Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[12]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[12]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[12]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-02-12 01:19:52.456
	1	+2017-02-12 01:19:52.0

Caselist.CitesClass[12]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,84 @@
	1	+Chronicle AC
	2	+
	3	+Part 1: Framing
	4	+
	5	+Methodological pluralism is necessary for effective critique and is key to avoiding endless political violence in academia. Bleiker 14
	6	+
	7	+Bleiker 14 – (6/17, Roland, Professor of International Relations at the University of Queensland, "International Theory Between Reification and Self-Reflective Critique," International Studies Review, Volume 16, Issue 2, pages 325–327). NS
	8	+
	9	+This book is part of an increasing trend of scholarly works that have embraced poststructural critique but want to ground it in more positive political foundations, while retaining a reluctance to return to the positivist tendencies that implicitly underpin much of constructivist research. The path that Daniel Levine has carved out is innovative, sophisticated, and convincing. A superb scholarly achievement. For Levine, the key challenge in international relations (IR) scholarship is what he calls “unchecked reification”: the widespread and dangerous process of forgetting “the distinction between theoretical concepts and the real-world things they mean to describe or to which they refer” (p. 15). The dangers are real, Levine stresses, because IR deals with some of the most difficult issues, from genocides to war. Upholding one subjective position without critical scrutiny can thus have far-reaching consequences. Following Theodor Adorno—who is the key theoretical influence on this book—Levine takes a post-positive position and assumes that the world cannot be known outside of our human perceptions and the values that are inevitably intertwined with them. His ultimate goal is to over- come reification, or, to be more precise, to recognize it as an inevitable aspect of thought so that its dangerous consequences can be mitigated. Levine proceeds in three stages: First he reviews several decades of IR theories to resurrect critical moments when scholars displayed an acute awareness of the dangers of reification. He refreshingly breaks down distinctions between conventional and progressive scholarship, for he detects self-reflective and critical moments in scholars that are usually associated with straightforward positivist positions (such as E.H. Carr, Hans Morgenthau, or Graham Allison). But Levine also shows how these moments of self-reflexivity never lasted long and were driven out by the compulsion to offer systematic and scientific knowledge. The second stage of Levine’s inquiry outlines why IR scholars regularly closed down critique. Here, he points to a range of factors and phenomena, from peer review processes to the speed at which academics are meant to publish. And here too, he eschews conventional wisdom, showing that work conducted in the wake of the third debate, while explicitly post-positivist and critiquing the reifying tendencies of existing IR scholarship, often lacked critical self-awareness. As a result, Levine believes that many of the respective authors failed to appreciate sufficiently that “reification is a consequence of all thinking—including itself” (p. 68). The third objective of Levine’s book is also the most interesting one. Here, he outlines the path toward what he calls “sustainable critique”: a form of self-reflection that can counter the dangers of reification. Critique, for him, is not just something that is directed outwards, against particular theories or theorists. It is also inward-oriented, ongoing, and sensitive to the “limitations of thought itself” (p. 12). The challenges that such a sustainable critique faces are formidable. Two stand out: First, if the natural tendency to forget the origins and values of our concepts are as strong as Levine and other Adorno-inspired theorists believe they are, then how can we actually recognize our own reifying tendencies? Are we not all inevitably and subconsciously caught in a web of meanings from which we cannot escape? Second, if one constantly questions one’s own perspective, does one not fall into a relativism that loses the ability to establish the kind of stable foundations that are necessary for political action? Adorno has, of course, been critiqued as relentlessly negative, even by his second-generation Frankfurt School successors (from Ju€rgen Habermas to his IR interpreters, such as Andrew Link- later and Ken Booth). The response that Levine has to these two sets of legitimate criticisms are, in my view, both convincing and useful at a practical level. He starts off with depicting reification not as a flaw that is meant to be expunged, but as an a priori condition for scholarship. The challenge then is not to let it go unchecked. Methodological pluralism lies at the heart of Levine’s sustainable critique. He borrows from what Adorno calls a “constellation”: an attempt to juxtapose, rather than integrate, different perspectives. It is in this spirit that Levine advocates multiple methods to understand the same event or phenomena. He writes of the need to validate “multiple and mutually incompatible ways of seeing” (p. 63, see also pp. 101–102). In this model, a scholar oscillates back and forth between different methods and paradigms, trying to understand the event in question from multiple perspectives. No single method can ever adequately represent the event or should gain the upper hand. But each should, in a way, recognize and capture details or perspectives that the others cannot (p. 102). In practical terms, this means combining a range of methods even when—or, rather, precisely when—they are deemed incompatible. They can range from poststructual deconstruction to the tools pioneered and championed by positivist social sciences. The benefit of such a methodological polyphony is not just the opportunity to bring out nuances and new perspectives. Once the false hope of a smooth synthesis has been abandoned, the very incompatibility of the respective perspectives can then be used to identify the reifying tendencies in each of them. For Levine, this is how reification may be “checked at the source” and this is how a “critically reflexive moment might thus be rendered sustainable” (p. 103). It is in this sense that Levine’s approach is not really post-foundational but, rather, an attempt to “balance foundationalisms against one another” (p. 14). There are strong parallels here with arguments advanced by assemblage thinking and complexity theory—links that could have been explored in more detail.
	10	+
	11	+Free speech is a pre-requisite to any rational moral system- without it self-realization is impossible. Eberle 94
	12	+Eberle, Law @ Roger Williams, 94 (Wake Forest LR, Winter)
	13	+
	14	+The Court's decision in R.A.V. reaffirms the preeminence of free speech in our constitutional value structure. n62 Theoretically, free speech is intrinsically valuable as a chief means by which we develop our faculties and control our destinies. n63 Free speech is also of instrumental value in facilitating other worthy ends such as democratic or personal self-government, n64 public and private decisionmaking, n65 and the advancement of knowledge and truth. n66 Ultimately, the value of free speech rests upon a complex set of justifications, as compared to reliance on any single foundation. n67 The majority of the Court in R.A.V. preferred a nonconsequentialist view, finding that speech is valuable as an end itself, independent of any consequences that it might produce. In this view, free speech is an essential part of a just and free society that treats all people as responsible moral agents. Accordingly, people are entrusted with the responsibility of making judgments about the use or abuse of speech. n68 From this vantage point, the majority saw a certain moral equivalency in all speech. Even hate speech merits protection under the First Amendment, because all speech has intrinsic value. This is so because all speech, even hate speech, is a communication to the world, and therefore implicates the speaker's autonomy or self-realization. Additionally, any information might be valuable to a listener who can then decide its importance or how best to use it. Accordingly, any suspicion or evidence of governmental censorship must be vigilantly investigated.
	15	+
	16	+Epistemic humility demands free speech. Dalmia, 9/22
	17	+(Shikha, Senior Analyst/Award winning Journalist http://reason.com/blog/2016/09/22/debating-nyus-jeremy-waldron-on-free-spe)
	18	+One: Hate speech bans make us impatient and dogmatic The main reason that libertarians like me are partisans of free speech is not because we believe that a moral laissez faire, anything goes attitude, is in itself a good thing for society. Rather, it stems from an epistemic humility that we can't always know what is good or bad a priori – through a feat of pure Kantian moral reasoning. Moral principles, as much as scientific ones, have to be discovered and developed and the way to do so is by letting competing notions of morality duke it out in what John Stuart Mill called the marketplace of ideas. Ideas that win do so by harmonizing people's overt moral beliefs with their deeper moral intuitions or, as Jonathan Rauch notes, by providing a "moral education." This is how Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Frank Kamney, the gay rights pioneer, managed to open society's eyes to its injustices even though what they were suggesting was so radical for their times. But this takes time. With free speech, societies have to play the long game. It takes time to change hearts and minds and one can't be certain that one's ideas will win out in the end. One has to be willing to lose. The fruits of censorship ~-~- winning by rigging the rules and silencing the other side ~-~- seem immediate and certain. But they unleash forces of thought control and dogmatism and repression and intolerance that are hard to contain, precisely what we are seeing right now on campuses.
	19	+
	20	+Plan Text: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected journalist speech.
