Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 0 added, 1 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[4]
  • Caselist.RoundClass[5]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[4]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,22 +1,0 @@
1		-“Democracy and Equality” Source: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 603, Law, Society, and Democracy: Comparative Perspectives (Jan., 2006), pp. 24-36
2		-
3		-1. The values of autonomy are essential to democracy.  In the context of government, these values are associated with the practice of self-determination.  We must ask, therefore, what it means for a people to engage in the practice of self-determination.  This practice is often interpreted to mean that people be made ultimately responsible for governmental decisions, either by making such decisions directly or by electing those who do.  But my view this is an insufficient account of the practice of self-government.  For reasons that I shall explain,  I think it preferable to say that which requires that a people have the warranted conviction that they are engaged in the process of governing themselves. The distinction is crucial, for it emphasizes the difference between making particular decisions and recognizing particular decisions as one's own.  Self-government is about the authorship of decisions not about the making of decisions.
4		-2. In a modern democracy, therefore, citizens are free to engage in public discourse to make the state responsive to their ideas and values, in the hope that even if the state acts in ways inconsistent with those ideas and values, citizens can nevertheless maintain their identification with the state.  There is much about the constitutional law of freedom of expression that follows from this formulation, but for present purposes I shall emphasize only that modern democracies on this account must regard their citizens, insofar as they engage in public discourse, as equal and autonomous persons.  That is why Jean Piaget was profoundly correct to observe that "the essence of democracy resides in its attitude toward law as a product of the collective will, and not as something emanating from a transcendent will or from the authority established by divine right.  It is therefore the essence of democracy to replace the unilateral respect of authority by the mutual respect of autonomous wills."
5		-3. The purpose of communication within public discourse, by contrast, is not to make decisions, but to empower citizens to participate in public opinion in ways that will permit them to believe that public opinion will become potentially responsive to their views. Whereas equality in voting is measured in terms of equality can influence on ultimate decisions, equality of participation in public discourse cannot be measured in this way.  Because influence in public debate is a matter of persuading others to one's point of view, the state can equalize influence on public debate only if it controls the intimate and independent processes by which citizens evaluate the ideas of others.  Such efforts are intrinsically undesirable when performed by the state, both because ideas are not equal - the very structure of public debate rests on the premise of distinguishing good ideas from bad ideas - and because any such governmental efforts likely would verge on the tyrannical. For these reasons, equality of agency in the context of public discourse is measured by guaranteeing each citizen the right to express himself in public discourse  in a manner that will allow him to believe that public opinion will be responsive to his agency.  This function cannot be achieved by offering each citizen the identical quantity of expression because a citizen may well deem a given quantity of expression as inadequate to her communicative needs and hence become alienated from public opinion, even if that quantity is equal in amount to that given to every other citizen.  For this reason, the First Amendment characteristically permits persons to speak in the ways, manner, and circumstances of their choosing.  The First Amendment rests on the hope that when persons are free to speak in ways that they have been given the opportunity to affect public opinion and hence can maintain an identification with a state that is responsive to public opinion.  If the state too closely regulates when and how a person may speak, speech may lose its ability to mediate between individual and collective self-determination.  In the context of public discourse, therefore, the relevant equality of agency inheres in the liberty to express oneself in the manner of one's choice.
6		-
7		-Glaeser 06 Glaeser, Edward, Giacomo Ponzetto, Andrei Shleifer. “Why Does Democracy Need Education?” NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research) Working Paper No. 12128 Issued in April 2006. Our explanation hinges on the connection between education and the costs and benefits of political engagement.
8		-Schools socialize young people and political involvement is one form of socialization; a variety of evidence shows a positive connection between education and civic engagement. We model education as raising the benefits of political action when individuals choose to support a more or less democratic regime. In this model, democratic regimes offer weak incentives to a wide base of potential supporters, while dictatorships offer strong incentives to a narrower base. Education increases the society-wide support for democracy because democracy relies on people with high participation benefits for its support. We show that better educated nations are more likely both to preserve democracy and to protect it from coups.
9		-
10		-Fleischer’93 Stephen JD, University of Iowa “Campus Speech Codes: The Threat to Liberal Education,” John Marshall Law Review, 1993.
11		-Freedom of expression facilitates the university’s mission: to advance knowledge and encourage a search for the truth. 2 18 The search for the truth is a continuous process, based on the premise that the most rational and soundest judgment is that achieved by considering all sides of the debate. Thus, freedom of expression is essential. No argument is immune to challenge. Suppression of expression impedes the deliberative process and distorts the final judgment. The only justification for censorship is that the censor is infallible in its judgment of the truth. Campus speech codes, which outlaw the expression of offensive ideas, will not only impede discussion and the search for
12		-the truth, but will also send the dangerous message to young Americans that those in
13		-positions of authority can be trusted to unilaterally determine what is true. The regulation of hate speech in the academic setting may erode the commitment of a generation of Americans to a liberal system of free expression. As the Supreme Court noted not long ago, “the Nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth out of a multitude of tongues,rather than through any kind of authoritative selection.”
14		-
