Changes for page Cupertino Kumar Neg
Summary
-
Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)
-
Objects (2 modified, 9 added, 0 removed)
Details
- Page properties
-
- Author
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -XWiki. parkerwhitfill@gmailcom_11 +XWiki.kumarharithas@gmailcom
- Caselist.CitesClass[2]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -2017-01-14 18:35:45. 181 +2017-01-14 18:35:45.0
- Caselist.RoundClass[2]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2
- Caselist.CitesClass[3]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,52 @@ 1 +1-off 2 +1NC 3 +Free Speech Link: Free speech protections are not neutral. They’re what conservatives and large corporations use to cover their actions 4 +Balkin 90 J.M. BALKIN, Professor of Law and Graves, Dougherty, Hearon, and Moody Centennial Faculty Fellow, University of Texas, “SOME REALISM ABOUT PLURALISM: LEGAL REALIST APPROACHES TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT,” Duke Law Journal, June 1990 JW 5 +A similar transformation, I suspect, is overtaking the principle of free speech today. Business interests and other conservative groups are finding that arguments for property rights and the social status quo can more and more easily be rephrased in the language of the first amendment by using the very same absolutist forms of argument offered by the left in previous generations. Here's a quick quiz: What do the Klan, conservative PACs, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, and the conglomerate that owns the holding company that owns the manufacturer of your favorite brand of toothpaste all have in common? They can all justify their activities in the name of the first amendment. What was sauce for the liberal goose increasingly has become sauce for the more conservative gander.26 This social transformation is not yet complete, and indeed, I suspect, it probably never will be as complete as the transformation of political views regarding laissez-faire between 1830 and 1890. For example, I can't imagine a social context that would change so radically that the left would find it in its best interests to abandon completely its commitment to protecting the speech of unpopular groups. What I do expect will happen, however, is that gradually the left no longer will find the first amendment its most effective tool for promoting a progressive agenda. That job will fall to other fundamental rights and interests, which occasionally will conflict with the absolutist interpretation of the first amendment that the left traditionally has favored. 6 +The First Amendment is seen as a neutral mechanism to produce a free marketplace of ideas when in actuality it favors a status quo that maintains oppressive power structures 7 +Delgado 94 Delgado, Richard. Charles Inglis Thomson Professor of Law, University of Colorado, "First Amendment formalism is giving way to First Amendment legal realism." Harv CR-CLL Rev. 29 (1994): 169 8 +First, the paradigm includes an awareness of the First Amendment's limitations. Early in our history, we made grandiose claims for what the system of free expression could do. 15 But recently, scholars have shown that our much-vaunted marketplace of ideas works best in connection with questions that are narrowly limited in scope. 16 Is this parking space safer to leave the car in than another? Does a heavy object fall faster than a light one in a vacuum? Would a voucher school-finance scheme adversely affect the poor? With such clearly bounded disputes, First Amendment free speech can often help us avoid error and arrive at a consensus. But with systemic social ills like racism and sexism, the marketplace of ideas is much less effective. These broadscale ills are embedded in the reigning paradigm, the set of meanings and conventions by which we construct and interpret reality. Someone who speaks out against the racism of his or her day is seen as extreme, political, or incoherent. Speech is least effective where we need it most.17 A second theme of First Amendment legal realism is the understanding of the free expression paradigm as a tool for legitimating the status quo." If, as a starting point, we posit a perfect marketplace of ideas, then, according to the old paradigm, the current distribution of social power and resources must be roughly what fairness and justice would dictate. Our more energetic, European ideas, for example, competed with others and won in a fair fight. But, of course, it was not fair: communication is expensive, so the poor are often excluded; the dominant paradigm renders certain ideas unsayable or incomprehensible; and our system of ideas and images constructs certain people so that they have little credibility in the eyes of listeners.' 9 9 +Protests at the University of Missouri prove this true. Unhindered exercise of the First Amendment structurally antagonizes black students 10 +Tyler Kingkade Lilly Workneh Ryan Grenoble Nov 16th, 2015 Campus Racism Protests Didn't Come Out Of Nowhere, And They Aren't Going Away Quickly Mizzou seems to have catalyzed years of tension over inequality and race. Senior Editor/Reporter, The Huffington Post, Senior Black Voices Editor, The Huffington Post News Editor, The Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/campus-racism-protests-didnt-come-out-of-nowhere_us_56464a87e4b08cda3488bfb 11 +If there's one thing University of Missouri senior Alanna Diggs thinks people are getting wrong about campus racism protests, it's the assumption that they're something new. The demonstrations at Mizzou this month resulting in the ouster of two top university leaders, partly over how they handled various racist incidents on campus, Diggs said, "were not a result of spontaneous combustion." "It was not an overdramatic reaction by a couple of angry black students, but a moment built up over time," Diggs continued. "Many of us behind the scenes have been suffering and struggling with administration and students while trying to deal with class and work. The movement is not over. This is the beginning." The demonstrations at Mizzou's campus in Columbia came on the heels of unrestat Yale University, and have been copied ~-~- complete with demands for resignations ~-~-at dozens of other colleges, including Ithaca College in New York, the University of Kansas and Claremont McKenna College near Los Angeles. Protests staged on college campuses last week are the culmination of years of activism around inequality and everyday racism, and incidents pushing racial divisions to the surface. The demands activists are making are reminiscent of similar protests decades earlier. And scholars caution there's no single switch colleges can flip to fix things ~-~- improving racial tensions on campuses will likely take years. "What we are seeing is the beginning of a movement where students and student groups across campuses are finding the courage to speak up about what they have been experiencing," said Yolanda Sealey-Ruiz, a scholar of Latino and black male students, at Columbia University. "I think Mizzou is a catalyst, an inspiration perhaps, but not a one-off event. I think we are also witnessing a reprise to history ~-~- college campuses have historically been places where protest to inequality has taken place." Students are arriving on campus believing racism remains persistent in America today. According to an annual survey of more than 150,000 incoming freshmen by UCLA, the percentage of students who believe racism is no longer an issue has risen slowly over 25 years, from 19 percent in 1990 to 24 percent in 2015. Students of color who've spoken with HuffPost say that does not surprise them, given that students are growing up witnessing high-profile deaths of unarmed black men and teens, like Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice and Eric Garner. Those experiences are coupled multiple examples of fraternity and sorority parties featuring black face and caricatures of various ethnic groups, while Muslim students at some campuses have been subjected to spying by law enforcement. "We're not that much that different than the people being killed," said Taylor Lemmons, a junior at Claremont McKenna College. "Just because we're going to get a degree from these shiny institutions doesn't mean we're that much different." In some cases, students who say racism is still a prevalent issue have been proven right. The University of Alabama's sororities didn't begin accepting black women as members until 2013. In March, fraternity brothers in Oklahoma were caught on video singing and laughing about lynching black men ~-~- racial slurs included. "We're living in a time where issues that haven't been appropriately attended to for a number of years are getting much more attention," said Benjamin Reese Jr., Duke University's chief diversity officer. "I don't think students suddenly woke up to things. I think they're reacting not only to the events on campus and incidents around the country." Brown University senior Armani Madison said part of his discontent with his school is fueled by demands made by black students in 1968, 1975 and 1985 that "have yet to be fulfilled, despite university promises." Activists at Occidental College noted their demand for a black studies major has existed since 1968. Students of color have organized campaigns at Colgate University, the University of Michigan, UCLA, and Harvard, among other schools, to highlight inequities. Some of these demands at Brown, Mizzou and elsewhere are for an increase in the percentage of minority students and faculty. More selective colleges are still disproportionately white compared with the general population, data from the Georgetown University's Center on Education and the Workforce shows. College presidents, football coaches and professors all are much more likely to be white, too. Black students are less likely to graduate within six years compared with their classmates. But even increasing the percentage of students of color on campus is not enough, insisted Deborah Bial, founder of the Posse Foundation, which partners with colleges to place minority students.“It's the responsibility of every institution to be transparent to have as many ongoing conversations as possible, to create forums, to use every resource they have from the president to the students themselves," Bial said. "And the conversation shouldn't just be happening one time." Activists also are demanding changes to curriculum to address diversity and an administrative acknowledgement of barriers that students of color face. Students of color say they're constantly reminded that they are "different." Reine Ibala, a senior at Yale, described either feeling "invisible" on campus, or like she was an intruder and couldn't rely on bystanders to help if something happened. "The thing about being black on a college campus in an urban area is that your color ~-~- in my case, my blackness ~-~- at times puts my status as a student in question," Ibala said. "Here in New Haven, the assumption is first that I am a 'townie.'" Students protesting on campuses told HuffPost their demonstrations were not simply about offensive Halloween costumes, misguided emails from administrators or one person shouting the N-word. The emotional response ,which sometimes receives backlash, comes from dealing with years of feeling like administrators aren't trying to make things better for them. "It shouldn't take days of our tears and anger to move an administration to listen," Ibala said. Transparency during the next steps will be critical, said Reese, president of National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education. Reese recommended including students in assessing what steps a college will take to address racial issues ~-~- something activists are demanding at Mizzou and Claremont McKenna, among other campuses. But in the near term, both Reese and Bial emphasized that colleges will have to be quicker to respond to individual incidents of racism. "It's important to say this happened and we're not okay with it, and it's important for students to say it as well ~-~- I can't emphasize that enough," Bial said. "Students can't give up the power they have to voice opinions about what's okay and what's not okay." Vernā Myers, a diversity consultant and author, said now that Mizzou has served as a spark, protests against campus racism won't go away. "This generation didn't think they'd have to go through something like this," Myers said. But now, they are empowered to do so, and "they're going to help our country live up to what we say we believe." 12 + 13 +Ignoring the rule of law’s hidden violence fuels euro-centric imperialism 14 +Dossa 99 Shiraz, Department of Political Science, St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, “Liberal Legalism: Law, Culture and Identity,” The European Legacy, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 73-87,1 15 +Law's imperial reach, it massive authority, in liberal politics is a brute, recurring fact. In Law's Empire, Dworkin attests to its scope and power with candour: "We live in and by the law. It makes us what we are" (vii). But he fails to appreciate that law equally traduces others, it systematically unmakes them. For Dworkin, a militant liberal legalist, law is the insiders' domain: legal argument has to be understood internally from the "judge's point of view"; sociological or historical readings are irrelevant and "perverse".2 Praising the decencies of liberal law is necessary in this world: rule of law, judicial integrity, fairness, justice are integral facets of tolerable human life. Lawfulness is and ought to be part of any decent regime of politics. But law's rhetoric on its own behalf systematically scants law's violent, dark underside, it skillfully masks law's commerce with destruction and death. None of this is visible from the internalist standpoint, and Dworkin's liberal apologia serves to mystify the gross reality of law's empire. In liberal political science, law's presumed, Olympian impartiality, is thus not a contested notion. Liberals still presuppose as a matter of course the juristic community's impartiality and neutrality, despite empirical evidence to the contrary.3 One consequence of the assumed sanctity of the judicial torso within the body politic, has been that law's genealogy, law's chronological disposition towards political and cultural questions, have simply not been of interest or concern to most liberal scholars. A further result of this attitude is the political science community's nearly total ignorance of liberal law's complicity in western imperialism, and in shaping western attitudes to the lands and cultures of the conquered natives. Liberal jurisprudence's subterranean life, its invidious consciousness is, however, not an archaic, intermittent annoyance as sensitive liberals are inclined to think: indeed law is as potent now as it has been in last two centuries in articulating a dismissive image of the native Other. 16 +The alternative is to embrace the indeterminacy of the law. The rule of law only has power when people believe in its objective power 17 +Hasnas 95 John Hasnas, Associate Professor McDonough School of Business Georgetown University, “The Myth of the Rule of Law,” Wisconsin Law Review 199 (1995) http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm JW 18 +Let us assume that I have failed to convince you of the impossibility of reforming the law into a body of definite, consistent rules that produces determinate results. Even if the law could be reformed in this way, it clearly should not be. There is nothing perverse in the fact that the law is indeterminate. Society is not the victim of some nefarious conspiracy to undermine legal certainty to further ulterior motives. As long as law remains a state monopoly, as long as it is created and enforced exclusively through governmental bodies, it must remain indeterminate if it is to serve its purpose. Its indeterminacy gives the law its flexibility. And since, as a monopoly product, the law must apply to all members of society in a one-size-fits-all manner, flexibility is its most essential feature. It is certainly true that one of the purposes of law is to ensure a stable social environment, to provide order. But not just any order will suffice. Another purpose of the law must be to do justice. The goal of the law is to provide a social environment which is both orderly and just. Unfortunately, these two purposes are always in tension. For the more definite and rigidly- determined the rules of law become, the less the legal system is able to do justice to the individual. Thus, if the law were fully determinate, it would have no ability to consider the equities of the particular case. This is why even if we could reform the law to make it wholly definite and consistent, we should not. 19 +The Role of the Judge is to be a critical legal educator that tests the underlying assumptions of the aff. Engaging in critical examination of the law enables us to challenge its imperialistic violence. Omitting this analysis is to be complicit with the violence the law creates 20 +Valdes 03 Francisco Valdes, Professor of Law and Co-Director, Center for Hispanic and Caribbean Legal Studies, University of Miami, “Outsider Jurisprudence, Critical Pedogogy and Social Justice Activism: Marking the Stirrings of Critical Legal Education,” Asian American Law Journal Vol 10 Issue 1, January 2003 JW 21 +Critical educational theorists have shown how all forms of education eventually become institutions that tend to operate either as instruments of colonization or of emancipation. 9 In the context of the United States, uncritical mainstream education teaches each generation to genuflect and maintain, the cultural, economic, and social skews constructed by the elites that dominate society and control its institutions of education.' 0 The principal aim (or effect) of such education has been, and still is, to assimilate and domesticate in the name of progress and prosperity, and even in the name of equality and liberty. This effect is achieved both by what is left out, as well as what is put into, the content or substance of "education" - by leaving out, for instance, the systematic imposition of supremacist politics to motivate conquest and rationalize subordination, a key part of the story that explains so much of the injustice embedded in students' social inheritance, and which every new generation struggles to understand. This act of omission - and other acts like it - enables the sanitized "history" of the status quo to be spoon-fed to students day in and day out across the country (and globe), keeping each succeeding generation socially tranquilized, culturally subjugated, and politically subordinated. Under this view, mainstream education, in its dominant, uncritical form, formalizes and systematizes the inculcation of cultural politics to ratify the world "as is" - as inherited by each generation of humans." Mainstream legal education, then, perpetuates conquest. 12 As OutCrit scholars have long explained - and these syllabi confirm - legal education is a site for the production both of knowledge and power;'3 knowledge is power, especially in the current "Information Age." As with other social institutions constructed in the service of supremacist political arrangements, legal education historically was structured to privilege white-identified groups, persons, and values; conversely, legal education was structured to exclude feared or "different" Others. 14 Indeed, the documented history of formal legal education in this country illustrates clearly that, like all forms of education, it was conceived and since then has been operated mostly as an instrument of social hierarchy. 5 In design and purpose, formal legal education was, and perhaps still is effectively, a means of ensuring the continued consolidation of legal knowledge, and of power over Law and policy, in the hands of social groups and institutions identified with the "original" immigrants from Europe to the lands now known as the United States.' 6 Awareness or wariness of this power and knowledge is precisely why critical theory is still absent or marginal in formal law school curricula from coast to coast, effectively withholding from most law students any structured opportunity to acquire self-liberating knowledge in the general course of a typical legal education. 