	21	+
	22	+Advantage 1: Stop The Press
	23	+
	24	+Administrators model Trump’s anti-press platform and censor specifically political and socially controversial student journalism. Peters 1-23
	25	+Jonathan Peters,, 1-23-2017, "Student journalists especially vulnerable to Trump's press-as-enemy rhetoric," Columbia Journalism Review, http://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/trump_students_press_media.php?Newsletterandct=t(Top_Stories_CJR_new_Jan_26_1_25_2017)
	26	+
	27	+In some ways, student journalists will face the same challenges as professionals. First, through executive orders and the Department of Justice, Trump will be able to shape the Freedom of Information Act’s implementation and the substantive arguments the government makes in FOIA litigation. Professionals may be heavier FOIA users than students, but the burdens of any FOIA changes will fall on both groups. Second, Trump could crack down on public affairs reporting, most likely in the national security area—if the DOJ, for example, prosecuted leakers under the Espionage Act and subpoenaed journalists to supply information. This would disparately impact professional journalists, easily the primary source of US national security reporting. But these efforts, along with Trump’s ceaseless condemnation of the press as the enemy, could create or feed an environment in which press and speech restrictions are seen as acceptable or even desirable, eroding the legal and cultural independence the press needs to play its democratic role. The student press is especially vulnerable to that kind of erosion. In public schools at the K-12 level, it’s settled law that student journalists have lesser First Amendment protection than, say, adults in non-school settings. The 1988 case Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier is the main reason. The Supreme Court ruled in Hazelwood that a school newspaper produced as part of a class may be regulated by administrators if three conditions are met: the regulation is neutral with regard to viewpoint, there is a reasonable educational justification for it, and there’s no policy/practice establishing the paper as a public forum for student expression, which effectively means that administrators have allowed students to make unrestricted use of the paper for journalistic and expressive purposes. Since Hazelwood was handed down, schools have used it to legitimize all manner of press restrictions, and it’s not hard at all to imagine an administrator finding inspiration in Trump’s anti-press rhetoric—and lo, here’s a case readymade to restrict student press coverage of controversial issues. That’s a big problem because student journalists have filled in gaps created by the traditional media’s decline, playing a vital role in meeting their communities’ news needs. Just last week, Michigan high schoolers pressed Gov. Rick Snyder about his endorsement of Betsy DeVos for education secretary. And looking back, to note a few other examples, New Jersey high schoolers once revealed serious misconduct complaints against a superintendent, and national outlets at first relied on coverage by student journalists during the Mizzou protests. At the college level, the headache here is that as student journalists are making increasingly important contributions through their reporting (in at least four states, there are more students covering state legislatures than professionals), the federal courts are curtailing their speech and press rights. And, once again, Hazelwood is the main reason. Although it involved high school student speech, recently it has been applied to college student speech as well. Four federal appeals courts, covering 16 states, have extended Hazelwood to college campuses. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court hasn’t clarified whether it’s proper to apply Hazelwood to college journalists, and it’s unclear how Trump’s yet-to-be-named nominee, expected to be highly conservative, will affect the vote in student-speech cases generally. On the one hand, the nominee will replace Scalia, who supported school authority in such cases, and the rest of the conservative bloc is unchanged from the court’s last student-speech case, in 2007, in which the bloc voted together. On the other hand, that case involved speech at a school-supervised event that allegedly promoted the use of illegal drugs. In a case involving speech of a higher order, there’s a chance of winning over certain justices, perhaps Roberts, whose free speech record is otherwise strong, or Alito, who wrote a concurring opinion in the 2007 case stressing that it didn’t apply to broader social or political speech. The same thinking would apply to the court’s new member, who might be reachable in the right case. At any rate, fulfilling a community’s news needs means covering a range of public issues that might upset university administrators, and Hazelwood is a complicating factor. The case says that administrators may censor articles that “associate the school with any position other than neutrality on matters of political controversy.” That’s clearly irreconcilable with much of public affairs reporting and commentary. But the problems don’t stop with Hazelwood. There’s another reason the student press is especially vulnerable to erosions of independence: the reporter’s privilege. A recent study I conducted with my University of Kansas colleagues Genelle Belmas and Peter Bobkowski found that most states do allow journalists to shield confidential sources and unpublished information in some circumstances, but those protections usually do not apply to student journalists—either because students don’t qualify for them, or because the qualifying criteria are unclear enough that student journalists couldn’t claim protection with any confidence. All told, we have a student press being asked to do more with less—to produce stories that inform their communities, while hamstrung by Hazelwood and lacking privilege protections—at a time when the president talks about journalists as if they’re incarnations of Kylo Ren. That’s untenable, but what can be done? If student journalists are to continue making significant contributions, federal courts must stop curtailing their First Amendment rights, and state legislatures need to repair damage already done by the courts. They should follow the lead of states that have enacted laws, some of them long ago, to protect student journalists by granting them rights beyond those guaranteed in Hazelwood. Right now, in fact, the Student Press Law Center campaign New Voices USA is lobbying nationwide for such legislation, and four state bills have been filed just since the start of 2017. (Disclosure: I occasionally represent student journalists through the SPLC, but I’m not involved in the New Voices campaign.)
	28	+
	29	+The legal justification for newspaper censorship is a 7th circuit decision that applied Hazelwood to universities-this allows unchecked arbitrary censorship by administrators. Goodman 05
	30	+( S. Mark Goodman, Michael C. Hiestand, Student Press Law Center 2005 WL 2736314 (U.S.) (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) Supreme Court of the United States. Margaret L. HOSTY, Jeni S. Porche, and Steven P. Barba, Petitioners, v. Patricia CARTER, Respondent. No. 05-377. October 20, 2005. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Brief of Amici Curiae Student Press Law Center, Associated Collegiate Press, College Media Advisers, Community College Journalism Association, Society for Collegiate Journalists, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, American Society of Newspaper Editors, National Newspaper Association, Newspaper Association of America, Society of Professional Journalists, Associated Press Managing Editors, College Newspaper Business and Advertising Managers, National Federation of Press Women, National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association and the Independent Press Association/Campus Journalism Project in Support of Petition of Margaret L. Hosty, Jeni S. Porche, and Steven P. Barba for Writ of Certiorari Of Counsel: S. Mark Goodman, Michael C. Hiestand, Student Press Law Center, 1101 Wilson Blvd., Ste 1100, Arlington, VA 22209-2211, (703) 807-1904. Richard M. Goehler, (Counsel of Record), Frost Brown Todd LLC, 2200 PNC Center, 201 East Fifth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, (513) 651-6800, Counsel for Amici Curiae.)
	31	+In contrast to many high school censorship incidents, public college administrators today are less likely to be successful in their efforts to restrict the student press. This is usually (and perhaps only) because of the First Amendment protections that courts have consistently accorded college journalists. That circumstance would surely change were Hazelwood extended to limit the rights of college student journalists. Among some of the stories in college student publications that could be subject to censorship under the Hazelwood standard: • An opinion piece opposing an upcoming referendum that would have provided the college with revenue collected from property taxes. University officials, claiming the paper contained typographical and grammatical errors, confiscated and destroyed 10,000 copies of the paper. After students threatened legal action, the school agreed to reprint the newspaper.14 • An article detailing the incoming university president’s expenditure of state funds, including more than $100,000 spent to remodel the president’s home and pay for *17 his inauguration. Following publication, the president transferred the newspaper’s adviser to another position at the school, an act that generated considerable public attention. The president later resigned after being questioned by state legislators regarding the spending that had been reported in the student newspaper. The adviser was remstated.15 • A yearbook story reporting that members of the school’s volleyball team were removed for bringing alcohol on a team trip and a feature spread on sex and relationships. Following publication, the yearbook editor lost his job. After the editor sued, the school agreed to a settlement in which it paid the editor $10,000 and agreed to a publications policy that prohibited administrative interference with the content of student publications.16 • An editorial cartoon, featuring cartoon figures as university officials, commenting on a U.S. Department of Education report that found the school had misused public funds when it paid for a trip to Disney World by students and school officials. One of those portrayed, the vice president of student affairs, temporarily halted printing of the issue - but released them after students objected.17 If Hazelwood is allowed to determine the level of First Amendment protection to which America’s college student media are entitled, there is no doubt university administrators are poised to take advantage of their new *18 censorship powers. Word has already begun to spread that the standard “hands-off student media” policies recognized by college officials in the past may no longer be required. In California, for example - 2,000 miles west of the Governors State University campus and far beyond the jurisdiction of the Seventh Circuit - administrators at California State University system schools received a memo from the system’s legal counsel on June 30, 2005 - ten days after the Seventh Circuit handed down its decision - informing them that “Hosty appears to signal that CSU campuses may have more latitude than previously believed to censor the content of subsidized student newspapers….”18 Extending Hazelwood to the university setting is a recipe for encouraging censorship that would dramatically hinder the production of good journalism and the training of good journalists. Amici do not believe this Court intended the censorship of college and university student newspapers to be the legacy of Hazelwood.
