Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[13]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[13]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[13]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-02-18 19:11:38.213
	1	+2017-02-18 19:11:38.0

Caselist.CitesClass[13]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,68 @@
	1	+Part 1 – Failed Activism
	2	+Rampant limitations on free speech continue to prop up all over the country – the message has become increasingly clear that dissent will be punished. Haidt and Lukianoff 17
	3	+Jonathan Haidt is a social psychologist at New York University and author of The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. Greg Lukianoff is a constitutional lawyer and president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). On U.S. Campuses, Free Inquiry Is Taking a Beating, Philanthropic Roundtable, January 2017, EE
	4	+
	5	+Freedom of expression is under serious threat on campuses, and has been for some time. You may have heard of the phenomenon of free speech zones at colleges. These are tiny areas, such as a 20-foot-wide gazebo, which students are told are the only places they can exercise their free speech rights. About a fifth of universities maintain such restrictions. Take one of California’s public universities where we recently became involved—Cal Poly Pomona. We sued to protect a student who was not only told that he had to get permission two weeks in advance to use the campus free speech zone, but also that he had to wear a badge saying that he’d been granted the right to engage in free speech at Cal Poly Pomona. Then there are the speech codes that now exist on most campuses. We rate them, at thefire.org, using a green-, yellow-, or red-light system. Red- light colleges have codes that are very bad for free speech, yellow means some problematic codes, and we give green lights to schools that have no policies that threaten free speech. Sadly, very few universities earn green lights. Red-light codes are generally laughably unconstitutional codes, and would be thrown out of any court if someone was willing to invest time and money to challenge them. The code promulgated by the University of Connecticut, for instance, banned the use of “derogatory names, inconsiderate jokes, and inappropriately directed laughter.” Be careful where you laugh. Though ruled unconstitutional, knockoffs popped up at other schools as well, most recently at Drexel University, where it took more legal intervention on behalf of students to get it suspended. Why are college administrators trampling on free expression? One reason is federal overreach. The U.S. Department of Education under the Obama administration has made things much worse. It provided a new definition of harassment that is completely stripped of the safeguards the U.S. Supreme Court had earlier put in place to protect freedom of speech. Instead of a standard of harassment being a pattern of discriminatory behavior that is “severe, persistent, and pervasive,” the Department of Education bureaucrats decided to define harassment as any unwelcome verbal conduct or speech. And the department explicitly got rid of the longstanding “reasonable person” standard, meaning that anyone who subjectively experienced “unwelcome” speech has been harassed. That opens the door to miscarriages of justice like the case of Laura Kipnis. A feminist professor at Northwestern University, she wrote an article for the Chronicle of Higher Education saying that Title IX has become too expansive and is patronizing to women. She mentioned (without names) a sexual harassment claim then underway at Northwestern. And for writing this article—engaging in free speech in the country’s most popular higher-education journal—she was charged with violating Title IX and officially investigated. She was not allowed to know who was accusing her or what the charges were. She was not allowed to write anything down in her hearing, or have a lawyer present. After a few months of inquisition, she decided to write about her Kafkaesque experience in the Chronicle of Higher Education. Only after this unwanted publicity did the university halt the investigation. This problem is not limited to sexual harassment cases. In most jurisdictions, the federal proscribing of unwelcome speech is automatically expanded to other categories. At the University of Montana, for instance, the ban included unwelcome political opinions. If any speech you subjectively choose not to welcome counts as harassment, there is literally nothing that is safe to say on campuses.
	6	+
	7	+These speech codes consistently fail, squash dissent and prop up university control. Fisher ½
	8	+Anthony L. Fisher is an associate editor at Reason.com, and a columnist for the Week. He is also the writer and director of the feature film Sidewalk Traffic. Jan 2, 2017http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/12/13/13931524/free-speech-pen-america-campus-censorship
	9	+
	10	+
	11	+Donald Trump is a divisive figure, but does writing his name in chalk on a university sidewalk amount to the harassment of minority students? Some students at Emory University claimed as much last spring, when the then-candidate’s name, along with phrases like "Build a Wall," appeared near the buildings where many student groups had their headquarters. The pro-Trump messages were a "direct threat to their safety,” the students contended. Asked by some to defend the First Amendment and by others to side with the aggrieved students, Emory's president came down squarely in the middle. On the one hand, "we must value and encourage the expression of ideas,” he said. Yet on the other, the university must "provide a safe environment" for students. Then he announced Emory would devise new procedures for reporting of incidents of bias.¶ At the University of Colorado Boulder, meanwhile, a tenured sociologist named Patti Adler ran into trouble when she had students in a sociology class watch skits depicting aspects of the underworld of prostitution. When some students complained, the university ordered Adler to stop teaching the class, and the provost sent an email to students explaining that “academic freedom does not allow faculty members to violate the University's sexual harassment policy by creating a hostile environment for their teaching assistants, or for their students attend the class."¶ Freedom of speech is often misunderstood, frequently taken for granted, and always on the defensive against forces both within and outside of government.¶ On college campuses — nominally bastions of free inquiry, robust debate, constructive lessons in failure, and unexpected discovery — there exists a prevailing controversy over the scope and meaning of free speech.