7 Thus, the insights of OutCrit legal theorists on legal education are congruent with the insights of critical education theorists more generally - a congruence that calls for engagement and emphasis as part of the effort to develop a critical approach or pedagogy within the confines of formal legal education in the United States today. 22 +The role of the ballot is to reject unequal power structures – this is the only way to make educational spaces truly fair 23 +Trifonas 03 PETER PERICLES TRIFONAS. PEDAGOGIES OF DIFFERENCE: RETHINKING EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL CHANGE/ RoutledgeFalmer. New York, London. 2003. Questia 24 +. Thus, paying attention to how power operates along axes of gender, race, class, and ability (that is, recognizing that social differences are not given, but are accomplished in and through educational settings) is a step toward educational equity. What does the above discussion mean in the educational context? It means that in the interactions of teachers with students in the classroom, or in other contexts, attention needs to be directed toward how dominant and subordinate relations (be they based on race, gender, class, or ability) permeate these contexts and intersect in complicated ways to produce inequality and marginalization. The frequently used and well-meaning phrase, “I treat everyone the same, ” often used by teachers and administrators to indicate their lack of bias in a diverse educational setting, in fact masks unequal power relations. Similarly, educational policies that assume that people are the same or equal may serve to entrench existing inequality precisely because people enter into the educational process with different and unequal experiences. These attempts, well meaning though they may be, tend to render inequality invisible, and thus work against equity in education. In her exploration of white privilege in higher education in the United States, Frances Rains (1998), an aboriginal-Japanese American woman, states emphatically that these benign acts are disempowering for the minority person because they erase his or her racial identity. The denial of racism in this case is in fact a form of racism. Thus, in moving toward equity in education that allows us to address multiple and intersecting axes of difference and inequality, I recommend that we try to think and act “against the grain” in developing educational policies and handling various kinds of pedagogical situations. 5 To work against the grain is to recognize that education is not neutral; it is contested. Mohanty puts it as such: … Education represents both a struggle for meaning and a struggle over power relations. It is a central terrain where power and politics operate out of the lived culture of individuals and groups situated in asymmetrical social and political positions. (Mohanty 1990:184) We need to develop a critical awareness of the power dynamics operative in institutional relations-and of the fact that people participate in institutions as unequal subjects. Working against the grain is to take a proactive approach to understanding and acting upon institutional relations, whether in the classroom, in other interactions with students, or in policy development. Rather than overlooking the embeddedness of gender, race, class, ability, and other forms of inequality that shape our interactions, working against the grain makes explicit the political nature of education and how power operates to privilege, silence, and marginalize individuals who are differently located in the educational process. In her exploration of feminist pedagogy, Linda Briskin (1990) makes a clear distinction between nonsexist and antisexist education critical to our understanding here. She asserts that nonsexism is an approach that attempts to neutralize sexual inequality by pretending that gender can be made irrelevant in the classroom. Thus, for instance, merely asserting that male and female students should have equal time to speak-and indeed giving them equal time-cannot adequately rectify the endemic problem of sexism in the classroom. One of Briskin's students reported that in her political science tutorials that when the male students spoke, everyone paid attention. When a female student spoke, however, the class acted as if no one was speaking (13). Neutrality is an attempt to conceal the unequal distribution of power. An against the grain approach would acknowledge explicitly that we are all gendered, racialized, and differently constructed subjects who do not participate in interactional relations as equals. This goes beyond formulating sexism, racism, abilism, and class privilege in individualist terms and treating them as if they were personal attitudes. Terry Wolverton (1983) discovered the difference between nonracism and antiracism in her consciousness-raising attempt: I had confused the act of trying to appear not to be racist with actively working to eliminate racism. Trying to appear not racist had made me deny my racism, and therefore exclude the possibility of change. (191) Being against the grain means seeing inequality as systemic and interpersonal (rather than individual), and combatting oppression as a collective responsibility, not just as a personal attribute (so that somehow a person can cleanse herself or himself of sexism, racism, abilism, or class bias). It is to pay attention to oppression as an interactional property that can be altered (see Manners 1998). Roger Simon (1993) suggests, in his development of a philosophical basis for teaching against the grain, which shares many commonalities in how I think about an integrative approach to equity in education, that teaching against the grain is fundamentally a moral practice. By this he does not mean that teachers simply fulfill the mandate and guidelines of school authorities. He believes that teachers must expose the partial and imperfect nature of existing knowledge, which is constructed on the basis of asymmetrical power relations (for instance, who has the power to speak and whose voices are suppressed?). It is the responsibility of the teacher or educator to show how dominant forms of knowledge and ways of knowing constrict human capacities. In exposing the power relations integral to the knowledge construction process, the educator, by extension, must treat teaching and learning as a mutual and collaborative act between teachers and students. 25 + 26 +2-off 27 + 28 +Hate speech is permissible under the first amendment despite the exceptions 29 +Volokh 15 Eugene Volokh, Law Professor at UCLA, “No, there’s no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment,” The Washington Post, May 7, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?utm_term=.9e1ed85e9262 JW 30 +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” in any conventionally used sense of the term. For instance, there is an exception for “fighting words” — face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight. But this exception isn’t limited to racial or religious insults, nor does it cover all racially or religiously offensive statements. Indeed, when the City of St. Paul tried to specifically punish bigoted fighting words, the Supreme Court held that this selective prohibition was unconstitutional (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)), even though a broad ban on all fighting words would indeed be permissible. (And, notwithstanding CNN anchor Chris Cuomo’s Tweet that “hate speech is excluded from protection,” and his later claims that by “hate speech” he means “fighting words,” the fighting words exception is not generally labeled a “hate speech” exception, and isn’t coextensive with any established definition of “hate speech” that I know of.) The same is true of the other narrow exceptions, such as for true threats of illegal conduct or incitement intended to and likely to produce imminent illegal conduct (i.e., illegal conduct in the next few hours or maybe days, as opposed to some illegal conduct some time in the future). Indeed, threatening to kill someone because he’s black (or white), or intentionally inciting someone to a likely and immediate attack on someone because he’s Muslim (or Christian or Jewish), can be made a crime. But this isn’t because it’s “hate speech”; it’s because it’s illegal to make true threats and incite imminent crimes against anyone and for any reason, for instance because they are police officers or capitalists or just someone who is sleeping with the speaker’s ex-girlfriend. The Supreme Court did, in Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952), uphold a “group libel” law that outlawed statements that expose racial or religious groups to contempt or hatred, unless the speaker could show that the statements were true, and were said with “good motives” and for “justifiable ends.” But this too was treated by the Court as just a special case of a broader First Amendment exception — the one for libel generally. And Beauharnais is widely understood to no longer be good law, given the Court’s restrictions on the libel exception. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) (rejecting the view that libel is categorically unprotected, and holding that the libel exception requires a showing that the libelous accusations be “of and concerning” a particular person); Garrison v. Louisiana (1964) (generally rejecting the view that a defense of truth can be limited to speech that is said for “good motives” and for “justifiable ends”); Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps (1986) (generally rejecting the view that the burden of proving truth can be placed on the defendant); R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) (holding that singling bigoted speech is unconstitutional, even when that speech fits within a First Amendment exception); Nuxoll ex rel. Nuxoll v. Indian Prairie Sch. Dist. # 204, 523 F.3d 668, 672 (7th Cir. 2008) (concluding that Beauharnais is no longer good law); Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1200 (9th Cir. 1989) (likewise); Am. Booksellers Ass’n, Inc. v. Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323, 331 n.3 (7th Cir. 1985) (likewise); Collin v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1197, 1205 (7th Cir. 1978) (likewise); Tollett v. United States, 485 F.2d 1087, 1094 n.14 (8th Cir. 1973) (likewise); Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies 1043-45 (4th ed. 2011); Laurence Tribe, Constitutional Law, §12-17, at 926; Toni M. Massaro, Equality and Freedom of Expression: The Hate Speech Dilemma, 32 Wm. and Mary L. Rev. 211, 219 (1991); Robert C. Post, Cultural Heterogeneity and Law: Pornography, Blasphemy, and the First Amendment, 76 Calif. L. Rev. 297, 330-31 (1988). Finally, “hostile environment harassment law” has sometimes been read as applying civil liability — or administrative discipline by universities — to allegedly bigoted speech in workplaces, universities, and places of public accommodation. There is a hot debate on whether those restrictions are indeed constitutional; they have generally been held unconstitutional when applied to universities, but decisions are mixed as to civil liability based on speech that creates hostile environments in workplaces (see the pages linked to at this site for more information on the subject). But even when those restrictions have been upheld, they have been justified precisely on the rationale that they do not criminalize speech (or otherwise punish it) in society at large, but only apply to particular contexts, such as workplaces. None of them represent a “hate speech” exception, nor have they been defined in terms of “hate speech.” For this very reason, “hate speech” also doesn’t have any fixed legal meaning under U.S. law. U.S. law has just never had occasion to define “hate speech” — any more than it has had occasion to define rudeness, evil ideas, unpatriotic speech, or any other kind of speech that people might condemn but that does not constitute a legally relevant category. 31 +Free speech used as a cover to justify hate speech like anti-semitic speech 32 +Marcus 08 Kenneth L. Marcus, Lillie and Nathan Ackerman Chair in Equality and Justice in America, Baruch College School of Public Affairs, “Higher Education, Harassment, and First Amendment Opportunism,” 16 Wm. and Mary Bill Rts. J. 1025 (2008), http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol16/iss4/5 JW 33 +During recent years, American college campuses have seen numerous alarming examples8° of the striking resurgence of anti-Semitic activity which is taking place worldwide.8 There appear to be six sources for this resurgence: traditional European, Christian Jew-hatred; aggressive anti-Israelism that crosses the line into antiSemitism; traditional Muslim anti-Semitism; anti-Americanism and anti-globalism that spill over into anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism; black anti-Semitism; and fundamentalist intolerance.82 Generally speaking, the most significant recent episodes of American campus anti-Semitism have been associated with anti-Israelism or antiZionism. 83 In addition to the University of California at Irvine, a few other campuses have become particularly notorious for alleged incidents of anti-Semitism over the last few years." San Francisco State: During one notorious 2002 rally, a large number of proPalestinian students surrounded approximately fifty Jewish students, screaming "Get out or we will kill you," and "Hitler did not finish the job."85 When one Jewish professor began to sing peace songs, the crowd yelled, "Go back to Russia, Jew. 86 At about the same time, students distributed a flyer advertising a pro-Palestinian rally which featured a picture of a dead baby with the words, "Canned Palestinian Children Meat-Slaughtered According to Jewish Rites Under American License."87 More recently, a Jewish supporter of Israel alleged that he was, in separate incidents, spat on and assaulted.88 Columbia University: Columbia faculty, especially in the Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures program, have been accused of intimidating and silencing Jewish pro-Israel students.89 In one example, a professor allegedly privately told a pro-Israel Jewish student, "You have no voice in this debate." 9 When she insisted that she be allowed to express her opinion he disagreed, approaching very close to her and saying, "See, you have green eyes... You're not a Semite .... I'm a Semite. I have brown eyes. You have no claim to the land of Israel."9' These incidents are quite distinct from legitimate criticizing of Israeli politics.92 To the extent that there might be any question, the distinguishing features of antiSemitic anti-Zionism are rapidly becoming conventional: employment of "classic anti-Semitic stereotypes," use of double standards, "drawing comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany," and "holding Jews collectively responsible for Israeli actions" regardless of actual complicity.93 For example, American college students and faculty have recently used the medieval phrase "blood libel" to describe Israeli military practices, 94 ascribed traditional Jewish cultural stereotypes to contemporary Israeli society,95 and attributed demonic characteristics to Israeli leaders and Zionists as those characteristics have historically been related to Jews.96 This spillover of anti-Israelism into anti-Semitism has historical resonance in that it represents the second significant mutation that anti-Semitism experienced in the space of a century.97 Some of this activity, globally and domestically, takes the form of basic hate and bias activity. Much recent anti-Semitism, however, is postracialist or even anti-racist in appearance. 98 While early nineteenth-century antiSemitism was predominantly religious in animus and mid-twentieth-century antiSemitism predominantly racial, twenty-first-century anti-Semitism is predominantly political in character and often purports to address the Jewish state. 99 The nineteenth-century shift from religious to racialist anti-Semitism, attributed largely to German journalist Wilhelm Marr and his colleagues, was essentially a deliberate effort to justify continued adherence to anti-Jewish attitudes in the face of changing social attitudes towards religion and religious discrimination." Significantly, the religious-racialist mutation served an evolutionary function: the anti-Semitism virus evolved to adapt to changing environmental conditions. The racialist-political mutation, in which racialist anti-Semitism evolved into political anti-Semitism, represented a similar example of adaptive behavior in the twentieth century: Jew-hatred adapted to a post-Holocaust environment in which explicit race-hatred was socially unacceptable unless repackaged to appear political in nature.'0' In many cases, age-old anti-Semitic stereotypes and defamations are recast in contemporary political terms, castigating Israel and Zionism in terms historically used to denigrate Jews and Judaism. 10 2 In this formulation, Israel-mordantly characterized as "the 'Jew' of the nations'' a is made the repository of age-old stereotypes and defamations classically equated with Jews: as "a pariah;" as "supernaturally powerful and crafty;" as conspiratorial; and as a malignant force responsible for the world's evils.' 4 This political turn in anti-Semitism has had another consequence however. Where political speech has social and legal protection, such as on the American college campus, politically inflected hate and bias incidents are more difficult to police without implicating constitutional protections and academic freedom concerns. 05 Indeed, virtually any form of abuse may be considered protected-and its opposition deemed censorious-when the context is an academic campus and the perpetrator is careful to adopt the tropes of political discourse."° This has been an enormous challenge for civil rights enforcement in this area. 34 +Empirics prove that hate speech leads to hate crimes 35 +Singh 12 Hansdeep Singh, Co-Founder and Director of Legal Programs for the International Center for Advocates Against Discrimination, Simran Jeet Singh, a scholar and activist who writes primarily on culture and religion “The Rise of Hate Crimes Can Be Tied Directly to Hateful Speech,” The Daily Beast, Sept. 6, 2012, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/06/the-rise-of-hate-crimes-can-be-tied-directly-to-hateful-speech.html JW 36 +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 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 on the anniversary of 9/11—all of these instances contributed to a rising anti-Muslim sentiment in America. The vitriolic discourse can also be linked to bias-based violence against other communities. For instance, hate crime against the LGBT community has risen 36 percent from 2005 to 2010. This is in part because of the extreme rhetoric of opponents of the marriage equality movement. Such targeted violence is one symptom of a deeper and more widespread illness plaguing this great nation—the discrimination and “othering” of minority communities. 37 +Turn: silencing people is inevitable but harassment creates an even greater chilling effect in both students and faculty 38 +Marcus 2 Kenneth L. Marcus, Lillie and Nathan Ackerman Chair in Equality and Justice in America, Baruch College School of Public Affairs, “Higher Education, Harassment, and First Amendment Opportunism,” 16 Wm. and Mary Bill Rts. J. 1025 (2008), http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol16/iss4/5 JW 39 +Unavoidably, antidiscrimination law will have the effect of silencing some discriminators, just as tort law silences some defrauders and conspiracy law silences some conspirators. This will be true as long as lawbreakers use words to further their malfeasance. The serious First Amendment question here is not whether any speech is silenced, but whether legitimate, protected speech is chilled in a manner that unacceptably hampers speech." 