Tournament: Sunvitational | Round: Octas | Opponent: na | Judge: na
Part A: Inherency
The USFG just passed the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act which applies to all bodies within the United States
Chamseddine 16
Chamseddine, Roqayah, 2016, US Senate quickly passed the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, Mondoweiss, , US Senate quickly passed the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/12/quickly-semitism-awareness/#sthash.jjwv8JZ1.dpuf

On Thursday, December 1st, the US Senate quickly passed the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, a bipartisan bill proposed by Senators Bob Casey (D-PA) and Tim Scott (R-SC), supported by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which aims to “codify the definition as one adopted by the U.S. State Department’s Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism.” The Special Envoy, a project of the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004, uses the controversial definition of anti-Semitism produced by the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia which interprets anti-Semitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” The examples of anti-Semitism published by the Special Envoy include “blaming Israel for all inter-religious or political tensions”, “…focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations”, and efforts to delegitimize Israel by “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist”. According to Jewish Voice For Peace, the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, which requires the Department of Education to redefine violations of Title VI rules of alleged discrimination,
Part B: Plan

Thus the advocacy: Colleges and Universities should reject the implementation of the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act through policy
Stern explains,
Stern S., Kenneth, 2016, Will Campus Criticism of Israel Violate Federal Law?, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/opinion/will-campus-criticism-of-israel-violate-federal-law.html?_r=0, American defense attorney and an author, director of the Justus and Karin Rosenberg Foundation
No college student should be threatened, harassed or intimidated through words or deeds. But every student should be disquieted and forced to wrestle with difficult ideas, even hateful ones, and especially with ideas they find disagreeable. On some campuses pro-Israel Jewish students feel victimized. Some classmates who back the Palestinian cause view them as racist, and some activists have encouraged violations of academic freedom, from the heckling of pro-Israel speakers to the boycotting of Israeli academic institutions. But, as was true 25 years ago, the worst remedy is to prohibit speech deemed offensive, disparaging or bigoted that would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment. The proposed Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2016 is a speech code for schools and colleges that’s presented as common-sense protection against bigotry. After it was unanimously passed by the Senate recently, the House Judiciary Committee put off consideration until 2017. As I have told the committee, it should not be considered in any form. The act would require the Department of Education, when deciding whether federal antidiscrimination laws have been violated, to consider the Department of State’s definition of anti-Semitism, which is a version of the “Working Definition of Anti-Semitism” issued in 2005 by the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia. I was the lead author of the center’s definition, when I was director on anti-Semitism for the American Jewish Committee. I encouraged the State Department to use it when discussing anti-Semitism with other countries. The definition contains examples related to criticism of Israel, including applying double standards by demanding it behave in ways not expected of other democratic countries, or denying Jews the right of self-determination by claiming that the existence of Israel is a racist endeavor. The definition was intended for data collectors writing reports about anti-Semitism in Europe. It was never supposed to curtail speech on campus. And Jewish students are protected under the law as it now stands. In 2010 the Education Department clarified that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin in federally funded programs, also protects Jewish students. That means that schools and colleges could lose federal funding when they’re the site of a Title VI violation involving anti-Semitism. In the wake of that clarification, in 2011 I initiated a Title VI case against a school district where Jews were bullied, intimidated and even kicked, forcing officials to take action. But some right-wing Jewish groups, and individuals, have tried to overstep the bounds of the clarification by filing Title VI cases arguing that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel, educational programs about the occupation of the West Bank, and anti-Israel classroom texts and speakers transgressed the definition and were evidence of a Title VI violation. 

Part C: Advantages
Advantage One: Palestinian Liberation
Criticizing Israel as a colonialist state is necessary to reform its conflict with Palestine.
Rosen 16
https://rabbibrant.com/2016/04/02/yes-zionism-is-settler-colonialism/
Given this definition, the claim that Zionism is a form of settler colonialism it is not at all inappropriate and certainly not anti-Semitic (as some of the more vociferous Israel advocates will often claim). There is, for instance, a striking similarity between the British colonial concept of “terra nullius” and the early Zionist slogan, “a land without a people for a people without a land.” This is not say that Zionists viewed the land as literally empty – they most certainly recognized the existence of an Arab population in Palestine. It does mean, however, that they did not always factor its indigenous inhabitants into their equations – and when they did, it was invariably as a problem to be dealt with. The father of modern Zionism made this clear in his diary when he wrote of Palestinian Arabs: We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries whilst denying it any employment in our own country. David Ben-Gurion expressed similar intentions in a 1937 letter to his son Amos (who was critical of his father’s intention to support the 1937 Peel Commission partition plan): My assumption (which is why I am a fervent proponent of a state, even though it is now linked to partition) is that a Jewish state on only part of the land is not the end but the beginning… The establishment of a state, even if only on a portion of the land, is the maximal reinforcement of our strength at the present time and a powerful boost to our historical endeavors to liberate the entire country. We shall admit into the state all the Jews we can. We firmly believe that we can admit more than two million Jews. We shall build a multi-faceted Jewish economy– agricultural, industrial, and maritime. We shall organize an advanced defense force—a superior army which I have no doubt will be one of the best armies in the world. At that point I am confident that we would not fail in settling in the remaining parts of the country, through agreement and understanding with our Arab neighbors, or through some other means. Thanks to Israeli historians such as Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim, Tom Segev and Ilan Pappe, we now know that the creation of Israel was accomplished through “some other means.” More recently, journalist Avi Shavit recently made reference to this ignoble history in his book, “My Promised Land.” The most chilling chapter (which was reprinted in the New Yorker magazine) describes in detail the depopulation of the Palestinian village of Lydda. Even more chilling are Shavit’s musings on the meaning of this tragic event: Looking straight ahead at Lydda, I wonder if peace is possible. Our side is clear: we had to come into the Lydda Valley and we had to take the Lydda Valley. There is no other home for us, and there was no other way. But the Arabs’ side, the Palestinian side, is equally clear: they cannot forget Lydda and they cannot forgive us for Lydda. You can argue that it is not the occupation of 1967 that is at the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but the tragedy of 1948. It’s not only the settlements that are an obstacle to peace but the Palestinians’ yearning to return, one way or another, to Lydda and to dozens of other towns and villages that vanished during one cataclysmic year. But the Jewish State cannot let them return. Many who reject the “Zionism as Settler Colonialism” label often argue that this claim ignores the historic and Biblical connection of the Jewish people to the land – and that Jews are its “true indigenous people” who have been longing for a return and restoration to their ancient homeland for centuries. Leaving aside the use of anprofoundly ahistorical document such as the Bible as justification for the establishment for a modern Jewish nation state, let’s look more closely at the Zionist claim of Jewish indigeneity to the land.
The ASAA functions as a method to silence criticisms of Israeli occupation preventing productive discussion
Stern continues,
Stern S., Kenneth, 2016, Will Campus Criticism of Israel Violate Federal Law?, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/opinion/will-campus-criticism-of-israel-violate-federal-law.html?_r=0, American defense attorney and an author, director of the Justus and Karin Rosenberg Foundation
All the cases lost. Then these groups urged the University of California system to adopt the State Department definition. It didn’t. Now they want to enshrine the definition into law so that the Department of Education would consider anti-Israel speech when it assesses a Title VI violation. What’s next? Should Congress define what speech is Islamophobic? Anti-Palestinian? Racist? Anti-white? How about defining “anti-United States” speech? We could dust off the files of the House Un-American Activities Committee. One group supported the legislation because it believes “Jewish students do not receive the same protections that other demographic groups receive.” It cites examples of a professor being suspended over a blog post on gay marriage that was considered homophobic and the canceling of a campus screening of the film “American Sniper,” which was called anti-Islamic. Rather than see these as troubling violations of academic freedom and free speech, proponents of the congressional bill want to suppress criticism of Israel, too. If this bill becomes law it is easy to imagine calls for university administrators to stop pro-Palestinian speech. Even if lawsuits alleging Title VI violations fail, students and faculty members will be scared into silence, and administrators will err on the side of suppressing or censuring speech. In a political environment in which all good is seen on one side and all bad on the other, a law that punishes political speech stirs more hatred. When people are seduced by the false notion that a law can stop hateful ideas, they neglect to actually fight bigotry. Aside from conducting anonymous student surveys about campus climate, and making sure students know how to report harassment, there should be more courses on anti-Semitism, on the human capacity to hate, on the conflicting narratives of the Israel-Palestine conflict and on how to discuss difficult subjects. 