¶ Some believe the universal right to free expression should extend to all, even ideas that are deemed a threat to the public interest (as homosexuality was only a generation ago) or which are a threat to prevailing conventional wisdom and political norms (as miscegenation was in much of the country, as well). A competing viewpoint holds that free speech is just a cop-out code phrase, mostly working in the service of professional trolls or entitled jerks to abusively act out with impunity.¶ A prominent literary organization leaps into the fray¶ PEN America, the literary and human rights association that lists as one of its core principles a commitment to "protect open expression in the United States and worldwide," set out to explore the state of free speech on the nation’s campuses — reexamining several high-profile incidents and controversies. While not comprehensive, the report, published this fall, is impressively thorough, treating much of its content as teachable case studies, rather than a set of self-affirming anecdotes.¶ Some press coverage, however, suggested that the PEN America report — titled “And Campus For All: Diversity, Inclusion, and Freedom of Speech at U.S. Universities" — had exonerated campuses from the charge that they insufficiently protect free speech, and that it sided with students who think “cries of ‘free speech’ are too often used as a cudgel against them,” as the New York Times put it.¶ The report itself contributes in a small way to this confused take, largely due to a single line in its conclusion which (improbably) asserts that there is no “pervasive ‘crisis’ for free speech on campus.” But that same report exhaustively details dozens of cases where certain speech was inappropriately muted on campus.¶ More examples: Skidmore College’s Bias Response Group determined that the posting of Donald Trump's official campaign motto, "Make America Great Again," in classrooms where women and people of color worked constituted "racialized, targeted attacks." A tenured associate professor at Louisiana State University, Teresa Buchanan, was dismissed for the offenses of using off-color language (including "fuck no”) in class, and off campus (where she said “pussy” in a conversation with another teacher). Like the University of Colorado’s Adler, Buchanan was deemed to have created a "hostile learning environment."¶ The authors write of the "chilling effect" such administrative actions have on professors who fear reprisals for unintentional offense, and as a result, will avoid certain subjects, including rape law and even some aspects of Greek mythology, out of an abundance of caution.¶ An unflinching defense of free speech, coupled with sympathy¶ Taken in its totality, PEN America's report rejects the idea that free speech is a tool of oppression. Yet the report differs from the standard conservative anti-“PC” diatribe in that it also shows a great deal of sympathy for the concerns of minority groups on campus. Adding further nuance, the authors spend a great deal of time explaining how free speech is a vital tool for people removed from the traditional power structures at America's institutions of higher learning.¶ Given how much space the report gives to the testimony of students who feel marginalized and targeted on campuses, the report will surely displease certain free speech absolutists, who might be inclined to argue that today's college students need to get over their addiction to hurt feelings. Such people would also likely roll their eyes at the report's defense of the positive role of "safe spaces" (very narrowly defined) on campus.¶ But such critics would be missing the point. The report makes clear that colleges can acknowledge grievances, support reasonable efforts to protect the mental and physical well-being of its students, ensure students are protected from overt harassment — and also defend the right to free expression for all.¶ Suzanne Nossel, PEN America's executive editor, told the Times that the organization’s stance is not the “doctrinaire ‘free speech or bust’ position.” Striking an admirable balance, the authors present a stalwart defense of free speech but also discuss the “chilling effect” that bigotry, both casual and overt, can have on the free expression of historically marginalized identity groups.¶ The American Bar Association's (ABA) analysis of speech that crosses the line into harassment is used as a reference point. The public expression of the view that homosexuality is a sin — which would strike many as bigoted, hurtful, and on some level intimidating for gay people to be confronted with — remains protected speech. However, the ABA notes that the repeated personalized use of a derogatory slur, directed at a person "so often and so publicly that it impacts his or her peaceful enjoyment of the school or campus," enjoys no First Amendment protection.¶ At the same time, the report’s authors also detail dozens of cases where free speech was inappropriately muted on campus, and how such incidents create chilling effects on speech.¶ The authors express the need — “in an increasingly multicultural nation” — to foster a campus atmosphere suitable for allowing students to “communicate across vast divides in experience and world view,” noting that this can’t happen if respect for civil discourse manifests itself as "ratification of an unequal status quo.” But nor can it happen when “calling out offensive behavior shades into an oppressive atmosphere of political correctness and even censorship.”¶ You can practically see the authors tiptoeing through a minefield, always aware of the very legitimate social concerns that are too often cavalierly dismissed as political correctness run amok. Yet the authors never waver from their essential principle, which is a rock-ribbed defense of both the moral and practical need to defend free speech as both the most vital tool available for the disenfranchised — and essential for the preservation of honest intellectual inquiry and debate. That conclusion may seem uncontroversial, even obvious, to some — but in today’s campus climate, it’s an important intervention.¶ A limited defense of “safe spaces”¶ The discussion of "safe spaces" has become one of the most divisive subsections of the debate over free speech on campus. PEN America’s partial endorsement of that concept may come as a surprise: The group describes the creation of "small, self-selected groups united by shared views," which could be anything from a group of five Iranian-born students kicking around stories from back home in a dormitory common room to a chapter of the Hillel club, which on some campuses consist of hundreds of Jewish students as members.