0 In fact, it may be argued that the failure to enforce antidiscrimination law may have a more chilling effect on campus free expression than the exercise of this power. Specifically, some commentators have observed that anti-Semitic incidents have had the affect of silencing some Jewish students and faculty on college campuses who were intimidated from expressing their viewpoint publicly.'5' In reference to this problem, Natan Sharansky has dubbed American Jewish college students the "new Jews of silence," a phrase resonant with the experience of Russian Jews in the old Soviet Union. 5 2 Henry Louis Gates, Jr. has suggested that "perhaps the most powerful arguments of all for the regulation of hate speech come from those who maintain that such regulation will really enhance the diversity and range of public discourse."' 153 The gist of this argument, as applied either to hate speech or harassment, is that these activities tend to have a silencing effect on the minorities at whom they are targeted. Indeed, the danger now is not only that students and some faculty will be silenced by the harassment itself; it is also that they will be silenced by other faculty members who denounce efforts to eliminate anti-Semitism as a threat to academic freedom and "the core mission of institutions of higher education in a democratic society."'" As I have traveled to college campuses to describe the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' public education campaign on campus anti-Semitism, students and faculty have expressed precisely this concern to me. That is, they are reluctant to speak out against hate and bias incidents for fear that they will be accused of trying to silence debate or suppress academic freedom. 40 +Case 41 +The marketplace of ideas is terrible – government influence creates a chilling effect, it acts as a palliative for broader reform, and shuts dissent into endless debate instead of action – the aff opens a procedural can of worms that makes change impossible. Inbger 84 42 +Stanley Ingber, THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS: A LEGITIMIZING MYTH, Duke Law Review, February 1984 43 +The clear and present danger test presupposes that market imperfections sometimes give speakers an unacceptable level of advantage in influencing others. Because information opposing the speaker's viewpoint cannot be transmitted instantaneously to all market participants, the real market substantially departs from the theoretical one.80 Therefore, emergency situations are exempted from first amendment coverage. As long as sufficient time remains for the marketplace's process of deliberation to persist, however, and as long as lawless action is not imminent, no emergency exists and all speech must be protected. Yet the goal of free speech is not merely to have citizens enjoy participating in an effete truth-seeking process. Instead, citizens seek truth through free speech precisely to influence choice and behavior. Recognizing that beliefs are important primarily because those who hold them are likely to act accordingly, Holmes conceded that "every idea is an incitement. '81 Ironically, however, Holmes's "clear and present danger" formula allows government officials to prohibit expression precisely when such speech threatens to incite action.82 An interpretation of the first amendment that permits the state to cut off expression as soon as it comes close to being effective essentially limits the amendment's protection to encompass only abstract or innocuous communication. 83 Consequently, speech is constitutionally protected under the clear and present danger test as long as it is either ineffective84 or insignificant. 85 In either instance the test creates an establishment bias. Other factors peculiar to the clear and present danger test accentuate this bias. The test is both ad hoc and vague. Speakers receive no warning whether their contemplated speech extends beyond the parameters of constitutional protection. The test is totally contextual, giving little guidance to either the speaker or the official censor who must predict the impact of the expression. 6 For the speaker, this lack of notice fosters continuous uncertainty and thus may chill a risk-averse speaker who desires to minimize his personal legal peril.87 Such a person may censor himself by intentionally avoiding those messages he perceives as approaching the fringe of official acceptability. The official, in turn, must decide when the expression is clearly dangerous and when insufficient time exists for a full and fair hearing of responsive expression that would allow good counsel to defeat bad.88 The censor's evaluation involves a two-tiered decision. First, the official must evaluate the speech ideologically to determine whether it is good or evil, because if the speech is good the lack of sufficient time for response is irrelevant. 89 But under the market model, only the marketplace can accurately separate good from evil; therefore, no criteria can exist to determine whether speech is sufficiently evil to warrant exclusion from the market. Second, the official must calculate the seriousness of the speech's evil, because the market requires greater response time for more serious evils. This requirement forces the official to differentiate without any guidelines between evil counsel that is about to lead an insufficiently educated public astray, and good counsel that merely has convinced an adequately informed public of its "rightness." Under a test with such elasticity, speakers who proclaim any radical political doctrine may expect to receive little or no protection because they will always appear as a threat to the nation and, thus, embody the most serious of all possible evils. 90 The establishment bias is again obvious. The clear and present danger test also encourages prolonging debate indefinitely. According to Brandeis, expression may not be prohibited so long as debate remains ongoing. 91 Thus, only the process of truth-seeking is fully protected; decisions and actions predicated upon truths once discovered are protected not at all.92 Brandeis's approach to the marketplace of ideas accordingly encourages prolonged discussion and, therefore, the delay of decisions that might lead to actions contrary to society's generally accepted "truths." There is, however, little value in the discovery of truth that cannot be used as a basis of choice and behavior. Brandeis's focus on procedural aspects of the market rather than on the substantive actions it triggers also fosters delay in implementing any ideas that challenge the status quo perspective. Disputes over the best solutions for societal problems are converted into disputes over proper marketplace processes. For example, rather than focusing on whether the military draft should be reinstated, the debate may well center on whether antidraft groups should be allowed to stage a massive demonstration in a business district. Such procedural concerns divert attention from the substantive issue so that the status quo is more easily preserved. Through this process of transforming substantive conflicts into procedural debates, challengers to the status quo may be placated with a procedural victory while their overt threat is defused.93 This shift in focus helps to insulate society from the trauma of having to reconsider its accepted values while at the same time it allows the protesting individual and his supporters to believe that they have a fair opportunity to win popular support for their position.94 If freedom of expression only gives protection as long as decisions are not yet made, actions are not yet taken, and debate is still in progress, then there is little threat to established norms 44 +Revolution 45 +The Aff’s defense of free speech allows the state to marginalize those who would oppose the system and traps us in the capitalist system. 46 +Anonymous 10 Retrieved on 7 July 2015 from http://www.mediafire.com/view/h4qv25h825sajcj/The_Divorce_of_Thought_from_Deed_(imposed).pdf 47 +In fact, in nations in which free speech is not legally protected, radicals are not always more isolated—on the contrary, the average person is sometimes more sympathetic to those in conflict with the state, as it is more difficult for the state to legitimize itself as the defender of liberty. Laws do not tie the hands of the state nearly so much as public opposition can; given the choice between legal rights and popular support, radicals are much better off with the latter. One dictionary defines civil liberty as “the state of being subject only to laws established for the good of the community.” This sounds ideal to those who believe that laws enforced by hierarchical power can serve the “good of the community”—but who defines “the community” and what is good for it, if not those in power? In practice, the discourse of civil liberties enables the state to marginalize its foes: if there is a legitimate channel for every kind of expression, then those who refuse to play by the rules are clearly illegitimate. Thus we may read this definition the other way around: under “civil liberty,” all laws are for the good of the community, and any who challenge them must be against it. 48 + 49 +Reaction Rhetoric 50 +This right wing defense of free speech on college campuses allows for reactionary rhetoric and oppression of many groups. Anonymous 10 51 +“Divorce of Thought from Deed,” North Carolina Piece Corps, Retrieved on 7 July 2015 from http://www.mediafire.com/view/h4qv25h825sajcj/The_Divorce_of_Thought_from_Deed_(imposed).pdf 52 +But anti-authoritarians aren’t the only ones who have taken up the banner of free speech. More recently, the right wing in the US has begun to argue that the failure to give conservative views an equal footing with liberal views constitutes a suppression of their free speech. By accusing “liberal” universities and media of suppressing conservative views—a laughable assertion, given the massive structures of power and funding advancing these—they use First Amendment discourse to promote reactionary agendas. Supposedly progressive campuses reveal their true colors as they mobilize institutional power to defend right-wing territory in the marketplace of ideas, going so far as to censor and intimidate opposition. Extreme right and fascist organizations have jumped onto the free speech bandwagon as well. In the US, Anti-Racist Action and similar groups have been largely effective in disrupting their events and organizing efforts. Consequently, fascists now increasingly rely on the state to protect them, claiming that racist, anti-immigrant, and anti-gay organizing constitutes a form of legally protected speech—and within the framework of the ACLU, it does. Fascist groups that are prevented from publishing their material in most other industrialized democracies by laws restricting hate speech frequently publish it in the United States, where no such laws exist, and distribute it worldwide from here. So in practice, state protection of the right to free expression aids fascist organizing. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-14 18:37:49.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Shania Hunt - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Brentwood JD - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +3 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +6 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Cupertino Kumar Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1NC Round 6 CPS - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +CPS
- Caselist.CitesClass[4]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,27 @@ 1 +1NC 2 +CP Text: The United States federal government shall repeal the Patriot Act. 3 +That’s key to increase free speech and foster progressive criticism of the status quo on campuses. 4 +Macdonald 03 Morgan MacDonald, Patriot Act stifles dissent on campus, Baltimore Sun, 11/24/03, http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2003-11-24/news/0311240117_1_student-groups-student-information-college-campuses //LADI 5 +AS A COLLEGE student, I am acutely aware of both the legal and social effects of the USA Patriot Act on my life and on the lives of my peers. Passed after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Patriot Act has led to a broadening of governmental power to define protest as terrorism and to intrude on our fundamental rights as citizens. I am concerned by the Patriot Act's impact on the lives of all citizens, but especially on my peers in colleges across the country. No matter what provision of the Patriot Act we examine, its effects are tenfold on a college campus. A college campus is highly interconnected in every imaginable way, and in that sense differs from the typical small American city. Students are plugged into one central Internet server, student records are compiled in one database, students live in centralized college housing, student groups meet on campus, and so on. To monitor for "subversive" activity or to track a specific e-mail account is made exponentially easier when all the information is centralized and in the control of school administrations. Students on college campuses have far less privacy than the average person. When this problem is compounded by the expansion of government oversight, students' rights are placed in the most precarious of positions. Under the Patriot Act, student groups can be labeled "terrorist" organizations if they engage in certain types of protest or civil disobedience. In Minnesota, student groups such as Anti-Racist Action and Students Against War were labeled as potential terrorist threats. The government can demand that schools hand over student information without presenting probable cause that a crime has been committed. According to the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, more than 200 colleges and universities have turned over student information to the FBI, Immigration and Naturalization Service and other law enforcement agencies. Some college police are reporting directly to federal law enforcement agencies, thus allowing the government to monitor the actions of student groups and individual students without notification to the students or even college administrators. Beyond violating constitutionally guaranteed rights, the effect of the Patriot Act on college campuses is to create a suffocating educational and social atmosphere. The result of this legislation is the slow deterioration of student involvement and full intellectual participation on college campuses. If students are not allowed to express themselves in college - to question authority and to team with other students for positive social change - America's future is bleak. I am infuriated when I sit in a student anti-war strategy meeting and one of my peers says she cannot participate in our protest because she is not from the United States and fears the consequences of her actions. That is not the American way. That is not how universities contribute to progress in this country. Those who drafted the Patriot Act failed to create legislation that protects both the safety and the rights of each American. That lack of attention to our country's fundamental values is striking college campuses like a hidden illness. America is a country that advocates free speech and free expression because of the belief that a marketplace of contradictory opinions is beneficial to the progress of society. When students are deterred from participating in free discussion and demonstrations of individuality, the marketplace of ideas loses one of its biggest and most essential contributors. We are not afraid to oppose the Patriot Act because we know the consequences of its implementation. The destruction of our educational freedom must not be allowed. 6 + 7 +Rights K 8 +Their advocacy for rights rectifies the division between the human and the political - Rights talk ties the population to the sovereign by defining life only in terms of what can be defended by the state—this turns the citizen-subject into bare life by allowing arbitrary exclusion 9 +Hoover 13 Hoover, Joe. Dr Hoover has a BA in Philosophy from the University of Colorado and an MSc in Philosophy, now at University of London "Towards a politics for human rights: Ambiguous humanity and democratizing rights." Philosophy and Social Criticism 2013 (IM) 10 +Agamben pushes this critique even further by focusing on the way in which rights depend upon the distinction between those who have rights as members of the political community and those that are excluded – between bios and zoē. Human rights attempt to privilege the bare life of human beings without a place in the political world, which is why Agamben sees the displaced or stateless individual as the exemplary subject of human rights. However, it is the sovereign that has the power to make this distinction, the exclusion of some life from the political community, the creation of “bare life”. As rights are supposed to attach to human beings as such, rather than as members of a particular nation, it seems that the law achieves justification beyond convention, beyond the shared sense of justice that makes a People, but in fact it reveals that the law depends upon the power of the sovereign who ultimately decides which human beings have their rights protected and which find themselves excluded totally, most tellingly in the camp. This critique of human rights depends upon Agamben’s understanding of the sovereign as ‘the point of indistinction between violence and law, the threshold on which violence passes over into law and law passes over into violence.’54 The pure bio-politics we find in the relationship between Homo Sacer and the sovereign, who decides whether bare human life is extinguished or preserved, reveals that the effort to remove rights from a given order (to transform civil right into human rights) renders those rights precarious, dependent on exceptional power of the sovereign rather than a universal law. On this reading, human rights cannot constrain authority because they are dependent upon it, nor do they enable transformations of the legal and political order because they confirm rather than claim power. Agamben suggests that rights are not ambiguous in their support of authority and control, but rather central to it at the most fundamental level. 11 + 12 +Bare life is the ultimate devaluation of life – life that can be killed, but not sacrificed. 13 +Reinert 2007 (‘The Pertinence of Sacrifice - Some Notes on Larry the Luckiest Lamb’ Hugo Reinert, PhD from Cambridge University of Cambridge, http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol6no3_2007/reinert_larry.htm) IM 14 +14. For a few years now, in his Homo Sacer project, Agamben has been tracing the political predicament of the present using the enigmatic figure of the bare life nuda vita (1998). Throughout his work, this bare life appears in many guises: from werewolves, outlaws and Roman priestesses to overcomatose patients and concentration camp victims. Perhaps its principal exemplar however - the figure that Agamben uses to illustrate its basic dynamic most succinctly - is the homo sacer or 'sacred man': 'an obscure figure from archaic Roman Law' who, for his crimes, has been expelled from both the ius humanum and the ius divinum, from both secular and sacred law. As a consequence of this, it is declared that he 'may be killed but not sacrificed' (Agamben 1998: 8). Killing this sacred man therefore invokes no sanction, but his life is also 'unsacrificeable' (82). His existence is constituted through a 'double exclusion' that expresses the basic operation of sovereign power itself - the process by which 'the rule, suspending itself, gives rise to the exception and, maintaining itself in relation to the exception, first constitutes itself as a rule' (18). This is the 'relation of exception': 'the extreme form of relation by which something is included solely through its exclusion' (18). Through this extreme relation, sovereign power maintains itself in a permanent relationship to the excluded: the outlaw for example, as another figure of the bare life, 'is in a continuous relationship with the power that banished him precisely insofar as he is at every instant exposed to an unconditional threat of death' (183). 