	32	+
	33	+Regulation of newspapers is a crucial precedent used to justify widespread campus censorship-it uniquely empowers and protects administrators to censor. Lukianoff 05
	34	+(George, Samantha Harris, Foundation for Individual, Rights in Education, 2005 WL 2736313 (U.S.) (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) Supreme Court of the United States. Margaret L. HOSTY et al., Petitioners, v. Patricia CARTER, Respondent. No. 05-377. October 19, 2005. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Brief Amici Curiae of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education; The Coalition for Student and Academic Rights; Feminists for Free Expression; The First Amendment Project; Ifeminists.Net; National Association of Scholars; Accuracy in Academia; Leadership Institute; The Individual Rights Foundation; The American Council of Trustees and Alumni; and Students for Academic Freedom in Support of Petitioners)
	35	+Commentators from across the political spectrum, while often disagreeing on the source, the scale, and the cause of the chilling of free speech on campus, have described the current campus environment as one where the “marketplace of ideas” is under siege.13 Whether in the name of “ tolerance,” *17 risk management, or merely peace and quiet, hundreds (if not thousands) of universities have enacted policies and engaged in practices hostile to free and open discourse over the past few decades.14 Starting in the 1980s, colleges enacted “speech codes” under a variety of creative legal theories. Despite numerous decisions ruling these codes unconstitutional15 and this Court's decision in R.A. E v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), which indicated that viewpoint-based speech codes would be unconstitutional, the number of university speech codes actually increased through the 1990s, see Jon Gould, The Precedent that Wasn't, 35 Law and Soc'y Rev. 345 (2001). Over the past twenty years, numerous books have been written alleging an illiberal, intolerant, and/or partisan atmosphere on campus16 in which dissenting viewpoints and unpopular groups are repressed through a variety of measures. More recently, universities have adopted highly restrictive, and sometimes absurd “speech *18 zone” policies restricting speech from all but small comers of the university.17 Thus far, the law has served to protect the collegiate marketplace of ideas from overreaching administrations, requiring policies and practices in keeping with the First Amendment and academic freedom. For example, in Rosenberger, this Court granted religious student groups equal access to student fee funding. In Bait v. Shippensburg University, 280 F. Supp. 2d 357 (M.D. Pa. 2003), a federal court in Pennsylvania ruled Shippensburg University's speech code was unconstitutionally overbroad, and in Roberts v. Haragan, 346 F. Supp. 2d 853 (N.D. Tex. 2004), a federal court in Texas dismissed a speech zone policy as unconstitutionally overbroad. The Hosty decision, however, is a step in the opposite direction. College administrators have already demonstrated a tenacious will to censor even when the law clearly limited their ability to do so. The legal ambiguity that Hosty creates, the unparalleled discretion it grants college administrators, and the legal protection it provides to administrators who censor all threaten to dramatically worsen the campus free speech crisis. If allowed to stand, Hosty will have numerous, specific, predictable, and far reaching negative consequences for free speech and robust debate on America's college campuses. It is no exaggeration to say that the Hosty opinion threatens the existence of the independent collegiate media. Universities have not shown great tolerance for the free press. If there is no longer a presumption of independence or of public forum status when a public university establishes a student newspaper, *19 there should be no doubt that administrators who wish to censor will take advantage of this ambiguity. Public universities will be able to argue that any paper that receives any kind of benefit - whether financial support or simply the use of office space - from the university is subject to administrative control. If past experience is any guide, colleges will pay lip service to the importance of student press freedom, but they will quickly take advantage of any legal means available to punish or control student newspapers that anger or offend students or administrators. For example, in a memorandum to all California State University presidents written only ten days after the Hosty decision, California State University General Counsel Christine Helwick wrote that: while the Hosty decision is from another jurisdiction and, as such, does not directly impact the CSU, the case appears to signal that CSU campuses may have more latitude than previously believed to censor the content of subsidized student newspapers, provided that there is an established practice of regularized content review and approval for pedagogical purposes.18 In this same way, Hosty threatens the existence of independent student groups. If the primary question under Hosty is whether a student group is in some way “subsidized,” any group that receives any sort of benefit or student fees could be threatened with administrative control. The possibility that a court might later determine that the student group or publication was entitled to some form of public forum status would hardly protect the overwhelming majority of these groups that are neither willing nor affluent enough to mount a legal defense. *20 This case also re-opens issues relating to collegiate liability for student media and student groups formerly considered settled. It also allows administrators virtually unlimited freedom to experiment with censorship above and beyond even the broad discretion granted to them under Hosty. Finally, there is no reason to believe this holding will remain limited to public colleges - private colleges that promise free speech to their students tend to base their own speech policies on First Amendment standards.19 Hosty v. Carter will have reverberations from the community college to the Ivy League. Administrators will impose the “intellectual strait jacket” that this Court has long feared, and the consequences will be profound. As FIRE co-founder Alan Charles Kors once said, “A nation that does not educate in freedom will not survive in freedom, and will not even know when it is lost.”20
	36	+
	37	+These restrictions disempower young people, crush fruitful debate and education. Majeed ’09
	38	+AZHAR MAJEED - Robert H. Jackson Legal Fellow, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). B.A., 2004, University of Michigan; J.D., 2007, University of Michigan Law School. “Defying the Constitution The Rise, Persistence, And Prevalence Of Campus Speech Codes.” 2009. https://www.thefire.org/pdfs/aff11d01bb5af6e9d8e2f8303832c301.pdf JJN
	39	+In clear contravention of these principles, speech codes teach college students all the wrong lessons—to quickly claim offense, to censor individuals espousing views with which they disagree, to interpret expression which is even remotely controversial or offensive as “hate speech” or “politically incorrect” speech, and to stifle expression which questions and challenges the prevailing orthodoxy. Speech codes have “‘cast a pall of orthodoxy’ over university classrooms and campus life.”165 The regrettable result is that “instead of learning how to think and reason independently, students are taught that the act of questioning should be punished....A university education then becomes indoctrination rather than development of the mind to challenge what is and to discover what ought to be.”166 The consequences are ultimately felt in society’s ability to develop a capable citizenry. Colleges and universities are vital parts of the educational system which “is ‘in most respects the cradle of our democracy’”167 and “essential to the maintenance of ‘our vigorous and free society.’”168 Commentators have recognized that our system of education must aim for “the creation of autonomous citizens, capable of fully participating in the rough and tumble world of public discourse,”169 because “democratic government works better when independent-thinking individuals become active in lawmaking” and public debate.170 We as a society must therefore remain committed to maintaining an open atmosphere for debate, discussion, and disagreement. Deviation from this commitment will only lead to a society “composed of individuals lacking the skill or educational background to challenge governmental authority and improve the functioning of a free society.”171 Because speech codes “teach individuals to think of government and authority with Orwellian fear,”172 they represent a significant threat to the development of capable citizens. Moreover, speech codes hinder the development of effective leaders for the future. In the Supreme Court’s words, “the Nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to the robust exchange of ideas.”173 One commentator echoes that “a limited education for the next generation will cause far-reaching problems because the leaders of tomorrow will be unable to adequately address the problems facing them,” making freedom of speech on campus “vital to the survival and success of our country and the world.”174 Rather than insulate students with speech codes and protect them from even slight offenses, we should allow them the freedom to make intelligent decisions for themselves when confronted with various viewpoints and modes of expression—and to gain the sheer experience of doing so. Students “will eventually have to do this every day of their lives and protecting them from unpopular ideas through the regulation of speech will only serve to ill-prepare them for the world after graduation.”175 Speech codes have precisely this coddling effect and therefore should be eradicated from the college environment.
	40	+
	41	+Campus free speech solves extinction. Lukianoff 05
	42	+(George, Samantha Harris, Foundation for Individual, Rights in Education, 2005 WL 2736313 (U.S.) (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) Supreme Court of the United States. Margaret L. HOSTY et al., Petitioners, v. Patricia CARTER, Respondent. No. 05-377. October 19, 2005. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Brief Amici Curiae of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education; The Coalition for Student and Academic Rights; Feminists for Free Expression; The First Amendment Project; Ifeminists.Net; National Association of Scholars; Accuracy in Academia; Leadership Institute; The Individual Rights Foundation; The American Council of Trustees and Alumni; and Students for Academic Freedom in Support of Petitioners)
	43	+This Court has long emphasized and understood the importance of free and open expression on campus: The essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident. No one should underestimate the vital role in a democracy that is played by those who guide and train our youth. To impose any strait jacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities would imperil the future of our Nation … Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die. Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 250 (1957). *6 In the nearly fifty years since Sweezy, this Court and lower courts have repeatedly reaffirmed the special importance of robust free expression in higher education.3 In Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972), this Court made clear that students are an important part of the collegiate marketplace of ideas when it ruled that a college, acting “as the instrumentality of the State, may not restrict speech … simply because it finds the views expressed by any group to be abhorrent.” Healy at 187-88. See also Papish v. Bd. of Curators of the Univ. of Mo., 410 U.S. 667, 670 (1973) (“the mere dissemination of ideas - no matter how offensive to good taste - on a state university campus may not be shut off in the name alone of ‘conventions of decency.’ ”).
	44	+
	45	+Advantage 2: Civic Engagement
	46	+
	47	+Civic engagement is low now – post election polls and tech. Fate 1/11
	48	+Tom Montgomery Fate is a graduate of the Iowa nonfiction writing program and teaches creative writing at the College of DuPage in suburban Chicago, On the social conscience of nonvoting college students, USA Today Network, 1/11/17 EE
	49	+
	50	+This year, too many college students lost faith in our political system and American idealism — in the social conscience that we inherited from our founding fathers and mothers. Many students — including mine — were disillusioned by this election. Post-election polling confirms this: the 2016 college vote was way down in many states. And a thousand viral memes or GIFs didn’t help remedy that. Our remarkable technological innovations over the last 40 years have not led to more democratic elections or to higher voter turnout or a more politically astute electorate. Rather, major news networks and social media transformed the 2016 election into a 24/7 reality TV show. If the point of the election is to entertain rather than educate, why wouldn’t an entertainer be elected? I can imagine what some students were thinking: Why vote if the election has been cyber-hacked by the Russians but no one seems to care? Why vote if the billionaire candidate has proven in his late night tweeting that serial lying is not only OK but an effective marketing strategy? Why vote if the Presidency and the government itself are increasingly perceived as business opportunities? Yes, college students are to blame for not voting in 2016, for not stepping up, for contributing to Hillary Clinton’s loss. But so is my generation — for setting the bar so low, for dismissing the democratic idealism that this country was founded on.
