Changes for page Immaculate Heart Dosch Neg
Summary
-
Objects (0 modified, 0 added, 20 removed)
- Caselist.CitesClass[23]
- Caselist.CitesClass[24]
- Caselist.CitesClass[25]
- Caselist.CitesClass[26]
- Caselist.CitesClass[27]
- Caselist.CitesClass[28]
- Caselist.CitesClass[29]
- Caselist.CitesClass[30]
- Caselist.CitesClass[31]
- Caselist.CitesClass[32]
- Caselist.CitesClass[33]
- Caselist.RoundClass[16]
- Caselist.RoundClass[17]
- Caselist.RoundClass[18]
- Caselist.RoundClass[19]
- Caselist.RoundClass[20]
- Caselist.RoundClass[21]
- Caselist.RoundClass[22]
- Caselist.RoundClass[23]
- Caselist.RoundClass[24]
Details
- Caselist.CitesClass[23]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,9 +1,0 @@ 1 -Counter plan text: Public colleges and universities should prohibit the distribution of fake news. 2 - 3 -Fake news stories are rapidly increasing, legitimate news sources are adopting these stories 4 -Uberti 16 (David, a CJR staff writer and senior Delacorte fellow), “The real history of fake news,” Columbia Journalism Review, 12/15/16 DRD. 5 -In an 1807 letter to John Norvell, a young go-getter who had asked how to best run a newspaper, Thomas Jefferson penned what today would make for a fiery Medium post condemning fake news.¶ “It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly sic deprive the nation of its benefits, than is done by its abandoned prostitution to falsehood,” the sitting president wrote. “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.”¶ That vehicle grew into a commercial powerhouse in the 19th century and a self-reverential political institution, “the media,” by the mid-20th. But the pollution has been described in increasingly dire terms in recent months. PolitiFact named fake news its 2016 “Lie of the Year,” while chagrined Democrats have warned about its threat to an honest public debate. The pope compared consumption of fake news to eating feces. And many of the wise men and women of journalism have chimed in almost uniformly: Come to us for the real stuff.¶ “Whatever its other cultural and social merits, our digital ecosystem seems to have evolved into a near-perfect environment for fake news to thrive,” New York Times CEO Mark Thompson said in a speech to the Detroit Economic Club on Monday. The broader issue driving the paranoia is the tardy realization among mainstream media that they no longer hold the sole power to shape and drive the news agenda.¶ ¶ A little bit of brake-tapping may be in order: It’s worth remembering, in the middle of the great fake news panic of 2016, America’s very long tradition of news-related hoaxes. A thumbnail history shows marked similarities to today’s fakery in editorial motive or public gullibility, not to mention the blurred lines between deliberate and accidental flimflam. It also suggests that the recent fixation on fake news has more to do with macro-level trends than any new brand of faux content.¶ Macedonian teenagers who earn extra scratch by concocting conspiracies are indeed new entrants to the American information diet. Social networks allow smut to hurtle through the public imagination—and into pizza parlors—at breakneck speed. People at or near the top of the incoming administration have shared fake news casually. And it’s appearing in news organizations’ own programmatic ads 6 - 7 -College students are disproportionately at risk for believing illegitimate news stories 8 -Borchers 16 (Callum, Reporter — Washington, D.C.) “A harsh truth about fake news: Some people are super gullible,” The Washington Post, 12/5/16 DRD. 9 -A Stanford University study published Tuesday concluded that many students, from middle school through college, struggle to discern what is legitimate reporting and what is not. The Wall Street Journal summarized some of the most alarming findings:¶ Some 82 percent of middle-schoolers couldn’t distinguish between an ad labeled “sponsored content” and a real news story on a website. . . . More than two out of three middle-schoolers couldn’t see any valid reason to mistrust a post written by a bank executive arguing that young adults need more financial-planning help.¶ And nearly four in 10 high-school students believed, based on the headline, that a photo of deformed daisies on a photo-sharing site provided strong evidence of toxic conditions near the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan, even though no source or location was given for the photo.¶ Lest you think this kind of naiveté is unique to millennials, consider some of the fake news stories that have caught on in the general population recently. In October, a Twitter joke about an Ohio postal worker who was supposedly tearing up pro-Trump absentee ballots fooled Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge and Jim Hoft. A week before the election, Sean Hannity got taken in by a made-up report that President Obama, Michelle Obama and Elizabeth Warren had unfollowed Hillary Clinton on Twitter. Some fabricated stories have been truly bizarre and wildly far-fetched yet have still duped people who read them — or at least, been embraced and used by some readers. On Tuesday, the New York Times unspooled the way “dozens of made-up articles about Mrs. Clinton kidnapping, molesting and trafficking children” in the back rooms of a D.C. pizzeria called Comet Ping Pong gained traction.¶ The misinformation campaign began when John Podesta’s email account was hacked and his emails were published by WikiLeaks during the presidential campaign. Days before the election, users on the online message board 4Chan noticed that one of Mr. Podesta’s leaked emails contained communications with Comet Ping Pong owner James Alefantis discussing a fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton.¶ The 4Chan users immediately speculated about the links between Comet Ping Pong and the Democratic Party. Some posited the restaurant was part of a larger Democratic child trafficking ring, which was a theory long held by some conservative blogs. That idea jumped to other social media services such as Twitter and Reddit, where it gained momentum on the page “The_Donald.” A new Reddit discussion thread called “Pizzagate” quickly attracted 20,000 subscribers. . . .¶ Soon, dozens of fake news articles on sites such as Facebook, Planet Free Will and Living Resistance emerged. Readers shared the stories in Saudi Arabia and on Turkish and other foreign language sites.¶ Some of the people who share fake news stories on social media surely know they are spreading fiction. They just like to imagine a world that conforms to their views. Or something.¶ Others are genuinely conned, either because they don't know how to tell the difference between real and fake news or because they don't care to try. Deception may drive the creation of fake news; gullibility helps create a market for it. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-17 19:56:00.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 ---- - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Greenhill SK - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -16 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Quarters - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Immaculate Heart Dosch Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB - Junk Science CP - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard Westlake
- Caselist.CitesClass[24]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,14 +1,0 @@ 1 -Their fear of “aggression” causes us to fight defensive wars, which causes more casualties and failure 2 -Tracinski 02 (Robert, Received his undergraduate degree in Philosophy from the University of Chicago and studied with the Objectivist Graduate Center and Editorial Director of the Ayn Rand Institute) “The Prophets of Defeatism,” Ayn Rand Institute, 8/16/02 DRD 3 -The American press seems to have contracted Black Hawk Down Syndrome, a malady in which reporters and editorialists, whose military experience consists largely of watching Hollywood war movies, project a hand-wringing fear of American military failure. These reactions may seem bizarre after a period of extraordinary military success, but they do make sense ~-~- because the very same organizations promoting this defeatism also promote the policies that would actually lead to defeat.¶ After an American helicopter was shot down in Afghanistan at the beginning of last week's battle in Shah-e-Kot, the media was awash in references to "Black Hawk Down," the recent film about a bloody 1993 military mission in the Somalian city of Mogadishu, which went awry when an American helicopter crashed. When Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was forced to field inane questions about parallels with that battle, The New York Times reported that Rumsfeld was "working hard to exorcise the ghosts of Mogadishu." But it is the press, not the Pentagon, that is plagued by the ghosts of Mogadishu.¶ A typical expression of this defeatism is a March 6 analysis in the Los Angeles Times, which agonizes that "The fierce combat unfolding in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan is ... taking the U.S. military into precisely the sort of conditions that felled the Soviets in Afghanistan during the 1980s." America, it says, is "knowingly plunging ahead in areas where it is most vulnerable," and "Special operations forces are engaged in risky combat and searches in and around caves ~-~- something Pentagon officials said in the early days of the war they wanted to avoid at all costs." Risky combat? How unexpected.