15. The sacred man and the outlaw are only two figures in a gallery of priests, bandits, kings, werewolves and concentration camp victims, all connected by the thread of the bare life and its shifting parameters. King or camp victim, this bare life is always a figure of the extreme margin: life stripped of its everyday humanity, reduced and excluded to the blurred threshold that surrounds the 'city of men' and defines its limits. In a sense, it is the human zoon politikon stripped of the very quality that makes it human: its social being, its character of sociality. Seen this way, the bare life is defined by the fact that it is not - or that it is no longer - a social person . This is the sense in which the term has come of age recently: particularly to describe Muslims held at Guantanamo, but also - with variable relevance - to describe social phenomena ranging from premature infant births (Wynn 2002) and homeless people (Feldman 2006), to the geopolitics of post-colonial violence (Sylvester 2006) and, somewhat bizarrely, European tourists in Ibiza (Diken and Laustsen 2004). In the present context, the more relevant of these applications focus on the question of violence - on the intersection between the sovereign exercise and justification of violence, on the one hand, and the bare life's quality of constant, permanent exposure to the threat of violence on the other. 16. As Agamben argues, the exercise of lethal violence against the bare life is twice circumscribed by the structure of the sovereign ban. Suspended in the grasp of sovereign power, the bare life becomes simultaneously vulnerable to certain kinds of violence and ineligible for others. On the one hand, it can be freely killed - the exercise of violence against the bare life is routine, insignificant and unmarked. It requires no expiation or atonement and invites no sanctions: it is banal, without consequence to the law and anything but 'intrinsically mysterious, mystifying, convoluting, plain scary, mythical and arcane' (Taussig 1992: 116). Simultaneously, with this subjection to unregulated and freely exercised forms of violence, the bare life also becomes ineligible for sacrifice - which is to say, in the general sense in which Agamben interprets the term, that the bare life is excluded from all forms of ritually marked, institutionalized, exalted or sacralizing violence, such as are 'prescribed by the rite of the law' (1998: 102): it can not, for example, be 'submitted to sanctioned forms of execution' (103). Between them, these two exclusions operate to desacralize the death of the bare life, stripping it of any significance. Its killing and death become trivial, casual, mundane and devoid of higher meaning: to Agamben the observer, the horror of the concentration camp is that as embodiments of the bare life, the men and women there died, to their executors, 'like lice' (114). In one sense, the bare life stands as cypher for a de-personalization, or dis-individuation, that transforms subjects into objects: subjecting them to the free exercise of unregulated violence while simultaneously, through the trope of denied sacrifice, disqualifying them from subjection to ritual or sacralizing forms of violence - insofar as they are 'not worthy of this gesture of honour' (Hansen and Stepputat 2005: 17). 15 + 16 + 17 +The alternative is to reject the aff’s portrayal of rights—only fighting oppressive discourse like theirs can solve. 18 + McKenzie, M. (2014, February 3). 4 Ways to Push Back Against Your Privilege. Retrieved from https://www.bgdblog.org/2014/02/4-ways-push-back-privilege/ (writer, activist, founder of Black Girls Danger) 19 +I’ve often said that it’s not enough to acknowledge your privilege. And, in fact, that acknowledging it is often little more than a chance to pat yourself on the back for being so “aware.” What I find is that most of the time when people acknowledge their privilege, they feel really special about it, really important, really glad that something so significant just happened, and then they just go ahead and do whatever they wanted to do anyway, privilege firmly in place. The truth is that acknowledging your privilege means a whole lot of nothing much if you don’t do anything to actively push back against it. I understand, of course, that the vast majority of people don’t even acknowledge their privilege in the first place. I’m not talking to them. I’m talking to those of us who do. If we do, then we need to understand that acknowledgement all by itself isn’t enough. No matter how cathartic it feels. So, what does pushing back against your privilege look like? Well, here are just a few ways it can look (note: none of these is easy; that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try): If you are in a position of power and you are able to recognize and acknowledge that at least part of the reason you are there is your (white, male, cisgendered, able-bodied, class, etc.) privilege, then pushing back against that privilege means sharing that power with, or sometimes relinquishing it to, the folks around you who have less privilege and therefore less power. I had a conversation recently with my friend about her terrible white woman boss who, when the women of color she supervises have strong feelings about the way things are being run, including the hiring of more white people over POC, pulls rank on them. Her “I understand your feelings but I am, you know, the boss and it’s my job to…” nonsense is exactly what not pushing back against your privilege looks like. On the other hand, “I was hired to supervise y’all, but I don’t want to perpetuate this type of effed-up power dynamic and also I recognize that y’all have a better understanding about why we should not hire another white man, so I’m going to go ahead and defer to y’all” is exactly what pushing back against your privilege does look like. If you have access to something and you recognize that you have it partly because of privilege, opt out of it. If you’re an able-bodied person and that retreat you really, really want to go on isn’t wheelchair accessible, and the organizers of said retreat have been asked and supported in making a change and done nothing, and you realize how fucked up that is, don’t go. It works the same for women-only events that exclude trans women. Don’t go. Even if you really, really want to go because your, like, fave artist ever is gonna be there. Especially then. Pushing back against your privilege often requires sacrifice. Sacrifice is hard sometimes, homies. If not being a dick were easy, everybody would do it! Acknowledging that something is messed up doesn’t mean anything if you still participate just because, dang, you really want to and stuff. This one is so, so important. If you are a person with a lot of privilege (i.e. a white, straight, able-bodied, class-privileged, cisgender male or any combination of two or more of those) and you call yourself being against oppression, then it should be part of your regular routine to sit the hell down and shut the eff up. If you can recognize that part of the reason your opinion, your voice, carries so much weight and importance is because you are a white man (or whatever combination is working for you), then pushing back against your privilege often looks like shutting your face. Now, of course, using your privilege to speak out against oppression is very important. But I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about chiming in, taking up space, adding your two cents, playing devil’s advocate, etc. when 1) no one asked you, 2) the subject matter is outside your realm of experience (why do you even think you get to have an opinion about the lives of black women??), 3) anything you say is just going to cause more harm because your voice, in and of itself, is a reminder that you always get to have a voice and that voice usually drowns out the voices of others. 20 + 21 +Term Papers DA 22 +The sale of term papers is blatant plagiarism—but it’s protected under the First Amendment nonetheless. 23 +Duke Law Journal 73, Term Paper Companies and the Constitution, 1973, 1275-1317 (1974) Available at: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol22/iss6/3 24 +TERM PAPERS AS PROTECTED SPEECH UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT The preparation and sale of term papers involves not only written communication but also "pure speech," an exchange of ideas arguably protectable under the first amendment . 2 The Supreme Court has indicated that this protection extends to even the most marginal "exchanges of ideas." Justice Frankfurter conceded in his dissent to Winters v. New York17 that "wiholly neutral futilities, of course, come under the protection of free speech as fully as do Keats' poems or Donne's sermons." The majority in Winters stated, with more enthusiasm, that even though the magazines in question contained "nothing of any possible value," they were "as much entitled to the protection of free speech as the best of literature." ' A term paper, arguably, is somewhat more than a "wiholly neutral futility" and is clearly entitled to as much constitutional protection as magazines which contain "nothing of any possible value to society." 25 +Plagiarism harms the academic environment in universities 26 +Colantuono Florence Colantuono, “Academic Plagiarism.” Explorable. 27 +The written word is used to gauge a persons experience and achievement, when something is plagiarized it does not afford the reader a true opportunity to understand the writer, to gauge progress in academia. Clearly this act impacts the writers learning. If when presented with a paper an unknowing instructor provides constructive criticism that is meant for the writer to help improve, it is wasted. The author can never know the status of their work if it is not their own. Academic plagiarism affects many people along the way. It obviously affects the person whose work has been plagiarized by not affording the author credit for hard work. It affects the person who commits' the plagiarism by not affording the person an opportunity to receive constructive feedback. By not sharing ones own ideas important milestones are missed. It affects the efforts of the instructor to gauge the material being taught as useful of not. Generally academic plagiarism affects the academic community as a whole. Academic success is based on the ability of the institution to affect both public and corporate policy, with a high plagiarism rate the institution will lose standing and creditability. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-15 04:19:06.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Shayne Walton - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lynbrook YZ - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +4 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +4 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Cupertino Kumar Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1NC R4 Harvard Westlake - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harvard Westlake
- Caselist.CitesClass[5]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,62 @@ 1 +Title IX DA 2 +Title IX investigations are increasing. Kingiade 16. 3 +Tyler Kingkade. “There Are Far More Title IX Investigations Of Colleges Than Most People Know”. Huffington Post. June 16, 2016. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/title-ix-investigations-sexual-harassment_us_575f4b0ee4b053d433061b3d AGM 4 +The growing backlog of federal Title IX investigations into colleges and universities has now topped 300, but many people, including students at the schools under scrutiny, aren’t aware of those reviews. As of Wednesday, there were 246 ongoing investigations by the U.S. Department of Education into how 195 colleges and universities handle sexual assault reports under the gender equity law. A Freedom of Information Act request by The Huffington Post revealed another 68 Title IX investigations into how 61 colleges handle sexual harassment cases. This puts the total number of Title IX investigations officially dealing with sexual harassment at 315. (Under civil rights statutes, sexual assault is defined as an extreme form of sexual harassment.) But dozens of those Title IX reviews receive no publicity because they don’t specifically deal with sexual assault. If a school is being investigated for allegedly mishandling harassment cases, but not reports of assault, it doesn’t appear on the list regularly given to reporters by the Education Department. Major educational institutions — including New York University, the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, Georgia State University, Florida AandM University, Rutgers University, Howard University, the University of Oklahoma, Kent State University and the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse — have escaped public scrutiny because Title IX investigations into their actions haven’t been highlighted by the government or the schools themselves.SUNY Broome Community College is under three investigations that haven’t been previously disclosed. The Education Department has no plans to regularly issue a list of cases involving sexual harassment only, an official told HuffPost. 5 +And, increased investigations are a crucial way to hold schools accountable. Bricker 12. 6 +Nora Caplan Bricker. “How Title IX Became Our Best Tool Against Sexual Harassment”. The New Republic. June 21, 2012. https://newrepublic.com/article/104237/how-title-ix-became-our-best-tool-against-sexual-harassment. AGM 7 +Title IX remains a call to action and a crucial tool for those who believe schools need to take a harsher line on rape and sexual violence. When Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan issued updated guidelines for Title IX in 2010, they focused on grievance procedures for sexual assault, urging schools to crack down. The past few years have seen a slew of Title IX complaints seeking the reform of sexual grievance procedures—at, among others, Princeton, Duke, the University of Virginia, Harvard Law School, and, once again, Yale. The most recent investigation of Yale closed this month with “no findings of noncompliance,” according to Yale President Richard Levin—though, as one of the complainants pointed out in Slate, the university had to sign an agreement to maintain the new policies it implemented this year, and to keep a close eye on the campus climate and report regularly to OCR. This complaint at Yale was, in many ways, depressingly similar to the case that preceded it by over thirty years: It asked the university to take public displays of misogyny seriously, and to create better recourse for victims of sexual violence and harsher punishments for perpetrators. The echoes of Alexander v. Yale are a reminder of sexism’s insidious hold, and of the progress our society has yet to make. When I told Bayh about Title IX’s foundational role in sexual harassment law, he told me he doesn’t think “discrimination” is a strong enough term for sexual misconduct and violence. “That’s flat-out criminal activity,” he said. But because universities handle so many harassment and assault cases that occur between students in-house, classifying these crimes as discrimination has turned out to be an effective way to hold institutions accountable. 8 +AFF guts effectiveness of Title IX – it causes first amendment opportunism. Schauer 04 9 +Schauer, Frederick David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law. "The boundaries of the First Amendment: A preliminary exploration of constitutional salience." Harvard Law Review (2004): 1765-1809. 10 +In addition to the properties of First Amendment claims that may¶ make them less likely to appear legally frivolous, the First Amend-¶ ment's magnetism may assist in ensuring that those claims will not¶ arise in isolation. There will often be multiple lawyers, multiple liti-¶ gants, and multiple public actors who perceive the virtues of the same¶ opportunistic strategy at roughly the same time, or who even may be¶ in active coordination with each other - as with the multiple chal-¶ lenges to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, the proliferation of First¶ Amendment rhetoric surrounding legal arguments regarding computer¶ source code, and the panoply of parallel claims about First Amend-¶ ment limitations on copyright. When this is the case, the multiplicity¶ of individually tenuous claims may produce a cascade effect160 such¶ that the claims no longer appear tenuous. The combination of, say,¶ four scarcely plausible but simultaneous court challenges and twenty¶ scarcely plausible public claims of a First Amendment problem could make all these individually implausible claims seem more credible¶ than they actually are.161 From the standpoint of an interest group¶ seeking to achieve change and to mobilize public support or the sup-¶ port of other interest groups,162 winning is better than losing publicly,¶ but losing publicly is perhaps still preferable to being ignored.¶ Once the claim or argument achieves a critical mass of plausibility,¶ the game may be over. Even if individual courts reject the claim, the¶ multiplicity of now-plausible claims may give the issue what is re-¶ ferred to in inside-the-Beltway political jargon as "traction" and in¶ newsroom jargon as "legs." Interestingly, this phenomenon sometimes¶ survives even authoritative rejection of the claim. With respect to the¶ argument that hostile-environment sexual harassment enforcement has¶ serious First Amendment implications, for example, neither the Su-¶ preme Court's rejection of this argument in dicta in R.A. V v. City of¶ St. Paul163 nor the Court's silent dismissal of the same claim in Harris¶ v. Forklift Systems, Inc.164 has slowed the momentum of those who¶ would wage serious First Amendment battle against hostile-¶ environment sexual harassment law.'65 Similarly, decades of judicial¶ rejection of the argument that copyright law must be substantially re-¶ stricted by the commands of the First Amendment have scarcely dis-¶ couraged those who urge otherwise; and in some respects the Supreme¶ Court's recent decision in Eldred v. Ashcroftl66 can be considered not a¶ defeat, but rather one further step toward the entry of copyright into¶ the domain of the First Amendment: the Supreme Court did grant cer-¶ tiorari, in part to determine "whether ... the extension of existing and¶ future copyrights violates the First Amendment;"'67 and the seven-¶ Justice majority, as well as Justice Breyer in dissent,'68 acknowledged¶ that the First Amendment was not totally irrelevant. 11 +Sexual harassment represents an oppressive use of power and kills the participation and success of the harassed. Benson and Thomson 82 12 + 13 +Benson, Donna J., and Gregg E. Thomson. "Sexual harassment on a university campus: The confluence of authority relations, sexual interest and gender stratification." Social problems 29.3 (1982): 236-251. 14 + 15 +It is precisely this widespread confluence of authority relations, sexual interest and gender¶ stratification which defines the problem of sexual harassment. There is, in other words, a nexus¶ of power and sexualprerogative often enjoyed by men with formal authority over women. Men¶ in such positions can engage in (or "get away with") overt sexual behaviors that would be rebuffed¶ or avoided were the relationship not one of superior and subordinate. They can also discharge selectively the power and rewards of their positions as a means to obligate women sexualy (Blau,¶ 1964).¶ As well as reward and punish women directly, men can manipulate and obscure their sexual in-¶ tentions toward female subordinates. Women learn that the "official" attention of a male¶ superior is often but a vehicle through which he can "press his pursuits" (Goffman, 1977). In¶ turn, what is often mistakenly perceived by men as an unfounded distrust or suspicion of motives¶ has its basis in previous experience with male "helpfulness." Therefore, as Thorne5 suggests, there¶ is an intrinsic ambiguity between the formal definition of the male superior/female subordinate¶ relationship and a sexual one, in which the gender of the woman can be made salient at the in-¶ itiative of the man.