| ... |
... |
@@ -1,76
+1,0 @@ |
| 1 |
|
-Part A: Inherency |
| 2 |
|
-The USFG just passed the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act which applies to all bodies within the United States |
| 3 |
|
-Chamseddine 16 |
| 4 |
|
-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 |
| 5 |
|
- |
| 6 |
|
-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, |
| 7 |
|
-Part B: Plan |
| 8 |
|
- |
| 9 |
|
-Thus the advocacy: Colleges and Universities should reject the implementation of the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act through policy |
| 10 |
|
-Stern explains, |
| 11 |
|
-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 |
| 12 |
|
-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. |
| 13 |
|
- |
| 14 |
|
-Part C: Advantages |
| 15 |
|
-Advantage One: Palestinian Liberation |
| 16 |
|
-Criticizing Israel as a colonialist state is necessary to reform its conflict with Palestine. |
| 17 |
|
-Rosen 16 |
| 18 |
|
-https://rabbibrant.com/2016/04/02/yes-zionism-is-settler-colonialism/ |
| 19 |
|
-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. |
| 20 |
|
-The ASAA functions as a method to silence criticisms of Israeli occupation preventing productive discussion |
| 21 |
|
-Stern continues, |
| 22 |
|
-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 |
| 23 |
|
-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. |
| 24 |
|
- |
| 25 |
|
-Movements and criticism in universities can have real impacts and change policy, |
| 26 |
|
- |
| 27 |
|
-Delgado and Ross 164 |
| 28 |
|
- |
| 29 |
|
-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. |
| 30 |
|
- |
| 31 |
|
-Advantage Two: Reducing Anti-Semitism |
| 32 |
|
-To reduce Anti-Semitism, we must be able to criticize institutions in a constructive manner and allow for a counternarrative narrative. |
| 33 |
|
-Somerson 16 |
| 34 |
|
-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 |
| 35 |
|
-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 |
| 36 |
|
- |
| 37 |
|
-Our method is necessary to create a productive counter-narrative for American Jews and reduce Anti-Semitism |
| 38 |
|
-Somerson 2 |
| 39 |
|
-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 |
| 40 |
|
-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. |
| 41 |
|
- |
| 42 |
|
- |
| 43 |
|
- |
| 44 |
|
-Part D: Framework |
| 45 |
|
-The role of the ballot is to vote for the best liberation strategy for the oppressed. |
| 46 |
|
-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. |
| 47 |
|
- |
| 48 |
|
-Giroux 1 |
| 49 |
|
-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. |
| 50 |
|
- |
| 51 |
|
-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. |
| 52 |
|
- |
| 53 |
|
-Advocating for clear actions and engaging existing ideologies are key to education, we can use the usual weighing mechanisms absent of normativity |
| 54 |
|
-Giroux 2 |
| 55 |
|
-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. |
| 56 |
|
-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 |
| 57 |
|
-wage? |
| 58 |
|
-Underview |
| 59 |
|
-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. |
| 60 |
|
-Smith |
| 61 |
|
-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 |
| 62 |
|
-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. |
| 63 |
|
-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. |
| 64 |
|
-Vincent 13 |
| 65 |
|
-Vincent, Chrism, 2013, Re-Conceptualizing our Performances: Accountability in Lincoln Douglas Debate, VBriefly |
| 66 |
|
- |
| 67 |
|
-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 |
| 68 |
|
-Counter Interp – A: Interp: The aff may defend Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not implement a speech restriction law |
| 69 |
|
- |
| 70 |
|
-1. Critical Engagement |
| 71 |
|
-a. Repealing specific bad acts allows us to criticize the right parts of the squo |
| 72 |
|
-b. The importance of the aff in terms of education outweighs your fairness claim |
| 73 |
|
-2. Strategy Skew |
| 74 |
|
-a. You can read unlimited indicts to a full res aff |
| 75 |
|
-b. You can read any counterplan that is ME |
| 76 |
|
-c. You can read a pic with a generic plank |