15		-Herron’94 Vince JD, University of Southern California, “Increasing the Speech: Diversity, Campus Speech Codes, and the Pursuit of Truth,” Southern California Law Review, 1993-1994. Speech-regulating rules may force campus members to act in a more proper and egalitarian manner when other members are watching.6 9 However, they will not change the members’ true feeling toward other groups in the campus society. Campus speech codes in fact force community members to hide their true -views to avoid sanction. But this effectively forces campus members in need of rehabilitation to mask and disguise that need. This effect in turn frustrates and impedes the university’s ability to facilitate the reformation. Thus those members of the campus who hold ignorant or intolerant views may pass through the university system and into the rest of their lives with their erroneous views undetected by those who had a chance to correct them. As mentioned earlier in Part III.A, university members who are required to filter their expression through the requirements of a speech code may garner some knowledge as to their own insensitivities. Members who had the potential to engage in hate speech not because they were intolerant, but because they were unaware that their speech caused injury, will be able to begin their own rehabilitation through self-governance. But not all speakers will be able to rehabilitate on their own. Those speakers who continue to misunderstand their unawareness will not get the outside guidance they need to understand. Also it is safe to assume that there will be no self-governance by those who hold hateful ideas and prejudice. Thes Speakers will, under the pressures of speech codes, feel restrained from exhibiting their feelings and this will effectively prevent their identification as bigots in need of rehabilitation.
16		-
17		-Herron’94 Vince JD, University of Southern California, “Increasing the Speech: Diversity, Campus Speech Codes, and the Pursuit of Truth,” Southern California Law Review, 1993-1994.Suppression of the bigotry which leads to hate speech may also drive the ideas underground, allowing them to take on a life of their own unbeknownst to, and therefore unchallenged by, the rest of the university community. The rules that force these members underground may actually serve to strengthen and highlight their sense of grievance and even create martyrs.70 Those who are driven underground are able to attract new followers by holding themselves out to be an “oppressed minority” in their own right, “whose ‘truths’ are so powerful that they are banned by the Establishment.’ 71 These “truths” are presented to potential followers unopposed, because those who would oppose these ideologies do not know they exist, or, without any reminder of the need for opposition, have become apathetic. Sweeping the problem under the rug is not the answer and will do little to solve the problem. Keeping the problem in the public spotlight, where community members are aware of it, enables members to attack it when it surfaces. Katharine Bartlett and Jean O’Barr stated, “If there is a silver lining to the blatant, egregious forms of hateful harassment that Lawrence describes, it is that they help to make the underlying forms of prejudice undeniable.”’72 The gains in injury prevention garnered by campus speech codes are gained at the expense of the community’s ability to recognize the ideologies which originally led to these injuries and hinders the continued fight against those ideologies.
18		-Fleischer, 93 Stephen JD, University of Iowa “Campus Speech Codes: The Threat to Liberal Education,” John Marshall Law Review, 1993. In making their case for campus speech codes, Matsuda and Lawrence misconceive the purpose of the university and offer a demeaning portrayal of minority students. The purpose of the university is not to protect a “constituency with special vulnerabilities” from offensive ideas and beliefs. 2 13 Nor does the university’s mission entail the establishment of a community of diverse groups. 2 14 Rather, the purpose of the university is to encourage debate, facilitate unfettered intellectual inquiry, and force students as individuals to justify their opinions with solid, thoughtful arguments. 2 15 Campus speech codes, which classify students based on group membership, send the dangerous message that censorship, not debate, is the best means of dealing with offensive ideas. Moreover, the existence of speech codes also suggests that certain groups are unable to verbally defend themselves in the arena of debate. 2 16 Actually, confronting demeaning ideas with counter speech would do more to empower minorities than the existence of paternalistic regulations. 2 17
19		-
20		-Fleischer, 93 Stephen JD, University of Iowa “Campus Speech Codes: The Threat to Liberal Education,” John Marshall Law Review, 1993 Campus speech codes cannot be upheld under traditional Constitutional doctrine and are inconsistent with First Amendment principles. Speech codes will not end campus racism. Rather, they will only exacerbate tensions and contribute to a polarization of the campus. Contrary to the assertion of hate speech proponents, speech codes will not enforce “civility.” Rather, they will discourage academic discourse on controversial topics and inhibit intellectual inquiry. They will be interpreted as part of the pall of orthodoxy that has settled over the American academy. Offensive ideas and discriminatory beliefs will be forced underground, where they will fester and eventually explode in an uglier and, perhaps violent, form. Most important, hate speech regulation will not disabuse whites or blacks of nagging doubts about racial inferiority. Indeed, viewed as paternalistic ordinances, they may only reaffirm such dangerous and erroneous notions. Minority students should not be forced to hide behind regulations. Rather, they should be encouraged to meet derogatory expressions with forceful, thoughtful arguments. Such action will do much to imbue them with a sense of empowerment. As Dr. Martin Luther King said, “The only way to beat the man ahead of you is to run faster.”
21		-
22		-Herron’94 Vince JD, University of Southern California, “Increasing the Speech: Diversity, Campus Speech Codes, and the Pursuit of Truth,” Southern California Law Review, 1993-1994.Even if it is true that administrators are so short-sighted, there is some evidence that speech codes actually serve to exacerbate already strained tensions on campuses. Dominant groups, which consider codes to be abridgements of free expression created to solve a problem reported only by minority groups (a problem whose gravity the dominant group does not recognize or understand), may struggle to accept the restrictions. Also, both dominant and minority group members alike have been and will be sanctioned by university administrators under these codes that, doubtless, “exacerbate tensions among members of these groups.” It has also been suggested that censoring certain expression makes the expression more, rather than less, attractive. 67 This leads to increased, not decreased, use of this expression, and, therefore, more injury, not less. Speech code proponents may disagree with the proffered evidence and dispute that the codes actually exacerbate tensions. They may continue to assert that speech codes in fact benefit minority group members by protecting them from injurious speech. But even if this assertion is accepted, these modest gains will be short-lived and are far outweighed by what both minority group members and educational environments sacrifice when speech codes are established and enforced.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2017-01-15 00:19:41.0

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Scoggin, John

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-North Hollywood JS

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-4

Round

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-3

Team

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Flintridge Li Aff

Title

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-AC Citation

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Harvard Westlake Debate

Caselist.RoundClass[5]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-01-15 20:35:32.33
	1	+2017-01-15 20:35:32.0