¶ This is just a sample. Since Sept. 11, for example, The New York Times has warned that defeating the Taliban would not be as easy as the Gulf War against Iraq ~-~- then warned that a new war against Iraq would not be as easy as the defeat of the Taliban. The only constant is the newspaper's confident prediction of U.S. military failure.¶ Why does the press systematically ignore America's history of military success, obsessing instead over a few failures? Note that these failures all have the same cause: political restrictions that deprived our soldiers of the tools they needed to win. Take Mogadishu. In the "Black Hawk Down" scenario, the disaster was not caused by the mere downing of a helicopter. It was caused by the Clinton administration's refusal to authorize the use of armor and AC-130 gunships, which would have provided crucial support for our soldiers. The reason? The politicians did not want to appear to be "escalating" our involvement, for fear of sinking into a "quagmire" ~-~- and they were afraid that the use of gunships would cause civilian casualties among the enemy. Does any of this sound familiar? These are the same demands commentators are making on our military today in Afghanistan. Win the war, but don't get involved in fighting on the ground, don't take any casualties, and above all, don't cause any civilian deaths, because that would be bad PR. The press is especially certain about this last point, because they will make sure that any civilian deaths ~-~- an unavoidable by-product of war ~-~- are splashed over the front pages and presented as evidence of American barbarity. Or take the other bogeyman of American military failure: Vietnam. Our military was told that it could not eliminate the source of the enemy's power by invading North Vietnam. Instead, our soldiers were ordered to fight a defensive war of attrition, while we bombed the enemy ~-~- not to destroy his capabilities, but merely to bring him to the bargaining table. Sound familiar? This is the strategy we have helped foist on Israel in its current war with terrorists. This is why, for example, the Israelis bomb empty Palestinian Authority offices, not to kill enemy soldiers or destroy Yasser Arafat's ability to fight, but merely to "pressure" him to return to the "peace process." Similarly, commentators in the press have warned us that we have to fight the War on Terrorism with an eye on world opinion, in consultation with our squeamish European allies and our hostile Arab coalition, that we have to avoid civilian casualties and coddle al-Qaeda prisoners to maintain the "moral high ground." The only kind of war they think it is proper to wage is a restricted, non-lethal, self-effacing conflict. It is no wonder that these same people fear that the war will end in failure. On their terms, it would. 4 - 5 -Resolve is the THE determiner of American hegemony – it’s key to deterrence and conflict effectiveness – anything else just prolongs violence 6 -Eyago ‘5 7 / 8 / 05 Political Commentary – Sound Politics Reporter http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/004721.html, Sound Commentary on Current Events in Seattle, Puget Sound and Washington State 7 -Finally, I am angry at those who undermine our efforts to conduct this war. I am angry at people, who through their words, and efforts contribute to the injury and death of our soldiers, who provide encouragement to the enemy, who weaken our efforts and prolong the war, who, for political gain put our soldiers, our people, and our nation at greater risk. There is a LOT of anger going on. Many times it is inappropriately acted upon. Islamists are angry, so they blow up people. Conservatives are angry so they advocate indiscriminate retaliation. Liberals are angry so they advocate undermining the war. All this anger is misdirected. We can see how the killing of innocents is wrong, but sometimes we cannot see how allowing innocents to be killed is wrong. One should seriously consider the impacts of certain types of dissention in this country before embarking on said dissentious course. I have many issues with the war in Iraq, but I will focus on just a couple. When President Bush pronounced to the world that he would defeat terrorism, he made a promise. He promised that he would not only pursue the terrorists wherever they may be, but he promised to go after the countries that enable those terrorists. When the UN made resolution after resolution against Iraq those too were promises. The difference comes in whether one follows up a promise or not. You see, no one embarks on a major undertaking with the expectation of losing. The choices any person or group are almost always predicated on the fact that the reward exceeds the price or risk. Hitler would not have invaded Czechoslovakia unless he though he could get away with it. He would not have invaded Poland unless he though he could get away with it. The success of those events and reaction of Europe convinced him that he could press on and take all of Europe. Saddam would not have invaded Kuwait unless he thought he could get away with it. He would not have defied the UN unless he though he could get away with it. In those cases, the acting party decided that they could attain their goals using the methods employed. The same thing goes for the terrorists. They methods they employ are based on the expectation of ultimate success. The methods they employ are also based on their own capabilities, capabilities that stem from the support of governments both passive and active, the support of moneyed benefactors, and the support of powerful influencers such as media and high profile personalities. This brings me back to promises made. Part of the reason these terrorists became so bold is that there were few significant reprisals for their actions. In the same way Hitler moved on Poland and Hussein defied the UN, Al Qaeda flew planes into our buildings. Ultimately it was because they could and that the reprisals had insufficient deterrent effect. Now, when President Bush announced that he would pursue the nations that supported terrorism, he basically set the stage for action. The choice was, rattle the saber and hope it is enough, or draw the saber and demonstrate our commitment to living up to our promises. It is fair to debate whether Iraq was the best choice for an operation, but the stage had also been set there as well. With promises being made at the UN, the choice was to continue to prove that promises meant nothing or to prove that they did. I believe that the lack of consequences in the past was a key factor in the terrorist activity leading up to and including 9/11. Without the resolve to back up our promises, our enemies will be emboldened to act. It does not get any simpler than that. Iraq was a promise kept. Now, some people want us to renege on that promise and others. That is a dangerous position to be advocating. The thing is, the debate about Iraq belongs BEFORE we took action. And that debate DID occur. It occurred BEFORE the war. And the result was overwhelmingly in FAVOR of action. The congress granted President Bush the authority to act. The fact that they did not like his decision is moot. If they did not trust his ability to act, they were wrong to have given him the authority to do so. NOW they are wrong for challenging his decision after the fact. That brings us back to the concept of one's expectation of the results of one's actions. In many cases throughout history, the winner of a conflict was not always the one with the bigger army, the better equipment, and the best trained, or any of those factors. The winner quite often was the one with the greater will to win. Wars are won by will in far greater weight then in anything else. I would say that will is THE determining factor in success in any conflict. Obviously will is not enough. A greater force can sap the will of another army, but not always. The revolutionary war was won by will, not by military might. Vietnam was lost by will not by military might. And, Iraq will be won or lost by will alone. The consequences of this outcome will have long lasting impacts on the security of our nation. At this point, it does not matter whether we should have gone into Iraq. The fact is we are there now. We either complete the job and fulfill our promises to rebuild that nation and leave it with a stable and free society or we cut and run and have the world know with certainty that our word is null and void and that we have no resolve. That is the stakes. That is the goal of the terrorists: to prove they have resolve, to prove that we do not. Their victory will ensure increased attacks on all nations because the terrorists will have unimpeachable proof that their tactics will ultimately succeed. Bombings, beheadings, gross atrocities will be the weapons of choice in the future. Tactics that have been proven to bring down the mighty. If will is the factor that determines the outcome, then will is the place where we must consider here and now. As far as our enemy is concerned, we MUST make them believe that they cannot succeed. We MUST make them sure that WE will prevail. We MUST prove to them that their tactics are ineffectual. There is a down side to that. Once an enemy realizes their tactics are not succeeding, they will change