¶ But the report opposes making entire campuses "safe spaces" from discomfort. The authors argue against such a "hermetically sealed intellectual environment where inhabitants could traffic only in pre-approved ideas."¶ This is key. Students of all political and identity stripes should be permitted to form their own independent groups for any reason, whether it’s just to feel "at home" or express sentiments that wouldn't be as popular in the broader campus community. But these students should not expect their safe space to extend to every minute of their day or every inch of the school.¶ Unfortunately, some students have demanded campus-wide safe spaces, leading to such self-spiting actions as closing the campus from deliberately provocative speakers such as Milo Yiannopoulos, the Breitbart technology editor/notorious internet troll. Rather than allowing Yiannapoulos's noxious grandstanding to serve as its own indictment, several campuses have preferred to keep their students “safe” from his outlandish views.¶ But pretending "problematic" thought doesn’t exist won't make it so; such perspectives should be engaged, defeated, in the public arena of ideas.¶ In perhaps the most cogent line of the entire report, the authors write: “Overreaction to problematic speech may impoverish the environment for speech for all.” In the name of social justice, some students are demanding administrators become the arbiters of what speech is legitimate and what isn’t. These students don’t seem to grasp that by granting authority figures the power to adjudicate which speakers have the right to be heard, they will inevitably find their own speech silenced when opponents claim offense, fear, or discomfort.¶ Calls for crackdowns on “offensive” speech inevitably boomerang¶ It’s already happening. Just ask the Palestinian activists whose boycott campaigns against Israel have been deemed hate speech by a number of public universities, and whose future political activities could be endangered by an act of Congress. Just this month, the Senate unanimously passed the "Anti-Semitism Awareness Act,” which directs the Department of Education to use the bill's contents as a guideline when adjudicating complaints of anti-Semitism on campus. Among the speech-chilling components of the bill, the political (and subjective) act of judging Israel by an "unfair double standard" could be considered hate speech.¶ To cite other examples of unintended consequences of the crackdown on “offensive” speech, a black student at the University of Michigan was punished for calling another student “white trash,” and conservative law students at Georgetown claimed they were “traumatized” when an email critical of deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia landed in their inboxes.¶ The PEN America report also notes the Foundation for Individual Rights’ analysis of hundreds of campuses with “severely restrictive” speech codes. While a number of these campuses don't aggressively enforce their speech codes, the rules remain on the books; more than a dozen such codes have been overturned in the courts.¶ What’s even more concerning is the increasingly popular notion that some ideas, such as opposition to abortion, should simply be “non-platformed" — that is, deemed unworthy of even being heard on campus. Although the trend of denying contentious speakers such as former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice or refugee turned Dutch politician and critic of Islam Ayaan Hirsi Ali public platforms by "disinviting" them from campus is disconcerting, it is not censorship.¶ However, a pro-choice group physically blocking the display of a pro-life group on the campus of the University of Georgia is a form of censorship. As is the case of University of California Santa Barbara professor Mireille Miller-Young, who assaulted a young woman holding a pro-life placard including graphic imagery in a "free speech" zone on campus and stole her sign. When the young woman objected to the theft of her property, Miller-Young replied, "I may be a thief, but you're a terrorist."¶ Like it or not, almost half of all Americans consider themselves pro-life. Banning their perspective from campus won't win over converts, and it’s both immoral and counterproductive to declare completely legitimate political perspectives beyond the pale. Think of antiwar protests or demonstrations in support of integration when both causes were broadly unpopular, and then try to consider a majority on campus declaring their school a "safe space" from such "offensive" expressions of free speech.¶ Comedy can’t exist without room to offend¶ The report recognizes the need to provide room for artists to provoke and not be hindered in their ability to take chances. This argument cannot be made enough. Iconic comedians such as Richard Pryor, Lenny Bruce, and George Carlin all deployed language and epithets that were edgy in their time and would be considered beyond the pale today. Yet each used the power to shock in service of fighting against war, bigotry, and the status quo. If today’s sharpest comedic minds are constricted to the point they are unable to even attempt pushing boundaries, all we’ll get (and deserve) is a generation of safe-as-milk karaoke comedians tousling the hair of the powerful instead of challenging them.¶ Of course, many attempts at subversive satire will fall flat, coming off as more tasteless than witty. But the punishment for a bad joke shouldn't be official disciplinary action or banishment from campus, which is a fate that has befallen a number of college campus comedy publications.¶ To cite an example not included in PEN's report, Chris Lee, an African-American student at Washington State University, staged a take-no-prisoners comedic musical — which he went out of his way to explain would offend delicate sensibilities, including on the play's ticket and on prominent signs. (The play, a South Park–esque parody of The Passion of the Christ, featured a song called "I Will Always Hate Jews" sung to the tune of Whitney Houston's "I Will Always Love You," babies being shot out of a Mormon mother's womb and caught by Jesus, and plenty of other outrageous material.)¶ Lee was subsequently subjected to a school-approved "heckler's veto." Students physically disrupted his show's performance, shouting death threats at the author. That they could have just skipped the show seems to have not occurred to these socially conscious students, or the administrators who encouraged their mob-like actions by telling students to stand up and declare "I am offended" during the play if they felt like it. Campus police reportedly told Lee they would not protect the actors if protesters stormed the stage. (Once this incident was publicized by free speech advocates, the university reversed its position.)