Tournament: Sunvitational | Round: 1 | Opponent: Cyprus Bay NT | Judge: Tom Evnon
“Speech” K

Links
“Free speech” excludes the disabled body by predicating the concept of freedom and independence on spoken voice. The 1ACs support of speech marginalizes those who rely on other forms of communication. 

Ashby 111  
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.
The 1ACs defense of speech normalizes and promotes the usage of ableist language and constructs, which further subjugates the systemic oppression of the disabled body

Zelinger 72  
Nearly 1 in 5 people in the United States has a disability, according to a 2012 Census Bureau report. Yet many forms of discrimination against the disability community not only persist, but are actually largely normalized and even integrated into our culture's very understanding (or, more accurately, disregard) of disabled people's experiences. Ableism refers to "discrimination in favor of able-bodied people," according to the Oxford English Dictionary. But the reality of ableism extends beyond literal discriminatory acts (intentional or not) to the way our culture views disabled people as a concept. Ableism is also the belief that people with disabilities "need to be fixed or cannot function as full members of society" and that haveing a disability is "a defect rather than a dimension of difference," according to the authors of one 2008 Journal of Counseling and Development article on the topic, as reported by Feminists with Disabilities. This interpretation of difference as defect is the true root of ableist acts that cause far too many to feel marginalized, discriminated against and ultimately devalued in this society. Here are just six forms of this behavior that, though largely normalized, need to be retired immediately. 1. Failing to provide accessibility beyond wheelchair ramps Source: Getty Perhaps the most obvious form of discrimination people with disabilities face is the inability to access places and services open to their able-bodied counterparts — even with laws in place to prevent such inequality. As Tumblr user The (Chronically) Illest noted, while most people think "just putting wheelchair ramps everywhere" is sufficient, true accessibility accommodates all types of disabilities — not just physical disabilities that specifically bind people to wheelchairs. Accommodations can also include "braille, seeing-eye dogs/assistant dogs, ergonomic workspaces, easy to grip tools, closed captions ... class note-takers, recording devices for lectures" and other services and alterations. Though accessibility is certainly a matter of convenience and equity, a lack of accessible resources can impact the very wellbeing of people with disabilities. Individuals with disabilities have reported not being able to receive health care because their providers' facilities weren't accessible, and one study found that women with disabilities particularly face increased difficulty accessing reproductive health care, just to name two examples. 2. Using ableist language Source: Getty Ableism has become undeniably naturalized in the English language. Many people not only use words like "crazy," "insane" or "retarded" without a second thought, but many adamantly defend their use of these terms, decrying anybody who questions their right to do so as too "politically correct" or "sensitive." But this personal defense fails to recognize that ableist language is not about the words themselves so much as what their usage suggests the speaker feels about the individuals they represent. "When a critique of language that makes reference to disability is not welcome, it is nearly inevitable that, as a the disabled body person, I am is not welcome either," Rachel Cohen-Rottenberg wrote in a 2013 Disability and Representation article. But beyond individual feelings, ableist  language can contribute to a foundation of more systemic oppression of people with disabilities as a group. "If a culture's language is full of pejorative metaphors about a group of people," Cohen-Rottenberg continued, that culture is more likely to view those individuals as less entitled to rights
The link functions in three ways

1. Use of the phrase “Free Speech”
   2. AND
   3. which links
   4. You endorse a bad system which the K analysis will prove

Impacts
The AC endorses an abled notion of speech acts that fit into our preconceptions of abled discourse. The impact of their performance is stagnation – Their in round practices make solvency impossible

AANA 15’
An Anonymous Newtown Autistic, 2015, Stims, Stammers and Winks: A Catalogue of Awkward Gestures, http://stimstammersandwinks.blogspot.com/
Disability activists have always brought attention to environments. In the case of rhetoric oriented
AND
to negate, discouraging able—bodied discourse is key to open forums.

Alternative
The alternative is a relational-cultural model of disability. By opening the space for the disabled to interact with the environment around them, we see disability as an evolution. This means generating open forums for all individuals; things like providing sign language translators in campus debates and wheel chair access. If you want free speech you must give it to everyone.