Movements and criticism in universities can have real impacts and change policy, 

Delgado and Ross 164  

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 and 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. 

Advantage Two: Reducing Anti-Semitism
To reduce Anti-Semitism, we must be able to criticize institutions in a constructive manner and allow for a counternarrative narrative.
Somerson 16
Somerson, Wendy, et al, 2016, An Exchange Between Wendy Elisheva Somerson and Yotam Marom on Anti-Semitism in the Left and the Jewish Left, Tikkun, http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/an-exchange-between-wendy-somerson-and-yotam-marom-on-anti-semitism-in-the-left-and-the-jewish-left
I recently got to join a discussion with Judith Butler about how false accusations of anti-Semitism are used against the Palestinian solidarity movement. These charges portray a movement that advocates freedom and justice in Palestine as a cover for anti-Semitism. In order for this logic to work, it relies on two false equations: criticizing the state of Israel is equal to criticizing all Jewish people because the state of Israel is synonymous with Jews. The best way to refute this logic is to keep arguing for Jewish complexity by insisting on our diverse Jewish histories, racial identities, and, importantly, varying viewpoints on Israel. By insisting on the many differences among Jews, we can keep separating our Jewish identities from the State of Israel. Marom does the opposite by constructing one overarching narrative of what it means to be Jewish, which reinforces Ashkenazi-centrism, collapses Jews with Israel, and positions Jews in a static category of victimhood. I

Our method is necessary to create a productive counter-narrative for American Jews and reduce Anti-Semitism
Somerson 2
Somerson, Wendy, et al, 2016, An Exchange Between Wendy Elisheva Somerson and Yotam Marom on Anti-Semitism in the Left and the Jewish Left, Tikkun, http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/an-exchange-between-wendy-somerson-and-yotam-marom-on-anti-semitism-in-the-left-and-the-jewish-left
While I do believe we should name and fight anti-Semitism on the Left and elsewhere, most of what Marom reads as anti-Semitism actually seems like criticism of the Israeli state. We need to be crystal clear in differentiating anti-Semitism from critique of Israel, both to legitimize the right to criticize any state’s power and to make our fight against anti-Semitism effective. Unfortunately, even for Jews on the Left, it seems that Israel has spoken in our names for so long that we have internalized the idea that Israel is somehow “ours” as Jews, and then we treat Israel like a hapless relative whom we must defend against outside attacks. Only we are allowed to criticize it, but by treating Israel like an errant family member instead of a powerful nation-state, we are weakening our analysis of structural power and turning conversations that should be about Israel’s violation of Palestinian human rights to conversations about us as Jews. Marom writes about attending a 2014 protest of the Israeli assault on Gaza and seeing posters of the Jewish star with an equal sign next to a Nazi swastika, as well as other signs equating Israel with the SS and Hitler. I, too, have written about my discomfort in seeing these signs that make my head spin, but I’m not convinced that these are clear signs of anti-Semitism. They certainly indicate a general confusion about how these tragedies are connected, which is all the more reason, we need to keep forwarding our own analysis. And yes, I do wish non-Jewish folks would step up and ask folks not to bring these signs at rallies, but that doesn’t mean the signs represent a hatred of Jewish people, though they certainly indicate a hatred of the state that claims to speak in our name. More disturbing to me is Marom’s criticism of friends who post articles about the Israeli army’s training of American police officers who use these tactics against Black communities. For Marom, although this brings up important connections, it also obscures power dynamics “as if we should take the connections to mean that Israel is so powerful that even the US war machine takes its direction from there, as if these police trainings or even Israel itself could exist without US imperialism, as if the Jews in Israel are the Americans’ puppet-masters and not the other way around.” Do we have to assert that one state is a puppet master for the other? The puppet master analogy reinforces the notion of Israel as our powerless relative and entirely misses the point that both repressive states rely on each other and share worst tactics for controlling vulnerable populations. 

Part D: Framework
The role of the ballot is to vote for the best liberation strategy for the oppressed.
Questioning existing structures of oppression is the only way to fix a broken educational system. We should use the resolution as a starting point for debate on how we can reduce an aspect of status quo oppression. That means endorsing the role of the ballot is the right place for solvency.

Giroux 1
Polychroniou, CJ, Neoliberalism and the Politics of Higher Education: An Interview With Henry A. Giroux, Truthout, March 26, 2013, http://truth-out.org/news/item/15237-predatory-capitalism-and-the-attack-on-higher-education-an-interview-with-henry-a-giroux. DR.

