. Uranium mining is inextricably linked with indigenous peoples. According to LaDuke, ‘‘some 70 percent of the world’s uranium originates from Native Communities.’’5 Within the US, approximately 66 percent of the known uranium deposits are on reservation land, as much as 80 percent are on treaty-guaranteed land, and up to 90 percent of uranium mining and milling occurs on or adjacent to American Indian land.6 To support the federal government’s desire for nuclear weapons and power production, the Bureau of Indians Affairs (BIA) has worked in collusion with the Atomic Energy Commission and corporations such as Kerr-McGee and United Nuclear to negotiate leases with Navajo, Lakota and other nations for uranium mining and milling on their land between the 1950s to the present.7 BIAnegotiated leases are supported by the complex body of Indian Law, which I will demonstrate enables federal intrusion into American Indian lands and governmental affairs. These leases are heavily tilted in favor of the corporations so that American Indian nations received only about 3.4 percent of the market value of the uranium and low paid jobs.8 Uranium mining has also resulted in severe health and environmental legacies for affected American Indian people and their lands. From uranium mining on Navajo land, there have been at least 450 reported cancer deaths among Navajo mining employees.9 Even now, the legacy of over 1000 abandoned mines and uranium tailing piles is radioactive dust that continues to put people living near tailing piles at a high risk for lung cancer.10 20 + 21 +Nuclear power production disproportionately harms Native Americans because of their “land-linked” lifestyles 22 +Endres 09 Danielle Endres (2009) The Rhetoric of Nuclear Colonialism: Rhetorical Exclusion of American Indian Arguments in the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Siting Decision, Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 6:1, 39-60, DOI: 10.1080/14791420802632103 23 +The history of exploitation and resistance continues with nuclear weapons production. As nuclear engineer Arjun Makhijani argues, ‘‘all too often such damage has been done to ethnic minorities or on colonial lands or both. The main sites for testing nuclear weapons for every declared nuclear power are on tribal or minority lands.’’11 From 1951 to 1992, over 900 nuclear weapons tests were conducted on a Nevada test site which is actually land claimed by the Western Shoshone Tribe under the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley. The late Western Shoshone spiritual leader Corbin Harney proclaimed Western Shoshone to be ‘‘the most nuclear bombed nation in the world.’’12 According to Western Shoshone Virginia Sanchez, indigenous people may have suffered more radiation exposure because of their land-linked lifestyle of ‘‘picking berries, hunting and gathering our traditional foods,’’ resulting in ‘‘major doses of radiation.’’13 Yet, the federal government and legal system have made only token gestures toward compensating victims of nuclear testing. The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) has strict qualification guidelines that have excluded many downwinders from receiving compensation.14 In addition to the effects on human health from nuclear testing, there is also an environmental toll through contaminated soil and water, which could harm animal and plant life.15 24 + 25 +Official documents are illegitimate, written by colonizers to suppress the voices of Native Americans. 26 +Endres 09 Danielle Endres (2009) The Rhetoric of Nuclear Colonialism: Rhetorical Exclusion of American Indian Arguments in the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Siting Decision, Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 6:1, 39-60, DOI: 10.1080/14791420802632103 27 +In addition to outlining a decision calculus that shifts the burden of proof in a way that makes it impossible to offer a counterargument that would outweigh the national interest, the site recommendation report also ignores American Indian arguments when it outlines and responds to the ‘‘principal arguments’’ against the site. The third strategy of nuclear colonialism explains how indigenous voices can be suppressed in official documents. In Sanchez, Stuckey and Morris’ conception, rhetorical exclusion is expressed through specific defining practices that label American Indians as threatening and already guilty.74 However, I argue that rhetorical exclusion can also be achieved through the strategic use of silence. Strategic silence acts as a form of rhetorical exclusion when silence is used by a group with power over another group as a way to exclude their voices or arguments. This way of defining strategic silence is different from Robin Clair’s notion of silence as an act of resistance by marginalized groups.75 It is also different from Barry Brummett’s articulation of strategic silence as an unexpected response that rhetorically calls attention to the silence.76 The Yucca Mountain case reveals that strategic silence can also be used to continue the silencing of an already silenced group by drawing attention away from the silence. This form of strategic silence works best when there is general lack of understanding among the public about the issue or group being silenced. For example, using strategic silence to exclude American Indian arguments against the Yucca Mountain site is enabled by the colonizer’s version of history that emphasizes that American Indians were defeated and have all been assimilated into ‘‘American’’ culture. As stated by Derek Buescher and Kent Ono, ‘‘contemporary culture masks the continuing lived history of people disenfranchised by colonialism by failing to acknowledge colonialism’s presence in the US today.’ 