Campbell 3
There are many ways to think about and designate disability and bodily difference. We are perhaps familiar with the biomedical approach (a first wave approach to disablement) and more recently the concept of the social model of disability (the second wave of disability paradigm) which links the designation ‘disability’ to capitalist economy and social organization. Hence both the first and second wave of studies towards disability operates along the lines of a linear unidirectional causal paradigm where there is a proximity linkage between exact causes and extant effects. The rehabilitation model, architectural design, the economy or the adoption of prognosis diagnostics is indicative of a paradigm that proposes that “similar causes yield similar effects, and that different effects derive from difference causes” (Macy, 1991, 9). An exemplar of this manifestation is the rise of actuarialism and nosologies of disease.2 Much of the research around the world especially in Western countries, has taken as its focus disability as a problem and has studied the disabled person in individualized modes, promoted assimilation instead of uncovering the processes of abledness that sustain the existence of disability as an operational difference. In the past decade or so these approaches have been revised and developed into what can be described as a relational-cultural model which sees disability in terms of an evolution; an interaction between the impairment and the environment, the person and others. Known as the third wave of disability studies, this relational-cultural model is drawn from a French view of disability which understands the formation of the notion of disability as a relational, intersubjective encounter: Disability as a confrontation between the ability of a person and situations she encounters in life ‘macro-situations’, such as work or schooling, or ‘microsituations’ such as cutting meat or using the keyboard of a computer. The disabling situations are not only structural and material, they are also (especially) cultural my emphasis andtranslation (Hamonet, 2006, p. 1). The perspective moves beyond abilities and limitations and embraces subjectivity acknowledging the person’s perception of difference in his /her body. Taking on board the conceptual notion of disability as a relational concept means that the production of disability must not be a by-product of our faulty interaction with differences in mentalities and bodies. This third configuration of disablement is reflected in the framework of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.3 The Preamble states: “disability is an evolving concept and that disability results from the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinders their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.” The strength of the Convention is that its formulation of disability goes beyond functional and medical orientation of traditional disability models which remain fixed and predictive. Instead the Preamble proposes a dynamic definition full of fluidity and change. Significantly, the Preamble’s formulation is thoroughly situated within a matrix of relationality. Article 1 of the Convention goes on to list the more usual type of functional and classificatory approaches to disability, yet there is room to even interpret these categories through the lens of an intercultural understanding as made possible through the emphasis of the Convention’s Preamble.
You cant perm for 3 reasons 

1. Each link is a perfomative disad to the aff
   2. Each impact turns solvency
   3. Questions of orientation come first, they frame methods

Framework
And, disableism entails the subjugation of oppressed groups as physically inferior. We should challenge rhetorical constructions of the body of the universal individual as the dominant conception of normality, our method is key to resisting oppression

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
AND
ballot is to vote for the best liberation strategy for the disabled body. 

Nocella explains
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
AND
a platform for people with disabilities, therefore the rise of disability pedagogy. 

Extra Stuff
This dependence on the disqualification of people with “disabilities” reinforces the false constructs of what “qualifies” as human beings, opening doors to humanity’s ontological extinction. I control the internal link to your solvency
Tobin Siebers “The Aesthetics of Human Disqualification”
Disqualification as a symbolic process removes individuals from the ranks of quality human beings, putting them at risk of unequal treatment, bodily harm, and death. That people may be subjected to violence if they do not achieve a prescribed level of quality is an injustice rarely questioned. In fact, even though we may redefine what we mean by quality people, for example as historical minorities are allowed to move into their ranks, but we have not yet ceased to believe that nonquality human beings do exist and that they should be treated differently from people of quality. Harriet McBryde Johnson’s debate with Peter Singer provides a recent example of the widespread belief in the existence of nonquality human beings (Johnson). Johnson, a disability activist, argues that all "disabled"  people qualify as persons who have the same rights as everyone else. Singer, a moral philosopher at Princeton University, claims to the contrary that people with certain disabilities should be euthanized, especially if they are thought to be in pain, because they do not qualify as persons. Similarly, Martha Nussbaum, the University of Chicago moral philosopher, establishes a threshold below which “a fully human life, a life worthy of human dignity,” is not possible (181). In particular, she notes that the onset of certain disabilities may reduce a person to the status of former human being: “we may say of some conditions of a being, let us say a permanent vegetative state of a (former) human being, that this just is not a human life at all” (181). Surprisingly little thought and energy have been given to disputing the belief that nonquality human beings do exist. This belief is so robust that it supports the most serious and characteristic injustices of our day. Disqualification at this moment in time justifies such as discrimination, servitude, imprisonment, involuntary institutionalization, euthanasia, human and civil rights violations, military intervention, compulsory sterilization, police actions, assisted suicide, capital punishment, and murder. It is my contention that disqualification finds support in the way that bodies appear and in their specific appearances—that is, disqualification is justified through the accusation of mental or physical inferiority based on aesthetic principles. Disqualification is produced by naturalizing inferiority as the justification for unequal treatment, violence, and oppression. According to Snyder and Mitchell, disability serves in the modern period as “the master trope of human disqualification.”i They argue that disability represents a marker of otherness that establishes differences between human beings not as acceptable or valuable variations but as dangerous deviations. Douglas Baynton provides compelling examples from the modern era, explaining that during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in the United States disability identity disqualified other identities defined by gender, race, class, and nationality. Women were deemed inferior because they were said to have mental and physical disabilities. People of color had fewer rights than other persons based on accusations of biological inferiority. Immigrants were excluded from entry into the United States when they were poor, sick, or failed standardized tests, even though the populations already living there were poor, sick, and failed standardized tests. In every case, disability identity served to justify oppression by amplifying ideas about inferiority already attached to other minority identities. Disability is the trope by which the assumed inferiority of these other minority identities achieved expression. The appearance of lesser mental and physical abilities disqualifies people as inferior and justifies their oppression. It is now possible to recognize disability as a trope used to posit the inferiority of certain minority populations, but it remains extremely difficult to understand that mental and physical markers of inferiority are also tropes placed in the service of disability oppression. Before disability can be used as a disqualifier, disability, too, has to be disqualified. Beneath the troping of blackness as inbuilt inferiority, for example, lies the troping of disability as inferior. Beneath the troping of femininity as biological deficiency lies the troping of disability as deficiency. The mental and physical properties of bodies become the natural symbols of inferiority via a process of disqualification that seems biological, not cultural—which is why disability discrimination seems to be a medical rather than a social problem. If we consider how difficult it is at this moment to disqualify people as inferior on the basis of their racial, sexual, gender, or class characteristics, we may come to recognize the ground that we must cover in the future before we experience the same difficulty disqua