them. With an enemy of this nature, that could result in greater atrocities than we have yet seen. Yet, even then we must prevail. We must continue to demonstrate OUR resolve and OUR willingness to see this to the end and DEFEAT them. Since they have shown little regard for decency and life, since they have shown that our very existence is provocation to them, no amount of diplomacy or concessions will achieve an end satisfactory to our nation. The only solution is the demonstration of our willingness to defeat them despite their tactics. Our goal is to defeat the will of the enemy. His goal is to defeat ours. Any indication that the enemy's will is faltering will bolster our own will. However, the opposite is true as well. Any indication that our will is faltering will embolden the enemy's will. Unfortunately, from the very first minute of this conflict, parts of our country have shouted from the very mountain tops just how little will they have to win the war. They demonstrate clearly for our enemies that we don't want to fight. They give clear indication that enemy tactics are successful. In effect, they give aid and comfort to the enemy and spur them on to continued fighting because they tell the enemy in clear messages that if they continue in their tactics, the United States will be defeated. As I said before, the debate about whether we go to war is over. We are now at war, and the ONLY debate we should have is on what tactics are most appropriate for prosecuting that war. It is marginally fair to state that you are unhappy about our decision to go to war, but beyond that, anything else will embolden the enemy. Think very long and about what is at stake here. It is almost IMPOSSIBLE to be pro America while actively dissenting on ongoing conflict. It is bordering on treason for a public official to undermine the war effort, the Commander in Chief and the military publicly for all the world to see. We have started down this path, and there are but two choices: to win or to lose. There is no "suing for peace" with this enemy. Now, that does not mean you have to become militaristic and be a war monger. You can be a peacenik, but you need to consider that unless you want to see the United States harmed, you should cease criticism of the war itself until after it is won. There is plenty of time to castigate the people who made what you perceive as errors AFTER we have finished the job. However, if you persist in presenting disunity and a weakened resolve to the enemy, you take direct responsibility for the lives of all Americans, Iraqis and foreign terrorists that will die subsequently. The quickest way to end the war is to be united, to demonstrate unshakable resolve, and to have the enemy surrender. Or, YOU can surrender to the enemy. Anything else will just prolong the killing. This goes infinitely more so for our public leaders. What they do for political gain is completely unconscionable. 8 -Hegemony decline causes extinction. 9 -Brooks, Ikenberry, and Wohlforth ’13 10 -(Stephen, Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth College, John Ikenberry is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University in the Department of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, William C. Wohlforth is the Daniel Webster Professor in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College “Don’t Come Home America: The Case Against Retrenchment,” International Security, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Winter 2012/13), pp. 7–51) 11 -A core premise of deep engagement is that it prevents the emergence of a far more dangerous global security environment. For one thing, as noted above, the United States’ overseas presence gives it the leverage to restrain partners from taking provocative action. Perhaps more important, its core alliance commitments also deter states with aspirations to regional hegemony from contemplating expansion and make its partners more secure, reducing their incentive to adopt solutions to their security problems that threaten others and thus stoke security dilemmas. The contention that engaged U.S. power dampens the baleful effects of anarchy is consistent with influential variants of realist theory. Indeed, arguably the scariest portrayal of the war-prone world that would emerge absent the “American Pacifier” is provided in the works of John Mearsheimer, who forecasts dangerous multipolar regions replete with security competition, arms races, nuclear proliferation and associated preventive war temptations, regional rivalries, and even runs at regional hegemony and full-scale great power war. 72 How do retrenchment advocates, the bulk of whom are realists, discount this benefit? Their arguments are complicated, but two capture most of the variation: (1) U.S. security guarantees are not necessary to prevent dangerous rivalries and conflict in Eurasia; or (2) prevention of rivalry and conflict in Eurasia is not a U.S. interest. Each response is connected to a different theory or set of theories, which makes sense given that the whole debate hinges on a complex future counterfactual (what would happen to Eurasia’s security setting if the United States truly disengaged?). Although a certain answer is impossible, each of these responses is nonetheless a weaker argument for retrenchment than advocates acknowledge. The first response flows from defensive realism as well as other international relations theories that discount the conflict-generating potential of anarchy under contemporary conditions. 73 Defensive realists maintain that the high expected costs of territorial conquest, defense dominance, and an array of policies and practices that can be used credibly to signal benign intent, mean that Eurasia’s major states could manage regional multipolarity peacefully without the American pacifier. Retrenchment would be a bet on this scholarship, particularly in regions where the kinds of stabilizers that nonrealist theories point to—such as democratic governance or dense institutional linkages—are either absent or weakly present. There are three other major bodies of scholarship, however, that might give decisionmakers pause before making this bet. First is regional expertise. Needless to say, there is no consensus on the net security effects of U.S. withdrawal. Regarding each region, there are optimists and pessimists. Few experts expect a return of intense great power competition in a post-American Europe, but many doubt European governments will pay the political costs of increased EU defense cooperation and the budgetary costs of increasing military outlays. 74 The result might be a Europe that is incapable of securing itself from various threats that could be destabilizing within the region and beyond (e.g., a regional conflict akin to the 1990s Balkan wars), lacks capacity for global security missions in which U.S. leaders might want European participation, and is vulnerable to the influence of outside rising powers. What about the other parts of Eurasia where the United States has a substantial military presence? Regarding the Middle East, the balance begins to swing toward pessimists concerned that states currently backed by Washington— notably Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia—might take actions upon U.S. retrenchment that would intensify security dilemmas. And concerning East Asia, pessimism regarding the region’s prospects without the American pacifier is pronounced. Arguably the principal concern expressed by area experts is that Japan and South Korea are likely to obtain a nuclear capacity and increase their military commitments, which could stoke a destabilizing reaction from China. It is notable that during the Cold War, both South Korea and Taiwan moved to obtain a nuclear weapons capacity and were only constrained from doing so by a still-engaged United States. 75 The second body of scholarship casting doubt on the bet on defensive realism’s sanguine portrayal is all of the research that undermines its conception of state preferences. Defensive realism’s optimism about what would happen if the United States retrenched is very much dependent on its particular—and highly restrictive—assumption about state preferences; once we relax this assumption, then much of its basis for optimism vanishes. Specifically, the prediction of post-American tranquility throughout Eurasia rests on the assumption that security is the only relevant state preference, with security defined narrowly in terms of protection from violent external attacks on the homeland. Under that assumption, the security problem is largely solved as soon as offense and defense are clearly distinguishable, and offense is extremely expensive relative to defense. Burgeoning research across the social and other sciences, however, undermines that core assumption: states have preferences not only for security but also for prestige, status, and other aims, and they engage in trade-offs among the various objectives. 