¶ On a larger political stage, the "heckler's veto" tactic was praised by those who enjoyed seeing a Donald Trump rally in Chicago disrupted and eventually canceled, but would they really defend it if a mob of raging Trump supporters crashed a Hillary Clinton rally?¶ PEN America argues that too often “protests and forms of expression are treated as if they are incursions on free speech when they are manifestations of free speech.” But the group rightly draws the line at shouting down speakers.¶ The left needs more free speech advocates¶ The report challenges free speech advocates “to articulate how to reconcile unfettered expression with acute demands for greater equality and inclusion,” suggesting they often ignore the second half of that formulation. However, the authors also argue that “liberal to left-leaning organizations" need to do a better job of "integrating free speech awareness into their agendas."¶ UCLA grad student and pro-Palestinian activist Rahim Kurwa is quoted in the report as saying: “One cannot have diversity and social justice speech in spaces without free speech … free speech is not incompatible with our campaign but essential to it.” He adds: “Social change isn’t frictionless. It only happens with friction. You have to engage.”¶ Perhaps because Kurwa is part of a rare subset of progressive political activism that finds itself imperiled by top-down censorship imposed in the name of sensitivity, he understands how free speech amplifies his voice — even as it provides his opposition with a platform, too. Kurwa needs more of his allies on the left to come to that understanding.¶ The same rights that can be put "in service of a right-wing agenda" (as the Times put it in its piece about the PEN report) are also the best tools available for marginalized voices on the left and everywhere in between. As we approach the "Trump era," perhaps student activists will be less inclined to put their faith in rigidly defined policies executed by faceless authority figures — and more inclined to embrace free speech, in all its unwieldy, essential glory.
	12	+
	13	+
	14	+These restrictions disempower young people and kill civic engagement. Majeed ’09
	15	+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
	16	+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.
	17	+
	18	+Civic engagement is the vital internal link to solving every existential problem- its try or die for the aff. Small 06
	19	+(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)
	20	+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.
	21	+Part 2 – Free speech is an unqualified good
	22	+
	23	+Liberation requires free speech – people fighting for restrictions have misread their history. Hume 15
	24	+
	25	+Hume, Mick Mick Hume (born 1959) is a British journalist and author whose writing focuses on issues of free speech and freedom of the press.. Trigger Warning: Is the Fear of Being Offensive Killing Free Speech?. HarperCollins UK, 2015.
	26	+
	27	+“What is really being said by these campaigns is that people can be the victims of words, in need of protection from speech. That they are objects to which things are done, rather than subjects who can shake things up and make change happen. So their interests are apparently best served by having less freedom rather than more.¶ This presents a striking contrast with the not-too-distant past. In times when women, black people, gays and other oppressed groups in the West faced far more abuse, discrimination and violence than today, they fought for greater freedom of expression to give them a voice. It was accepted that a precondition for fighting for equality and liberty was being able to speak, read and debate as you saw fit, regardless of how much it offended the other side. Their aim in speaking out was not to gain recognition as a closed, separate group with its own identity, but to win their freedom as equal citizens of a free society.¶ At the time of the First World War, Sylvia Pankhurst and the militant wing of the British Women’s Suffrage movement joined forces with the Free Speech Defence Committee to “demonstrate for their right to speak out against war and inequality, often being attacked in the street for their trouble. Around the same time in America, the immigrant workers of the IWW were engaged in running battles with the police in their Free Speech Fights for the right to speak in public.¶ In the late 1960s and 1970s, the explosion of the lesbian and gay rights movement had at its core the demand for freedom of expression. Gay men in Greenwich Village, New York started their own newspaper because even the radical Village Voice would not print the word ‘gay’. The cry went up to sing if you’re glad to be gay. Or, to put it more in the language of the moment, as expressed in a flyer announcing the formation of the Gay Liberation Front after the Stonewall riots in 1969: “Do You Think Homosexuals Are Revolting? You Bet Your Sweet Ass We Are!’22 If you seek some speech that was truly ‘offensive’ to the accepted ethics of the day, look no further than that.¶ For the most accomplished argument for free speech from those fighting against oppression, we might go back further to the black American anti-slavery campaigner – and former slave – Frederick Douglass. In 1860, faced with violent repression of debate by pro-slavery forces, Douglass wrote his famous pamphlet entitled ‘A Plea for Free Speech in Boston’, in which he argued: “To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker. It is just as criminal to rob a man of his right to speak and hear as it would be to rob him of his money … And until the right is accorded to the humblest as freely as to the most exalted citizen, the government of Boston is but an empty name, and its freedom a mockery. A man’s right to speak does not depend upon where he was born or upon his color. The simple quality of manhood is the solid basis of the right – and there let it rest forever.23 “If only. The former slave’s appeal for free speech might sound like a foreign language to many claiming to stand for equality today.¶ All of these opinions were deemed highly offensive in their time, and the oppressed had to fight tooth and nail against the authorities for their right to express them. Are identity groups really so assaulted by hateful and offensive speech today that they must demand the authorities protect them from words by restricting the free speech of others? Though much has changed, to suppress free speech remains, in Douglass’s words, ‘a double wrong’. There is no way to emancipation through demanding bans and self-censorship.