Giroux: Higher education must be understood as a democratic public sphere - a space in which education enables students to develop a keen sense of prophetic justice, claim their moral and political agency, utilize critical analytical skills, and cultivate an ethical sensibility through which they learn to respect the rights of others. Higher education has a responsibility not only to search for the truth regardless of where it may lead, but also to educate students to make authority and power politically and morally accountable while at the same time sustaining a democratic, formative public culture. Higher education may be one of the few public spheres left where knowledge, values and learning offer a glimpse of the promise of education for nurturing public values, critical hope and a substantive democracy. Democracy places civic demands upon its citizens, and such demands point to the necessity of an education that is broad-based, critical, and supportive of meaningful civic values, participation in self-governance, and democratic leadership. Only through such a formative and critical educational culture can students learn how to become individual and social agents, rather than merely disengaged spectators, must be able both to think otherwise and to act upon civic commitments that demand a reordering of basic power arrangements fundamental to promoting the common good and producing a meaningful democracy.  

Advocating for clear actions and engaging existing ideologies are key to education, we can use the usual weighing mechanisms absent of normativity
Giroux 2  
Giroux, Henry. Waterbury Chair Professor, Pennsylvania State University “Critical Pedagogy and the Postmodern/Modern Divide: Towards a Pedagogy of Democratization.” Teacher Education Quarterly, Winter 2004.
Critical pedagogy locates discursive practices in a broader set of interrelations, but it also analyzes and gives meaning to such relations by defining them within particular contexts constructed through the operations of power as articulated through the interaction among texts, teachers, and students. Questions of articulation and context need to be fore grounded as both a matter of ethics and politics. Ethically, critical pedagogy requires an ongoing indictment “of those forms of truth-seeking which imagined themselves to be eternally and placelessly valid” (Gilroy, 2000, p.69). Simply put, Educators need to must cast a critical eye on those forms of knowledge and social relations that define themselves through a conceptual purity and political innocence that cloud not only how they come into being but also ignore that their alleged neutrality on which they stand is already grounded in ethico-political choices. Thomas Keenan (1997) rightly argues that Ethics on the pedagogical front demands an openness to the other, a willingness to engage a ‘politics of possibility’ through a continual critical engagement. with texts, images, events, and other registers of meaning as they are transformed into public pedagogies (p. 2). One consequence of linking pedagogy to the specificity of place is that it foregrounds the need for educators to rethink the cultural and political baggage they bring to each educational encounter; it also highlights the necessity of making educators ethically and politically accountable for the stories they produce, the claims they make upon public memory, and the images of the future they deem legitimate. Pedagogy is never innocent and if it is to be understood and problematized as a form of academic labor, Educators must not only critically question and register their own subjective involvement in how and what they teach, they must also resist all calls to depoliticize pedagogy through appeals to either scientific objectivity or ideological dogmatism. Far from being disinterested or ideologically frozen, Critical pedagogy is concerned about the articulation of knowledge to social effects and succeeds to the degree in which when educators encourage critical reflection and moral and civic agency rather than simply mold it. Crucial to this position is the necessity for critical educators to be attentive to the ethical dimensions
wage?
Underview
Debate has become the university with knowledge reproduction and the act of teaching. This is exemplified by the continued exclusion of minority voices in debate.
Smith
Elijah J. Smith, 2013 cross examination debate association (ceda) and national debate tournament (ndt) champion, 9/4/13, A CONVERSATION IN RUINS: RACE AND BLACK PARTICIPATION IN LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE, Victory Briefs, http://victorybriefs.com/vbd/2013/9/a-conversation-in-ruins-race-and-black-participation-in-lincoln-douglas-debate
At every tournament you attend this year look around the cafeteria and take note of which students are not sitting amongst you and your peers. Despite being some of the best and the brightest in the nation, many students are alienated from and choose to not participate in an activity I like to think of as homeplace. In addition to the heavy financial burden associated with national competition, the exclusionary atmosphere of a debate tournament discourages black students from participating. Widespread awareness of the same lack of participation in policy debate has led to a growing movement towards alternative styles and methods of engaging the gatekeepers of the policy community, (Reid-Brinkley 08) while little work has been done to address or even acknowledge the same concern in Lincoln Douglas debate. Unfortunately students of color are not only forced to cope with a reality of structural violence outside of debate, but within an activity they may have joined to escape it in the first place. We are facing more than a simple trend towards marginalization occurring in Lincoln Douglas, but a culture of exclusion that locks minority participants out of the ranks of competition. It will be uncomfortable, it will be hard, and it will require continued effort but the necessary step in fixing this problem, like all problems, is the community as a whole admitting that such a problem with many “socially acceptable” choices exists in the first place. Like all systems of social control, the reality of racism in debate is constituted by the singular choices that institutions, coaches, and students make on a weekly basis. I have watched countless rounds where competitors attempt to win by rushing to abstractions to distance the conversation from the material reality that black debaters are forced to deal with every day. One of the students I coached, who has since graduated after leaving debate, had an adult judge write out a ballot that concluded by “hypothetically” defending my student being lynched at the tournament. Another debate concluded with a young man defending that we can kill animals humanely, “just like we did that guy Troy Davis”. Community norms would have competitors do intellectual gymnastics or make up rules to accuse black debaters of breaking to escape hard conversations but as someone who understands that experience, the only constructive strategy is to acknowledge the reality of the oppressed, engage the discussion from the perspective of authors who are black and brown, and then find strategies to deal with the issues at hand. It hurts to see competitive seasons come and go and have high school students and judges spew the same hateful things you expect to hear at a Klan rally. A student should not, when presenting an advocacy that aligns them with the oppressed, have to justify why oppression is bad. Debate is not just a game, but a learning environment with liberatory potential. Even if the form debate gives to a conversation is not the same you would use to discuss race in general conversation with Bayard Rustin or Fannie Lou Hamer, that is not a reason we have to strip that conversation of its connection to a reality that black students cannot escape.
The strategy of the AC is a resistance from systems of racism that manifest in debate. Systems of exclusion intensify these skews, calling for their rejection.
Vincent 13
Vincent, Chrism, 2013, Re-Conceptualizing our Performances: Accountability in Lincoln Douglas Debate, VBriefly