76 In addition, they define security not just in terms of territorial protection but in view of many and varied milieu goals. It follows that even states that are relatively secure may nevertheless engage in highly competitive behavior. Empirical studies show that this is indeed sometimes the case. 77 In sum, a bet on a benign postretrenchment Eurasia is a bet that leaders of major countries will never allow these nonsecurity preferences to influence their strategic choices. To the degree that these bodies of scholarly knowledge have predictive leverage, U.S. retrenchment would result in a significant deterioration in the security environment in at least some of the world’s key regions. We have already mentioned the third, even more alarming body of scholarship. Offensive realism predicts that the withdrawal of the American pacifier will yield either a competitive regional multipolarity complete with associated insecurity, arms racing, crisis instability, nuclear proliferation, and the like, or bids for regional hegemony, which may be beyond the capacity of local great powers to contain (and which in any case would generate intensely competitive behavior, possibly including regional great power war). Hence it is unsurprising that retrenchment advocates are prone to focus on the second argument noted above: that avoiding wars and security dilemmas in the world’s core regions is not a U.S. national interest. Few doubt that the United States could survive the return of insecurity and conflict among Eurasian powers, but at what cost? Much of the work in this area has focused on the economic externalities of a renewed threat of insecurity and war, which we discuss below. Focusing on the pure security ramifications, there are two main reasons why decisionmakers may be rationally reluctant to run the retrenchment experiment. First, overall higher levels of conflict make the world a more dangerous place. Were Eurasia to return to higher levels of interstate military competition, one would see overall higher levels of military spending and innovation and a higher likelihood of competitive regional proxy wars and arming of client states—all of which would be concerning, in part because it would promote a faster diffusion of military power away from the United States. Greater regional insecurity could well feed proliferation cascades, as states such as Egypt, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Saudi Arabia all might choose to create nuclear forces. 78 It is unlikely that proliferation decisions by any of these actors would be the end of the game: they would likely generate pressure locally for more proliferation. Following Kenneth Waltz, many retrenchment advocates are proliferation optimists, assuming that nuclear deterrence solves the security problem. 79 Usually carried out in dyadic terms, the debate over the stability of proliferationchanges as the numbers go up. Proliferation optimism rests on assumptions of rationality and narrow security preferences. In social science, however, such assumptions are inevitably probabilistic. Optimists assume that most states are led by rational leaders, most will overcome organizational problems and resist the temptation to preempt before feared neighbors nuclearize, and most pursue only security and are risk averse. Confidence in such probabilistic assumptions declines if the world were to move from nine to twenty, thirty, or forty nuclear states. In addition, many of the other dangers noted by analysts who are concerned about the destabilizing effects of nuclear proliferation—including the risk of accidents and the prospects that some new nuclear powers will not have truly survivable forces—seem prone to go up as the number of nuclear powers grows. 80 Moreover, the risk of “unforeseen crisis dynamics” that could spin out of control is also higher as the number of nuclear powers increases. Finally, add to these concerns the enhanced danger of nuclear leakage, and a world with overall higher levels of security competition becomes yet more worrisome. The argument that maintaining Eurasian peace is not a U.S. interest faces a second problem. On widely accepted realist assumptions, acknowledging that U.S. engagement preserves peace dramatically narrows the difference between retrenchment and deep engagement. For many supporters of retrenchment, the optimal strategy for a power such as the United States, which has attained regional hegemony and is separated from other great powers by oceans, is offshore balancing: stay over the horizon and “pass the buck” to local powers to do the dangerous work of counterbalancing any local rising power. The United States should commit to onshore balancing only when local balancing is likely to fail and a great power appears to be a credible contender for regional hegemony, as in the cases of Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union in the midtwentieth century. The problem is that China’s rise puts the possibility of its attaining regional hegemony on the table, at least in the medium to long term. As Mearsheimer notes, “The United States will have to play a key role in countering China, because its Asian neighbors are not strong enough to do it by themselves.” 81 Therefore, unless China’s rise stalls, “the United States is likely to act toward China similar to the way it behaved toward the Soviet Union during the Cold War.” 82 It follows that the United States should take no action that would compromise its capacity to move to onshore balancing in the future. It will need to maintain key alliance relationships in Asia as well as the formidably expensive military capacity to intervene there. The implication is to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, reduce the presence in Europe, and pivot to Asia— just what the United States is doing. 83 In sum, the argument that U.S. security commitments are unnecessary for peace is countered by a lot of scholarship, including highly influential realist scholarship. In addition, the argument that Eurasian peace is unnecessary for U.S. security is weakened by the potential for a large number of nasty security consequences as well as the need to retain a latent onshore balancing capacity that dramatically reduces the savings retrenchment might bring. Moreover, switching between offshore and onshore balancing could well be difªcult. Bringing together the thrust of many of the arguments discussed so far underlines the degree to which the case for retrenchment misses the underlying logic of the deep engagement strategy. By supplying reassurance, deterrence, and active management, the United States lowers security competition in the world’s key regions, thereby preventing the emergence of a hothouse atmosphere for growing new military capabilities. Alliance ties dissuade partners from ramping up and also provide leverage to prevent military transfers to potential rivals. On top of all this, the United States’ formidable military machine may deter entry by potential rivals. Current great power military expenditures as a percentage of GDP are at historical lows, and thus far other major powers have shied away from seeking to match top-end U.S. military capabilities. In addition, they have so far been careful to avoid attracting the “focused enmity” of the United States. 84 All of the world’s most modern militaries are U.S. allies (America’s alliance system of more than sixty countries now accounts for some 80 percent of global military spending), and the gap between the U.S. military capability and that of potential rivals is by many measures growing rather than shrinking. 85 12 -That turns case, war engenders worse forms of oppression and suppression of rights 13 -Goldstein 1—Prof PoliSci @ American University, Joshua, War and Gender , P. 412 14 -First, peace activists face a dilemma in thinking about causes of war and working for peace. Many peace scholars and activists support the approach, "if you want peace, work for justice". Then if one believes that sexism contributes to war, one can work for gender justice specifically (perhaps among others) in order to pursue peace. This approach brings strategic allies to the peace movement (women, labor, minorities), but rests on the assumption that injustices cause war. The evidence in this book suggests that causality runs at least as strongly the other way. War is not a product of capitalism, imperialism, gender, innate aggression, or any other single cause, although all of these influences wars' outbreaks and outcomes. Rather, war has in part fueled and sustained these and other injustices. So, "if you want peace, work for peace." Indeed, if you want justice (gener and others), work for peace. Causality does not run just upward through the levels of analysis from types of individuals, societies, and governments up to war. It runs downward too. Enloe suggests that changes in attitudes toward war and the military may be the most important way to "reverse women's oppression/" The dilemma is that peace work focused on justice brings to the peace movement energy, allies and moral grounding, yet, in light of this book's evidence, the emphasis on injustice as the main cause of war seems to be empirically inadequate. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-13 19:09:12.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -John Scoggin - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Dougherty Valley KK - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -17 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Immaculate Heart Dosch Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB - Heg DA - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Stanford Invitational