	51	+
	52	+Newspapers are key to establishing civic engagement in college students. Nudelman and Hecker 08
	53	+Felice Nudelman, Director of Education, and Don Hecker, Training Editor for Staff Editors, The New York Times, “The Role of Newspapers in the First Year of College” in “First-Year Civic Engagement: Sound Foundations for College, Citizenship and Democracy”, The New York Times National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition University of South Carolina, 2008
	54	+It is the first year of college, and every first-year student finds each day brings a new world and new marvels. For each new student the experience is a profoundly individual one. Students see their own experiences as unique; it is educators and mentors who see — and encourage — the commonalities. By including newspapers in curricula and co-curricula, educators can nurture reading habits, create shared readings and discussions, and establish a culture of engagement. Newspapers can help students make connections — to their courses, their campus, their studies, their lives, the contemporary world Habits of Mind, New Connections The first year of college will establish the pattern and habit of involvement that brings success in students’ college careers (and beyond, the optimist hopes). This is when individual students develop the living connection with their peers, the faculty and the institution itself. This is a time to encourage, if not impose, structure. Reading a nationally circulated, high-quality newspaper creates a shared environment based on contemporary events and issues. As with many other experiences of first-year students, the regular reading of a newspaper is likely a new habit. Newspapers are chroniclers of current events. Some of those events will be familiar to students, but others will not. The newspaper leads its novice readers from the familiar to the new, encouraging an understanding outside their own “bubble.” But the newspaper also enriches and enlarges that more focused world of the individual. The newspaper is the natural extension of the textbook, providing the new chapters on events that develop after the book is printed. And as students use their growing academic learning to examine the larger world with greater sophistication, the newspaper provides them with timely information on national and global issues, matters of law, and social and political topics. Readers find debates about the environment, the evolving scientific landscape, government rulings, corporate ethics, civil liberties, terrorism, and a wide array of constitutional issues. As students are exposed to diverse arguments, they learn to intellectually challenge and defend ideas, to sift through conflicting presentations in the search for conclusions. They become more critical thinkers. Engaged Readers and College Success In “Bowling Alone,” Robert D. Putnam posited the importance of associational activity in an effective democracy, and he found a direct connection between newspaper readership and good citizenship. The newspaper helps students develop patterns of civic responsibility by providing a front row seat from which to explore current events and issues; informed awareness leads to engagement. Through the newspaper, students gain a critical knowledge of issues and needs. Novice newspaper readers grow into skilled analytical readers. They also become more skilled as writers since they are introduced in the newspaper’s pages to sophisticated and creative exposition and analysis of issues. Newspaper-reading students find common ground with their peers and faculty in their growing ability to discuss the critical issues of the day. They see connections between what they learn in the classroom and the world around them. This makes that all-important first year of college more coherent and more comprehensible and instills in students greater self-confidence. Here, then, is a powerful tool to promote student success, and through a body of successful students, to promote institutional success. Generating Civic Engagement with Newspapers: Cases Within this monograph are some excellent examples of how the newspaper and news information can be integrated into firstyear courses and activities. These colleges demonstrate the value and importance of the newspaper in creating a culture of civic engagement. Allegheny College uses The Times to create a cohort of engaged first-year students, many of whom have not read a newspaper before entering the college. They hone their verbal and analytical skills by first leading a discussion in class and then moving beyond discussion to the exploration and analysis of long-held beliefs. Their newfound awareness encourages them to explore the world beyond their bubble, to reflect on their role in the community. At The Richard Stockton College, students utilize The Times to research environmental issues for their Environmental Citizenship course. A key component of the course is engagement with the community through council meetings, issue briefs, and events on campus. Because the newspaper is integrated into the course, students sand)2349!2#)6)#.'!'-.4 become more informed and participate at a higher level. An example of student engagement fostered by a culture focused on intellectual inquiry is represented by the Fort Hays State University Times Talks initiative. Each week a student or faculty member volunteers to lead a presentation and discussion on a topic of interest using Times articles as the springboard. The co-curricular program has become a staple at FHSU. Indianapolis University-Purdue University, Indianapolis assigns reading of local newspapers to explore issues in its “Discover Indianapolis” First-Year Seminar. These programs are a few examples of the resources that newspapers and news information bring to building a civically engaged freshman year experience. Our so-called “millennials” are the largest college generation since the 1960s and the most racially and ethnically diverse. They are digital natives, experiential learners and adept users of many forms of media. So the question is whether the habit of reading newspapers will take hold with this generation of students. The answer, from current research about the millennial generation (Magid, Pew), points in a positive direction: the students are receptive to reading the print edition of the paper and are at ease navigating between print and Web without seeing them as competitive. The print edition provides a serendipitous learning experience; students find articles that are relevant to them and their educational goals and new connections as they turn the pages. They find articles about the environment in the business section, stories about the nature of leadership in the science section and articles that focus on citizenship and community throughout. They also discover new interests, their eyes and curiosity caught by a headline, graph, or picture. They find reference to the newspaper’s Web site and additional and interactive features. Many read newspapers online, but in doing so, they are usually seeking information in already established areas of interest, and they are not participating in a shared-reading community. They may not be part of “the Conversation” — the intellectual community that questions causes and authority and its own beliefs. William V. Costanzo writes of how television’s moving images and radio’s interviews and editorials rarely digest large amounts of data or address intricate arguments. In The Writer’s Eye*, he asserts, “For more comprehensive coverage and multiple perspectives, we need newspapers, magazines, or some other printed form of media. We … need more time to select and read the details” (8). Newspapers on campus can create a lively intellectual community and engagement with issues on and off campus. In the first year of college, newspapers can establish a shared culture of informed students and engaged citizens.
	55	+
	56	+Civic engagement is the vital internal link to solving every existential problem- its try or die for the affirmative. Small 06
	57	+(Jonathan, former Americorps VISTA for the Human Services Coalition, “Moving Forward,” The Journal for Civic Commitment, Spring, http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/other/engagement/Journal/Issue7/Small.jsp)
	58	+What will be the challenges of the new millennium? And how should we equip young people to face these challenges? While we cannot be sure of the exact nature of the challenges, we can say unequivocally that humankind will face them together. If the end of the twentieth century marked the triumph of the capitalists, individualism, and personal responsibility, the new century will present challenges that require collective action, unity, and enlightened self-interest. Confronting global warming, depleted natural resources, global super viruses, global crime syndicates, and multinational corporations with no conscience and no accountability will require cooperation, openness, honesty, compromise, and most of all solidarity – ideals not exactly cultivated in the twentieth century. We can no longer suffer to see life through the tiny lens of our own existence. Never in the history of the world has our collective fate been so intricately interwoven. Our very existence depends upon our ability to adapt to this new paradigm, to envision a more cohesive society. With humankind’s next great challenge comes also great opportunity. Ironically, modern individualism backed us into a corner. We have two choices, work together in solidarity or perish together in alienation. Unlike any other crisis before, the noose is truly around the neck of the whole world at once. Global super viruses will ravage rich and poor alike, developed and developing nations, white and black, woman, man, and child. Global warming and damage to the environment will affect climate change and destroy ecosystems across the globe. Air pollution will force gas masks on our faces, our depleted atmosphere will make a predator of the sun, and chemicals will invade and corrupt our water supplies. Every single day we are presented the opportunity to change our current course, to survive modernity in a manner befitting our better nature. Through zealous cooperation and radical solidarity we can alter the course of human events. Regarding the practical matter of equipping young people to face the challenges of a global, interconnected world, we need to teach cooperation, community, solidarity, balance and tolerance in schools. We need to take a holistic approach to education. Standardized test scores alone will not begin to prepare young people for the world they will inherit. The three staples of traditional education (reading, writing, and arithmetic) need to be supplemented by three cornerstones of a modern education, exposure, exposure, and more exposure. How can we teach solidarity? How can we teach community in the age of rugged individualism? How can we counterbalance crass