Debate should first and foremost be viewed as a performance. Every action taken, every word said, and every speech given reflects a performance of the body. Yet in an age where debate is about how many arguments a student can get on the flow, white students’ performances are consistently allowed to be detached from their bodies, performance by the body, while students of color must always embody their discourse. As a result universal theories are allowed to be viewed as detached from any meaning outside of being just an argument. My argument is three-fold. First, debaters have adopted a “universal principle,” which has allowed them to be detached from the practical implications of what they said. Second, is that we must re-conceptualize the role of speech and the speech act to account for the in round performances of the body. The final part is that judges must begin to view their roles as educators and must be accountable for the discourse they endorse with their ballot. In his chapter on “Non Cartesian Sums,” in Blackness Visible, Charles Mills argues that “white experience is embedded as normative, and the embedding is so deep that its normativity is not even identified as such.” Historically, universal theories never intended to include black bodies into the cannon. Mills argues that in philosophy: “A reconceptualization is necessary because the structuring logic is different. The peculiar features of the African American experience—racial slavery, which linked biological phenotype to social subordination, and which is chronologically located in the modern epoch, ironically coincident with the emergence of liberalism’s proclamation of universal human equality—are not part of the experience represented in the abstractions of European and Euro-American philosophers.” We generate universal theories and assume they can be applied to anyone. These abstractions assume a conception of universality that never intended to account for the African American experience. This drowns out the perspectives of students of color that are historically excluded from the conversation. Normativity becomes a privilege that historically students of color do not get to access because of the way we discuss things. These same philosophical texts have served as a cornerstone in Lincoln Douglas and in turn have been used to justify exclusion
Counter Interp – A: Interp: The aff may defend Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not implement a speech restriction law

1. Critical Engagement
   a. Repealing specific bad acts allows us to criticize the right parts of the squo
   b. The importance of the aff in terms of education outweighs your fairness claim
   2. Strategy Skew
   a. You can read unlimited indicts to a full res aff
   b. You can read any counterplan that is ME
   c. You can read a pic with a generic plank

Tournament: Columbia Invitational | Round: 2 | Opponent: Harrison EL | Judge: Ben Koh
Part 1 is the SQUO:

The resolution posits that all bodies are able to access the rights and benefits guaranteed under a protection of “Free Speech.” However, laws surrounding free speech routinely ignore people with disabilities who are non-verbal, and have alternate means of communication. Article 19 ‘16 

The existence of a comprehensive legal and policy framework is crucial for persons with disabilities to have the basis for demanding and accessing information they need on various issues relevant to their lives. There is an important global trend towards adoption of right to information laws: today, nearly 100 countries have adopted dedicated laws granting individuals a general right to access information held by public bodies, and imposing an obligation on public bodies to proactively disclose key types of information (as compared to 1990, when only 13 countries had such laws). Despite this global recognition, many countries, especially those in the developing world, have no dedicated freedom of information legislation giving practical effect to the right: • In Africa: only 18 countries (out of 55) have adopted specific freedom of information legislation; while two countries have executive regulations on the subject (Niger and Tunisia) and some countries having sectorial legislation, meaning legislation that guarantees the right to freedom of information on a specific subject; • In the Americas and the Caribbean, 21 countries (out of 55) have adopted right to information laws; • In Asia and the Pacific: only 14 countries (out of 45) have adopted access to information laws; and one country (China) has introduced executive regulations; • In the Middle East: only five countries (out of 14) have adopted right to information legislation; • In Europe and Central Asia, 46 countries have adopted right to information laws. Despite dedicated laws being on the books, many legislative frameworks are extremely weak, including the limited scope of access to information laws, complicated procedures for requesters, extensive lists of exceptions, a lack of appeal proceedings in cases of refusal to provide requested information, failure to guarantee sanctions for authorities failing in their obligations to provide information, lack of promotional measures, and finally, the lack of strong oversight bodies. Failure of authorities and information holders to meet their obligations under the law Even in cases where a sufficient legal framework for freedom of information exists, the relevant authorities often fail to meet their minimum obligations under the respective legislation. Implementation of freedom of information laws is often lacking because of structural problems on the side of authorities and the failure to remove practical obstacles faced by persons with disabilities. • Information on crucial issues for persons with disabilities, especially welfare and social protection, education, health care, election, employment, access to justice or transportation, is inadequate or not provided on proactive basis. The lack of such information and the inability to ascertain which services and other measures are available leads to further disempowerment and exclusion of persons with disabilities and their families, as well as their inability or unwillingness to express their needs. • In many countries, information is not provided in a variety of formats that would make it accessible for persons with disabilities. The format required depends on the form of disability, for example: o Deaf and deaf-blind people use sign languages, and need sign language interpreters, including tactile or hands-on interpreters; people who are hard of hearing may need speech-reading, assistive listening devices, and good environmental acoustics in indoor settings; o People who are blind or have low vision require information in Braille, and access to information in Braille, audio and large-print materials, screen readers, and magnification equipment; o People with intellectual impairments need information presented in clear and simple language; o Non-speaking individuals need access to “augmentative and alternative communication”, including communication displays, sign language and speech generating devices. At the same time, reports also show that information is often provided in accessible formats only when the information relates to disability itself. Reports indicate that the vast majority of other information intended for the general public remains in inaccessible formats and languages. Problems are not simply limited to government policy brochures and information documents, but extend to information given at police stations, hospitals, schools and other support services. • Lack of awareness and prejudices: in many countries, the failure to provide access to information is sometimes the result of an intransigent mindset and culture of secrecy. However, negative attitudes and prejudices, which are a cross-cutting issue in the lives of many persons with disabilities, also impact the provision of information by public authorities and other duty bearers. Awareness raising, training and proactive measures to address these issues are therefore needed.

A lack of protection for freedom of expression of disabled individuals who are non-verbal means that the even if the resolution were passed, disabled bodies would still not be able to access its benefit, which is a direct disadvantage to a strict topical interpretations of the resolution. CRPD 

Despite the importance of the right to freedom of expression and opinion, persons with disabilities face numerous barriers to full enjoyment of this right. For instance, many persons with disabilities lack access to information in accessible formats. This is certainly true for mainstream media, where not all television programmes are broadcast with subtitles, captioning, or inset sign language interpretation for viewers who are deaf, or audio description for viewers who are blind or have visual impairments. Few newspapers are available in Braille or audio format in a timely manner for readers who are blind, and fewer still offer content in plain language suitable for people with intellectual disabilities. Despite the growing use of the Internet as a source of news and a means of research, many websites remain inaccessible to persons with disabilities. Emerging technologies, such as digital broadcasting and broadband, have the potential to enhance the accessibility features available to persons with disabilities. However, this potential will only be realized if decision-makers responsible for how information is distributed are aware of the need to address accessibility and are willing to listen to the views of product users who have disabilities. As with other human rights, one of the greatest barriers to enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression and opinion can be the attitudes of others. Prevailing social attitudes and stereotypes often create an environment in which the opinions of persons with disabilities are not welcome. Even when they do express themselves, their ideas and opinions may not be accepted as worthy of consideration on an equal basis with those of others. Persons with intellectual and psychosocial disabilities commonly face pressure from others to conform not only in their way of thinking, but also in their methods of expressing themselves, to a manner considered “more acceptable.” Some people with psychosocial disabilities have noted that forced treatment involving psychotropic medications can interfere substantially with a person’s thought processes, making it difficult to think clearly and formulate opinions. In some cases the actual objective of using these therapies is to alter the way people with psychosocial disabilities think and express themselves so that their behaviour and beliefs do not offend or upset other people. This treatment is often defended by the argument that it is in the person’s best interests to avoid thoughts, ideas, and opinions that are “not rational.”