- Caselist.CitesClass[25]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,8 +1,0 @@ 1 -Counter plan text: Public colleges and universities should ban Students for Justice in Palestine. 2 -SJP is a hate group that terrorizes Jewish and Pro-Israel students on campus 3 -Julian 17 (Hana Levi, Author Biography Hana Levi Julian is a Middle East news analyst with a degree in Mass Communication and Journalism from Southern Connecticut State University. A past columnist with The Jewish Press and senior editor at Arutz 7, Ms. Julian has written for Babble.com, Chabad.org and other media outlets, in addition to her years working in broadcast journalism. )“Fordham University Bans ‘Students for Justice in Palestine’ Hate Group,” The Jewish Press, 1/29/17. 4 -On the SJP NYC website, the group refers to its New York chapter as existing in the “belly of imperialist America.” It also states, “We seek to implement BDS in our communities, as well as other calls from the Palestinian people, through advocacy and local community work.”¶ BDS refers to the Boycott Divest and Sanctions campaign that has been effectively outlawed in the State of New York by Governor Andrew Cuomo and the State Legislature, which has prohibited any state body or state-connected entity from conducting business with any firm that participates in the BDS campaign. “Other calls from state-run Palestinian Authority TV include programs that encourage and urge young children, youths and teens to become “martyrs” in suicide terrorist attacks on Jews and Israelis.¶ Fordham University’s denial of the SJP application won a public statement of praise from the Proclaiming Justice to the Nations (PJTN) group, an NGO established to “educate Christians about their Biblical responsibility to stand with their Jewish brethren about Israel…”¶ The organization issued a statement, saying “We salute the brave actions of President, Fr. Joseph McShane and the Board of Trustees at Fordham University for your leadership and your commitment to continuing in the Catholic tradition of honoring the spirit of the Nostra Aetate Declaration of the II Vatican Council.¶ “SJP is a hate-group that is directly responsible for incitement and violence targeting Jews and Christians and its tactics are in direct violation with Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as it pertains to Jewish students on campus.¶ “No group that fosters global genocidal anti-Semitism should be welcome anywhere. We call upon all universities to follow Fordham’s leadership example for the sake of protecting its students and ensuring that American university campuses become safe places of learning for all,” PTJN President Laurie Cardoza-Moore said.¶ SJP NYC long ago established a beachhead on the campuses of City University of New York (CUNY) and has numerous, vigorous chapters that are active at this point not only at CUNY but for the past five years also on the State University of New York (SUNY) campuses as well, creating an increasingly difficult environment for Jewish students at all campuses.¶ 5 - 6 -SJP presence is overwhelming – and growing 7 -ADL 14 (ADL)“Students for Justice in Palestine,” Anti-Defamation League, 2014 8 -Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), a student organization with over 115 chapters at American¶ universities, is the primary organizer of anti-Israel events on U.S. college campuses and the group most¶ responsible for bringing divestment resolutions to votes in front of student governments. SJP chapters¶ throughout the U.S. routinely initiate Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaigns against¶ corporations and individuals that do business with Israel and frequently organize events many of which¶ accuse Israel of war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and genocide.¶ Since its founding in 2001, SJP has consistently demonized Israel, describing Israeli policies toward the¶ Palestinians as racist and apartheid-like, and comparing Israelis to Nazis or Israel to the Jim Crow-era U.S. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-18 18:58:36.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -panel - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cupertino HK - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -18 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Triples - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Immaculate Heart Dosch Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB - SJP CP - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Stanford Invitational
- Caselist.CitesClass[26]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,11 +1,0 @@ 1 -Under the guise of “anti-Israel” speech, SJP spews hatred and undermines the values of university education 2 -Mael 14 Daniel Mael, contributor to the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity and TruthRevolt.org. “On Many Campuuses Hate is spelled SJP” 10/14 LM 3 -Students for Justice in Palestine patently fails, in fact refuses, to advocate anything resembling peace or a just solution to the Middle East conflict. It does not advance Palestinian human rights or the human rights of anyone. In fact, it consistently violates the human rights of pro-Israel and Jewish students. It demonizes Israel, often in racist terms, and thus perpetuates division and conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. It opposes any and all cooperation or dialogue with Israelis or indeed anyone who disagrees with its radical ideology. It has shown itself disturbingly undisturbed by terrorism and those who support terrorism. It engages in and propagates anti-Semitic racism. And its members engage in acts of intimidation and physical violence, often with impunity. Contrary to its own claims, SJP is not a voice for the Palestinians. In fact, through its “anti-normalization” ideology, its goal is to shout down the many Palestinians and Jews who do seek a peaceful future, and instead manipulate the Palestinian cause in order to promote an atmosphere of hatred, intimidation and radicalism on campus. The result is that rather than contributing to debate and dialogue, SJP seeks to destroy these bedrock values of the modern university. 4 - 5 -SJP supports terrorist organizations and violently harasses Jewish students 6 -Mael 14 (Daniel, contributor to the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity and TruthRevolt.org), “On Many Campuuses Hate is spelled SJP,” 10/14 LM 7 -Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). SJP claims to stand for human rights, specifically the rights of the Palestinian people; and consistently portrays itself as an advocate for a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and solidarity with the oppressed. But a closer look at the group’s rhetoric and actions tells a different story. Instead of promoting justice, SJP and/or its members spend almost all of their energy demonizing Israel, advocating for its eventual destruction, showing an unfortunate affinity for pro-terrorist figures, bullying and intimidating pro-Israel and Jewish students with vicious and sometimes anti-Semitic rhetoric, and even at times engaging in physical violence. While SJP may pay lip-service to peaceful aims, their rhetoric and actions make it hard to avoid the conclusion that a culture of hatred permeates nearly everything the group does—making the college experience increasingly uncomfortable, at times even dangerous, for Jewish or pro-Israel students. 8 - 9 -SJP is underscored by BDS - a movement targeted at destroying ties to Israeli associations and the State of Israel - even though, this movement has been denounced by Palestinian Authority. 10 -Mael 15 Daniel Mael, contributor to the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity and TruthRevolt.org. “On Many Campuuses Hate is spelled SJP” 10/14 LM 11 -SJP’s support for radical, distorted, and violent views extends into the realm of concrete policy as well. Despite its stated concern for justice and human rights, it opposes any kind of collaboration or coexistence with Israel or its supporters. The SJP National website, for example, proffers what it calls “Anti-Normalization” information with links to articles that oppose working with Israel-associated organizations. SJP also opposes the idea of a two-state solution—the only path to a final peace solution that today seems remotely plausible—and is quite hostile to the peace process in general. Radical-Left Israeli academic Ilan Pappe, for example, who opposes a two-state solution, celebrated the group’s national conference on the organization’s website by deriding “the attempt to reduce Palestine geographically and demographically under the guise of a ‘peace process.’” Instead, he spoke approvingly of SJP as part of “a new popular and successful struggle to bring peace and reconciliation to the whole of Palestine.” In the lexicon of Palestinian nationalism, the “whole of Palestine” refers to all of what was British mandatory Palestine, thus implying the eradication of the State of Israel. SJP’s barely-concealed extremism in this regard is further underscored by its dedication to the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to strangle Israel’s economy, sabotage its ability to defend itself, and destroy its standing in the international community. BDS is now the center of SJP activism, at times taking on the appearance of an obsession. As explained by the Tufts University SJP chapter’s motto, the core principles of the organization are “Peace through justice. Equality through resistance. Humanity through BDS.”, the group’s founder, has chimed in to support