commercialism and materialism? How can we impart the true meaning of power? These are the educational challenges we face in the new century. It will require a radical transformation of our conception of education. We’ll need to trust a bit more, control a bit less, and put our faith in the potential of youth to make sense of their world. In addition to a declaration of the gauntlet set before educators in the twenty-first century, this paper is a proposal and a case study of sorts toward a new paradigm of social justice and civic engagement education. Unfortunately, the current pedagogical climate of public K-12 education does not lend itself well to an exploratory study and trial of holistic education. Consequently, this proposal and case study targets a higher education model. Specifically, we will look at some possibilities for a large community college in an urban setting with a diverse student body. Our guides through this process are specifically identified by the journal Equity and Excellence in Education. The dynamic interplay between ideas of social justice, civic engagement, and service learning in education will be the lantern in the dark cave of uncertainty. As such, a simple and straightforward explanation of the three terms is helpful to direct this inquiry. Before we look at a proposal and case study and the possible consequences contained therein, this paper will draw out a clear understanding of how we should characterize these ubiquitous terms and how their relationship to each other affects our study. Social Justice, Civic Engagement, Service Learning and Other Commie Crap Social justice is often ascribed long, complicated, and convoluted definitions. In fact, one could fill a good-sized library with treatises on this subject alone. Here we do not wish to belabor the issue or argue over fine points. For our purposes, it will suffice to have a general characterization of the term, focusing instead on the dynamics of its interaction with civic engagement and service learning. Social justice refers quite simply to a community vision and a community conscience that values inclusion, fairness, tolerance, and equality. The idea of social justice in America has been around since the Revolution and is intimately linked to the idea of a social contract. The Declaration of Independence is the best example of the prominence of social contract theory in the US. It states quite emphatically that the government has a contract with its citizens, from which we get the famous lines about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Social contract theory and specifically the Declaration of Independence are concrete expressions of the spirit of social justice. Similar clamor has been made over the appropriate definitions of civic engagement and service learning, respectively. Once again, let’s not get bogged down on subtleties. Civic engagement is a measure or degree of the interest and/or involvement an individual and a community demonstrate around community issues. There is a longstanding dispute over how to properly quantify civic engagement. Some will say that today’s youth are less involved politically and hence demonstrate a lower degree of civic engagement. Others cite high volunteer rates among the youth and claim it demonstrates a high exhibition of civic engagement. And there are about a hundred other theories put forward on the subject of civic engagement and today’s youth. But one thing is for sure; today’s youth no longer see government and politics as an effective or valuable tool for affecting positive change in the world. Instead of criticizing this judgment, perhaps we should come to sympathize and even admire it. Author Kurt Vonnegut said, “There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don’t know what can be done to fix it. This is it: only nut cases want to be president.” Maybe the youth’s rejection of American politics isn’t a shortcoming but rather a rational and appropriate response to their experience. Consequently, the term civic engagement takes on new meaning for us today. In order to foster fundamental change on the systemic level, which we have already said is necessary for our survival in the twenty-first century, we need to fundamentally change our systems. Therefore, part of our challenge becomes convincing the youth that these systems, and by systems we mean government and commerce, have the potential for positive change. Civic engagement consequently takes on a more specific and political meaning in this context. Service learning is a methodology and a tool for teaching social justice, encouraging civic engagement, and deepening practical understanding of a subject. Since it is a relatively new field, at least in the structured sense, service learning is only beginning to define itself. Through service learning students learn by experiencing things firsthand and by exposing themselves to new points of view. Instead of merely reading about government, for instance, a student might experience it by working in a legislative office. Rather than just studying global warming out of a textbook, a student might volunteer time at an environmental group. If service learning develops and evolves into a discipline with the honest goal of making better citizens, teaching social justice, encouraging civic engagement, and most importantly, exposing students to different and alternative experiences, it could be a major feature of a modern education. Service learning is the natural counterbalance to our current overemphasis on standardized testing. Social justice, civic engagement, and service learning are caught in a symbiotic cycle. The more we have of one of them; the more we have of all of them. However, until we get momentum behind them, we are stalled. Service learning may be our best chance to jumpstart our democracy. In the rest of this paper, we will look at the beginning stages of a project that seeks to do just that.
	59	+
	60	+Trump victory proves the case is a disad to every K- failure to prioritize civic engagement causes rightwing takeover. Rorty 98
	61	+(Richard, Stanford Philosophy Professor, Achieving Our Country, pp. 87-94)
	62	+If the formation of hereditary castes continues unimpeded, and if the pressures of globalization create such castes not only in the United States but in all the old democracies, we shall end up in an Orwellian world. In such a world, there may be no supernational analogue of Big Brother, or any official creed analogous to Ingsoc. But there will be an analogue of the Inner Party—namely, the international, cosmopolitan super-rich. They will make all the important decisions. The analogue of Orwell’s Outer Party will be educated, comfortably off, cosmopolitan professionals—Lind’s “overclass,” the people like you and me. The job of people like us will be to make sure that the decisions made by the Inner Party are carried out smoothly and efficiently. It will be in the interest of the international super-rich to keep our class relatively prosperous and happy. For they need people who can pretend to be the political class of each of the individual nation-states. For the sake of keeping the proles quiet, the super-rich will have to keep up the pretense that national politics might someday make a difference. Since economic decisions are their prerogative, they will encourage politicians, of both the Left and the Right, to specialize in cultural issues.7 The aim will be to keep the minds of the proles elsewhere—to keep the bottom 75 percent of Americans and the bottom 95 percent of the world’s population busy with ethnic and religious hostilities, and with debates about sexual mores. If the proles can be distracted from their own despair by media-created psuedo-events, including the occasional brief and bloody war, the super-rich will have little to fear. Contemplation of this possible world invites two responses from the Left. The first is to insist that the inequalities between nations need to be mitigated—and, in particular, that the Northern Hemisphere must share its wealth with the Southern. The second is to insist that the primary responsibility of each democratic nation-state is to its own least advantaged citizens. These two responses obviously conflict with each other. In particular, the first response suggests that the old democracies should open their borders, whereas the second suggests that they should close them.8 The first response comes naturally to academic leftists, who have always been internationally minded. The second response comes naturally to members of trade unions, and to the marginally employed people who can most easily be recruited into right-wing populist movements. Union members in the United States have watched factory after factory close, only to reopen in Slovenia, Thailand, or Mexico. It is no wonder that they see the result of international free trade as prosperity for managers and stockholders, a better standard of living for workers in developing countries, and a very much worse standard of living for American workers. It would be no wonder if they saw the American leftist intelligentsia as on the same side of the managers and stockholders—as sharing the same class interests. For we intellectuals, who are mostly academics, are ourselves quite well insulated, at least in the short run, from the effects of globalization. To make things worse, we often seem more interested in the workers of the developing world than in the fate of our fellow citizens. Many writers on socioeconomic policy have warned that the old industrialized democracies are heading into a Weimar-like period, one in which populist movements are likely to overturn constitutional governments. Edward Luttwak, for example, has suggested that fascism may be the American future. The point of his book The Endangered American Dream is that members of labor unions, and unorganized unskilled workers, will sooner or later realize that their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported. Around the same time, they will realize that suburban white-collar workers—themselves desperately afraid of being downsized—are not going to let themselves be taxed to provide social benefits for anyone else. At that point, something will crack. The nonsuburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for—someone will assure them that, once he is elected, the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salemen, and postmodernist professors will no longer be calling the shots. A scenario like that of Sinclair Lewis’ novel It Can’t Happen Here may then be played out. For once such a strongman takes office, nobody can predict what will happen. In 1932, most of the predictions made about what would happen if Hindenburg named Hitler chancellor were wildly overoptimistic. One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past forty years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion. The words “nigger” and “kike” will once again be heard