¶ Male Authority and Sexual Interest on the University Campus¶ At major universities, student access to individual instructors can be a scarce resource. Faculty¶ members serve as gatekeepers to the professions, yet an institutional priority on research severely¶ constrains the time and energy that they devote to instruction and interaction with under-¶ graduates (Blau, 1973). Moreover, though students are supposedly evaluated according to merit,¶ the teacher's role permits a wide latitude in the degree of interaction and helpfulness granted to¶ individual students. An instructor enjoys considerable discretionary power to provide or¶ withhold academic rewards (grades, recommendations) and related resources (help, psychological¶ support).6¶ As in the workplace, it is usually men who exercise this discretionary power over female univer-¶ sity students. While women now comprise more than half of all college students,¶ faculty-especially within higher ranks and at major universities-are overwhelmingly male.¶ About 95 percent of university full professors are men (Patterson and Engelberg, 1978). Nor-¶ mative requirements for career advancement at competitive universities are based on traditional,¶ male life-cycle patterns and work schedules that are not convenient to many women (Hochschild,¶ 1975).¶ In the past, it has been difficult for women to successfully enter any prestigious and male-¶ dominated - hence, "non-traditional" - field (Epstein, 1970). Social psychological analyses (Med-¶ nick et. al., 1975) have identified some of the barriers still faced by college women seeking such¶ careers. Yet a recent compendium of student responses to a University of California ad-¶ ministrative query about sex discrimination on campus is replete with testimony from male¶ students that female students' sexuality now gives them an unfair advantage in this competition¶ (University of California, Berkeley, 1977). While women allude to numerous sexist remarks and¶ behaviors by faculty which derogate the abilities of women as a group, the male respondents¶ claim that individual women profit from their sexual attributes because male instructors go out of¶ their way to be "extra friendly" and helpful to them. According to the male perception, then, the¶ latitude permitted in the faculty-student relationship works - at the initiative of either instructor¶ or student - to the advantage of attractive women.¶ Some sociologists of higher education view faculty-student sexual exchanges only as women at-¶ tempting to use their sexuality to compensate for a lack of academic accomplishment:¶ Innumerable girls have found that a pretty face and a tight sweater were an adequate substitute for diligence and cleverness when dealing with a male teacher. Some, having been frustrated in efforts to get¶ by on this basis, have pushed matters further and ended up in bed-though not necessarily with an A¶ (Jencks and Riesman, 1968:427n).¶ Similarly, Singer's (1964:148) empirical study of the relationship between personal attrac-¶ tiveness and university grades relies on unsupported conjecture about female manipulativeness to¶ conclude that ". . . the poor college professor is . . . enticed by the female students ... as he goes¶ about his academic and personal responsibilities." In both studies we find the unquestioned¶ assumption that women (unfairly) capitalize on their sexuality in an otherwise meritocratic and¶ asexual relationship.7¶ Our analysis of sexual harassment as the nexus of power and sexual prerogative implies that,¶ from the woman's perspective, the situation is more complex and decidedly less sanguine. Rather¶ than having a unilateral "sex advantage," female students face the possibility that male instruc-¶ tors may manipulate sexual interest and authority in ways which ultimately undermine the posi-¶ tion of women in academia. Because women can no longer be openly denied access to educational¶ and professional training legally, sexual harassment may remain an especially critical factor of¶ more covert discrimination. 16 + 17 +Empirically proven with graduation rates – Aff kills diversity. Bricker 12. 18 +Nora Caplan Bricker. “How Title IX Became Our Best Tool Against Sexual Harassment”. The New Republic. June 21, 2012. https://newrepublic.com/article/104237/how-title-ix-became-our-best-tool-against-sexual-harassment. AGM 19 +When former Indiana Senator Birch Bayh* wrote Title IX forty years ago, his goal was very simple: to make sure women could get a good education. He wanted to force schools to accept women as students, let them into classes, and hire them as professors. And he wanted to make professions that require higher education accessible to women. As the law, which prohibits educational programs that take federal money from discriminating on the basis of sex, celebrates its fortieth birthday on Saturday, the changes Bayh was after have, to a stunning degree, happened—women have been earning more undergraduate degrees than men since 1996 and in 2009 overtook them in the attainment of doctoral degrees; 47 percent of legal degrees and 48 percent of medical degrees were conferred on women in 2010, compared to 7 percent and 9 percent, respectively, in 1972. Title IX has become most famous for ushering female athletes onto the playing field—an application of Bayh’s law that he told me didn’t cross his mind when he was defending it in the Senate. 20 +Term Papers DA 21 +The sale of term papers is blatant plagiarism—but it’s protected under the First Amendment nonetheless. 22 +Duke Law Journal 73, Term Paper Companies and the Constitution, 1973, 1275-1317 (1974) Available at: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol22/iss6/3 23 +TERM PAPERS AS PROTECTED SPEECH UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT The preparation and sale of term papers involves not only written communication but also "pure speech," an exchange of ideas arguably protectable under the first amendment . 2 The Supreme Court has indicated that this protection extends to even the most marginal "exchanges of ideas." Justice Frankfurter conceded in his dissent to Winters v. New York17 that "wiholly neutral futilities, of course, come under the protection of free speech as fully as do Keats' poems or Donne's sermons." The majority in Winters stated, with more enthusiasm, that even though the magazines in question contained "nothing of any possible value," they were "as much entitled to the protection of free speech as the best of literature." ' A term paper, arguably, is somewhat more than a "wiholly neutral futility" and is clearly entitled to as much constitutional protection as magazines which contain "nothing of any possible value to society." 24 +Plagiarism harms the academic environment in universities 25 +Colantuono Florence Colantuono, “Academic Plagiarism.” Explorable. 26 +The written word is used to gauge a persons experience and achievement, when something is plagiarized it does not afford the reader a true opportunity to understand the writer, to gauge progress in academia. Clearly this act impacts the writers learning. If when presented with a paper an unknowing instructor provides constructive criticism that is meant for the writer to help improve, it is wasted. The author can never know the status of their work if it is not their own. Academic plagiarism affects many people along the way. It obviously affects the person whose work has been plagiarized by not affording the author credit for hard work. It affects the person who commits' the plagiarism by not affording the person an opportunity to receive constructive feedback. By not sharing ones own ideas important milestones are missed. It affects the efforts of the instructor to gauge the material being taught as useful of not. Generally academic plagiarism affects the academic community as a whole. Academic success is based on the ability of the institution to affect both public and corporate policy, with a high plagiarism rate the institution will lose standing and creditability. 27 +Turns the aff and outweighs: 28 +1. Precludes the link to other reforms—Colantuono says credibility is key to shaping public policy, that means if on-campus discourse is good, plagiarism prevents it from causing real change 29 +2. Scope—selling term papers is already fairly common when the punishment is expulsion, if universities have no punishment for doing so literally every student will buy a term paper 30 +3. Creates educational inequities because students with more financial resources will be able to get better grades, making education based more on wealth and resources than quality of writing 31 +4. Most speech on campuses is outside the classroom, so it has a lesser comparative effect, but work produced from course assignments is implicitly endorsed by the institution, so plagiarism is much worse there 32 + 33 + 34 +Hate Speech DA 35 + 36 +Uniqueness 37 +On campus hate speech and crimes is decreasing in the squo—that means current restrictions are working and the aff is unnecessary at best 38 +Sutton 16 Halley Sutton, Report shows crime on campus down across the country, Campus Security Report 13.4 (2016), 9/9/16 39 +A recent report released by the National Center for Education Statistics found an overall decrease in crimes at educational institutions across the country since 2001. The overall number of crimes reported by postsecondary institutions has dropped by 34 percent, from 41,600 per year in 2001 to 27,600 per year in 2013. The report, titled Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2015, covers higher education campuses as well as K–12 schools and includes such topics as victimization, teacher injury, bullying and cyberbullying, use of drugs and alcohol, and criminal incidents at postsecondary institutions. The report found significant decreases in instances of bullying, harassment due to sexual orientation, and violent crime at all levels of education. The number of on-campus crimes reported at postsecondary institutions in 2013 was lower than in 2001 for every category except forcible sex offenses and murder. 40 +Link 41 +Hate speech is constitutionally protected 42 +Volokh 15 Eugene Volokh, Law Professor at UCLA, “No, there’s no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment,” The Washington Post, May 7, 2015, JW 43 +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” and in any conventionally used sense of the term. For instance, there is an exception for “fighting words” — face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight. But this exception isn’t limited to racial or religious insults, nor does it cover all racially or religiously offensive statements. Indeed, when the City of St. Paul tried to specifically punish bigoted fighting words, the Supreme Court held that this selective prohibition was unconstitutional (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)), even though a broad ban on all fighting words would indeed be permissible. (And, notwithstanding CNN anchor Chris Cuomo’s Tweet that “hate speech is excluded from protection,” and his later claims that by “hate speech” he means “fighting words,” the fighting words exception is not generally labeled a “hate speech” exception, and isn’t coextensive with any established definition of “hate speech” that I know of.) 44 +Impact 45 +Empirics prove that hate speech leads to hate crimes 46 +Singh 12 Hansdeep Singh, Co-Founder and Director of Legal Programs for the International Center for Advocates Against Discrimination, Simran Jeet Singh, a scholar and activist who writes primarily on culture and religion “The Rise of Hate Crimes Can Be Tied Directly to Hateful Speech,” The Daily Beast, Sept. 6, 2012, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/06/the-rise-of-hate-crimes-can-be-tied-directly-to-hateful-speech.html JW 47 +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 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 on the anniversary of 9/11—all of these instances contributed to a rising anti-Muslim sentiment in America. The vitriolic discourse can also be linked to bias-based violence against other communities. For instance, hate crime against the LGBT community has risen 36 percent from 2005 to 2010. This is in part because of the extreme rhetoric of opponents of the marriage equality movement. Such targeted violence is one symptom of a deeper and more widespread illness plaguing this great nation—the discrimination and “othering” of minority communities. 48 + 49 +Expenditures DA 50 +Campaign expenditures are deemed constitutionally protected speech under Citizens United 51 +Levy 15 Gabrielle Levy, “How Citizens United Has Changed Politics in 5 Years,” US News and World Report, January 21, 2015 52 +Five years ago Wednesday, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that dramatically reshaped the business of politics in the U.S. In its Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, the court opened the campaign spending floodgates. The justices' ruling said political spending is protected under the First Amendment, meaning corporations and unions could spend unlimited amounts of money on political activities 53 +Limits on campaign expenditures are key to provide equal access to student government, especially for underprivileged students. 54 +New University 16 New University. "Spending Caps Stop The Arms Race.". May 04, 2009. Web. December 07, 2016 55 +On April 20, the New University published an editorial entitled, “Paying to Play: Buying the ASUCI Presidency,” in which the Editorial Board argued for spending caps in ASUCI elections. We stand behind that editorial. Without spending caps, election campaigns have become caught in an arms race, with each candidate forced to spend ridiculous amounts of money in order to remain competitive. This leaves students who don’t have large amounts of funding behind. ASUCI campaigns should be fueled by thoughtful proposals and ideas, not by money. The fact is that universities have legitimate reasons for enacting spending limits. That is why many other schools, including UC Berkeley, already have them. Limiting the influence of money in a student election means that, as Judge Carlos T. Bea said, “Students are forced to campaign personally, wearing out their shoe-leather rather than wearing out a parent’s – or an activist organization’s – pocketbook.” 56 +Precludes the aff and outweighs: 57 +1. Involvement in student government shapes the decisions that colleges make, so spending caps are a prerequisite to an equal starting point for discourse over campus policies 58 +2. Student government models real-world government and student leaders become leaders in the real world—that means changing the culture on campuses will spill over into real-world campaign finance reform 59 +3. Absent spending caps, outside organizations can influence on-campus speech—your offense presumes that universities are insulated spaces for discourse, which isn’t true if political organizations are allowed to meddle in the process 60 +4. Large campaign contributions breed corruption and disproportionate representation and preclude other reforms 61 +Kennedy 13 Liz Kennedy, “Campaign Spending Limits Protect Our Democracy from Corruption,” US News and World Report, October 7 2013 62 +Americans are outraged over the power of money on our government. In Citizens United the Supreme Court already increased the dominance of the wealthy and special interests on politics and policy. Now, in McCutcheon v FEC, the court is being asked to strike down one of the few remaining campaign finance laws that we have to fight corruption of our democratic government. After all, in a democracy the size of your wallet shouldn't determine the impact of your voice or your right to representation. Coal executive Shaun McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee are asking the court to declare unconstitutional a law that says that no one person can contribute over $123,000 per cycle directly to candidates, parties, and committees. That's more than twice the average American household's income. If the court makes the radical choice to overturn its own precedent and strike down this common sense limit, a single wealthy donor could contribute more than $3.5 million to one party's candidates and committees. That's why Demos and organizations representing almost 9.5 million Americans, including the NAACP, Communications Workers of America, Sierra Club, and Greenpeace, came together to tell the court: not another Citizens United. Americans already think their government is corrupt because their elected representatives are more responsive to financial supporters than to constituents or even the public interest. And they're right. Research shows that government really is more responsive to the policy preferences of the donor class than to average Americans. This is true even when the policy preferences of the wealthy differ greatly from the majority of Americans, which often they do – particularly on economic issues. No wonder almost 80 percent of Americans believe that large political contributions are preventing government from solving the important issues facing America today. When big money dictates what's possible in public policy the current and long-term needs of American families are put in jeopardy. When corporations and wealthy Americans bankroll political campaigns, there's little hope that they'll be made to pay their fair share of taxes or prevented from receiving a disproportionate share of tax breaks. Progress on upward mobility issues such as the minimum wage, paid sick leave and family friendly workforce policies is stalled despite widespread support because they are opposed by (or not a priority of) the donor class. That's not how a representative democracy is supposed to work. We need a political system that is responsive to citizens to advocate effectively for policies that reflect the priorities Americans share. But elections are increasingly financed by those who personally profit from the continuation of harmful business and environmental practices. They can use their wealth to build political power, then use their political power to strengthen their economic positions. No wonder so many Americans think the deck is stacked against them. Funding for our elections is already dominated by a tiny elite donor class. According to the Sunlight Foundation, 84 percent of the members of Congress elected in 2012 received more money from the 1 percent of the 1 percent than from all of their small donors combined. Removing aggregate contribution limits would make a bad situation worse, allowing more than $1 billion dollars of new "McCutcheon Money" into our elections over the next two presidential cycles, according to Demos and U.S. PIRG projections. It's no wonder research shows that, in contrast to the affluent, low-income Americans have little influence over public policy outcomes – in other words, our government's decisions. But the donor class doesn't have the same public policy preferences and priorities as the rest of America, and it don't look like the rest of America either. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-15 18:34:14.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Kathy Bond - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Strake Jesuit JH - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +5 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +5 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Cupertino Kumar Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1NC R5 Harvard Westlake - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harvard Westlake