AND, Even when access is theoretically possible, disabled students are still ignored. Countless disabled students struggle to access first amendment rights in the US legal system. Connors 

There are over 1 billion people in the world that suffer from disabilities (Human Rights Watch). Many of these people struggle for basic human rights daily, including first amendment rights such as free speech within their communities. Organizations, such as Human Rights Watch, are attempting to highlight many of these injustices by documenting cases of abuse against the disabled. One example of this occurs in parts of India, where young women with disabilities are treated brutally in mental institutions and hospitals. Women and children are not provided with proper healthcare and often subject to physical and sexual abuse. Their free speech is not being heard because many times their mental disabilities deprive them from communicating the injustices done to them. While this issue is in India, the necessity to direct attention to the problem globally is of severe importance. Another example, which occurred in the United States, involved a collegiate student with migraine issues. Carin Constantine suffered from intractable migraine syndrome while in law school and GMU. This is considered a disability, and thus is protected by the ADA. While taking an exam, she requested more time to finish because of severe headaches and was denied her request. She failed the course, but was offered a re-examination from GMU three months later. She proceeded to write an article in the school law paper highlighting her grievances with the process. This is where the free speech issue comes into play. GMU officials agreed to let her retake the exam, but told her beforehand that she would receive an “F” on the exam.  Constantine sued GMU and various GMU officials, alleging discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act (RA). She also alleged retaliation in violation of her First Amendment free speech rights. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Constantine for several reasons. One, she did indeed have a disability that is protected by the ADA. Secondly, she is qualified to receive the benefits or services of the public program because of her disability. Thirdly, she was excluded from participation on the basis of her disability. As for the free speech issue, it was determined that the university did not “inhibit” Constantine from writing in the school party, rather they “chilled” her free speech rights by holding her writing against her when they told her pre-exam that should be receive an “F” regardless of how she performed. This case, and the issues in India, shed light on just how vast disabilities can be. Whether it is a mental disability, or a migraine issue, first amendment speech should never be compromised at the expense of someone’s disability. Organizations like the Human Rights Watch are making strides at bringing this issue into the forefront, but more attention must be directed to this problem. If first amendment rights are important for all humans, why should those with a disability be excluded from this basic concept?

Part 2 is the IMPACT:
Finally, the language of the resolution even proves this systemic failure to consider disabled bodies. Prioritizing freedom of “speech” above freedom of expression perpetuates ableist communication styles that reaffirm conceptions of disability as undesirable. Ashby 11  

One of the critical questions facing Disability Studies is how to make central the voices of individuals with disabilities in research? In this paper, I interrogate the idea of "voice" in critical, qualitative research and its application to research involving individuals who do not use speech as their primary mode of expression. How do critical, qualitative research and theories of voice position participants whose means of expression challenge traditional notions of normative participation? I first problematize the premise of giving voice generally and then present four key issues, which include a) the question of competence for individuals who do not use speech, b) hearing silence, c) agency and voice, and d) broadening the conceptualization of voice beyond speech. I conclude with implications for qualitative researchers and others interested in facilitating voice for individuals using alternative forms of expression. The celebration and representation of voices, rather, implies endowing speaking subjects with a special significance. Giving voice to subjects includes the representation of individuals and groups who have been muted and marginalized. It implies the expression of their unique experience, usually through the reproduction of personal testimony and narrative. The authors describe celebration of voice as "endowsing speaking subjects with a special significance." While the message is clearly about empowerment and representation of marginalized perspectives, this passage also highlights a key challenge. Representation centers on speech. Spoken voice is clearly privileged in American culture. Where, then, does that leave individuals who do not speak or for whom speech is not always reliable? Consider the following example. During an observation in Jacob's eighth grade English class, Jacob was scheduled to present a poster and report on a famous nineteenth invention with his partner Diana. When it was their turn to present to the class, Jacob stood up and walked to the front with Diana. She handed Jacob the paper and he held it out in front of himself. Diana read the paper and turned back and forth between the class and Jacob who was standing to her right. Diana talked about the invention of the bicycle in 1890 and stated that it was important because they did not have bicycles before that. Jacob laughed and clucked quietly. As the presentation continued, there was muttering and snickering from students in the class. Diana read another page about the invention of the washing machine and then they were done. One of the male students in the class sarcastically shouted out, "Good job Jacob." Several other students cheered as Diana and Jacob took their seats. Jacob never spoke or participated in the presentation in any way other than holding the paper on which the material was written. I am sure he participated in the development of the project and the writing of the text, but that was not evident during the oral presentation. With no means of complex expression available to him in class, he was effectively silenced, rendered voiceless and unable to present himself as a thinking, capable member of the class. In an attempt to have Jacob present "without support" he was unable to present at all. His ideas and perspectives were never accessible to his peers. Normative conceptions of performance, participation and independence clearly impact the opportunities provided to individuals with disabilities. Some people with disabilities will always need the support of another person to communicate and make themselves heard. Traditional liberal theory leaves individuals labeled with cognitive disabilities outside the ranks of "citizen" (Erevelles, 2002). This often results from an emphasis on independence and utilitarian principles of liberal theory. In keeping with the idea of a self-sufficient, rational being as the ideal of American individualism, disability studies scholars have recognized that "the autonomous individual is imagined as having inviolate boundaries that enable unfettered self-determination, creating a myth of wholeness" (Thomson, 1996, p. 32). In western culture, independence is prized over interdependence and social good comes from "one's individual utility, intrinsic ability and personal performance with society being enriched when individuals attain their personal ends" (Kliewer, 1998, p. 3). People considered to have cognitive disabilities, some of whom may never be able to function in ways that are considered independent according to Western traditions, are often seen or constructed as less then fully human. I would argue, however, that none of us operates truly independently and that the idea of inviolate boundaries is a myth for everyone. Unfortunately, if you require support from others to dress, or move or communicate those dependencies become justification for exclusion from the ranks of the American ideal and perhaps from the ranks of those who have a "voice" that merits attention. If we continue to conceptualize voice as speech, certain individuals with disabilities will always be constructed as being without one. If we only listen to a normative voice (Mazzei, 2009), one that looks and sounds familiar, we will recreate that which we already "know." However, if we think of voice more broadly as the ability to express oneself and be heard by others, that can encompass typed text, non-verbal communication, gestural communication or silence, which leaves the door open for a more expansive conceptualization of participation and engagement. Mazzei (2009) argues for an orientation of "listening in the cracks," hearing voice in all aspects of interaction, from the words spoken — or typed — to the gestures and silences. Listening for the unvoiced and the differently voiced can be messy, uncomfortable work, but it creates the opportunity for a fuller, richer understanding. 