	28	+
	29	+And, narrowing the principle of free speech spells devastation for the right as a whole. We need broad protections of the right that don’t permit exceptions. Curtis 96
	30	+Curtis, Michael Kent prof at Wake Forest. "Free Speech and Its Discontents: The Rebellion Against General Propositions and the Danger of Discretion." Wake Forest L. Rev. 31 (1996): 419.
	31	+
	32	+If we had to agree on what free speech would produce, it would be a¶ less powerful institution because its strength comes in part from its nature¶ as an institution that does not specify outcomes. A strong and broad¶ protection for free speech is profoundly incomplete-because it does not¶ tell us which view will win or what kind of art will be produced. Opponents¶ of anti-slavery speech wanted to shrink the framework so that what¶ would be produced by speech would be politically correct and would not¶ include anti-slavery expression. Many of the critics of free speech doctrine¶ and of a more libertarian view of free speech want to change existing¶ free speech doctrine to prohibit more of the wrong sort of speech¶ while allowing the right sort."""¶ Critics like Professor MacKinnon attack general free speech principles¶ because they protect speech of Nazis, Klansmen,' 8 7 and "pornographers,"""'¶ while doing nothing for their victims.189 Patrick Buchanan,¶ meanwhile, complains that the Supreme Court has protected "criminals,¶ atheists, homosexuals, flag burners . .. and pornographers." 90 Indeed,¶ part of the nature of general principles is their generality. At the same¶ time general principles were protecting the speech of racists1 91 and¶ "pornographers,"''1 2 the same general principles protected the speech of¶ advocates of integration,' 9 ' of opponents of the war in Vietnam,' 9 4 of homosexuals, 9 5 and of political radicals. 9 6 Substantially undermining the¶ generality of free speech principles may make it unlikely these principles¶ will perform that work in the future. A cursory review of these cases¶ shows the Court applied precedents protecting speech rights of Klansmen¶ and racists to protect advocates of integration and political radicals. 197¶ That is what the generality of the general principles is all about. The idea¶ that other constitutional values trump free speech can be evaluated by¶ looking at how such ideas have been applied in the past.¶ For women, a broadly defined idea of free speech has been particularly¶ important. Women were disenfranchised and deprived of basic civil¶ rights enjoyed by men, so the right to speak and petition were among the¶ few weapons they had in the long and continuing fight for equality. For¶ African-Americans the system of free speech has been a crucial means of¶ positive social change.¶ Advocates of free speech revision have the best of motives. They¶ want to silence at least some negative speech of the oppressors and protect¶ the oppressed. They point to the real pain speech can inflict and the¶ real injuries to which it can contribute. Free speech revisionists want to¶ protect diversity, as they understand it, and the oppressed, as they define¶ them. They want to protect against violence allegedly caused by books¶ and film and against the domination allegedly produced by the very existence¶ and "silencing" effect of speech. 198¶ Speech, including even political speech not focused on an individual,¶ that creates a hostile environment or that fails to respect diversity, we are¶ sometimes told, should be punished. Professor Sunstein's categories help¶ to understand why these ideas are so problematic. In spite of surface appeal,¶ we do not know what they entail or agree on what they should entail.¶ That is why the theory put into practice produces horror stories.¶ What is needed is very careful and strictly limited doctrine that attempts¶ to address problems without sacrificing the basic ideas of free speech.¶ Some careful and narrow attempts have been made in an effort to achieve¶ this goal. But at the University of Minnesota, college Republicans were disciplined¶ for handing out, in a freshman orientation fair where they and all¶ other campus groups were permitted to have booths, leaflets critical of¶ President and Mrs. Clinton and of the administration's policy on homosexuality.¶ To me, this action is an outrage against the core principle of¶ free speech. For free speech purposes, it cannot matter that I find the¶ arguments repellent or that I support, as I do, ending legal and private discrimination based on sexual orientation. These opponents of equality¶ for homosexuals share with their opponents a very basic equality-the¶ equal right to argue about the sort of society we will have. Our goal¶ should be to persuade them, not to silence them.¶ At Chicago Theological Seminary, a theology professor used an example¶ from the Talmud to illustrate the difference between sin based on¶ an evil state of mind and an act in which no evil is intended.200 In the¶ Talmud story, a person falls off the roof of a building and involuntarily¶ has sex with a woman he falls on.21 Based on this incident the seminary¶ found the professor, who had been using the story for two decades, had¶ created a "hostile or offensive" learning environment. 202 For a number of¶ reasons, including the supposed lack of state action and the problem of¶ simply translating free speech values into a university classroom setting,¶ this may not be a First Amendment violation. Still, it is a reflection of the¶ effect of calls for free speech revision, and how such calls undermine tolerance¶ and openness. It shows how radically incomplete is our underlying¶ agreement on the standards that are being enforced. It also shows the¶ danger of eliminating intent as an element of such offenses.¶ Rules that are not known until violated are like ex post facto laws,¶ and they naturally create resentment in those disciplined under them. As¶ Professor Elizabeth Fox-Genovese puts it: "The sex and discriminatory¶ harassment codes have constructed a web of impossible actions and utterances¶ that multiply with each passing day. This is a Kafkaesque world in¶ which, more often than not, you do not know the rules until you have¶ violated them. '20 3¶ With the elimination of bad speech from the dialogue in the public¶ domain and elsewhere, the assumption is that the good will triumph. But,¶ of course, the people who are classified as engaging in bad speech, watching¶ the wrong movies, reading the wrong books, making the wrong political¶ arguments, or citing the wrong story from the Talmud, do not like the¶ outcome. If that is what free speech means, they do not want it. By specifying¶ a correct outcome-by insisting on a more completely theorized¶ agreement of what free speech will produce, critics are weakening the¶ framework.20 4 Because the new theory is extremely vague, it causes other¶ problems as well.¶ A weak system of free speech is no problem for the powerful, because¶ their ideas and cherished works of art are almost never suppressed. It is a problem for dissidents. The speech codes that are springing up throughout¶ the land reflect the new power (in limited environments) of their creators,¶ as well as the fact that ideas of free speech in the public domain¶ translate imperfectly in more limited contexts.