in the workplace. All the sadism which the academic Left has tried to make unacceptable to its students will come flooding back. All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet. But such a renewal of sadism will not alter the effects of selfishness. For after my imagined strongman takes charge, he will quickly make peace with the international superrich, just as Hitler made with the German industrialists. He will invoke the glorious memory of the Gulf War to provoke military adventures which will generate short-term prosperity. He will be a disaster for the country and the world. People will wonder why there was so little resistance to his evitable rise. Where, they will ask, was the American Left? Why was it only rightists like Buchanan who spoke to the workers about the consequences of globalization? Why could not the Left channel the mounting rage of the newly dispossesed? It is often said that we Americans, at the end of the twentieth century, no longer have a Left. Since nobody denies the existence of what I have called the cultural Left, this amounts to an admission that that Left is unable to engage in national politics. It is not the sort of the Left which can be asked to deal with the consequences of globalization. To get the country to deal with those consequences, the present cultural Left would have to transform itself by opening relations with the residue of the old reformist Left, and in particular with the labor unions. It would have to talk much more about money, even at the cost of talking less about stigma. I have two suggestions about how to effect this transition. The first is that the Left should put a moratorium on theory. It should try to kick its philosophy habit. The second is that the Left should try to mobilize what remains of our pride in being Americans. It should ask the public to consider how the country of Lincoln and Whitman might be achieved. In support of my first suggestion, let me cite a passage from Dewey’s Reconstruction in Philosophy in which he expresses his exasperation with the sort of sterile debate now going on under the rubric of “individualism versus communitarianism.” Dewey thought that all discussions which took this dichotomy seriously suffer from a common defect. They are all committed to the logic of general notions under which specific situations are to be brought. What we want is light upon this or that group of individuals, this or that concrete human being, this or that special institution or social arrangement. For such a logic of inquiry, the traditionally accepted logic substitutes discussion of the meaning of concepts and their dialectical relationships with one another. Dewey was right to be exasperated by sociopolitical theory conducted at this level of abstraction. He was wrong when he went on to say that ascending to this level is typically a rightist maneuver, one which supplies “the apparatus for intellectual justifications of the established order.”9 For such ascents are now more common on the Left than on the Right. The contemporary academic Left seems to think that the higher your level of abstraction, the more subversive of the established order you can be. The more sweeping and novel your conceptual apparatus, the more radical your critique. When one of today’s academic leftists says that some topic has been “inadequately theorized,” you can be pretty certain that he or she is going to drag in either philosophy of language, or Lacanian psychoanalysis, or some neo-Marxist version of economic determinism. Theorists of the Left think that dissolving political agents into plays of differential subjectivity, or political initiatives into pursuits of Lacan’s impossible object of desire, helps to subvert the established order. Such subversion, they say, is accomplished by “problematizing familiar concepts.” Recent attempts to subvert social institutitons by problematizing concepts have produced a few very good books. They have also produced many thousands of books which represent scholastic philosophizing at its worts. The authors of these purportedly “subversive” books honestly believe that the are serving human liberty. But it is almost impossible to clamber back down from their books to a level of abstraction on which one might discuss the merits of a law, a treaty, a candidate or a political strategy. Even though what these authors “theorize” is often something very concrete and near at hand—a curent TV show, a media celebrity, a recent scandal—they offer the most absract and barren explanations imaginable. These futile attempts to philosophize one’s way into political relevance are a symptom of what happens when a Left retreats from activism and adopts a spectatorial approach to the problems of its country. Disengagement from practice produces theoretical hallucinations. These result in an intellec- tual environment which is, as Mark Edmundson says in his book Nightmare on Main Street, Gothic. The cultural Left is haunted by ubiquitous specters, the most frightening of which is called "power." This is the name of what Edmund- son calls Foucault's "haunting agency, which is everywhere and nowhere, as evanescent and insistent as a resourceful spook."10
	63	+
	64	+Underview
	65	+
	66	+Problematic speech shouldn’t be suppressed- that magnifies the impacts-prefer my evidence because it has internal weighing. Alexander 13
	67	+(Larry, Is Freedom of Expression a Universal Right San Diego Law Review Summer, 2013 San Diego Law Review 50 San Diego L. Rev. 707)
	68	+
	69	+One commentator has characterized the consequentialist considerations for freeing up some speech that might be suppressed because of two-step harms in the following way: First, being able to speak our minds makes us feel good. True, we tailor our words to civility, persuasion, kindness, or other purposes, but that is our choice. Censors claim the right to purge other people's talk - all the while insisting that it is for our own good. Second, much censorship appears irrational and alarmist in retrospect because the reasons people choose and use words are vastly more interesting than the systems designed to limit them. It's not hard to make a list of absurdities - I'm particularly fond of a rash of state laws that forbid the disparagement of agricultural products - but simplistic explanations and simple-minded responses are as dangerous as they are ditzy. In one of the few places that postmodern theory and common sense intersect, it is obvious that the meaning and perception of words regularly depend on such variables as speaker and spoken to, individual experience and shared history, and the setting, company, and spirit in which something is said. To give courts or other authorities the power to determine all this is, to put it mildly, mind-boggling. Third, censorship is inimical to democracy. Cloaking ideas and information in secrecy encourages ignorance, corruption, demagoguery, a corrosive distrust of authority, and a historical memory resembling Swiss cheese. Open discussion, on the other hand, allows verities to be examined, errors to be corrected, disagreement to be expressed, and anxieties to be put in perspective. It also forces communities to confront their problems directly, which is more likely to lead to real solutions than covering them up. Fourth, censorship backfires. Opinions, tastes, social values, and mores change over time and vary among people. Truth can be a protean thing. The earth's rotation, its shape, the origins of humankind, and the nature of matter were all once widely understood to be something different *719 from what we know today, yet those who challenged the prevailing faith were mocked and punished for their apostasy. Banning ideas in an attempt to make the world safe from doubt, disaffection, or disorder is limiting, especially for people whose lives are routinely limited, since the poor and politically weak are the censor's first targets. Finally, censorship doesn't work. It doesn't get rid of bad ideas or bad behavior. It usually doesn't even get rid of bad words, and history has shown repeatedly that banning the unpalatable merely drives it underground. It could be argued that that's just fine, that vitriolic or subversive speech, for example, shouldn't dare to speak its name. But hateful ideas by another name - disguised as disinterested intellectual inquiry, or given a nose job like Ku Klux Klansman David Duke before he ran for governor of Louisiana - are probably more insidious than those that are clearly marginal. n22 Let me close with a couple of examples. So-called hate speech - speech that disparages ethnic, racial, or religious groups - is generally prohibited in most Western countries but not in the United States, where it is constitutionally protected as a matter of freedom of speech. If we leave aside the one-step harm of offense and focus on the two-step harms of inciting others to violence or to discrimination against members of the disparaged groups, we can understand why some countries, given their history and culture, would be quite fearful of the effects hate speech might have. For example, think of Germany and anti-Semitic speech. On the other hand, in the twenty-first-century United States, the dangers of hate speech pale in comparison to the dangers of suppressing it. Suppression drives haters underground, where they may be more dangerous than if they were more visible. Suppression is frequently not evenhanded: disparagement of some favored groups is punished, but disparagement of other groups is not. Frequently, suppression of hate speech is an expression of power wielded by some groups over other groups rather than an expression of concern about violence or discrimination. Sometimes, suppression of hate speech is just partisan politics. In the United States, some groups have tried to label messages such as opposition to racial preferences as racist hate speech. And political correctness surely infects enforcement of hate speech laws. Consider the prosecution of Mark Steyn in British Columbia because of his book expressing political concerns over *720 the ever-increasing percentage of Muslims in Europe. n23 So whether hate speech laws are a good or bad thing will undoubtedly vary with the country, its history, its culture, and its politics. The same point can be made with respect to restrictions on culture-coarsening expression - pornography, violent video games, public profanity, and so forth. Culture coarsening is a real harm, and its baleful effects may even prove catastrophic. On the other hand, whether legal restrictions on expression that contributes to coarsening is a good idea will vary with the place, the time, the institutions, the current state of the culture, and so forth. Governments are generally pretty ham-fisted when it comes to defining culture-coarsening messages. The history in the United States of attempts to ban pornography is not reassuring. Other countries with other institutions may do a better job.