28 +Advantage 2: Environment 29 + 30 +Nuclear power puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than all other energy sources today 31 +W.I.L.P.F. 7 Women’s International League of Peace and Freedom (), October 2007; WILPF is part of the international women’s peace organization established in 1915 to 'bring together women of different political beliefs and philosophies who are united in their determination to study, make known and help abolish the causes and the legitimization of war'. There are WILPF groups in 42 countries including the U.S.; http://www.wilpf.org.au/PDFs/Nuclear_Awareness_WILPF_2007.pdf 32 +Large amounts of electricity, petrol/diesel, and water are consumed in the mining and processing of uranium to generate nuclear fuel. Essentially a nuclear reactor is a very expensive way to boil water. The actual nuclear reactor may not produce any green house gases like carbon dioxide (CO2), but there are significant amounts of CO2 produced in the mining and transport of the ore to the reactor., e.g. Olympic Dam (Roxby Downs) using 729 million liters of water a day from the Artesian Basin. This water becomes radioactive and toxic. The problem of waste disposal from mining and processing as well as from the reactor is very large and so far unsolved. After the current expansion of BHP Billiton’s Olympic Dam (Roxby Downs), it is expected that 1 tonne of radioactive tailings will be produced every second, and 10 million tonnes of tailing are produced annually. It is stored at the mine but there are no long-term treatment and management plans for how to deal with this contaminated mining waste. There are no solutions for dealing with spent fuel rods and other high-level radioactive waste generated from the nuclear cycle. 33 + 34 +Drought will prevent nuclear power from working, water resources are already too scarce to waste. 35 +AP 8(“Drought Could Shut Down Nuclear Plants” MITCH WEISS, Jan 23, http://news.aol.com/story/_a/drought-could-shut-down-nuclear-plants/20080123164209990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001)– 36 +Nuclear reactors across the Southeast could be forced to throttle back or temporarily shut down later this year because drought is drying up the rivers and lakes that supply power plants with the awesome amounts of cooling water they need to operate. Utility officials say such shutdowns probably wouldn't result in blackouts. But they could lead to shockingly higher electric bills for millions of Southerners, because the region's utilities may be forced to buy expensive replacement power from other energy companies, there has been one brief, drought-related shutdown, at a reactor in Alabama over the summer. "Water is the nuclear industry's Achilles' heel," said Jim Warren, executive director of N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, an environmental group critical of nuclear power. "You need a lot of water to operate nuclear plants." He added: "This is becoming a crisis." Analysis of the nation's 104 nuclear reactors found that 24 are in areas experiencing the most severe levels of drought. All but two are built on the shores of lakes and rivers and rely on submerged intake pipes to draw billions of gallons of water for use in cooling and condensing steam after it has turned the plants' turbines. 37 + 38 +Advantage 3: Economy 39 + 40 +Although current nuclear plants are expanding to meet current needs new reactors need to be built to meet future energy needs 41 +Fertel 4 (Marvin, Senior VP and chief Nuclear officer at Nuclear energy Institute, March 4,2004, http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2004/energysubcmtefertelextended) 42 +As our country prepares for the construction of new nuclear power plants, the U.S. industry has increased the productivity and efficiency of its existing 103 plants. The industry continues to uprate capacity at U.S. plants—the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has authorized more than 2,000 megawatts (MW) of power uprates over the last three years, and another 2,000 MW are expected over the next several years. An uprate increases the output of the nuclear reactor and must be approved by the NRC to ensure that the plant can operate safely at the higher production level. Companies will invest in these power uprates as conditions in their local power markets justify. In addition, energy companies are pursuing renewal