- Caselist.CitesClass[6]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,42 @@ 1 +1 2 +K – Black Safe Spaces (2:50) 3 +Imagine being stuck in a sort of vertigo that seems as if you have no where to go, no where to hide, no where to just be with people who understand your struggle – this is the analysis the 1AC fundamentally misses and affirms for more free speech – safe spaces on college campuses are necessary and needed to help black students deal with being black. 4 +Tyler Kingkade Lilly Workneh Ryan Grenoble Nov 16th, 2015 Campus Racism Protests Didn't Come Out Of Nowhere, And They Aren't Going Away Quickly Mizzou seems to have catalyzed years of tension over inequality and race. Senior Editor/Reporter, The Huffington Post, Senior Black Voices Editor, The Huffington Post News Editor, The Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/campus-racism-protests-didnt-come-out-of-nowhere_us_56464a87e4b08cda3488bfb 5 +If there's one thing University of Missouri senior Alanna Diggs thinks people are getting wrong about campus racism protests, it's the assumption that they're something new. The demonstrations at Mizzou this month resulting in the ouster of two top university leaders, partly over how they handled various racist incidents on campus, Diggs said, "were not a result of spontaneous combustion." "It was not an overdramatic reaction by a couple of angry black students, but a moment built up over time," Diggs continued. "Many of us behind the scenes have been suffering and struggling with administration and students while trying to deal with class and work. The movement is not over. This is the beginning." The demonstrations at Mizzou's campus in Columbia came on the heels of unrestat Yale University, and have been copied ~-~- complete with demands for resignations ~-~-at dozens of other colleges, including Ithaca College in New York, the University of Kansas and Claremont McKenna College near Los Angeles. Protests staged on college campuses last week are the culmination of years of activism around inequality and everyday racism, and incidents pushing racial divisions to the surface. The demands activists are making are reminiscent of similar protests decades earlier. And scholars caution there's no single switch colleges can flip to fix things ~-~- improving racial tensions on campuses will likely take years. "What we are seeing is the beginning of a movement where students and student groups across campuses are finding the courage to speak up about what they have been experiencing," said Yolanda Sealey-Ruiz, a scholar of Latino and black male students, at Columbia University. "I think Mizzou is a catalyst, an inspiration perhaps, but not a one-off event. I think we are also witnessing a reprise to history ~-~- college campuses have historically been places where protest to inequality has taken place." Students are arriving on campus believing racism remains persistent in America today. According to an annual survey of more than 150,000 incoming freshmen by UCLA, the percentage of students who believe racism is no longer an issue has risen slowly over 25 years, from 19 percent in 1990 to 24 percent in 2015. Students of color who've spoken with HuffPost say that does not surprise them, given that students are growing up witnessing high-profile deaths of unarmed black men and teens, like Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice and Eric Garner. Those experiences are coupled multiple examples of fraternity and sorority parties featuring black face and caricatures of various ethnic groups, while Muslim students at some campuses have been subjected to spying by law enforcement. "We're not that much that different than the people being killed," said Taylor Lemmons, a junior at Claremont McKenna College. "Just because we're going to get a degree from these shiny institutions doesn't mean we're that much different." In some cases, students who say racism is still a prevalent issue have been proven right. The University of Alabama's sororities didn't begin accepting black women as members until 2013. In March, fraternity brothers in Oklahoma were caught on video singing and laughing about lynching black men ~-~- racial slurs included. "We're living in a time where issues that haven't been appropriately attended to for a number of years are getting much more attention," said Benjamin Reese Jr., Duke University's chief diversity officer. "I don't think students suddenly woke up to things. I think they're reacting not only to the events on campus and incidents around the country." Brown University senior Armani Madison said part of his discontent with his school is fueled by demands made by black students in 1968, 1975 and 1985 that "have yet to be fulfilled, despite university promises." Activists at Occidental College noted their demand for a black studies major has existed since 1968. Students of color have organized campaigns at Colgate University, the University of Michigan, UCLA, and Harvard, among other schools, to highlight inequities. Some of these demands at Brown, Mizzou and elsewhere are for an increase in the percentage of minority students and faculty. More selective colleges are still disproportionately white compared with the general population, data from the Georgetown University's Center on Education and the Workforce shows. College presidents, football coaches and professors all are much more likely to be white, too. Black students are less likely to graduate within six years compared with their classmates. But even increasing the percentage of students of color on campus is not enough, insisted Deborah Bial, founder of the Posse Foundation, which partners with colleges to place minority students.“It's the responsibility of every institution to be transparent to have as many ongoing conversations as possible, to create forums, to use every resource they have from the president to the students themselves," Bial said. "And the conversation shouldn't just be happening one time." Activists also are demanding changes to curriculum to address diversity and an administrative acknowledgement of barriers that students of color face. Students of color say they're constantly reminded that they are "different." Reine Ibala, a senior at Yale, described either feeling "invisible" on campus, or like she was an intruder and couldn't rely on bystanders to help if something happened. "The thing about being black on a college campus in an urban area is that your color ~-~- in my case, my blackness ~-~- at times puts my status as a student in question," Ibala said. "Here in New Haven, the assumption is first that I am a 'townie.'" Students protesting on campuses told HuffPost their demonstrations were not simply about offensive Halloween costumes, misguided emails from administrators or one person shouting the N-word. The emotional response ,which sometimes receives backlash, comes from dealing with years of feeling like administrators aren't trying to make things better for them. "It shouldn't take days of our tears and anger to move an administration to listen," Ibala said. Transparency during the next steps will be critical, said Reese, president of National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education. Reese recommended including students in assessing what steps a college will take to address racial issues ~-~- something activists are demanding at Mizzou and Claremont McKenna, among other campuses. But in the near term, both Reese and Bial emphasized that colleges will have to be quicker to respond to individual incidents of racism. "It's important to say this happened and we're not okay with it, and it's important for students to say it as well ~-~- I can't emphasize that enough," Bial said. "Students can't give up the power they have to voice opinions about what's okay and what's not okay." Vernā Myers, a diversity consultant and author, said now that Mizzou has served as a spark, protests against campus racism won't go away. "This generation didn't think they'd have to go through something like this," Myers said. But now, they are empowered to do so, and "they're going to help our country live up to what we say we believe." 6 +Forcing minorities to confront racial microaggressions without any other form of recourse or retreat induces racial “battle fatigue” that translates into actual material harms 7 +Smith et al 07 William A. Smith University of Utah Walter R. Allen University of California, Los Angeles Lynette L. Danley University of Utah, ““Assume the Position . . . You Fit the Description” Psychosocial Experiences and Racial Battle Fatigue Among African American Male College Students,” American Behavioral Scientist, 2007 JW 8 +Racial Microaggressions in Historically White Environments The concern about greater distress and academic attrition among Black males attending historically White universities should not be misunderstood as individual failure to cope with stress or as being academically underprepared (Prillerman, Myers, and Smedley 1989). Pierce (1974) has argued that in analyzing racial discrimination, we “must not look for the gross and obvious. The subtle, cumulative miniassault is the substance of today’s racism” (p. 516). He defined these mini-assaults as microaggressions and explained that these racialized insults “may seem harmless, but the cumulative burden of a lifetime of microaggressions can theoretically contribute to diminished mortality, augmented morbidity, and flattened confidence” (Pierce, 1995, p. 281). African American males not only experience mini-assaults or racial microaggressions, they also experience macrostressors or racial macroaggressions (Williams, Neighbors, and Jackson, 2003). Racial macroaggressions are largescale, systems-related stressors that are widespread, sometimes becoming highly publicized, race-related, traumatic events. For example, the 1963 Birmingham church bombing or “driving-while-Black” restrictions would classify as racial macroaggressions (Feagin, 2006). Landrine and Klonoff (1996) maintain that whether at the micro- or macrolevel, perceived racial discrimination is a nearly universal stressor for Blacks. According to the authors, these universal race-related stressors are linked with poor mental and physical health outcomes. Based on a sample of African Americans ages 15 to 70 years, Landrine and Klonoff reported that 98.1 of Blacks said they experienced racial discrimination during the past year and 100 reported that they had experienced racial discrimination at some point during their lifetime. Moreover, 99.4 of the sample indicated that these race-related experiences were stressful. Thus, racism has a systemic, powerful, and far-reaching effect in the lives of Black people (Feagin, 2006). The impact of racial microaggressions on individual Black targets become communicable as the psychological and emotional pain of the incidents is passed on to family, friends, and the larger social group and across generations (Feagin and McKinney, 2003; Smith, 2005b). According to Smith (2005b), racial microaggressions can range from racial slights, recurrent indignities and irritations, unfair treatment, stigmatization, hypersurveillance, and contentious classrooms to personal threats or attacks on one’s wellbeing (also see Bobo and Smith, 1998; Clark, Anderson, Clark, and Williams, 1999; Essed and Stanfield, 1991; Williams, Yu, Jackson, and Anderson, 1997; Wilson, 1990). As a result of chronic racial microaggressions, many African Americans perceive their environment as extremely stressful, exhausting, and diminishing to their sense of control, comfort, and meaning while eliciting feelings of loss, ambiguity, strain, frustration, and injustice (Brown et al., 1999). When racially oppressed groups are in situations where they experience environmental stressors as mundane events, the ramifications are as much a psychological and emotional burden as they are a physiological response (Carroll, 1998; Pierce, 1974). Racial Battle Fatigue in Historically White Environments Racial battle fatigue addresses the physiological and psychological strain exacted on racially marginalized groups and the amount of energy lost dedicated to coping with racial microaggressions and racism. The concept of racial battle fatigue synthesizes and builds on the extensive discipline-specific research literature and studies of stress responses to racism and its impact on health and coping (e.g., Brown, Parker-Dominguez, and Sorey, 2000; Brown, Wallace, and Williams, 2000; Carroll, 1998; Clark et al., 1999; Feagin and McKinney, 2003; Feagin and Sikes, 1994; Gougis, 1986; James, 1994; Pierce, 1974, 1975a, 1975b, 1995; Prillerman et al., 1989; Sapolsky, 1998; Scaer, 2001; Shay, 2002; Shay and Munroe, 1999; Smith, 2004, 2005a, 2005b; Steele, 1997; Steele and Aronson, 1995; Stevenson, 1994a, 1994b, 1997, 1998; Williams et al., 1997). Racial battle fatigue also uses the literature on combat stress syndrome (also known as combat stress fatigue, combat trauma, combat injury, or posttraumatic stress disorder or injury) for understanding the effects of hostile environments (Pierce, 1975a, 1995; Shay, 2002; Shay and Munroe, 1999; Smith, 2004; U.S. Department of the Army, 1994; Willie and Sanford, 1995). Combat stress syndrome is diagnosed when military personnel suffer from mental, emotional, and physiological injuries in response to persistent, extreme stress or risk. Unlike typical occupational stress, combat stress syndrome and racial battle fatigue are natural responses to living and working under mundane conditions of heightened distress, especially when facing potential perils or dangers because of tough, violent conditions or the perception that one’s life, personal dignity, or character is being threatened (Pierce, 1974, 1975a, 1975b, 1995; Shay, 2002; Shay and Munroe, 1999; U.S. Department of the Army, 1994). For the military soldier, combat stress is the result of being placed in a foreign environment and having to be constantly on guard for imminent danger in less-than-ideal and life-threatening conditions. For African Americans, racial battle fatigue is the result of constant physiological, psychological, cultural, and emotional coping with racial microaggressions in less-than-ideal and racially hostile or unsupportive environments (campus or otherwise). African Americans experience mundane environmental stressors as physiological, psychological, and emotional burdens (Feagin, Vera, and Imani, 2001). In the aftermath of a racially traumatic event, it is normal to have feelings of detachment or emotional numbness or a feeling of distorted or altered reality (e.g., wondering, “Did I hear what I thought I just heard?”). Surprise, shock, and frustration are oftentimes followed by the attempt to force the event from memory, denying that it occurred, or reliving the event in dreams or in conversations with others. Unfortunately, for most people of color, these negative feelings or the associated collective memories seldom fade; instead, they become a part of a person’s life history. For African Americans and other people of color, the mental, emotional, and physiological symptoms of racial battle fatigue can develop from exposure to chronically stressful race-related conditions. These conditions can range from chronic exposure to and experiences with racial slights, recurrent indignities and irritations, unfair treatment, and contentious classrooms to personal threats to one’s well-being (Clark et al., 1999; Essed and Stanfield, 1991; Prillerman et al., 1989; Smith, 2004, 2005a; Williams et al., 1997). College and university campuses and their surrounding communities are often located in historically White environments where racial discrimination exists in both subtle and overt forms (Devine, 1989; Dinwiddie and Allen, 2003; Dovidio, Kawakami, Johnson, Johnson, and Howard, 1997; Lewis, Chesler, and Forman, 2000). African Americans are trying to transition into these historically White spaces and succeed, despite never knowing if or when they might be the targets of racial discrimination. The cumulative symptoms of racial battle fatigue are both physiological and psychological (Smith, 2004, 2005a, 2005b). Examples of physiological symptoms include, but are not limited to, (a) tension headaches and backaches, (b) elevated heart beat, (c) rapid breathing in anticipation of racial conflict, (d) an upset stomach or “butterflies,” (e) extreme fatigue, (f) ulcers, (g) loss of appetite, and (h) elevated blood pressure. The psychological symptoms of racial battle fatigue include (a) constant anxiety and worrying; (b) increased swearing and complaining; (c) inability to sleep; (d) sleep broken by haunting, conflict-specific dreams; (e) intrusive thoughts and images; (f) loss of self-confidence; (g) difficulty in thinking coherently or being able to articulate (confirming stereotype); (h) hypervigilance; (i) frustration; (j) denial; (k) John Henryism, or prolonged, high-effort coping with difficult psychological stressors; (1) emotional and social withdrawal; (m) anger, anger suppression, and verbal or nonverbal expressions of anger; (n) denial; (o) keeping quiet; and (p) resentment (for more information on the effects of racial stressors, see Clark et al., 1999; Feagin and McKinney, 2003; Feagin and Sikes, 1994; James, 1994; Pierce 1974, 1975a, 1995; Prillerman et al., 1989; Turner and Myers, 2000; Williams et al., 1997). As a result of mundane racial microaggressions, social feelings of cohesion and moral trust are often retarded or broken between students of color and the HWI community (Smith, 2004) 9 +Racial battle fatigue turns the case: minorities are shut out of conversations and are never treated as an equal participant in the discussion 10 +Smith et al 07 William A. Smith University of Utah Walter R. Allen University of California, Los Angeles Lynette L. Danley University of Utah, ““Assume the Position . . . You Fit the Description” Psychosocial Experiences and Racial Battle Fatigue Among African American Male College Students,” American Behavioral Scientist, 2007 JW 11 +Responding in emotional self-defense to traumatic events, Black students might slowly or suddenly distance themselves from stressful conflicts and deny or avoid recalling the impact of such experiences. In fact, African American males bear a social cost when they attribute blocked opportunities for success to discrimination. Kaiser and Miller (2001) found that no matter how much discrimination an African American male faces, he is viewed as hypersensitive, emotional, argumentative, irritating, troublesome, and complaining when he suggested that discrimination was the cause of a failing grade. As a result, according to these authors, African American males are more likely to minimize acts of racial discrimination. In a supporting study, Swim et al. (2003) found African American gender differences in behavioral responses to racist incidents. African American male students (36) were less likely than African American female students (81) to respond directly or indirectly to racist incidents. Moreover, these gender differences were not because of differential types of incidents experienced by Black women and men. These researchers maintain that African American males suffer greater consequences for assertively confronting perpetrators. The social condition that produces racial battle fatigue for African Americans is enveloped in societal ideologies and beliefs about Blacks as a group. In this social milieu, where institutional and individual racist practices are present (whether overtly, covertly, subtly, or as color-blind acts), African Americans are constantly dedicating time and energy to determining if there was a stressor, whether that stressor was motivated by a racist purpose, and how or if they should respond. With a history of more than several centuries of racial struggle in the United States, African Americans are socialized to employ many forms of coping strategies for combating racial microaggressions (Bowman and Howard, 1985; Clark et al., 1999; Prillerman et al., 1989; Stevenson, 1994a, 1994b, 1997, 1998). Research suggests that this socialization process has prepared them more effectively for dealing with racial macroaggressions than with microaggressions (Prillerman et al., 1989; Stevenson, 1994a, 1994b, 1997). Depending on the coping responses, adaptive or maladaptive, African Americans will experience racial battle fatigue in varying frequencies and degrees that directly affects psychological and physiological stress response and related health outcomes. Despite various coping strategies, Black male college students express high levels of repressed frustration, greater dropout or “slow-out” rates, and lower grades because of the mundane, extreme, environmental stressors faced in public, academic, and social spaces on and off campus (Carroll, 1998; Feagin, 2002; Feagin, Vera, and Imani, 2001; Solórzano, Allen, and Carroll, 2002). More research is beginning to examine African American male collegians’ success and struggles (Kaiser and Miller, 2001; Stevenson, 1998; Swim et al., 2003). However, more often than not, the outcomes are not pleasant for Black males. Trend data indicate that Black males are more likely than Black females to drop out of high school and college, and consequently more Black men will abuse drugs, become incarcerated, and have higher rates of psychological disturbances (Duncan, 2003). For African American males, hopes of achieving the “American Dream,” of being employed with a college degree, are too often thwarted. A raced–gendered analysis of national enrollment data found a disproportionately low representation of Black males to Black females. For every Black male enrolled in college, there were two Black females enrolled; similar disparities exist with respect to earned degrees (Harvey and Anderson, 2005). 