these efforts, announcing an “International Day of Action” scheduled for this past September 23—the eve of Rosh Hashana, continuing a pattern by SJP of scheduling anti-Israel events on Jewish holidays—in order to advocate a complete academic and cultural boycott of the Jewish state. The event’s Facebook announcement stated that among its goals were: “No joint research or conferences with Israeli Institutions, No to University Presidents’ Visits to Israel, No Campus Police Training or Cooperation with Israeli Security.” It also called for the elimination of all study-abroad programs in Israel. The effort was clearly intended to prevent any academic interaction with the Jewish state and limit students’ and scholars’ ability to interact with Israelis in general. The “International Day of Action” was largely a flop, though a group of students, including a member of the student government, paraded around the UC Berkeley campus chanting, “We support the Intifada,” “Long live the Intifada,” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”—again, calls for Israel’s destruction through violence. It is worth pointing out that SJP’s devotion to the BDS movement makes the group significantly more extreme than the official Palestinian leadership. In addition to its official support for both the two-state solution and the peace process, the Palestinian Authority (PA) has repeatedly criticized BDS, and as recently as December 2013, PA President Mahmoud Abbas publicly declared that a boycott of Israel is not in the interests of the Palestinian people. The Palestinians, he said, “have relations with Israel, we have mutual recognition of Israel.” In line with Abbas’ remarks, four BDS activists were arrested in July by PA forces for “provoking riots and the breach of public tranquility.” A PA official told Israeli-Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toameh that the BDS movement makes all Palestinians appear radical and “goes against the PLO’s official policy, which is to seek a peace agreement with Israel based on the two-state solution.” Palestinian leaders in America have followed suit. In June 2014, Ghaith al-Omari, executive director of the American Task Force on Palestine, told an audience that BDS is “completely unacceptable” and “doesn’t fit with the idea of the two-state solution.” It is difficult not to conclude from this that SJP’s purpose is less to advocate for the Palestinians than to damage Israel by propagating the same hate-filled rhetoric that has caused Jews in France to lock themselves in synagogues and make plans to move to Israel. Indeed, it explicitly advocates extremist measures that many Palestinian leaders believe will do their own people more harm than good. In this sense, SJP’s ideology does not seem to be generally pro-Palestinian but in fact a lot closer to the beliefs and policies of Hamas than to the recognized Palestinian leadership. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-18 18:58:37.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -panel - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cupertino HK - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -18 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Triples - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Immaculate Heart Dosch Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB - SJP DA - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Stanford Invitational
- Caselist.CitesClass[27]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Counterplan text: Public colleges and universities should end restrictions on constitutionally protected speech for professors only. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-18 18:59:55.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Arjun Tambe, Steve Knell - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Newark Science BA - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -19 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Immaculate Heart Dosch Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB - Professors PIC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cal RR
- Caselist.CitesClass[28]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,12 +1,0 @@ 1 -The ACs faith in deliberation is a view mired in white privilege – it ignores social realities that predispose minorities to be victims of violence. Hate speech is a deliberate act designed to reinforce social hierarchies and endanger minorities. 2 -Delgado and Yun 94 (Richard, teaches civil rights and critical race theory at University of Alabama School of Law) “Pressure Valves and Bloodied Chickens: An Analysis of Paternalistic Objections to Hate Speech Regulation,” California Law Review, 7/94. DRD 3 -Regulation, 82 Cal. L. Rev. 871 (1994) D. "More Speech"-Talking Back to the Aggressor as a Preferable Solution to the Problem of Hate Speech Defenders of the First Amendment sometimes argue that minorities should talk back to the aggressor.85 Nat Hentoff, for example, writes that antiracism rules teach black people to depend on whites for protection, while talking back clears the air, emphasizes self-reliance, and strengthens one's self-image as an active agent in charge of one's own destiny.8 6 The "talking back" solution to campus racism draws force from the First Amendment principle of "more speech," according to which additional dialogue is always a preferred response to speech that some find troubling.87 Proponents of this approach oppose hate speech rules, then, not so much because they limit speech, but because they believe that it is good for minorities to learn to speak out. A few go on to offer another reason: that a minority who speaks out will be able to educate the speaker who has uttered a racially hurtful remark."8 Racism, they hold, is the product of ignorance and fear. If a victim of racist hate speech takes the time to explain matters, he or she may succeed in altering the speaker's perception so that the speaker will no longer utter racist remarks.8 9 How valid is this argument? Like many paternalistic arguments, it is offered blandly, virtually as an article of faith. In the nature of paternalism, those who make the argument are in a position of power, and therefore believe themselves able to make things so merely by asserting them as true.90 They rarely offer empirical proof of their claims, because none is needed. The social world is as they say because it is their world: they created it that way.91 In reality, those who hurl racial epithets do so because they feel empowered to do so. 92 Indeed, their principal objective is to reassert and reinscribe that power. One who talks back is perceived as issuing a direct challenge to that power. The action is seen as outrageous, as calling for a forceful response. Often racist remarks are delivered in several-on-one situations, in which responding in kind is foolhardy. 93 Many highly publicized cases of racial homicide began in just this fashion. A group began badgering a black person. The black person talked back, and paid with his life.94 Other racist remarks are delivered in a cowardly fashion, by means of graffiti scrawled on a campus wall late at night or on a poster placed outside of a black student's dormitory door.95 In these situations, more speech is, of course, impossible. Racist speech is rarely a mistake, rarely something that could be corrected or countered by discussion. What would be the answer to "Nigger, go back to Africa. You don't belong at the University"? "Sir, you misconceive the situation. Prevailing ethics and constitutional interpretation hold that I, an African American, am an individual of equal dignity and entitled to attend this university in the same manner as others. Now that I have informed you of this, I am sure you will modify your remarks in the future"? 96 The idea that talking back is safe for the victim or potentially educative for the racist simply does not correspond with reality. It ignores the power dimension to racist remarks, forces minorities to run very real risks, and treats a hateful attempt to force the victim outside the human community as an invitation for discussion. Even when successful, talking back is a burden. Why should minority undergraduates, already charged with their own education, be responsible constantly for educating others? 