	70	+
	71	+Only policy demands solve – exclusive focus on social demands gets coopted, and destroyed by the right wing. Uniqueness overwhelms the link – their alt’s movements exists in the squo and they’re losing – it’s try or die for the perm. Chomsky 16
	72	+Aviva Chomsky is professor of history and coordinator of Latin American studies at Salem State University in Massachusetts. Student Protest, the Black Lives Matter Movement and the Rise of the Corporate University, Truthout.org, May 22 2016 EE
	73	+During the past academic year, an upsurge of student activism, a movement of millennials, has swept campuses across the country and attracted the attention of the media. From coast to coast, from the Ivy League to state universities to small liberal arts colleges, a wave of student activism has focused on stopping climate change, promoting a living wage, fighting mass incarceration practices, supporting immigrant rights, and of course campaigning for Bernie Sanders. Both the media and the schools that have been the targets of some of these protests have seized upon certain aspects of the upsurge for criticism or praise, while ignoring others. Commentators, pundits, and reporters have frequently trivialized and mocked the passion of the students and the ways in which it has been directed, even as universities have tried to appropriate it by promoting what some have called "neoliberal multiculturalism." Think of this as a way, in particular, of taming the power of the present demands for racial justice and absorbing them into an increasingly market-oriented system of higher education. In some of their most dramatic actions, students of color, inspired in part by the Black Lives Matter movement, have challenged the racial climate at their schools. In the process, they have launched a wave of campus activism, including sit-ins, hunger strikes, demonstrations, and petitions, as well as emotional, in-your-face demands of various sorts. One national coalition of student organizations, the Black Liberation Collective, has called for the percentage of black students and faculty on campus to approximate that of blacks in the society. It has also called for free tuition for black and Native American students, and demanded that schools divest from private prison corporations. Other student demands for racial justice have included promoting a living wage for college employees, reducing administrative salaries, lowering tuitions and fees, increasing financial aid, and reforming the practices of campus police. These are not, however, the issues that have generally attracted the attention either of media commentators or the colleges themselves. Instead, the spotlight has been on student demands for cultural changes at their institutions that focus on deep-seated assumptions about whiteness, sexuality, and ability. At some universities, students have personalized these demands, insisting on the removal of specific faculty members and administrators. Emphasizing a politics of what they call "recognition," they have also demanded that significant on-campus figures issue public apologies or acknowledge that "black lives matter." Some want universities to implement in-class "trigger warnings" when difficult material is being presented and to create "safe spaces" for marginalized students as a sanctuary from the daily struggle with the mainstream culture. By seizing upon and responding to these (and only these) student demands, university administrators around the country are attempting to domesticate and appropriate this new wave of activism. In the meantime, right-wing commentators have depicted students as coddled, entitled, and enemies of free speech. The libertarian right has launched a broad media critique of the current wave of student activism. Commentators have been quick to dismiss student protesters as over-sensitive and entitled purveyors of "academic victimology." They lament the "coddling of the American mind." The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf has termed students "misguided" in their protests against racist language, ideas, and assumptions, their targeting of "microaggression" (that is, unconscious offensive comments) and insensitivity, and their sometimes highly personal attacks against those they accuse. One of the most vocal critics of the new campus politics, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, argues that such rampant "liberalism" and "political correctness" violate academic freedom and freedom of speech. (In this, they are in accord with the liberal American Civil Liberties Union. Free speech advocates Daphne Patai and the ACLU's Harvey Silvergate, for example, bemoan a new diversity requirement at the University of Massachusetts for its "politicization of education.") In a response that, under the circumstances, might at first seem surprising, college administrators have been remarkably open to some of these student demands ~-~- often the very ones derided by the right. In this way, the commentators and the administrators have tended to shine a bright light on what is both personal and symbolic in the new politics of the student protesters, while ignoring or downplaying their more structural and economically challenging desires and demands. The Neoliberal University University administrators have been particularly amenable to student demands that fit with current trends in higher education. Today's neoliberal university is increasingly facing market pressures like loss of state funding, privatization, rising tuition, and student debt, while promoting a business model that emphasizes the managerial control of faculty through constant "assessment," emphasis on "accountability," and rewards for "efficiency." Meanwhile, in a society in which labor unions are constantly being weakened, the higher education labor force is similarly being ~-~- in the term of the moment ~-~- "flexibilized" through the weakening of tenure, that once ironclad guarantee of professorial lifetime employment, and the increased use of temporary adjunct faculty. In this context, universities are scrambling to accommodate student activism for racial justice by incorporating the more individualized and personal side of it into increasingly depoliticized cultural studies programs and business-friendly, market-oriented academic ways of thinking. Not surprisingly, how today's students frame their demands often reflects the environment in which they are being raised and educated. Postmodern theory, an approach which still reigns in so many liberal arts programs, encourages textual analysis that reveals hidden assumptions encoded in words; psychology has popularized the importance of individual trauma; and the neoliberal ideology that has come to permeate so many schools emphasizes individual behavior as the most important agent for social change. Add together these three strands of thought, now deeply embedded in a college education, and injustice becomes a matter of the wrongs individuals inflict on others at a deeply personal level. Deemphasized are the policies and structures that are built into how society (and the university) works. For this reason, while schools have downplayed or ignored student demands for changes in admissions, tuition, union rights, pay scales, and management prerogatives, they have jumped into the heated debate the student movement has launched over "microaggressions" ~-~- pervasive, stereotypical remarks that assume whiteness as a norm and exoticize people of color, while taking for granted the white nature of institutions of higher learning. As part of the present wave of protest, students of color have, for instance, highlighted their daily experiences of casual and everyday racism ~-~- statements or questions like "where are you from?" (when the answer is: the same place you're from) or "as a fill in the blank, how do you feel about..." Student protests against such comments, especially when they are made by professors or school administrators, and the mindsets that go with them are precisely what the right is apt to dismiss as political correctness run wild and university administrations are embracing as the essence of the present on-campus movement. At Yale, the Intercultural Affairs Committee advised students to avoid racially offensive Halloween costumes. When a faculty member and resident house adviser circulated an email critiquing the paternalism of such an administrative mandate, student protests erupted calling for her removal. While Yale declined to remove her from her post as a house adviser, she stepped down from her teaching position. At Emory, students protested the "pain" they experienced at seeing "Trump 2016" graffiti on campus, and the university president assured them that he "heard their message... about values regarding diversity and respect that clash with Emory's own." Administrators are scrambling to implement new diversity initiatives and on-campus training programs ~-~- and hiring expensive private consulting firms to help them do so. At the University of Missouri, the president and chancellor both resigned in the face of student protests including a hunger strike and a football team game boycott in the wake of racial incidents on campus including public racist slurs and symbols. So did the dean of students at Claremont McKenna College (CMC), when protest erupted over her reference to students (implicitly of color) who "don't fit our CMC mold." Historian and activist Robin Kelley suggests that today's protests, even as they "push for measures that would make campuses more hospitable to students of color: greater diversity, inclusion, safety, and affordability," operate under a contradictory logic that is seldom articulated. To what extent, he wonders, does the student goal of "leaning in" and creating more spaces for people of color at the top of an unequal and unjust social order clash with the urge of the same protesters to challenge that unjust social order? Kelley argues that the language of "trauma" and mental health that has come to dominate campuses also works to individualize and depoliticize the very idea of racial oppression. The words "trauma, PTSD, micro-aggression, and triggers," he points out, "have virtually replaced oppression, repression, and subjugation." He explains that, "while trauma can be an entrance into activism, it is not in itself a destination and may even trick activists into adopting the language of the neoliberal institutions they are at pains to reject." This is why, he adds, for university administrators, diversity and cultural competency initiatives have become go-to solutions that "shift race from the public sphere into the psyche" and strip the present round of demonstrations of some of their power. Cultural Politics and Inequality In recent years, cultural, or identity, politics has certainly challenged the ways that Marxist and other old and new left organizations of the past managed to ignore, or even help reproduce, racial and gender inequalities. It has questioned the value of class-only or class-first analysis on subjects as wide-ranging as the Cuban Revolution ~-~- did it successfully address racial inequality as it redistributed resources to the poor, or did it repress black identity by privileging class analysis? ~-~- and the Bernie Sanders campaign ~-~- will his social programs aimed at reducing economic inequality alleviate racial inequality by helping the poor, or will his class-based project leave the issue of racial inequality in the lurch? In other words, the question of whether a political project aimed at attacking the structures of economic inequality can also advance racial and gender equality is crucial to today's campus politics. Put another way, the question is: How political is the personal? Political scientist Adolph Reed argues that if class is left out, race politics on campus becomes "the politics of the left-wing of neoliberalism." As he puts it, race-first politics of the sort being pushed today by university administrators promotes a "moral economy... in which 1 of the population controlled 90 of the resources could be just, provided that roughly 12 of the 1 were black, 12 were Latino, 50 were women, and whatever the appropriate proportions were LGBT people." The student movement that has swept across the nation has challenged colleges and universities on the basics of their way of (quite literally) doing business. The question for these institutions now is: Can student demands largely be tamed and embedded inside an administration-sanctioned agenda that in no way undermines how schools now operate in the world? Feminist theorist Nancy Fraser has shown how feminist ideas of a previous generation were successfully "recuperated by neoliberalism" ~-~- that is, how they were repurposed as rationales for greater inequality. "Feminist ideas that once formed part of a radical worldview," she argues, are now "increasingly expressed in individualist terms." Feminist demands for workplace access and equal pay have, for example, been used to undermine worker gains for a "family wage," while a feminist emphasis on gender equality has similarly been used on campus to divert attention from growing class inequality. Student demands for racial justice risk being absorbed into a comparable framework. University administrators have found many ways to use student demands for racial justice to strengthen their business model and so the micro-management of faculty. In one case seized upon by free-speech libertarians, the Brandeis administration placed an assistant provost in a classroom to monitor a professor after students accused him of using the word "wetback" in a Latin American politics class. More commonly, universities employ a plethora of consulting firms and create new administrative positions to manage "diversity" and "inclusion." Workshops and training sessions proliferate, as do "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings." Such a vision of "diversity" is then promoted as a means to prepare students to compete in the "global marketplace." There are even deeper ways in which a diversity agenda aligns with neoliberal politics. Literary theorist Walter Benn Michaels argues, for example, that diversity can give a veneer of social justice to ideas about market competition and meritocracy that in reality promote inequality. "The rule in neoliberal economies is that the difference between the rich and the poor gets wider rather than shrinks ~-~- but that no culture should be treated invidiously," he explains. "It's basically OK if economic differences widen as long as the increasingly successful elites come to look like the increasingly unsuccessful non-elites. So the model of social justice is not that the rich don't make as much and the poor make more, the model of social justice is that the rich make whatever they make, but an appropriate percentage of them are minorities or women." Or as Forbes Magazine put it, "Businesses need to vastly increase their ability to sense new opportunities, develop creative solutions, and move on them with much greater speed. The only way to accomplish these changes is through a revamped workplace culture that embraces diversity so that sensing, creativity, and speed are all vastly improved." Clearly, university administrators prefer student demands that can be coopted or absorbed into their current business model. Allowing the prevailing culture to define the parameters of their protest has left the burgeoning Millennial Movement in a precarious position. The more that students ~-~- with the support of college and university administrations ~-~- accept the individualized cultural path to social change while forgoing the possibility of anything greater than cosmetic changes to prevailing hierarchies, on campus and beyond, the more they face ridicule from those on the right who present them as fragile, coddled, privileged whiners. Still, this young, vibrant movement has momentum and will continue to evolve. In this time of great social and political flux, it's possible that its many constituencies ~-~- fighting for racial justice, economic justice, and climate justice ~-~- will use their growing clout to build on recent victories, no matter how limited. Keep an eye on college campuses. The battle for the soul of American higher education being fought there today is going to matter for the wider world tomorrow. Whether that future will be defined by a culture of trigger warnings and safe spaces or by democratized education and radical efforts to fight inequality may be won or lost in the shadow of the Ivory Tower. The Millennial Movement matters. Our future is in their hands.