	33	+Unrestricted speech is a prerequisite to democratic government - Glaser ‘92
	34	+Steven R. Glaser – JD candidate Marquette University. “Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones, but Words Can Never Hurt Me: Regulating Speech on University Campuses.” Marquette Law Review. Fall 1992. http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1645andcontext=mulr JJN
	35	+B. The Dangers of Regulation Regulating any type of speech poses tremendous dangers by threatening every benefit provided by freedom of expression.41 Limiting freedom of speech leads to intellectual pacifism, a "sacrifice of the entire moral courage of the human mind," and the possibility that today's alleged falsehoods, which may be the solutions of tomorrow, will be destroyed.42 The individual personality is seriously violated by any restriction of speech.43 Restricting free speech necessarily diminishes the overall quality of society because of the important role free speech plays in the development of individual character. The ability to freely communicate feelings mandates vigilant protection of all speech playing a valuable part in personal development; regulation risks retarding that vital development.' The regulation of speech in any manner or degree can lead to the standardization of opinions and ideas.4 " Groups in positions of power will be able to perpetuate their own authority by banning the expression of views attacking the status quo.46 Democracy cannot survive when certain groups of people control expression. Certain ideas will be prevented from entering society-wide discussion, depriving the world of valuable new ideas.47 Homogeneity in thought will lead to intellectual stagnation. Only by enduring the availability of all options can society feel confident that the best solution is chosen. Although many people argue that we should be able to regulate speech that the majority of society finds unacceptable, they fail to recognize the dangers of the "domino effect": "Admitting one exception will lead to another, and yet another, until those in power are free to stifle opposition in the name of protecting democratic ideals."48 Regulating racist or derogatory speech will begin the treacherous slide down the slippery slope of censorship. Soon, we may not be able to speak out against those in power; a situation similar to the one prompting the adoption of the First Amendment.
	36	+
	37	+Free speech is a pre-requisite to any rational moral system- without it self-realization is impossible. Eberle 94
	38	+Eberle, Law @ Roger Williams, 94 (Wake Forest LR, Winter)
	39	+
	40	+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.
	41	+Methodological pluralism is necessary for effective critique and is key to avoiding endless political violence in academia. Bleiker 14
	42	+
	43	+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
	44	+
	45	+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.
	46	+
	47	+
	48	+Our advocacy is that Public Colleges and Universities ought not restrict constitutionally protected Free Speech.
	49	+Part 3 – Restrictions Fail
	50	+A) Underground - Drives hate underground and allows communitites to ignore the problem. Alexander 13
	51	+(Larry, Is Freedom of Expression a Universal Right San Diego Law Review Summer, 2013 San Diego Law Review 50 San Diego L. Rev. 707)
	52	+
	53	+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.
	54	+
	55	+O/w’s – the most extreme examples of hate speech are already illegal and anything further kills dissent. Rosenberg 91
	56	+David Rosenberg, Racist Speech the First Amendment and Public Universities: Taking a Stand on Neutrality, 76 Cornell L. Rev. 549 (1991) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol76/iss2/6 VC
	57	+Sometimes college students engage in speech intending that it lead to racial violence. These acts, it can safely be said, constitute fighting words, and deserve punishment by the full force of the law. However, Matsuda fails to prove that this standard is not also sufficient in the context of a university. Indeed, there is compelling judicial support for the notion that a university should, at the very least, be a place where freedom of speech is commensurate to the standard observed outside of academia. To go beyond the accepted standard unnecessarily chills the atmosphere of freedom that the Supreme Court has deemed essential to the goals of the university. Even if one accepts that the Supreme Court's attitude toward free speech at universities is inadequate, it is not clear that Matsuda is able to delineate a policy suppressing racist speech that would not significantly harm the values of free speech. In particular, the problem of vagueness, which plagued the University of Michigan's policy, causes great harm to the values of free expression. As outlined above, Matsuda has formulated a fairly straight-forward calculus to judge the type of speech the university may ban. The speech must 1) be of racial inferiority; 2) be directed against a historically oppressed group; and 3) be persecutorial, hateful, and degrading. Her formulation leaves so many gaps that even had the University of Michigan adopted the standard, the Doe court would have rejected it.224 It forces students and professors alike to wonder about what can and cannot be said. To impose such a restriction on the academic community almost certainly chills its members' willingness to explore their own attitudes towards questions of race. It would also constrain discourse between the races for fear of offending one another. Ultimately, Matsuda does not fully resolve these problems. The Doe court would have found the same problems in her formula though to a lesser extent-that they found in the University of Michigan's ineptly formulated policy. Matsuda does not provide a new standard that adequately supersedes the Supreme Court's refusal to allow suppression of speech "simply because it is found to be offensive, even gravely so, by large numbers of people. '225 She has merely shown the extent of the harm done by racist speech, without actually showing how it somehow fits, or should fit, into an unprotected category of speech. This, to paraphrase the Doe court, is the fundamental infirmity of her proposition. While the presence of racist speech on college campuses is deplorable, it cannot and should not be stopped through prohibiting rules. The university represents a unique forum that fosters the exchange of ideas, even patently offensive ones. To sanitize the atmosphere of the university in order to protect the sensibilities of the traditional victims of oppression would ultimately do little to eradicate the scourge of racism in this country, but would do a great deal to inhibit the discourse around which university learning revolves. The Supreme Court has recognized the state's right to redress real harm inflicted through violence and through fighting words. Universities can and must suppress violence and oppression on campus, but they should do nothing to stop the exchange of ideas-even offensive ones-lest they destroy the atmosphere essential to their purpose.