4 - 5 - 6 -The notion of free speech assumes that all voices are equally treated, when in reality, power inequities dictate what speech matters – that turns case 7 -Boler 2k Megan Boler (Professor in the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto and editor of Digital Media and Democracy), "All Speech is Not Free: The Ethics of "Affirmative Action Pedagogy," Philosophy of Education, 2000 8 -All speech is not free. Power inequities institutionalized through economies, gender roles, social class, and corporate-owned media ensure that all voices do not carry the same weight. As part of Western democracies, different voices pay different prices for the words one chooses to utter. Some speech results in the speaker being assaulted, or even killed. Other speech is not free in the sense that it is foreclosed: our social and political culture predetermines certain voices and articulations as unrecognizable, illegitimate, unspeakable.1 Similarly, neither are all expressions of hostility equal. Some hostile voices are penalized while others are tolerated.2 Hostility that targets a marginalized person on the basis of her or his assumed inferiority carries more weight than hostility expressed by a marginalized person towards a member of the dominant class. Efforts to legislate against “hate speech” within public spaces cannot, in principle, recognize the differential weight and significance of hate speech directed at different individuals or groups. If all speech is not free, then in what sense can one claim that freedom of speech is a working constitutional right? If free speech is not effective in practice, then a historicized ethics is required. Thus the discomforting paradox of U.S. democracy: while we may desire a principle of equality that applies in exactly the same way to every citizen, in a society where equality is not guaranteed we require historically sensitive principles that appear to contradict the ideal of “equality.” An historicized ethics operates toward the ideal of principles such as constitutional rights, but also recognizes the need to develop ethical principles that take into account that all persons do not have equal protection under the law nor equal access to resources. Within a climate of extreme backlash to affirmative action and to women’s rights, I propose what I call an “affirmative action pedagogy”: a pedagogy that ensures critical analysis within higher education classrooms of any expression of racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, or sexism, for example. An affirmative action pedagogy seeks to ensure that we bear witness to marginalized voices in our classrooms, even at the minor cost of limiting dominant voices. 9 - 10 -The alternative is to reinterpret the first amendment as a right concerned with protecting the material ability of minorities to participate in deliberation, as opposed to an abstract negative right that gives racists the ability to dehumanize and threaten minorities. 11 -Matsuda 93 (Mari, Law Professor at the William S. Richardson School of Law at the University of Hawaii), “Words that Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment,” Westview Press, 1993. DRD. 12 -The struggle against institutional, structural, and culturally ingrained unconscious racism and the movement toward a fully multicultural, postcolonial uni- versity is central to the work of the liberationist teacher. This is at bottom a fight to gain equal access to the power of the intelligentsia to construct knowledge, social meaning, ideology, and definitions of who “we” are. Now the defenders of the status quo have discovered, in the first amendment, a new weapon. The debate about affirmative action and the inclusion of historically excluded groups is being recast as a debate about free speech. We have begun to hear a rhetoric from those of our colleagues who are most fearful of change that sounds much like what we hear from first amendment fundamentalists: Arguments for absolutist protection of speech made without reference to historical context or uneven power relations. Academic freedom and intellectual pursuit are alleged to be threatened by “leftist speech police.” People of color, women, gays, and lesbians who insist on the inclusion of their voices in academic discourse and who speak out against persons and practices that continue to injure and demean them are said to impose a “new orthodoxy” upon the academy. Tenured professors say that they are afraid to raise controversial issues, use humor in their classes, or express friendli- ness toward their students for fear of being called a racist, a sexist, or a homophobe by “oversensitive” students. Stripped of its context this is a seductive argument. The privilege and power of white male elites is wrapped in the rhetoric of politically unpopular speech. Those with the power to exclude new voices from the official canon become an oppressed minority. Academic freedom to express one’s beliefs is decontextualized from the speaker’s power to impose those beliefs on others. The isolated Black, Brown, or Asian faculty member, the small group of students who risk future careers in raising their voices against racism, are cast as powerful censors. The first amendment arms conscious and unconscious racists—Nazis and liberals alike—with a constitutional right to be racist. Racism is just another idea deserving of constitutional protection like all ideas. The first amendment is employed to trump or nullify the only substantive meaning of the equal protection clause, that the Constitution mandates the disestablish-ment of the ideology of racism. What is ultimately at stake in this debate is our vision for this so- ciety. We are in this fight about the first amendment because it is more than a fight about how to balance one individual’s freedom of speech against another individual’s freedom from injury. This is a fight about the substantive content that we will give to the ideals of freedom and equality—how we will construct “freedom,” as a constitutional premise and a defining principle of democracy. This is the same fight that is the subject of all of our work. It is a fight for a vision of society where the substance of freedom is freedom from degradation, humiliation, battering, starvation, homelessness, hopelessness, and other forms of violence to the person that deny one’s full humanity. It is a fight for a constitutional community where “freedom” does not implicate a right to degrade and humiliate another human being any more than it implicates a right to do physical violence to another or a right to enslave another or a right to economically exploit another in a sweatshop, in a coal mine, or in the fields. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-05 00:45:11.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Zane Dille - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard Westlake MG - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -20 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Immaculate Heart Dosch Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB - Power Inequities K - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -USC Damus Spring Trojan Championships
- Caselist.CitesClass[29]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,7 +1,0 @@ 1 -The word “victim” connotes helplessness and passivity – those descriptions are inaccurate descriptions of survivors of sexual assault and ingrain harmful depictions that trivialize the experiences of survivors. 2 -Gupta 14 (Rahila) ‘Victim' vs ‘Survivor’: feminism and language, Open Democracy, June 2014 3 -Anyone who joins a political movement will recognise the importance of asserting their right to belong to that movement by using the right language. When I became active in feminist politics in the eighties, one of the first signifiers of my new consciousness was to use the word ‘survivor’ to describe women rather than ‘victim’, a way of thinking popularised perhaps by Liz Kelly in her book Surviving Sexual Violence Describing women as survivors rather than victims was to emphasise the positive, the heroic; it was a triumph of hope over despair, of the future opening up rather than closing down. Partly it was also a question of accuracy: many women who had faced the most appalling levels of violence had escaped, survived and gone on to build a life for themselves. Partly it was a question of jettisoning all the negative connotations that had attached themselves to the concept of victim: ‘helpless’ and ‘passive’ particularly grated on feminists when our political project was all about the fight back. Passive, in particular, smacked of weakness and quintessential feminine qualities. ‘Damaged’, ‘powerless’ and the shamefulness of being considered weak were also part of the baggage of victimhood. Besides, the terminology laid down a clear marker of difference between feminists and bureaucrats because government policy documents had yet to come round to the use of ‘survivor’. 4 - 5 -The alternative is to use the word “survivor” – redefines notions of passivity and helplessness attached to the word “victim” 6 -Wu 16 megan, writer at hello flo. Survivor vs victim “why choosing your words is important” 7 -The words “survivor” and “victim” have very different connotations. Being a “victim” implies helplessness and pity, which might not adequately describe the experiences of some people who experience sexual assault. Experiences vary from person to person, after all. However, what’s so different about the term “survivor” is that it implies that people are able to take control of their own lives. “Surviving” conveys that the person is still fighting, whether through the judicial system in order to bring justice to the perpetrator, to gain awareness for the cause, or to learn to live after experiencing an assault. A “survivor” thrives in their environment. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-05 00:49:29.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Gabriela Gonzalez - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Polytechnic JL - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -21 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Immaculate Heart Dosch Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Victim K - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -USC Damus Spring Trojan Championships