12 +Lack of safe spaces means that minorities must be routinely exposed to gratuitous psychological violence that transcends generations 13 +Delgado and Stefacic ’09, Richard Delgado - University Professor, Seattle University School of Law; J.D., 1974, University of California, Berkeley. Jean Stefancic – Research Professor, Seattle University School of Law; M.A., 1989, University of San Francisco. “FOUR OBSERVATIONS ABOUT HATE SPEECH.” WAKE FOREST LAW REVIEW. 2009. http://wakeforestlawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Delgado_LawReview_01.09.pdf, 14 +II. OBSERVATION NUMBER TWO: THE EVALUATION OF HARMS HAS BEEN INCOMPLETE One way, of course, to end the current standoff is for one of the parties to defer to the other’s point of view. Indeed, by pursuing an aggressive campaign of litigation, the free-speech camp has been implicitly urging that the other side do just that.58 One could also argue that a host of campus administrators, by enacting successive versions of hate-speech codes, are attempting to do the same thing, namely, wear the other side down.59 Ordinarily, though, it is the free-speech faction, with a string of lower-court victories to its credit, who urge the other side to “get over it” and toughen its collective hide.60 Yet, a careful weighing of the costs and benefits of speech regulation suggests that the case for it is closer than the ACLU and some courts seem ready to acknowledge. Before addressing the costs of hate-speech regulation versus the opposite, it is advisable to arrive at an understanding of what hate speech is. A Types of Hate Speech Hate speech, including the campus variety, can take a number of forms—direct (sometimes called “specific”) or indirect; veiled or overt; single or repeated; backed by power, authority, or threat, or not.61 One can also distinguish it in terms of the characteristic— such as race, religion, sexual orientation, immigration status, or gender—of the person or group it targets.62 It can isolate a single individual (“Jones, you goddamned X.”) or group (“The goddamned Xs are destroying this country.”). It can be delivered orally, in writing, on the Internet, or in the form of a tangible thing, such as a Confederate flag, football mascot, or monument.63 It can be anonymous, as with graffiti or a leaflet surreptitiously placed on a bulletin board or under a dormitory door, or its author can be plainly identified.64 The object of the speech may be free to leave, or trapped, as in a classroom or workplace.65 B. The Harms of Hate Speech The various forms of hate speech present different kinds and degrees of harm. The face-to-face kind is the most immediately problematic, especially if the target is not in a position to leave and the one delivering it possesses the power to harm. 1. Direct or Face-to-Face Hate Speech Although some courts and commentators describe the injury of hate speech as mere offense,66 the harm associated with the face-toface kind, at least, is often far greater than that and includes flinching, tightening of muscles, adrenaline rushes, and inability to sleep.67 Some victims may suffer psychosocial harms, including depression, repressed anger, diminished self-concept, and impairment of work or school performance.68 Some may take refuge in drugs, alcohol, or other forms of addiction, compounding their misery.69 2. Hate Speech and Children With children, the harms of hate speech may be even more worrisome. A child victimized by racial taunts or browbeating may respond aggressively, with the result that he or she is labeled as assaultive.70 Or, the child can respond by internalizing the harm and pretending to ignore it. Robbed of self-confidence and a sense of ease, such a child can easily become introspective and morose.71 If the child’s parents suffer the same fate at work, they may bring these problems home so that the parents retain even less energy for their families than before.72 Recent scholarship points out how the pathologies associated with social subordination may be transgenerational, lasting for centuries, if not millennia, and include pain, fear, shame, anger, and despair.73 3. General Hate Speech With general hate speech, such as anonymously circulated flyers or speeches to a crowd, the harms, while diffuse, may be just as serious.74 Recent scholarship shows how practically every instance of genocide came on the heels of a wave of hate speech depicting the victims in belittling terms.75 For example, before launching their wave of deadly attacks on the Tutsis in Rwanda, Hutus in government and the media disseminated a drumbeat of messages casting their ethnic rivals as despicable.76 The Third Reich did much the same with the Jews during the period leading up to the Holocaust.77 When the United States enslaved African Americans and killed or removed the Indians, it rationalized that these were simple folk who needed discipline and tutelage, or else bloodthirsty savages who resisted the blessings of civilization.78 When, a little later, the nation marched westward in pursuit of manifest destiny, it justified taking over the rich lands of California and the Southwest on the ground that the indolent Mexicans living on them did not deserve their good fortune.79 Before interning the Japanese during World War II, propagandists depicted the group as sneaky, suspicious, and despotic.80 It is possible that the connection between general hate speech and instances of mass oppression may not be merely statistical and contingent, but conceptual and necessary.81 Concerted action requires an intelligible intention or rationale capable of being understood by others. One cannot mistreat another group without first articulating a reason why one is doing it—otherwise, no one but a sadist would join in.82 Without a softening-up period, early steps toward genocide, such as removing Jews to a ghetto, would strike others as gratuitous and command little support. Discriminatory action of any kind presupposes a group that labors under a stigma of some kind.83 The prime mechanism for the creation of such stigma is hate speech.84 Without it, genocide, imperialism, Indian removal, and Jim Crow could gain little purchase.85 C. The Harms of Speech Regulation If the harms of hate speech are sobering, what lies on the other side? What happens to the hate speaker forced to hold things in? Will he or she suffer psychological injury, depression, nightmares, drug addiction, and a blunted self image?86 Diminished pecuniary and personal prospects?87 Will hate-speech regulation set up the speaker’s group for extermination, seizure of ancestral lands, or anything comparable?88 The very possibility seems far-fetched. And, indeed, regimes, such as Europe’s and Canada’s, that criminalize hate speech exhibit none of these ills.89 Speech and inquiry there seem as free and uninhibited as in the United States, and their press just as feisty as our own.90 What about harm to the hate speaker? The individual who holds his or her tongue for fear of official sanction may be momentarily irritated. But “bottling it up” seems not to inflict serious psychological or emotional damage.91 Early in the debate about hate speech, some posited that a prejudiced individual forced to keep his impulses in check might become more dangerous as a result.92 By analogy to a pressure valve, he or she might explode in a more serious form of hate speech or even a physical attack on a member of the target group.93 But studies examining this possibility discount it.94 Indeed, the bigot who expresses his sentiment aloud is apt to be more dangerous, not less, as a result. The incident “revs him up” for the next one, while giving onlookers the impression that baiting minorities is socially acceptable, so that they may follow suit.95 A recently developed social science instrument, the Implicit Association Test (“IAT”), shows that many Americans harbor measurable animus toward racial minorities.96 Might it be that hearing hate speech, in person or on the radio, contributes to that result?97 III. OBSERVATION NUMBER THREE: INTEREST BALANCING MUST TAKE ACCOUNT OF RELEVANT FEATURES OF HATE SPEECH If all types of hate speech are apt to impose costs,98 large or small, how should courts and policymakers weigh them? Not every victim of hate speech will respond in one of the ways described above. Some will shrug it off or lash back at the aggressor, giving as good as they got.99 The harm of hate speech is variable, changing from victim to victim and setting to setting.100 By the same token, it is impossible to say with assurance that the cost of hate-speech regulation will always be negligible. Some speakers who might wish to address sensitive topics, such as affirmative action or racial differences in response to medical treatments, might shy away from them.101 The interplay of voices that society relies on to regulate itself may deteriorate. In balancing hate speech versus regulation, two benchmarks may be helpful: a review of current freespeech “exceptions” and attention to the role of incessancy. A. Current Free-Speech Exceptions Not all speech is free. The current legal landscape contains many exceptions and special doctrines corresponding to speech that society has decided it may legitimately punish. Some of these are: words of conspiracy; libel and defamation; copyright violation; words of threat; misleading advertising; disrespectful words uttered to a judge, police officer, or other authority figure; obscenity; and words that create a risk of imminent violence.102 If speech is not a seamless web, the issue is whether the case for prohibiting hate speech is as compelling as that underlying existing exceptions. First Amendment defenders often assert that coining a new exception raises the specter of additional ones, culminating, potentially, in official censorship and Big Brother.103 But our tolerance for a wide array of special doctrines suggests that this fear may be exaggerated and that a case-by-case approach may be quite feasible. How important is it to protect a black undergraduate walking home late at night from the campus library?104 As important as a truthful label on a can of dog food or safeguarding the dignity of a minor state official?105 Neither free-speech advocates nor courts have addressed matters like these, but a rational approach to the issue of hate-speech regulation suggests that they should.106 B. Incessancy and Compounding Two final aspects of hate speech are incessancy—the tendency to recur repeatedly in the life of a victim—and compounding.107 A victim of a racist or similar insult is likely to have heard it more than once. In this respect, a racial epithet differs from an insult such as “You damn idiot driver” or “Watch where you’re going, you klutz” that the listener is apt to hear only occasionally. Like water dripping on stone, racist speech impinges on one who has heard similar remarks many times before.108 Each episode builds on the last, reopening a wound likely still to be raw. The legal system, in a number of settings, recognizes the harm of an act known to inflict a cumulative harm. Ranging from eggshell plaintiffs to the physician who fails to secure fully informed consent, we commonly judge the blameworthiness of an action in light of the victim’s vulnerability.109 When free-speech absolutists trivialize the injury of hate speech as simple offense, they ignore how it targets the victim because of a condition he or she cannot change and that is part of the victim’s very identity. Hate speakers “pile on,” injuring in a way in which the victim has been injured several times before. The would-be hate speaker forced to keep his thoughts to himself suffers no comparable harm. A comparison of the harms to the speaker and the victim of hate speech, then, suggests that a regime of unregulated hate speech is costly, both individually and socially. Yet, even if the harms on both sides were similar, one of the parties is more disadvantaged than the other, so that Rawls’s difference principle suggests that, as a moral matter, we break the tie in the victim’s favor.110 Moreover, the magnitude of error can easily be greater, even in First Amendment terms, on the side of nonregulation. Hate speech warps the dialogic community by depriving its victims of credibility. Who would listen to one who appears, in a thousand scripts, cartoons, stories, and narratives as a buffoon, lazy desperado, or wanton criminal? Because one consequence of hate speech is to diminish the status of one group vis-à-vis all the rest, it deprives the singled-out group of credibility and an audience, a result surely at odds with the underlying rationales of a system of free expression.111 15 + 16 +The politics of the 1AC removes safe spaces on college campuses – this impact turns and outweighs the case – safe spaces are uniquely key for marginalized communities to come together and actually engage in conversations about identity 17 +Pickett 16 RaeAnn Pickett. August 31st 2016. Pickett is senior director of communications and public Affairs at the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health and a Ms. Foundation Public Voices Fellows. Trigger Warnings and Safe Spaces Are Necessary. Published by TIME. 18 +After the birth of my first son, I had postpartum depression. I was a mess emotionally, and I was in desperate need of feeling safe. I had no idea what “trigger warnings” or “safe spaces” were, but I had been using them internally for days—avoiding the mommy movies and choosing not to go to the breastfeeding support group where I felt like a failure. Being able to know beforehand what experiences I should avoid and create an environment where I felt safe made it easier for me to share my struggles and move past them. Everyone deserves that opportunity. The University of Chicago recently decided to put an end to trigger warnings—advance notice of subject material that might upset students—and safe spaces—places where students can avoid those subjects. The university’s reasoning for ending these voluntary practices was a “commitment to academic freedom.” In reality, this policy puts many students in the uncomfortable position of entering spaces that may or may not be safe for them to learn, interact and share in—and puts the onus on them to leave or to endure the situation. The decision doesn’t take students wants or needs into account. As the National Coalition Against Censorship notes: “In many cases, the request for trigger warnings comes from students themselves.” And safe spaces can have powerful therapeutic purposes for those who enter them. In fact, the university’s new policy does the exact opposite of what it is purported to do: instead of fostering academic freedom, it could foster mistrust and negatively affect survivors of trauma, including people of color. If students cannot trust that spaces they enter are going to keep them safe, they are less able to feel secure enough to learn. Safe spaces and trigger warnings can help support victims of assault, PTSD and violence. Organizations like Slut Walk and Take Back The Night have made great strides in ending stigma for sexual assault survivors and have called for increasing trigger warnings for sensitive content. A lack of safe spaces can also compound the mental toll of racism, even subtle racism. Past experience with bullying plays a role here: Of the 160,000 children bullied every day, 31 are multiracial, according to Clemson University’s “Status of Bullying in School” 2013 report. Racial bullying often goes unnoticed or unreported due to how teachers perceive interethnic relationships. Psychologist Morris Rosenberg found that African-Americans showed surprisingly high rates of self-esteem when they compared themselves with other African-Americans, but when they compared themselves to white peers, self-esteem levels dropped. Safe spaces can help minorities feel empowered to speak up. Some may say a commitment to free speech, by any means necessary, does more to foster a positive academic setting than safe spaces and trigger warnings. But the bigger question is: whose speech is being protected by these policies? They certainly don’t always foster a healthy relationship with students of color or survivors of trauma or those who live at the intersection of both. Sitting in the dark holding my newborn and struggling with undiagnosed postpartum depression, anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder were some of the darkest days of my life. But because of ratings systems on movies and descriptions on the TV guide, I was able to take small steps every day to commit to keeping myself mentally healthy. The pressure of living up to the stereotype of a proud, wise, confident Latina mother kept me from seeking help for a long time. But when my first postpartum depression support group facilitator said in a hushed, happy voice that this was a safe space, I felt the weight slowly start to lift from my chest. All the pent-up anxiety I had felt was dissapating—just by knowing that the physical place I chose to be in was filled with people who understood me and could help me find the tools to get well. Being able to make informed decisions about which spaces students chose to enter and not enter is critical in helping them stay well and take control over the information they decide to receive and how to receive it. A critical phase of healing involves reclaiming power and control in positive ways. Our universities should be at the vanguard of modeling the way forward—not backward. 19 +The roll of the ballot is to endorse the debater with the best methodology to liberate the oppressed 20 +The roll of the judge is to be a critical educator 21 + 22 +Thus, the alternative – safe spaces that are currently in the status quo should remain where they are. The negative cannot fiat more safe spaces will occur – but our method in the kritik is affirming the tangibility and productivity that safe spaces provide to black students on colleges campuses. 