Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[77]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[72]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[77]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-03-08 16:12:10.515
	1	+2017-03-08 16:12:10.0

Caselist.CitesClass[72]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,35 @@
	1	+Interpretation: The Aff must only defend a restriction on freedom of speech on college campuses.
	2	+
	3	+Violation: The plan text is explicitly about academic freedom which isn’t free speech.
	4	+
	5	+Academic freedom is no longer protected under the 1st amendment. Moshman 10
	6	+David Moshman (president of the ACLU of Nebraska and of the Academic Freedom Coalition of Nebraska. A professor emeritus of educational psychology at the University of Nebraska−Lincoln. His books include Liberty and learning: Academic freedom for teachers and students (2009)), 11/16/10, “Academic Freedom is Not Protected by the First Amendment,” Huff Post.
	7	+There, I said it, right in the title. And however much it hurts I’ll say it again: Academic freedom is not protected by the First Amendment. Recognizing this is the first step in defending academic freedom.¶ We should be clear from the start that academic freedom is not simply a First Amendment right. Academic freedom is intellectual freedom in academic contexts, which is both more and less than the constitutional requirement that the government “make no law... abridging the freedom of speech” (see my “Liberty and Learning: Academic Freedom for Teachers and Students”).¶ For a substantial portion of the 20th century, however, the First Amendment did protect important aspects of academic freedom. Alas, it no longer does. Here’s a two-minute summary of the constitutional history:¶ In West Virginia vs. Barnette (1943), the United States Supreme Court ruled that public schools may not require students to salute the flag and pledge their allegiance. It was a violation of the First Amendment for public education to be used for the purpose of indoctrinating a captive audience.¶ In Sweezy vs. New Hampshire (1957) the Court recognized the constitutional status of academic freedom in finding for a Marxist economist targeted by McCarthyism. The plurality and concurring opinions disagreed, however, as to whether constitutional academic freedom is primarily a right of individual teachers or a right of colleges as institutions.¶ In Keyishian vs. Board of Regents (1967), the Court proclaimed: “Our nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned. That freedom is therefore a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom.”¶ In Tinker vs. Des Moines (1969), involving secondary school students wearing black armbands to protest the United States military intervention in Vietnam, the Court reinforced the applicability of the First Amendment in schools at all levels of education. Neither students nor teachers, it insisted, shed their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate.¶ They shed them, it turned out, at the classroom door. In Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier (1988), the Court ruled that because a student newspaper was part of the journalism curriculum it therefore fell largely outside the domain of the First Amendment. Without argument or analysis the Court simply assumed that the First Amendment in schools applies only to speech outside the curriculum.¶ Federal courts since Hazelwood have been increasingly clear that, in matters of curriculum, school officials have broad latitude to determine the school’s message and restrict expression accordingly. Curriculum at all levels of education is a First Amendment-free zone. Teachers are hired to teach whatever they are told to teach and students are there to learn it.¶ Just as it seemed things couldn’t get worse, the Supreme Court determined in Garcetti vs. Ceballos (2006) that public employees in general do not have First Amendment rights when they are doing their jobs. Lower courts have applied this ruling to teachers at all levels of education, thus reinforcing Hazelwood.¶ By the time of Morse vs. Frederick (2007), it was clear that the First Amendment does not apply within the curriculum and thus provides no constitutional protection for academic freedom. The question was how far around the school the freedom-free zone extends. The Supreme Court found that it extends even across the street if one is holding a sign that says “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.”
	8	+
	9	+
	10	+
	11	+Their pre-empt Wright evidence doesn’t make a claim about the legal status of academic freedom, only that it shares values with free speech. Prefer the above evidence about legal precedent because it’s what actually determines constitutional protection. Just in case – they’re wrong about the values. Post 11/16
	12	+“Robert C. Post on why speech at universities must be regulated,” 11/14/16, Robert C Post (legal scholar and dean of Yale Law School), Brown News.
	13	+“There are different kinds of freedoms that are related to the two different kinds of missions of a modern university — research on the one hand, teaching on the other,” he said. “But in either case, these freedoms are conceptually distinct from the kind of freedom of speech that derives from the political arena, where all are equal and all have to exist for the end of self-governance. The university is not about self-governance. The university is about the attainment of education and the attainment of knowledge.” To frame his argument, Post first defined three basic rules governing freedom of speech as outlined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and defined by the Supreme Court: first, the state can’t tell a speaker that they have to speak about any particular content; second, there are no true or false opinions and all ideas are equal; and third, the state cannot compel a person to speak. He then defined the mission of most universities as being primarily two things — research, or the discovery and advancement of knowledge; and teaching, the conveying of knowledge. In order to advance these two goals, he said, universities cannot and should not follow these three basic rules of freedom of speech. Research, Post said, is ultimately based in the notion that not everyone has equal knowledge of a given topic and that expert knowledge is created through disciplinary study. “When we are talking about university research and expanding knowledge, it is resting on a disciplinary hierarchy, which is exactly opposite of the democratic equality on which freedom of speech rests,” he said.
	14	+
	15	+Standards:
	16	+
	17	+Limits – Their interp justifies affs about anything vaguely related to speech rights – copyright regulations, slander, civil rights, and libel affs are just a few examples. Explodes neg prep burden and kills predictability because they’re all vastly different bodies of literature which means no generics apply which kills fairness and engagement. Procedurally, if I can’t access their education it doesn’t matter.
	18	+
	19	+
	20	+
	21	+Vote on substantive engagement: otherwise we’re speaking without debating and there’s nothing to separate us from dueling oratory. It also creates the most valuable long-term skills since we need to learn how to defend our beliefs in any context, like politics.
	22	+
	23	+Drop the debater on T:
	24	+
	25	+A. Hold them accountable for their interp – a topical advocacy frames the debate - drop the arg lets them jump ship to a new layer killing NEG ground.
	26	+
	27	+B. Drop the arg on T is the same thing as drop the debater since T indicts their advocacy
	28	+
	29	+C. Even if the plank in the plan text is just extra T – all their offense is based on that academic freedom so you should vote neg on presumption.
	30	+
	31	+Competing interps since reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention based on preference rather than argumentation and encourages a race to the bottom in which debaters exploit a judge’s tolerance for questionable argumentation.
	32	+
	33	+No RVIs:
	34	+
	35	+ A. They incentivize debaters to go all in in theory and bait it with abusive practices, killing substantive clash on other flows. B. They can run theory on me too if I’m unfair so 1) theory is reciprocal because we’re both able to check abuse and 2) also cures time skew because they can collapse in the 2ar to their shell.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-03-08 16:12:13.615

Judge

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

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Newark Science BA

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+77

Round

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

Team

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

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+JAN-FEB - T - Professors

Tournament

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