Part 3 is the Advocacy:

The only response is to crip the educational sphere, and the disableist system that produces the conditions that make them possible. Cripping is a process that challenges dominant narratives and is contextualized through a multi tiered process.

Aspenlieder and Preston '14 (Erin, Educational Developer at the University of Guelph – summarizing verbal presentation by Jeffrey Preston – Cripping the Classroom: Education in a Post-AODA World, May 27, 2014 http://erinlearning.wordpress.com/2014/05/27/cripping-the-classroom-education-in-a-post-aoda-world/)

How do we teach people about disability? We can do better. Think about universal accessibility and not accommodating accessibility.*Research Interests* Research based on question: Who are the representations disability in media? How are these representations formed? Where do these representations come from? How do we apprehend disability? Currently we teach our children: do not look; do not engage; keep your distance. The media perpetuates a similar understanding of disability – do not engage and think about disability in terms of relation to yourself (what would it be like if *I* was disabled?). Disability forces us to confront that we will die, that we do not have mastery over our bodies. We avoid thinking about these questions, by imagining what it is like to be disabled (and to separate ourselves from disability) and fantasizing what it it’s like in three ways: cure (that the disabled will be cured because this is what the non-disabled want); rebirth (that the disability makes the person better); segregation (keep the disabled separate from the non-disabled). The fantasy of disability informs the ways we construct disability in the media and how we build disability in our day-to-day lives. These constructions are important in thinking about “learning disability.” Disability studies is theorized in two ways: Medical model of disability contrasted with the social model (not the diagnosis that limits, but the world around us is what limits those with disabilities). The way we teach about disability is steeped in the medical model of disability (one example is the practice of having able-bodied people put in wheelchairs – with the objective of gaining perspective, experiencing difficulty, appreciating challenge but with the *outcome* of struggle, pain, frustration and embarrassment). Anamorphosis: looking at, considering, from a different perspective that allows us to see new/richer meaning. Our current way of thinking about and teaching about disability – difficulty, hardship – needs to be rethought, from a new perspective to think about disability in terms of adaptation – overcoming limitations through adaptation. Think about teaching about disability by: Not to finding out what it’s like to be disabled; but to actually disable and allow those to adapt. Put people in situations that are their own rather than having them take on the problems of others: “the problems of those in wheelchairs are just that, the problems of those in wheelchairs: and I myself an not someone in a wheelchair.” We need, instead, to let people think about – apprehend – disability from their experience and perspective. *The Problems and Promise of the AODA* We don’t talk about the benefits of accessibility nearly often enough. Redoing AODA? Ask those with disabilities to define an “accessible Ontario.” Take this vision of an accessible Ontario and give it to business and say “this is the goal; get there.” Attitudes are impossible to legislate. Promise of AODA is to reimagine core planning methodology: stop building new barriers. “AODA tries to inject disability into everything we do: the disabled belong in our community; the disabled are our community.” We ought to reconsider – look at differently – the AODA by asking people to think and behave differently. To shift from a medical model of disability to a social model. To think about the world and not individuals. Changing the way we approach problems allows AODA to be useful. *Rethinking the Classroom* Think about the materials we use in teaching, but also think about the structural issues in teaching: teach differently – in different ways – to allow for the different ways students learn. Normalizing accommodations in classes by telling all students about access to disability services and that it’s okay to take the step to go to disability services. Adjusting the belief that “to struggle is the right way; to get accommodation is the wrong way” by adjusting the ways we teach, talk and think about disability, accommodation and access. Diversify: knowledge dissemination (teach differently; teach in varied ways); knowledge acquisition (have students experiment and play with ways to get/think about classroom materials); knowledge evaluation (variety of assessment methods). An aside: Much of what Jeff is describing here is "learner-centred" approaches to teach: offering choice, offering variety, giving students responsibility/authority of their own learning; responding to and planning for outcomes of learning rather than approaches to teaching. *Rethinking the World* Rethink the idea of disability from “normal versus disabled” to thinking about everyone as disabled – or on our way to disabled. That this idea of shared disability as inspiring because we – humans! – share fragility and dependence. We have a right to dependence: we need others, we need machines. We are better when we work together: dependency as an inalienable human right because we all need (rather than punishing and denigrating those who admit their vulnerability and dependency). Rethinking and admitting our own dependencies.
students based on abilities, instead of on what really

Part 4 is the Role of the Judge: 