	58	+
	59	+B) Victimhood - Speech codes depoliticize students and teach them to go to authority rather than question it - restrictions lock in racial stereotypes and directly tradeoff with structural reform. Brown 01
	60	+
	61	+Brown, Wendy. Politics out of History. Princeton University Press, 2001.
	62	+
	63	+The overwhelming response to these reflections, from my cultural¶ st udies colleagues ostensibly gathered for a day of critical self-reflection,¶ was glowering silence later broken by sotto voce hallway denunciations¶ of my presentation as "reactionary" and "collaborationist¶ with t he enemy." While attempting to articulate what I took to be¶ some th ing a pproximating a crisis in women 's stud.ies, I had broken the¶ the taboo against calling into question the instituionaiation of critical political moments inside and outside the academy. The punishment for this breach was moralism at its finest: to reproach the questioning¶ and the questioner as politically heinous, hence also intellectually unworthy.¶ "Speech codes kill critique, " Henry Louis Gates remarked in a 1 993¶ essay on hate speech.14 Although Gates was referring to what happens¶ when hate speech regulations, and the debates about them, usurp the¶ discursive space in which one might have offered a substantive political¶ response to bigoted epithets, his point also applies to prohibitions¶ against questioning from within selected political practices or institutions.¶ But turning political questions into moralistic ones-as speech¶ codes of any sort do-not only prohibits certain questions and mandates¶ certain genuflections, it also expresses a profound hostility toward¶ political life insofar as it seeks to preempt argument with a legislated¶ and enforced truth. And the realization of that patently¶ undemocratic desire can only and always convert emancipatory aspirations¶ into reactionary ones. Indeed, it insulates those aspirations¶ from questioning at the very moment that Weberian forces of rationalization¶ and bureaucratization are quite likely to be domesticating¶ them from another direction. Here we greet a persistent political paradox:¶ the moralistic defense of critical practices, or of any besieged¶ identity, weakens what it strives to fortify precisely by sequestering¶ those practices from the kind of critical inquiry out of which they¶ were born. Thus Gates might have said, "Speech codes, born of social¶ critique, kill critique." And, we might add, contemporary identity based¶ institutions, born of social critique, invariably become conservative¶ as they are forced to essentialize the identity and naturalize the¶ boundaries of what they once grasped as a contingent effect of historically¶ specific social powers.¶ But moralistic reproaches to certain kinds of speech or argument¶ kill critique not only by displacing it with arguments about abstract¶ rights versus identity-bound injuries, but also by configuring political¶ inj ustice and political righteousness as a problem of remarks, attitude,¶ a nd speech rather than as a matter of historical, political-economic,¶ and cultu ral format ion of power. Rather than offering analytically substantive accounts of the forces of injustice or injury, they condemn the manifestation of these forces in particular remarks or events. There is, in the inclination to ban (formally or informally) certain utterances¶ and to mandate others, a politics of rhetoric and gesture that itself¶ symptomizes despair over effecting change at more significant levels.¶ As vast quantities of left and liberal attention go to determining what¶ socially marked individuals say, how they are represented, and how¶ many of each kind appear in certain institutions or are appointed to¶ various commissions, the sources that generate racism, poverty, violence¶ against women, and other elements of social injustice remain¶ relatively unarticulated and unaddressed. We are lost as how to address¶ those sources; but rather than examine this loss or disorientation,¶ rather than bear the humiliation of our impotence, we posture¶ as if we were still fighting the big and good fight in our clamor over¶ words and names. Don't mourn, moralize.¶ But here the problem goes well beyond superficiality of political¶ analysis or compensatory gestures in the face of felt impotence. A moralistic,¶ gestural politics often inadvertently becomes a regressive politics.¶ Moralizing condemnation of the National Endowment for the¶ Arts for not funding politically radical art, of the U.S. military or the¶ White House for not embracing open homosexuality or sanctioning¶ gay marriage, or even of the National Institutes of Health for not treating¶ as a political priority the lives of HIV target populations (gay men,¶ prostitutes, and drug addicts) conveys at best naive political expectations¶ and at worst, patently confused ones. For this condemnation¶ implicitly figures the state (and other mainstream institutions) as if it¶ did not have specific political and economic investments, as if it were ·.,¶ not the codification of various dominant social powers, but was,¶ rather, a momentarily misguided parent who forgot her promise to¶ treat all her children the same way. These expressions of moralistic¶ outrage implicitly cast the state as if it were or could be a deeply democratic¶ and nonviolent institution; conversely, it renders radical art, radical¶ social movements, and various fringe populations as if they were¶ not potentially subversive, representing a significant political challenge¶ to the norms of the regime, but rather were benign entities and¶ populations entirely appropriate for the state to equally protect, fund ,¶ and promote. Here, moralism’s objection ot politics as a domain of power and history rather than principle is not simply irritating: it results in a troubling and confused political stance. It misleads about the nature of power, the state, and capitalism; it misleads about the nature of oppressive social forces, and about the scope of the project¶ of transformation required by serious ambitions for justice. Such obfuscation¶ is not the aim of the moralists but falls within that more¶ general package of displaced effects consequent to a felt yet unacknowledged¶ impotence. It signals disavowed despair over the prospects¶ for more far-reaching transformations