Tournament: Sunvitational | Round: Doubles | Opponent: I dont remember | Judge: Hanna Something, Tarrence Lonam, Parent
T:

A. Debaters must use guerilla exegesis to interpret the resolution in the absence of other forms of subjugated knowledge production. This means the affirmative must critically investigate how Eurocentrism and whiteness may impact our discussions on the prohibition of nuclear power production. Hendricks  explains guerilla exegesis:
B. Violation spec to aff obviously

C. 

1. Exclusion
   Smith, Elijah. A Conversation in Ruins: Race and Black Participation in Lincoln Douglas Debate CQ
   At every tournament… students cannot escape.

2. Education
HENDRICKS current Prof of Biblical Interpretation at the New York Theological Seminary 1995      Osayande Obery; “Guerrilla exegesis: 'struggle' as a scholarly vocation: a postmodern approach to African-American interpretation” Semeia Volume: 72 Issue: Month/Year: 1995 Pages:

The value of applying… genuine liberation agenda.

D. Voters:

Norms creation is a voter
Alfred C. Snider, Edwin Lawrence Assistant Professor of Forensics - University of Vermont, ‘04(http://debate.uvm.edu/ReplyFrank.doc, date from Archive.org, article also cites 2002 articles)

The challenges to… cost you the win.

Competing interps
NO RVIS

NIHILISM:

AC is a trick of time:

Warren, Calvin L. "Black Nihilism and the Politics of Hope." CR: The New Centennial Review 15.1 (2015): 215-48. Web

We continue to of political fantasy.

The impact framing is resentment
Warren, Calvin L. "Black Nihilism and the Politics of Hope." CR: The New Centennial Review 15.1 (2015): 215-48. Web.
Following Nietzsche and Scheler,… within humanist grammars

The alternative is political apostasy

(same warren article)
The black nihilis
… and spiritual practice.

The role of the ballot is to endorse the best method for black-empowerment. Espinoza
Carlos Tejeda, Manuel Espinoza, and Kris Gutierrez. "Toward a decolonizing pedagogy: Social justice reconsidered." Pedagogies of difference: Rethinking education for social change (2003): 9-38

Critical pedagogy has internal neocolonial condition.

Tournament: Sunvitiational | Round: 6 | Opponent: Leon King Hi AB | Judge: Daniel Ciocca
LAY NC
I negate the resolution.
I value morality. 