	74	+
	75	+Endorsing speech doesn’t mask oppressive institutions, it’s a pre-requisite to challenging them. Redish 82
	76	+(Martin H, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 130, No. 3 (Jan., 1982), pp. 591-645)
	77	+
	78	+
	79	+First, it should be noted that the impact of the elitists' argu- ment goes at most to the instrumental value of democracy, and in no way challenges the intrinsic value of allowing individuals to maintain self-rule.63 More importantly, the elitist theorists do not seem to question the normative imperative recognized by classical theorists, but rather only its attainability. Indeed, the impact of the elitist theorists is arguably to shift the emphasis from attaining this goal through the political process to its achievement through individual involvement in the private sector. Modern theorists have redefined the concept of the "political" to include decision- making within areas such as the work place, where decisions are likely to have a more immediately recognizable impact on the indi- vidual's daily life.64 Therefore, the elitist theory can be seen as being totally compatible with the thesis asserted here; democratic political control is only one means of achieving the values inherent in a democratic system, and it is therefore necessary to recognize that free speech may aid attainment of those values in nonpolitical settings. Elitist thinking, then, does not undermine-indeed, it may fa- cilitate-the extension of Meiklejohn's reasoning about the role of free speech to such nonpolitical activities as various kinds of com- munity groups, as well as to the work place.65 What remains unclear, however, is whether this logic may be extended as well to such purely private decisions as commercial purchases or an indi- vidual's choice of friends. The difficulty is that it has been gen- erally assumed, since democracy's origins in ancient Athens, that the moral benefits to the individual derived from being forced to look beyond his or her own narrow interests and to work with others to attain the common good.66 It is perhaps for this reason that Professor Bachrach, the leading exponent of the redefined "po- litical" sphere, believed it necessary to stay within the bounds of the "political," no matter how strained his definition of the term.67 But whatever unique benefits one derives from involvement in organizations that look to the common, as opposed to the individual, good, it is impossible to deny that many of the developmental values-particularly the intellectual benefits-that are thought to result from participation in the political process also may be ob- tained from private self-government. After all, the elitists tell us that "political participation constitutes an effort to protect threatened interests," 68 and by adopting a democratic system we are expressing a belief that presumably individuals are capable of deciding what is best for them. There is therefore no basis to believe that development can be derived solely from common, as opposed to individual, activity. (609-10)
	80	+
	81	+Pragmatism centered on weak-ontological claims is the best process for political contestation – you can affirm that without the telos of liberalism or humanism. Reject totalizing ontological claims because they destroy prospects contingent progress. Nyman 16
	82	+(Jonna, “Pragmatism, practice and the value of security,” in Ethical Security Studies: A new research agenda, Routledge, pg. 139-141)
	83	+
	84	+A pragmatic, practice-centred approach can help us return to the original forces of critical security studies: the politics of security and life experiences of it. Existing approaches remain split over the value of security and the meaning or purpose of ‘critical’/’Critical’ research. Many reject the possibility for security to be ethically good, suggesting that it is too ‘tainted’ by its association with existing problematic national security practices and ontologies. Alongside this a concern with power has led poststructuralist authors to focus on deconstruction over reconstruction, in return for which they are critiqued for lacking ‘emancipatory impetus’ (Hnyek and Chandler 2013). However, pragmatism can help us recognise core concerns and help us move forward through three contributions. First, it avoids foundational 'truth’; second it presents a different way to think about ethics though a 'weak foundationalism' allowing for contingent ethical claims; and third, it allows us to move forward with a practical research agenda. The rest of this chapter will expand on these contributions. A pragmatic approach rejects the idea of foundational 'truth', and involves a recognition that nothing is ever definitively settled. Rather than being anti-foundationalist, Cochran suggests, a pragmatic approach can be seen as 'weak foundationalist', and leads to contingent ethical claims which are context-dependent, temporary and provisional' (Cochran 1999: 16). Based on this, Cochran has used pragmatism to build bridges in normative theorising within IR. She argues that for pragmatists, establishing 'truth' is not the same as for a positivist: it involves settling a controversial or complex issue for the time being, until something comes along to dislodge the comfort and reassurance that has thereby been achieved, forcing inquiry to begin again' (Cochran 2002: 527, 1999). So, while progress is always provisional, 'it is not empty' (Cochran 2002: 528). Such a 'weak foundationalist' approach helps us to move beyond debates over whether or not security is 'positive* or 'negative', as nothing is ever definitively settled. Though she doesn't use the terminology of pragmatism, Mustapha makes a similar argument in proposing a 'modified’ poststructuralist approach to security based on weak foundationalism. As with an 'unsettled' pragmatic approach, this means that 'any ontological claims that are made must always be open to interrogation' (Mustapha 2013: 74-5). This allows us to engage with the (contingent) "realities" of actual "security" problems' (Mustapha 2013: 77), and makes reconstruction possible even for most poststructuralists. Here, '(contingent) foundational claims are not static and are open to interrogation, but are necessary for politics and ethics. Security is a practice/means as well as an end’ (Mustapha 2013: 82). The weak foundationalism which underpins pragmatism emphasises the contingent nature of claims, and shows that security doesn't have to always be negative - but likewise, any 'ethical' or 'positive' notion of security should not be considered to be fixed or permanent. Instead, reflexivity is imperative, with continuous evaluation and re-evaluation of our claims. It also helps us to move past arguments by poststructuralist and Copenhagen School authors who suggest that the way in which security has traditionally been attached to problematic national security politics means it is 'tainted by association. Instead, the meaning and value of security is not fixed and can change, and will never be settled. It also helps to avoid some of the controversial baggage of emancipatory approaches (Barkawi and Laffey 2006: 350). It also helps us to move beyond debates over deconstruction/reconstruction and the meaning and purpose of critique - most importantly because it is inherently pluralist, and therefore argues that there is no one 'truth’ and so no correct approach to critique or ethics. Poststructuralist discomfort with going beyond critique and related concerns with power become less significant once we recognise this. Anti-foundauonalists don't believe that there are secure foundations on which we can base ethics: a pragmatic approach helps us to recognise the lack of secure foundations and still move forward with reconstructive agendas. Ultimately, it allows for suggestions of alternatives based on experiences, while recognising that these alternatives will never be final. Consequently, although we can never reach emancipation' or 'security', we can instead focus on becoming more secure, given what we know about different conditions and contexts at any given time. This moves us onto the second contribution a pragmatist approach can make: it provides us with a different way to think about ethics. As noted, Cochran makes a link between a pragmatic weak foundationalism and contingent ethical claims. Once we reject 'truth', it becomes clear that ethical claims, or the ‘good’, can never be settled but must rather be continually re-thought and unproved upon. Thus, while we can draw ethical conclusions, these conclusions are 'no more than temporary resting places for ethical critique' (Cochran 1999: 17). Drawing on Brassett's work on pragmatism, we can suggest 'possibilities, while remaining sensitive to their limitations' (Brassett 2009a: 226). Once we drop the obsession with 'truth' and finding 'truth' in scholarly enquiry, the task becomes one of engaging in the trial and error process of suggesting possibilities' (Brassett 2009a: 226). Drawing on Rorty, he argues that 'ethics is political - negotiated is a relational human construct - and politics is ethical: a process of contest that has direct ethical outcomes'; therefore, recognising that there is no foundation 'does not mean dropping values, or the notion of progress' (Brassett 2009b: 282). This helps us move past debates over the value of security by showing that it depends on the context. Thus, both sides of the debate are right: security can be problematic, but it can also be 'good'. However, any notion of positive or good' security has to be continually interrogated. It also helps to reframe the debate over deconstruction/reconstruction by shifting it in favour of moving forward towards 'better' things rather than establishing abstract 'positive' alternatives. In the process, it emphasises the fact that all alternatives have limitations. The focus on experience. including alternative experiences, is central to pragmatism's contribution to debates over security ethics. Brassett makes a related argument drawing on Rortv. presenting a different view of ethics as grounded in experiences: we need to overcome the second view that effective resistance requires us to somehow 'distance' ourselves from power. This view that we can somehow practice critique from a standpoint that transcends questions of power and domination in Truth, the ideal speech situation, or some other idea(l) suggests that there are correct 'spaces' or 'practices' of resistance, be it democracy, the revolutionary working class or a post-national constellation.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-02-12 01:19:54.706

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Ashan Perris

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Palo Alto FZ

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+12

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Harvard Westlake Engel Aff

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+JAN-FEB - AC - Stop the Press V3

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Stanford