The Role of the Judge is to be an inclusive educator concerned with protected the well being of the disabled body. Nocella Anthony J. Nocella II, “Emergence of Disability Pedagogy”, Journal For Critical Education Policy Studies, 6, Syracuse University, http://www.jceps.com/PDFs/6-2-05.pdf
Further, Artiles and Kozleski write, ―The premise of inclusive school communities is that schools are about belonging, nurturing, and educating all children and youth, regardless of their differences in culture, gender, language, ability, class, and ethnicity(Gerguson, Kozleski, and Smith, 2003; Saldana and Waxman, 1997)‖ (2007, p. 357, emphasis added). They conclude the article by stressing that inclusive educators indeed acknowledge the inclusion of students with disabilities and ―deemed different‖ (2007, p. 363), but point out that, this work has focused mostly on ability differences at the expense of other key dimensions of the majority of these students‘ existence -e.g., oppression and exclusion by virtue of their race, language, class, gender, and the status of their complex cultural practices that defy static categorical markers. Hence, inclusive schools must not ignore the ubiquity of enduring legacies of racial oppression and stratification in the U.S. society. (Artiles and Kozleski 2007, p. 363) Therefore, inclusive education must take up the challenge for social justice and not to reproduce the very systemic oppression it is attempting to oppose (Applebaum 2001). Inclusive educators can strive to paint with a broad brush (by discussing all), but the result is missing the detail of all the students‘personal experiences. People do have disabilities and are different sometimes physically and mentally and those differences should not be disregarded. Introducing medication or developing an inclusive philosophy will not and cannot make a successful learning environment in the current state educators are dealt in the U.S. public educational system. The current U.S. educational system is not meant to be collaborative, but individualistic and competitive where the normal succeed. (Kohn 1992). It is not meant to be inclusive, but rather a place that has standards and if you do not meet those standards you fail. Inclusive education, a growing movement, has recently become more than inclusion for people with disabilities. It has evolved to become an intersectional philosophy and revolutionary concept for promotion of inclusion of all identities (feminist, LGBTQ, people of color, internationalists, environmentalists, etc.) in supportive of truly respecting and supportive of diversity and all differences. It is for this reason that while inclusive education is becoming an umbrella movement and/or ideology 