of their operating licenses. This option allows today’s operating plants to extend their lives for 20 additional years—from 40 to 60 years. Just in the past 12 months, the NRC has approved renewed licenses for 13 reactors, bringing the total number of reactors extending their federal operating licenses to 23. An additional 33 reactors either have already filed their renewal applications, or indicated formally to NRC that they intend to do so. That represents over one-half of U.S. reactors. We expect virtually all our nuclear plants will renew their licenses—simply because it makes good economic sense to do so. With license renewal, our first plants will operate until the 2030s and our newest plants will run past 2050. As an industry, we’ve implemented systematic programs across the industry to manage the systems and components in these plants for their entire expected lifetime. And we’re making the capital investments necessary to allow 60 years of operation at sustained high levels of safety and reliability. Increasing electricity production at nuclear power plants is a key component of the president’s voluntary program to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of the U.S. economy. In December 2002, NEI responded to President Bush’s challenge to the business community to develop voluntary initiatives that would reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity of the U.S. economy. NEI indicated that the U.S. nuclear energy industry could increase its generating capability by the equivalent of 10,000 MW. NEI’s analysis showed that this would achieve approximately 20 percent of the president’s goal. The additional 10,000 MW would come from three sources: Power Uprates—5,000 to 6,500 MW of capacity additions between 2002 and 2012. Improved Capacity Factors—the equivalent of 3,000 to 5,000 MW of additional capacity in 2002-2012. Plant Restarts—refurbishing and restarting Tennessee Valley Authority’s Browns Ferry Unit 1 would add 1,250 MW. The nuclear energy industry has recorded substantial progress toward its goal. The NRC has approved 2,198 MW of uprates in the past several years. In addition, based on information from nuclear plant operators, the NRC expects applications for an additional 1,886 MW of uprates in the 2004-2008 period. 5 In addition, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is moving forward with refurbishment of Unit 1 of the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant. The TVA Board in May 2002 approved the refurbishment and restart, a $1.8-billion project that is expected to return the reactor to commercial operation in 2007. Browns Ferry Unit 1 is not a new construction reactor, but its comprehensive refurbishment and restart, when complete, will represent a significant accomplishment for the industry. With 5,334 MW of new capacity in prospect (4,084 megawatts of uprates and 1,250 MW at Browns Ferry Unit 1), the nuclear energy industry will be approximately halfway toward meeting its goal of expanding capacity by 10,000 megawatts by 2012. This represents substantial progress—the largest progress of any single industry—toward achievement of the president’s goal to reduce the GHG intensity of the U.S. economy by 18 percent by 2012. Obviously, there are limits on how much additional electricity output can be produced at the existing 103 nuclear power plants. Meeting the nation’s growing demand for electricity—which will require as much as 400,000 MW by 2025, depending on assumptions about electricity demand growth6 —will require construction of several new nuclear power plants in the years ahead. 43 + 44 +Nuclear power would be costly and crush the economy 45 +Rifkin 6 (Jeremy, founder and president of the Foundation of Economic Trends and the author of “The Hydrogen Economy: The Creation of the World Wide Energy Web and the Redistribution of Power on Earth”, “Nuclear Energy: Still a bad idea”, Los Angeles Time, September 29, http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0929-33.htm) 46 +First, nuclear power is unaffordable. With minimum price tags of $2 billion each, new-generation nuclear power plants are 50 more expensive than putting coal-fired power plants online, and they are far more expensive than new gas-fired power plants. The cost of doubling nuclear power's share of U.S. electricity generation — which currently produces 20 of our electricity — could exceeds half a trillion dollars. In a country facing record consumer and government debt, where is the money going to come from? Consumers would pay the price in terms of higher taxes to support government subsidies and higher electricity bills. Second, 60 years = our scientists still don't know how to safely transport, dispose of or store nuclear waste. Spent nuclear rods are piling up all over the world. In the United States, the federal government spent more than $8 billion and 20 years building what was supposed to be an airtight, underground burial tomb dug deep into Yucca Mountain in Nevada to hold radioactive material. The vault was designed to be leak-free for 10,000 years. Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency concedes that the underground storage facility will leak. According to a study conducted by the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2001, known uranium resources could fail to meet demand, possibly as early as 2026. Of course, new deposits could be discovered, and it is possible that new technological breakthroughs could reduce uranium requirements, but that remains purely speculative. 47 + 48 +Advantage 4: Health 49 + 50 +Nuclear waste sites will inevitably create health problems for future generations. 51 +Brook 98 Daniel, “Environmental Genocide: Native Americans and Toxic Waste,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 57, No. 1, Jan., pp. 105-113, http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3487423.pdf 52 +Unfortunately, it is a sad but true fact that virtually every landfill leaks, and every incinerator emits hundreds of toxic chemicals into the air, land and water" (Angel 1991, 3). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concedes that "even if the protective systems work according to plan, the landfills will eventually leak poisons into the environment" (ibid.). Therefore, even if these toxic waste sites are safe for the present generation-a rather dubious proposition at best-they will pose an increasingly greater health and safety risk for all future generations. Native people (and others) will eventually pay the costs of these toxic pollutants with their lives, "costs to which corporate executives are conveniently immune" (Parker 1983, 59). In this way, private corporations are able to externalize their costs onto the commons, thereby subsidizing their earnings at the expense of health, safety, and the environment. 53 + 54 +Radiation results in cancers and death. 55 +WNA 2 (“Radiation and Life”, http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/ral.htm) 56 +It has been known for many years that large doses of ionising radiation, very much larger than background levels, can cause a measurable increase in cancers and leukemias ('cancer of the blood') after some years delay. It must also be assumed, because of experiments on plants and animals, that ionising radiation can also cause genetic mutations that affect future generations, although there has been no evidence of radiation-induced mutation in humans. At very high levels, radiation can cause sickness and death within weeks of exposure - see Table. The degree of damage caused by radiation depends on many factors - dose, dose rate, type of radiation, the part of the body exposed, age and health, for example. Embryos including the human fetus are particularly sensitive to radiation damage. But what are the chances of developing cancer from low doses of radiation? The prevailing assumption is that any dose of radiation, no matter how small, involves a possibility of risk to human health. 57 + 58 +Advantage 5: Nuclear Weapons 59 + 60 +Nuclear power would be an easy way to spread terrorism further in the Middle East. 61 +Rifkin 6 (Jeremy, founder and president of the Foundation of Economic Trends and the author of “The Hydrogen Economy: The Creation of the World Wide Energy Web and the Redistribution of Power on Earth”, “Nuclear Energy: Still a bad idea”, Los Angeles Time, September 29, http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0929-33.htm) 62 +Fourth, building hundreds of nuclear power plants in an era of spreading Islamic terrorism seems insane. On the one hand the United States, the European Union and much of the world is frightened by the mere possibility that just one country — Iran — might use enriched uranium from its nuclear power plants for a nuclear bomb. On the other hand, many of the same governments are eager to spread nuclear power plants around the world, placing them in every nook and cranny of the planet. This means uranium and spent nuclear waste in transit everywhere and piling up in makeshift facilities, often close to heavily populated urban areas. Nuclear power plants are the ultimate soft target for terrorist attacks. On Nov. 8, 2005, the Australian government arrested 18 suspected Islamic terrorists who were allegedly plotting to blow up Australia's only nuclear power plant. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission found that more than half of the nuclear power plants in this country failed to prevent a simulated attack on their facilities. We should all be very. 63 + 64 +Proliferation is inevitable with nuclear power. This ultimately leads to full scale nuclear conflict. 65 +Digges 8 (Charles. Author at The Environmental Foundation Bellona, “Nuclear energy not an alternative for fight on Climate Change.” 