First, Structural violence is exclusionary by definition; contemporary ethics will concede that there is value in moral dialogue. Oppression arbitrarily restricts voices thus solvinfgfor oppression comes first under any moral theory. Clifford and Burke ‘08
 Anti-Oppressive Ethics and Values in Social Work, Derek Clifford, and Beverley Burke. ,Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 2008, http://www.palgrave.com/PDFs/1403905568.pdf

Our view of the nature of ethics admits the possibility of giving reasons, drawing on both knowledge about the social world, and on the feelings that are common (and uncommon) to human experience, but without assuming that rationality, empirical evidence or human feelings can either by themselves or even together provide an absolute basis for ethics. Too much is known about the variability of human values and the limitations of human rationality to make such an assumption complacently. There are many inequalities of wealth, status and power, both reflecting and leading to cultural and structural social divisions. The social context of the professional working with vulnerable individuals and groups demands recognition of the need to act in a way that minimizes or overcomes some of the complex effects of discrimination and oppression, rather than adding to them through collusion, neglect or lack of self-awareness. Even worse, obviously, would be intentionally adding to existing oppression and exploitation. What matters is the possibility of dialogue between individuals and groups – the attempt to act in an anti-oppressive way is itself an endless search for ethical values in which we continually negotiate with and learn from each other – and especially from the ‘other’, in the sense of one who is socially and culturally different. 

Second, Abstract moral and philosophical theories do not account for real world problems.
Isaac, 02  Jeffrey, Professor of  Political Science and director of the Center for  the Study of Democracy and Public Life at  Indiana University, Dissent, “Ends, Means, and Politics”, Spring, ebsco

Power is not a dirty word or an unfortunate  feature of the world. It is the core of politics.  Power is the ability to effect outcomes in the  world. Politics, in large part, involves contests  over the distribution and use of power. To ac-  complish anything in the political world, one  must attend to the means that are necessary  to bring it about. And to develop such means  is to develop, and to exercise, power. To say  this is not to say that power is beyond moral-  ity. It is to say that power is not reducible to  morality.  As writers such as Niccolo Machiavelli,  Max Weber, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Hannah  Arendt have taught, an unyielding concern with  moral goodness undercuts political responsibility. The concern may be morally laudable, re-  flecting a kind of personal integrity, but it suf-  fers from three fatal flaws: (1) It fails to see  that the purity of one’s intention does not ensure the achievement of what one intends. Ab-  juring violence or refusing to make common  cause with morally compromised parties may  seem like the right thing; but if such tactics  entail impotence, then it is hard to view them  as serving any moral good beyond the clean con-  science of their supporters; (2) it fails to see  that in a world of real violence and injustice,  moral purity is not simply a form of powerlessness; it is often a form of complicity in injustice. This is why, from the standpoint of poli-  tics—as opposed to religion—pacifism is always  a potentially immoral stand. In categorically re-  pudiating violence, it refuses in principle to  oppose certain violent injustices with any ef-  fect; and (3) it fails to see that politics is as  much about unintended consequences as it is  about intentions; it is the effects of action,  rather than the motives of action, that is most  significant. Just as the alignment with “good”  may engender impotence, it is often the pur-  suit of “good” that generates evil. This is the  lesson of communism in the twentieth century:  it is not enough that one’s goals be sincere or  idealistic; it is equally important, always, to ask  about the effects of pursuing these goals and  to judge these effects in pragmatic and histori-  cally contextualized ways. Moral absolutism in-  hibits this judgment. It alienates those who are  not true believers. It promotes arrogance. And  it undermines political effectiveness.
Rather, we should focus on current injustices. In particular, it is important to analyze oppressive power structures embedded in historical experiences.
Thus the standard is resisting oppression. 

It is key to recognize that the aff does not solve for the root of the problem: a society that allows for these forms of hate to persist, and only makes it worse.
Professors at Washington State University denounced the encouragement of free speech because it disempowers marginalized students.
They lamented : 

It is not enough encourage “open-mindedness” and “sensitivity” especially when these passive efforts and rhetoric invariably lead to a culture that accepts and tolerates bigotry and harassment; a campus culture that hides behind “tolerance” and discourses of free speech undeviatingly creates a campus that is especially disempowering to marginalized students. 

Thus, my first contention is that allowing for the unrestricted use of free speech only feeds hate speech and fuels ensuing hate crimes. 