And, disableism entails the subjugation of oppressed groups as physically inferior. A social model of disability consciousness functions as a metalanguage that enables us to challenge constructions of the body of the universal individual as the dominant conception of normality.
Russell
Marta Russell, The Social Movement Left Out, SOA Watch, http://www.soaw.org/resources/anti-opp-resources/112-abilities/828-the-social-movement-left-out
It is disheartening, to say the least, when I can still pick up a book or read a all for unity to fight for social justice which omits or does not give equal weight to the disability social movement against oppression. Here is one recent call for forming alliances with various groups in the struggle. The groups listed are "Greens, labor, people of color, feminists, environmental activists, students and youth, supporters of a death penalty moratorium, gay/lesbian people, people of faith, peace activists, senior and community organizations." Can we call this anything other than disablism or ableism ableism being defined as "any social relations, practices, and ideas that presume that all people are ablebodied"? (Chouinard and Grant, 1995) Nondisabled activists and scholars have fervently studied and challenged the rational explanation for oppression based on identity in particular, gender, race, and ethnicity but excluded disability. Disability activists and scholars, on the other hand, have fervently been supplying a plethora of disability social model theorizing which doesn't seem to be read or absorbed by many of the other activists and scholars. Knowing what less than stellar past other social movements in this country have had regarding impairment, it is necessary to confront this history so that we can all move forward. Here I am going to rely of the work of Douglas Baynton in his essay "Disability and the Justification of Inequality in American History" (Paul K. Longmore and Lauri Umansky, eds, THE NEW DISABILITY HISTORY: AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES, 2001) to explain how other oppressed groups have situated disablement. Baynton lays it out plain and simple. He writes, "Rarely have oppressed groups denied that disability is an adequate justification for social and political inequality. Thus, while disabled people can be considered one of the minority groups historically assigned inferior status and subjected to discrimination, disability has functioned for all such groups as a sign of and justification for inferiority." (Baynton p. 34) The concept of inferiority is rooted in the late 19th century social creation of "normality." "The normal" was used as a means of measuring, categorizing, and managing populations. It informed hegemony, ranking order by the directive of the constructed "norm." In turn, normality established the universal, unequivocal good and right from which social, economic, and political rights were granted rights being a means in liberal democratic societies of mitigating oppression. Simultaneously the concept of normality equated with a belief in western progress. Eugenics was its obvious "scientific" progeny. Under the eugenic view, perfection was attainable; by eliminating the abnormal; the defective could be eradicated from humanity. Along with the conservatives and later the Nazis, Anarchist Emma Goldman, "friend of the oppressed" and a proponent of eugenic thought wrote that unless birth control was encouraged, the state would "legally encourage the increase of paupers, syphilitics, epileptics, dipsomaniacs, cripples, criminals, and degenerates." (D.J. Kevles, IN THE NAME OF EUGENICS, 1985) (emphasis mine)What was not so obvious was that both blacks and women's liberation movements did not challenge the notion that disability was a legitimate reason for social, economic and political exclusion. he continues Historically, labor associations similarly found it shameful to be injured or impaired and "equated manhood with independence (bodily and financial)." (John Williams Searle, "Cold Charity: Manhood, Brotherhood, and the Transformation of Disability, 1870 1900," THE NEW DISABILITY HISTORY, 2001) It has been close to a century since US disabled peoples'first known disability civil rights group formed, the League for the Physically Handicapped. Some three hundred disabled pensioners in New York engaged in civil disobedience during the Great Depression to protest their discriminatory rejection from the employment offered by the Works Progress Administration. Much later, in 1970, came Disabled in Action (DIA) which founded and adopted the tactic of direct political protest. There were many groups of all types of impairments involved in the 25 day occupation of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) federal building in San Francisco in 1977 to have regulations issued pursuant to section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 making it illegal for federal agencies, contractors, or public universities to discriminate on the basis of disability. In 1983 came Americans Disabled for Accessible Public Transit (ADAPT), established by disability rights activists in several important cities in the USA to highlight the inaccessibility of public transit for people with mobility impairments. It quickly became known for its confrontational and often successful tactics. Movements for blind persons, deaf persons, developmentally disabled persons and psychiatric disabilities similarly evolved, the histories all too numerous to list in this brief commentary. There have been many groupings leading up to passage of the American's with Disabilities Act in 1990 and beyond. Yet to this day class, race, gender and sexual oppression are often alluded to in developing vision and strategy for social change in leftist circles disability, too often, is not. Scanning the internet I found numerous examples of sites where ableism gets left out of the isms. Here is just one such statement. This group is "in opposition to racism, sexism, homophobia, economic class oppression and all other forms of oppression and discrimination." What are "all other forms of oppression and discrimination"? Do they mean ableism? When the left leaves us out of its analysis, or includes us in a cursory manner as "other forms of oppression" this is clearly not sufficient. It only leads to the suspicion that there is no real understanding of disability oppression. For example, on the most basic level which we should be well beyond by now some still hold their events in inaccessible locations. Michael Moore did this in Cambridge when he was promoting his new book "Stupid White Men." Don't get me wrong, I like Michael Moore but please! It is so obvious that those disabled persons who could not attend his event due to it not being physically accessible to them would include him in the category of "stupid white men." We leftie disability activists have been silent far too long. I would go so far as to say that the portion of the left which still excludes by not reporting, covering or identifying disability in its platforms, programs, publications or web sites shows that it has not *fully* understood individualistic consciousness or institutionalized practices under capitalism. Despite the fact that disabled persons to this day remain at the bottom of the socio economic ladder being the most impoverished and degraded group of persons worldwide still segregated and institutionalized, some nondisabled persons and social movements have not accepted the idea that disability oppression really exists. As Michael Oliver frames it when disablism does not merit inclusion "even those writers who have specifically examined oppression have internalised the dominant, individualised world view of disability and have failed to conceptualise it as social oppression." (Oliver, Understanding Disability, p. 133) The dominant view that Oliver refers to is that the social and economic pain that disabled people deal with is a personal problem, an individual pathology, a personal tragedy and a personal failing. While other social movements have been granted the status of having a collective dimension and are viewed as the result of systemic social structures rather than personal shortcomings, the disability movement has largely been left out as an oppressed group. Oliver writes "it is not disabled people who need to be examined but able bodied society; it is not a case of educating disabled and able bodied people for integration, but offighting institutional disablism; it is not disability relations which should be the field for study but disablism." (Oliver, p. 142) Radical disability theorists have posed that under capitalism impairment is socialized as a specific form of oppression disability. The defining feature of capitalism, commodity relations, has been a primary force behind the economic impoverishment of impaired persons. The material relation is primary and the ideology of superiority/inferiority serves the function of maintenance and perpetuation of this social relation. Why cannot some elements on the left apply disablement to C. Wright Mills' observation that seemingly "personal troubles", are more appropriately understood as "public issues" which link to the institutions of society as a whole? Ongoing exclusion of disability oppression unfortunately only contributes to the disabling society when what we do need is a "trajectory of change," as Michael Albert phases it, with everyone's contributions and energies working towards global justice.
 (which people are defining and re-defining), which some believe is being coopted, there still needs to exist a particular pedagogy that advocates and provides a platform for people with disabilities, therefore the rise of disability pedagogy.
Second, Embodiment of the disabled is necessary to challenge the ableist assumptions underlying this linguistic game and change the way we interpret and understand every aspect of debate. Lanning
Eric Lanning Eric Lanning is a debater at the University of Houston and former National Debate Tournament Champion. January 22, 2014, “What is Access?”, access debate, http://accessdebate.com/2014/01/22/what-is-access/
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about what “access” means in the context of the debate community. I don’t have all (or even a lot) of the answers to this question, but I’m beginning to think that might be the point. We can’t figure this out alone. We need each other. Disability Studies gives the means, motives and opportunity to reframe this “dependence” as inevitable, necessary and valuable. What would it mean to universally design debate? What would it mean to ask and answer this question together? I believe that “access” is the process (not outcome) of answering that question over and over. It is the process of destabilizing our assumptions about what debaters “are” and “do”.  What assumptions do we make about debaters inherent “abilities” or natural “capabilities” when we debate in particular ways and in particular spaces? What changes should we make to debate practice and culture? These are questions that I am asking and answering in every negative debate – but the “pre-requisite” for me to asking and answering these questions in any debate was my own disability consciousness. The most portable skill debate ever gave me was consciousness. Debate gave me a vocabulary and audience to articulate what my lived experience with disability teaches me everyday. It gave me the experience and environment to develop and explain my own consciousness of disability. For me, that is the beginning of access. Before we can debate about what access means, it is worth thinking about the status quo – what does it mean for debate to be “inaccessible” to particular debaters and particular identities?  What is wrong with the status quo? For many years and for most debaters, “ableism” was nothing more than a list of words you should not use: blinded, silenced, paralyzed, crazy, lame, disabled, crippled, etc. To be clear, I think that ableist language is problematic and constitutes a micro-aggression against disabled people that we should all work to stop. But it is about SO much more than language. Disability is an embodied experience. In a poem I wrote called “Broken” – I explain this distinction as, “disability is not something you have, its something you are” (If you’re interested in hearing/reading the entire poem, I’ve included a link at the end). This recognition of the lived experience of disability – of disability as a social and political fact – of disability as a category of human existence is missing from our current debates about ableism and access. One of the most meaningful and empowering contributions of disability studies is expressed in the mantra, “nothing about us without us”. It is a call to foreground and privilege the experience of disability. This is not to say that TABS (temporarily abled bodies) can’t participate and contribute to the conversation about access, but instead it is a call to reverse the history of marginalization of disabled people‘s experience in the academy and our society.  Obviously not every debater has a lived experience with disability, but we all do research. In debate, this research is a reflection of our priorities
Fourth, If we force debaters to adhere to a strict interpretation of what debate is then the interpretation will be decided by the majority group excluding minority debaters. Warner :
More often than not, talk about privilege in debate is relegated mostly to economic and occasionally gender- or race-based discussions.  Refocused recruiting efforts and accomplishments like Urban Debate Leagues and Women’s Caucuses at tournaments are addressing more overt concerns in an effort to create more equal playing fields, yet tremendous inequities remain that require explanation.  Over twenty years of various diversity efforts, especially in CEDA, have failed to substantially change the racial, gender, social and economic composition of interscholastic policy debate at its highest levels.  The reason is simple: privilege extends much further than just acknowledging overt and obvious disparities.  Privilege creeps into more subtle, covert spaces, like the essence of why and how people “play the game,” recognizing that the rules and procedures are created by those carrying that privilege.  Snider argues that the greatness of debate as a game is in his belief that it is short on inflexible rules and long on debatable procedures. However, if procedures are functionally not debatable and begin to look more like participation requirements than starting points of discussion, the quality of the game, is “not as successful and well-designed” (Snider, 1987, p. 123).  Privilege envelopes both substantive and stylistic procedures, increasing the likelihood that supposedly debatable conventions become rigid norms, preventing achievement of a “more thoughtful” game and creating entrance barriersto successful participation. Here’s how.  Snider (1987) says that evaluation of a “winning” procedurals argument occurs through the lenses of determining which procedures best facilitate achieving the goals of the debate activity. Snider offers three such goals:  1) education of the participants; 2) discussion of important issues in the resolution; and 3) creation of a fair contest.  He concedes that some may be missing.  Of course, interested participants with lesser privilege might select different goals

1. engage with disability
   2. medical to social model
   3. More accessibility in education

Tournament: Princeton | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Everyone | Judge: Mutual 1s please
Hi, my name is Gabriel.
If you contact me at manakg@bxscience.edu I will send you the full text of the aff 45 minutes before the round. I am also willing to engage in social media communication via facebook, where my official title is Childish Gabino.