23 +Okeke 16 24 +Okeke ,Cameron .I’m a black UChicago graduate. Safe spaces got me through college. Cameron Okeke is currently earning a master's in bioethics at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Berman Institute of Bioethics in Baltimore, Maryland. His views are his own and do not represent those of the institution he currently attends. Aug 29, 2016 http://www.vox.com/2016/8/29/12692376/university-chicago-safe-spaces-defense 25 +The University of Chicago sent a dizzying letter to its freshman class last week, pledging its allegiance to two principles: academic freedom and freedom of expression. The letter expressed this commitment by denouncing "so-called trigger warnings" and "intellectual ‘safe spaces.’" To those unfamiliar with the UChicago’s abysmal campus climate, a strong stance against echo chambers may seem reasonable. But marginalized students know that this declaration ignores the real problems on campus: sexual assault, racial profiling, and other troubling issues. I would know. During my four years as an undergraduate at UChicago from 2011 to 2015, I grew increasingly dissatisfied with the university’s willful ignorance of students’ concerns, especially students of color. As a first-generation black student, I needed safe spaces like the Office of Multicultural Student Affairs — not to "hide from ideas and perspectives at odds with my own," but to heal from relentless hate and ignorance, to hear and be heard. My ideas were always challenged, concebut never my humanity. I mattered. Full of robust dialogue, safe spaces are not a bubbled-wrapped echo chamber, but a places where "civility and mutual respect" actually matter. Though spacious, the multicultural student affairs office was always full of students sharing their struggles and grappling with oppression. Underfunded and understaffed, it was a house-turned-sanctuary for students and student groups alike. I even slept there during a particularly brutal finals week. I, like many other students, wouldn’t have survived UChicago without this place to call my home. Alas, UChicago does not seem to get it. The university claims that it values diversity, boasting about its history of championing black, LGBTQ, poor, and femme-identified students. But you do not get our "diversity" without safe spaces, trigger warnings, or some institutionalized form of respect for people with different experiences. You want the perspective of someone with PTSD, then you better be prepared to do the work to make them comfortable enough to speak up in class, and that means giving them a heads up when discussing potentially triggering topics. Classrooms should not be a form of exposure therapy. The Office of Multicultural Student Affairs always started its dialogs with trigger warnings and had people on staff trained to handle PTSD flashbacks. You want the greatness femme-identified folks have to offer, then you have to support them in their endeavors and take sexual assault and harassment seriously. While the university continually failed to take rape and rape threat seriously, the Phoenix Survivor Alliance held solidarity circles to support survivors at Hull Gate. You want low-income and first-generation students to focus in class and thrive in your elitist institution, then you better fund the Student Support Services (for undocumented and low-income students) and address the classist onslaught inherent in UChicago culture. When the dining halls closed on Saturday nights, low-income students (myself included) went hungry. Where did we go? The Office of Multicultural Student Affairs. You want trans and LGBTQ students to show up to class and elevate the conversation with their brilliance, then you need to create a culture where misgendering and deadnaming are taboo. Fully staff the Office of LGBTQ Student Life and make more places where these students can speak freely about their struggles. You want me to elevate mediocre conversations about race with my personal experience and critical lens, then you better do something about the students muttering about affirmative action every time I speak, or the campus police who stop me on the street for not looking "UChicago enough." During my time on campus, I met more than couple people who believed in the genetic inferiority of black people. I was never afraid of their thinly veiled bigotry, just bored and disappointed. I needed a space where I, a biology major, was not expected to give free race theory classes. You want black women and other women of color to do anything at all for your gentrifying, police-protected institution, then you better just do better. If you want a university with people who have experienced "real life," then you need to listen to them, address their problems, and create places where they can heal. One house is not enough. Do not disparage the tools we have created as a show of intellectual bravado, then claim our success as your own. If, on the other hand, you only want the boring babblings of rich, white, cis, straight men whose worst experience was burying their fourth family pet, then keep doing what you have been doing since your inception. Keep pandering to the politically incorrect and the privileged if you want, but do not expect the depth and nuance that experience brings. Don’t expect us to show up. UChicago should know that trigger warnings and safe spaces exist to give those with firsthand experience a way to engage without sacrificing their well-being or safety. This accessibility is the key to a truly open marketplace of ideas and an essential pillar of academic freedom. Recklessly painting trigger warnings and safe spaces as enemies to academic freedom will only make UChicago a more hostile environment for marginalized first-years. Being diverse isn't easy and our diversity ain’t free. Don’t let us in if you can’t make room for us. 26 +Part 1 is Framework 27 +Debate should deal with questions of real-world consequences—ideal theories ignore the concrete nature of the world and legitimize oppression 28 +Curry 14 Tommy J. Curry, Professor of Philosophy @ Texas AandM, “The Cost of a Thing: A Kingian Reformulation of a Living Wage Argument in the 21st Century,” 2014 29 +Despite the pronouncement of debate as an activity and intellectual exercise pointing to the real world consequences of dialogue, thinking, and (personal) politics when addressing issues of racism, sexism, economic disparity, global conflicts, and death, many of the discussions concerning these ongoing challenges to humanity are fixed to a paradigm which sees the adjudication of material disparities and sociological realities as the conquest of one ideal theory over the other. In “Ideal Theory as Ideology,” Charles Mills outlines the problem contemporary theoretical-performance styles in policy debate and value-weighing in Lincoln-Douglass are confronted with in their attempts to get at the concrete problems in our societies. At the outset, Mills concedes that “ideal theory applies to moral theory as a whole (at least to normative ethics as against metaethics); since ethics deals by definition with normative/prescriptive/evaluative issues, it is set against factual/descriptive issues.” At the most general level, the conceptual chasm between what emerges as actual problems in the world (e.g.: racism, sexism, poverty, disease, etc.) and how we frame such problems theoretically—the assumptions and shared ideologies we depend upon for our problems to be heard and accepted as a worthy “problem” by an audience—this is the most obvious call for an anti-ethical paradigm, since such a paradigm insists on the actual as the basis of what can be considered normatively. Mills, however, describes this chasm as a problem of an ideal-as-descriptive model which argues that for any actual-empirical-observable social phenomenon (P), an ideal of (P) is necessarily a representation of that phenomenon. In the idealization of a social phenomenon (P), one “necessarily has to abstract away from certain features” of (P) that is observed before abstraction occurs. This gap between what is actual (in the world), and what is represented by theories and politics of debaters proposed in rounds threatens any real discussions about the concrete nature of oppression and the racist economic structures which necessitate tangible policies and reorienting changes in our value orientations. 30 + 31 +Thus the standard is mitigating structural violence. Prefer: 32 +1. Exclusion based on perceived differences makes ethical theories illegitimate. 33 +Winter and Leighton 99 |Deborah DuNann Winter and Dana C. Leighton. Winter|Psychologist that specializes in Social Psych, Counseling Psych, Historical and Contemporary Issues, Peace Psychology. Leighton: PhD graduate student in the Psychology Department at the University of Arkansas. Knowledgable in the fields of social psychology, peace psychology, and justice and intergroup responses to transgressions of justice “Peace, conflict, and violence: Peace psychology in the 21st century.” Pg 4-5 34 +She argues that our normal perceptual cognitive processes divide people into in-groups and out-groups. Those outside our group lie outside our scope of justice. Injustice that would be instantaneously confronted if it occurred to someone we love or know is barely noticed if it occurs to strangers or those who are invisible or irrelevant. We do not seem to be able to open our minds and our hearts to everyone, so we draw conceptual lines between those who are in and out of our moral circle. Those who fall outside are morally excluded, and become either invisible, or demeaned in some way so that we do not have to acknowledge the injustice they suffer. Moral exclusion is a human failing, but Opotow argues convincingly that it is an outcome of everyday social cognition. To reduce its nefarious effects, we must be vigilant in noticing and listening to oppressed, invisible, outsiders. Inclusionary thinking can be fostered by relationships, communication, and appreciation of diversity. Like Opotow, all the authors in this section point out that structural violence is not inevitable if we become aware of its operation, and build systematic ways to mitigate its effects. Learning about structural violence may be discouraging, overwhelming, or maddening, but these papers encourage us to step beyond guilt and anger, and begin to think about how to reduce structural violence. All the authors in this section note that the same structures (such as global communication and normal social cognition) which feed structural violence, can also be used to empower citizens to reduce it. In the long run, reducing structural violence by reclaiming neighborhoods, demanding social justice and living wages, providing prenatal care, alleviating sexism, and celebrating local cultures, will be our most surefooted path to building lasting peace. 35 + 36 +2. Universal ethical obligations fail to account for status quo ante inequalities—acknowledging these is a prerequisite to any form of morality 37 +Llorente 03 Renzo Llorente. “Maurice Cornforth’s Contribution to Marxist Metaethics.” NATURE, SOCIETY, AND THOUGHT Vol. 16, No. 3 (2003) 38 +The problem, argues Cornforth, concerns the contradiction between a demand for, and injunction to, universalizability as the guarantee of fairness and impartiality, on the one hand, and the inherent injustice and unfairness of seeking to universalize moral norms and precepts in class-divided societies. For the insistence on universalizability, save in a situation of rough equality of condition, imposes very different burdens on the agents subject to this demand, and thus proves inherently unfair, a violation of the fundamental moral precept, already formulated by Aristotle, of equality of treatment for equals.10 As Cornforth puts it, “How, in a class-divided society in which the profits of one class are derived from the labour of another, can public policies and social aims be judged by a criterion of universal acceptability?” (228). Or again, putting the same point a bit differently (i.e., in terms of interests): “Until all exploitation of man by man is ended, morality cannot be based on a generalised human standpoint, expressing a common human point of view and interest” (357). We shall return to Cornforth’s remarks on interests shortly. Before doing so, let us first consider Cornforth’s discussion of the consequences attending the attempt to comply with the imperative of universalizability in class-divided societies. As Cornforth shows, two outcomes are possible. On the one hand, insofar as determinate moral principles are established as universally valid and used to regulate social life, the result is the enshrinement of a system of moral rules that is intrinsically unfair and inevitably class-biased. As Cornforth observes, “Where there are class divisions and one class interest is dominant within the given form of association, the corresponding obligations and rights express the dominant class interest, and the corresponding moral code becomes class-biased, not a code of universal but of class-biased morality” (1965, 354).11 In other words, if class divisions preclude the rough equality of condition necessary for the principle of universalizability to function properly (i.e., impartially), then the prevailing moral code will normally comprise duties, obligations, and so on that favor the dominant classes,12 since their interests are sure to take precedence in a situation in which there exist divergent, mutually exclusive interests and they alone possess the economic and political resources to ensure that their interests prevail.13 39 +4:30 40 +3. Education must prioritize equity—this requires minimizing structural antagonism to facilitate open discourse 41 +Trifonas 03 PETER PERICLES TRIFONAS. PEDAGOGIES OF DIFFERENCE: RETHINKING EDUCATION FOR SOCIAL CHANGE/ RoutledgeFalmer. New York, London. 2003. Questia 42 +. Thus, paying attention to how power operates along axes of gender, race, class, and ability (that is, recognizing that social differences are not given, but are accomplished in and through educational settings) is a step toward educational equity. What does the above discussion mean in the educational context? It means that in the interactions of teachers with students in the classroom, or in other contexts, attention needs to be directed toward how dominant and subordinate relations (be they based on race, gender, class, or ability) permeate these contexts and intersect in complicated ways to produce inequality and marginalization. The frequently used and well-meaning phrase, “I treat everyone the same, ” often used by teachers and administrators to indicate their lack of bias in a diverse educational setting, in fact masks unequal power relations. Similarly, educational policies that assume that people are the same or equal may serve to entrench existing inequality precisely because people enter into the educational process with different and unequal experiences. These attempts, well meaning though they may be, tend to render inequality invisible, and thus work against equity in education. In her exploration of white privilege in higher education in the United States, Frances Rains (1998), an aboriginal-Japanese American woman, states emphatically that these benign acts are disempowering for the minority person because they erase his or her racial identity. The denial of racism in this case is in fact a form of racism. Thus, in moving toward equity in education that allows us to address multiple and intersecting axes of difference and inequality, I recommend that we try to think and act “against the grain” in developing educational policies and handling various kinds of pedagogical situations. 5 To work against the grain is to recognize that education is not neutral; it is contested. Mohanty puts it as such: … Education represents both a struggle for meaning and a struggle over power relations. It is a central terrain where power and politics operate out of the lived culture of individuals and groups situated in asymmetrical social and political positions. (Mohanty 1990:184) We need to develop a critical awareness of the power dynamics operative in institutional relations-and of the fact that people participate in institutions as unequal subjects. Working against the grain is to take a proactive approach to understanding and acting upon institutional relations, whether in the classroom, in other interactions with students, or in policy development. Rather than overlooking the embeddedness of gender, race, class, ability, and other forms of inequality that shape our interactions, working against the grain makes explicit the political nature of education and how power operates to privilege, silence, and marginalize individuals who are differently located in the educational process. In her exploration of feminist pedagogy, Linda Briskin (1990) makes a clear distinction between nonsexist and antisexist education critical to our understanding here. She asserts that nonsexism is an approach that attempts to neutralize sexual inequality by pretending that gender can be made irrelevant in the classroom. Thus, for instance, merely asserting that male and female students should have equal time to speak-and indeed giving them equal time-cannot adequately rectify the endemic problem of sexism in the classroom. One of Briskin's students reported that in her political science tutorials that when the male students spoke, everyone paid attention. When a female student spoke, however, the class acted as if no one was speaking (13). Neutrality is an attempt to conceal the unequal distribution of power. An against the grain approach would acknowledge explicitly that we are all gendered, racialized, and differently constructed subjects who do not participate in interactional relations as equals. This goes beyond formulating sexism, racism, abilism, and class privilege in individualist terms and treating them as if they were personal attitudes. Terry Wolverton (1983) discovered the difference between nonracism and antiracism in her consciousness-raising attempt: I had confused the act of trying to appear not to be racist with actively working to eliminate racism. Trying to appear not racist had made me deny my racism, and therefore exclude the possibility of change. (191) Being against the grain means seeing inequality as systemic and interpersonal (rather than individual), and combatting oppression as a collective responsibility, not just as a personal attribute (so that somehow a person can cleanse herself or himself of sexism, racism, abilism, or class bias). It is to pay attention to oppression as an interactional property that can be altered (see Manners 1998). Roger Simon (1993) suggests, in his development of a philosophical basis for teaching against the grain, which shares many commonalities in how I think about an integrative approach to equity in education, that teaching against the grain is fundamentally a moral practice. By this he does not mean that teachers simply fulfill the mandate and guidelines of school authorities. He believes that teachers must expose the partial and imperfect nature of existing knowledge, which is constructed on the basis of asymmetrical power relations (for instance, who has the power to speak and whose voices are suppressed?). It is the responsibility of the teacher or educator to show how dominant forms of knowledge and ways of knowing constrict human capacities. In exposing the power relations integral to the knowledge construction process, the educator, by extension, must treat teaching and learning as a mutual and collaborative act between teachers and students. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-12 20:57:02.747 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Kamir Dadah - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Quarry Lane SK - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +7 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +4 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Cupertino Kumar Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1NC R5 Stanford - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Stanford
- Caselist.RoundClass[3]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +3 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-14 18:37:47.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Shania Hunt - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Brentwood JD - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +6 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,2 @@ 1 +1AC Resistance Aff 2 +1NC Hate Speech DA Legal Realism K answers to case - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +CPS
- Caselist.RoundClass[4]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +4 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-15 04:19:05.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Shayne Walton - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lynbrook YZ - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +4 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,2 @@ 1 +1AC Militarism 2 +1NC CP K and DA - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harvard Westlake
- Caselist.RoundClass[5]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +5 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-15 18:34:13.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Kathy Bond - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Strake Jesuit JH - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +5 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harvard Westlake
- Caselist.RoundClass[6]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +6 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-15 18:34:15.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Kathy Bond - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Strake Jesuit JH - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +5 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harvard Westlake
- Caselist.RoundClass[7]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-12 20:57:00.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Kamir Dadah - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Quarry Lane SK - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +4 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Stanford