It is established that hate speech is permissible under the first amendment, it is only deterred by hate speech restrictions in place by colleges . This restriction on free speech in the form of anti-discrimination regulations functions as affective deterrents to hate speech.
Volokh 15  
I keep hearing about a supposed “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment, or statements such as, “This isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech,” or “When does free speech stop and hate speech begin?” But there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas. One is as free to condemn Islam — or Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, or whites, or illegal aliens, or native-born citizens — as one is to condemn capitalism or Socialism or Democrats or Republicans. To be sure, there are some kinds of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. But those narrow exceptions have nothing to do with “hate speech” 

Hate speech is inextricably linked to hate crimes across the nation. Singh 12
Although there are flaws in the FBI’s method of tracking and monitoring hate crimes, their statistics provide a consistent framework to analyze trends. For example, from 2005 to 2010, hate crimes motivated by religious bias show a consistent upward trajectory—whereas hate crimes against religious communities constituted 17.1 percent of all bias-based crimes in 2005, that number has reached 20 percent in the most recent report published in 2010. This is the highest rate of hate crimes motivated by religious bias in the 18 years since the FBI started tracking hate crimes nationwide in 1992. Furthermore, while one might assume that the pattern of anti-Muslim violence would have decreased a decade after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, official statistics show that hate crimes against Muslims are at their highest levels since 2001. The most recent FBI data indicates that in a one-year period, from 2009 to 2010, there was a staggering 42 percent increase in hate crimes against Muslims in this country. The recent shooting rampage at a Sikh Gurdwara (house of worship) in Oak Creek, Wisc., emphasizes the importance of allocating adequate resources to prevent domestic terrorist attacks. The shooter, Wade Michael Page, was a member of the Hammerskin Nation, one of the most violent white supremacist groups in the country. We are deluding ourselves if we do not see there is a the parallel between intolerant or hateful rhetoric and its inevitable consequence. Key issues in our national discourse in 2010 correlate to the rise in anti-Muslim hate crimes. For example, the controversy surrounding the Park 51 Muslim community center in lower Manhattan, the building of “mega-mosques” around the country, and the threat by a Florida pastor to burn the Quran 

Thus, the aff only contributes to the physical oppression of marginalized groups. 

My second contention is that free speech is not necessarily free to all. 

Giving the opportunity to speak is not enough. Even though marginalized groups are given the opportunity voice their concerns, their voices are not paid  attention to. 

Spaces of open discourse are not always “Free”. Sometimes, certain individuals do not get a seat at the table.

All speech is not free. Power inequities institutionalized through economies, gender roles, social class, and corporate-owned media ensure that all voices do not carry the same weight. As part of Western democracies, different voices pay different prices for the words one chooses to utter. Some speech results in the speaker being assaulted, or even killed. Other speech is not free in the sense that it is foreclosed: our social and political culture predetermines certain voices and articulations as unrecognizable, illegitimate, unspeakable. Similarly, neither are all expressions of hostility equal. Some hostile voices are penalized while others are tolerated. Hostility that targets a marginalized person on the basis of her or his assumed inferiority carries more weight than hostility expressed by a marginalized person towards a member of the dominant class. Efforts to legislate against “hate speech” within public spaces cannot, in principle, recognize the differential weight and significance of hate speech directed at different individuals or groups. If all speech is not free, then in what sense can one claim that freedom of speech is a working constitutional right? If free speech is not effective in practice, then a historicized ethics is required. Thus the discomforting paradox of U.S. democracy: while we may desire a principle of equality that applies in exactly the same way to every citizen, in a society where equality is not guaranteed we require historically sensitive principles that appear to contradict the ideal of “equality.” An historicized ethics operates toward the ideal of principles such as constitutional rights, but also recognizes the need to develop ethical principles that take into account that all persons do not have equal protection under the law nor equal access to resources. Within a climate of extreme backlash to affirmative action and to women’s rights, I propose what I call an “affirmative action pedagogy”: a pedagogy that ensures critical analysis within higher education classrooms of any expression of racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, or sexism, for example. An affirmative action pedagogy seeks to ensure that we bear witness to marginalized voices in our classrooms, even at the minor cost of limiting dominant voices.

The situation only worsens as when minorities do voice their concerns, they are shouted down by the rest of society.
For instance, Muslims voicing their protest against Islamophobia fear being labeled a terrorist and getting deported, women who voice concern about their rights are labeled “feminazis”, people participating the Black Lives Matter protests are viewed as thugs on the street. 

The loss of these anti-discrimination regulations set by colleges only allows for this hate to persist and grow. 

This means all his contentions about the benefits of open discourse produce nothing productive, finding solutions from multiple perspectives is the only way to prevent bad policy. For example, when the constitution was drafted, most of the framers were Caucasian aristocrats, which allowed for systems like slavery to persist.