10.01.2008.) http://www.bellona.org/position_papers/nonuke_bellonaposition 66 +The nuclear relationship between Russia and Iran is a prescient example of corporate or governmental greed running roughshod over nonproliferation concerns. By building a $1 billion reactor in Iran’s port of Bushehr, Russia opened a Pandora’s Box of nuclear technology for Iran, which has developed uranium enrichment to a level that puts it, by IAEA estimates, within two to 10 years of building a nuclear weapon. For its part, France is underwriting the construction of a nuclear power plant in Libya, and actively encourages nuclear development in the Middle East. The relationship between the basic infrastructure of the fuel cycle and the eventual development of nuclear weapons technology is a well-worn path. Quite simply, any nuclear fuel cycle facility such as a uranium enrichment facility or a reprocessing facility can be used, if built in sufficient sizes, to produce nuclear weapons. Where the worldwide nuclear fuel cycle to expand to the dimensions needed to even begin cutting CO2 emissions and meet energy needs, the development of nuclear weapons – the world’s single geopolitical doomsday devices - would be possible virtually everywhere. The corporate interests of spreading nuclear technology thereby put the most feared technologies in direct proximity to many nations who have established ties to terrorist organizations. Cheap energy then becomes inestimable loss of life and reconstruction costs when viewed in light of the ever more likely possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack, or even the heightened chances of a full blown nuclear war. With the global concerns about nuclear proliferation in places such as North Korea and Iran, development of nuclear power globally is untenable given the existence of perfectly acceptable, renewable and non-weapons usable energy technologies. And while certain very specific disarmament agreements – like the Cooperative Threat Reduction act between Russia and the United States have stemmed this spiral between the two Cold War foes, larger-scale treaties, like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) are under constant challenge. Written with the aim of pressing its nuclear-armed signatories toward disarmament, while holding its non-nuclear armed nuclear energy producing nations to the agreement not to build nuclear weapons, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has been particularly - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-25 14:27:57.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +ur m0m - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Prolly some DnG kid - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +27 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Appleton East Moorhead Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +SEPOCT- Shitstorm v2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Practice Rounds
- Caselist.RoundClass[23]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +22 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-17 00:03:08.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Brian Devine - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Brookfield East TG - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Octas - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,4 @@ 1 +1AC- Race based militarism 2 +1NC- Cap K NC case w plan text court clog DA 3 +2NR- Cap K and court clog DA 4 +2AR- Condo - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Alexandra Hoechrel Challenge
- Caselist.RoundClass[24]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +23 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-17 00:07:16.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Josh You - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +La Canada AZ - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,4 @@ 1 +1AC- Pedagogy 2 +1NC- Race K Hate Speech CP IRLaw DA 3 +2NR- Hate Speech CP IRLaw DA 4 +2AR- Case - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Blake
- Caselist.RoundClass[25]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +24 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-24 14:05:16.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Vrana, Snyder, Broomfield - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Sheboygan North RW - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Semis - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +NFL Quals
- Caselist.RoundClass[26]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +25 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-24 15:30:50.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Erika Schneider - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Golda Meir KP - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +CFL Quals
- Caselist.RoundClass[27]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +26 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-25 14:27:55.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +ur m0m - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Prolly some DnG kid - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Practice Rounds
- Caselist.RoundClass[28]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-29 01:39:22.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Kimberly Herrera - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Whitefish Bay RD - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +West Bend