	64	+
	65	+C) Counterspeech is effective and empowers students Majeed ’09
	66	+AZHAR MAJEED - Robert H. Jackson Legal Fellow, 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. The Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy. JJN
	67	+3. Counterspeech is the Most Effective Response The third and final reason that the rationale of protecting minority students from harm fails to justify the presence of speech codes on campus is that the most effective response to the expression of hateful and prejudicial views is not to censor, but rather to engage in counterspeech.246 By responding with counterspeech, minority students can point out the deficiencies in those views and ultimately defeat them in the marketplace of ideas, thereby reaching a wide campus audience and informing it in meaningful and important ways. Moreover, if there truly is a societal consensus against prejudice and intolerance, these students should have no trouble expressing their views and having them heard. Therefore, commentators have recognized that “noxious ideas should be countered through juxta-position with good ideas in the hope that the bad ideas will lose out in the marketplace of ideas.”247 Nadine Strossen argues that “education, free discussion, and the airing of misunderstandings and failures of sensitivity are more likely to promote positive intergroup relations than are legal battles,” which, conversely, will only serve to “exacerbate intergroup tensions.”248 Another commentator echoes the hope that counterspeech will often “be effective to gradually build support by winning converts,” and argues that this can happen even on campuses with “high levels of hostility.”249 Moreover, the counterspeech approach can have significant benefits for minority students. One commentator writes that “only by pointing out the weaknesses and the moral wrongness of an oppressor’s speech can an oppressed group realize the strength of advocating a morally just outcome.”250 As is the case whenever one participates in campus dialogue and debate, minority students can expect to bolster their arguments and sharpen their views; “through the active, engaging, and often relentless debate on issues of social and political concern,” they “learn the strengths of their own arguments and the weaknesses of their opponents’. With this knowledge, these groups are better able to strike at the heart of a bigoted argument with all of the fervor and force necessary to combat hateful ideas.”251 Therefore, the experience and knowledge gained through the process of debate and discussion will serve minority students well in the long run. Minority students also benefit in that engaging in counterspeech, rather than appealing to the authorities for protection, may provide a strong sense of self-autonomy and empowerment. The efforts of minority students will often be met by a receptive campus audience, one which is curious to hear how they respond to hateful and prejudicial messages, affording these students the opportunity to meaningfully impact the way many individuals on campus think about important issues.252 Counterspeech “can serve to define and underscore the community of support enjoyed by the targets of the hateful speech, faith in which may have been shaken by the hateful speech.”253 Consequently, when minority students respond to hateful speech with counterspeech, successfully engage the campus community, and inform their fellow students’ views, they gain “a sense of self-reliance and constructive activism” as well as “a sense of community support and empowerment.”254 Nadine Strossen asserts that, for this reason, counterspeech “promotes individual autonomy and dignity.”255 These are significant benefits that other methods of responding to hateful speech do not offer, and it is difficult to place a value or measure on the positive impact this can have on students’ lives. In stark contrast to counterspeech, broad censorship paternalistically suggests that minority student groups are incapable of defending themselves and entrenches a sort of “learned disability.” As one commentator argues, “the intuitive fallacy of campus speech codes is that they ‘weaken those they ostensibly protect by not enabling them to protect themselves.’”256 The use of speech codes “assumes that certain students cannot survive hearing verbal attacks on their religion, race, gender, sexuality or ethnicity,” an assumption that “insults those who are able to hear this offensive speech without suffering the permanent, crippling psychological wounds that they are told are inevitable.”257 Nadine Strossen notes that “some black scholars and activists maintain that an anti-racist speech policy may perpetuate a paternalistic view of minority groups, suggesting that they are incapable of defending themselves against biased expressions.”258 Given these realities, counterspeech is a much more effective response to hateful and prejudicial speech than censorship. For this and the other reasons discussed in this section, the continued existence of speech codes cannot be justified by the rationale of protecting minority student
	68	+groups from injurious speech.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-02-18 19:11:46.349

Judge

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

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+La Canada AZ

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+13

Round

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

Team

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

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+JAN-FEB - AC - Civic Engagement

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+California Round Robin