- Caselist.CitesClass[30]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,9 +1,0 @@ 1 -Counter-plan text: Public colleges and universities should prohibit public discussion of sexual assault cases until there is a decided verdict. 2 -Gag orders protect defendants who have been accused but not convicted – false accusations of sexual assault that are publicized ruin the livelihoods of defendants and breed resentment towards real instances of assault – that turns case 3 -Birdsell 14 (Bonnie Gail, ), Reevaluating Gage Orders and Rape Shield Laws: In the Internet Age, How Can We Better Protect Victims? Seton Hall University, 5/01/14 4 -It is important to consider the rights of the defendants in sexual assault cases, as in any case. It is fundamentally unfair, and in fact entirely contrary to our notions of justice, that the accused be unwillingly forced into the public eye before being convicted of any crime.133 Likely due to the stigma surrounding rape and the prosecution of rapists, defendants whose identities are made public may suffer the consequences of being labeled a sex offender by society even in cases in which they are found not guilty. The backlash against defendants can be just as severe, if not more so, as the backlash against plaintiffs. 134 Upon filing a motion for contempt against Dietrich for revealing the identities of her assailants, one of the defense attorneys commented that “the horse is out of the barn. Nothing is bringing it back,” in reference to his client’s lost anonymity.135 It is true that society as a whole is less likely to perceive this as a severe injustice as to convicted defendants, but it can create unfortunate and debilitating consequences for defendants whose names are later cleared. 5 - 6 - 7 -Gag orders during trial protect plaintiffs from harassment and offer anonymity that encourages other survivors to speak out 8 -Birdsell 14 (Bonnie Gail, ), Reevaluating Gage Orders and Rape Shield Laws: In the Internet Age, How Can We Better Protect Victims? Seton Hall University, 5/01/14 9 -The current rape shield laws and victims’ rights statutes were put in place in an attempt to¶ protect the privacy of plaintiffs victims in two ways: rape shields are meant to keep defense attorneys from assassinating the character of a plaintiff victim by confronting them with their personal sexual history or¶ predisposition during the course of a cross-examination, while victims’ rights statutes prohibit¶ the media from publishing the names of survivors victims. These, along with the gag orders routinely¶ placed over sexual assault proceedings, are meant to guard a survivors victim’s privacy in the hopes that¶ the survivor victim will be able to return to a relatively normal life after the trial is over. Additionally, it is¶ a widely held belief among victims’ rights advocates that victims survivors will be more likely to come¶ forward and press charges against their assailants if they believe they can do so under relative¶ anonymity. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-05 00:49:30.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Gabriela Gonzalez - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Polytechnic JL - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -21 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Immaculate Heart Dosch Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB - Gag Order PIC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -USC Damus Spring Trojan Championships
- Caselist.CitesClass[31]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,16 +1,0 @@ 1 -Hate speech is rampant in journalism – journalists have an obligation to stop this violence 2 -RL no date (Religion Link), Reporting on hate speech, http://www.religionlink.com/reporting-on/reporting-on-hate-speech/ 3 -In 2010, a Florida pastor with just a few dozen followers attracted international media coverage when he announced plans to burn copies of the Quran on the anniversary of 9/11. By taking the bait, media outlets became complicit in advancing his hate-filled agenda, making Terry Jones a household name in the U.S. and far beyond.¶ Reporters have a responsibility to cover the facts, but we also have a responsibility to avoid unnecessarily stoking hatred and violence, especially when religious or political tensions are running high.¶ Hate speech masked as journalism is all too common in many parts of the world and does a disservice to both readers and society. Sometimes it merely reinforces unpleasant stereotypes; other times it contributes to evils far worse.¶ Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines used hate-filled broadcasts to exacerbate Rwanda’s 1994 genocide. Buddhist monk Ashin Wirathu’s unsubstantiated Facebook posts have led to riots and deaths in Myanmar. And Fox News hosts such as Jeanine Pirro have delivered dangerous tirades against Muslims.¶ From Myanmar to America, hate speech stemming from or directed at religious groups and individuals can lead to violence. But what constitutes hate speech, and how do we balance the right to freedom of expression with a need to prevent the spread of dangerous rhetoric?¶ 4 - 5 -Lack of administrator oversight allows students to publish racist material in their newspapers – “Cardinal Points” proves 6 -León 15 (Felice) College Paper Prints the Most Racist Front Page in America, The Daily Beast, 10/26/15 7 -The cover of a college newspaper features a blackface cartoon. The focal point of the illustration is a young black man—depicted with bulging eyes and an exaggerated white mouth. He proudly walks through a decrepit neighborhood, clenching a diploma and donning a red graduation cap and gown. On a street lined with dilapidated houses, a broken-down car (on cinderblocks), and a crooked stop sign, our character continues forth, apparently unfazed by the disarray that surrounds him. ¶ The year is 2015. And this cartoon is racist.¶ Published in Cardinal Points—an independently owned and operated student-publication—the blackface cartoon made waves in Plattsburgh, New York, particularly on SUNY Plattsburgh’s campus. Shocker.¶ The publication is funded through advertising and subscriptions (the Plattsburgh Student’s Association is among the subscribers). Students join the newspaper staff as a practicum.¶ Ironically, the article that accompanied the cartoon discusses diversity—with the headline “Minority Admission Rates Examined”—and the inner caption reads “EQUAL: PSUC diversity valued.” The story speaks to SUNY Plattsburgh’s diversity efforts and touts the university as being “extremely diverse” due to its especially large international enrollment of approximately 16 percent.¶ Despite a “strong” international presence on campus, the North Country is no stranger to bigotry. Plattsburgh, New York, is home of the only KKK chapter in New York State. And it follows that this isn’t the first time that Plattsburgh State University has dealt with racism. Indeed, Cardinal Points itself published an article this year that describes a pervasive racist -milieu in the town—which includes the use of racial slurs. The n-word seems to be a favorite. The cartoon’s illustrator, Jonny Zajac, in an Instagram post said “My favorite person in Plattsburgh #niggers.” His Instagram account has since been deactivated.¶ Yes, there is a problem with racism at SUNY Plattsburgh.¶ On Monday morning, John Ettling, president of SUNY Plattsburgh University, said that he was offended by the illustration in a statement issued to the campus community. “The front-page illustration in Friday's edition of the Cardinal Points student newspaper does not reflect a range of values SUNY Plattsburgh holds dear. Rather, as the editors of Cardinal Points indicated in their own written apology, the cartoon features offensive and stereotypical elements that misrepresent African-American students. It is also personally offensive to me.”¶ The pink elephant in the room: How was a blackface cartoon allowed to be on the cover of Cardinal Points in the first place?¶ “This was a procedural failure on the part of the students,” said Jonathan Slater, the Department of Journalism and Public Relations chair. Slater was commenting on behalf of Shawn Murphy, the Cardinal Points staff adviser, who was unavailable for comment.¶ “Ostensibly, it Cardinal Points is autonomous of the college,” he said. Yet the Cardinal Points is a practicum, with its student leadership being chosen by Murphy, the staff adviser. Slater continued, “Every week there is a procedural review of the paper’s content.”¶ This procedural review occurs on Mondays, after each publication is distributed Friday of the preceding week. This review is a debrief: What worked and what didn’t work? And pre-emptively, there is a review process of all of the paper’s content—including images. But, as Slater does not oversee the practicum, he was unable to speak to the review process before each edition goes to print. Slater finished, “We expect them students to use this experience as a tool for their future careers.”¶ Through this process, the Cardinal Points editorial staff issued an apology for the poor decision. “It has come to our attention that the graphic in question not only has a disconnect to the article it was created to work with, but it also unintentionally features offensive and stereotypical elements that misrepresent African¬American students. To be frank, we deeply regret the use of this graphic and any offense or harm it may have caused our friends and peers. As SUNY Plattsburgh students and editors of the newspaper, we are constantly trying to represent the campus community in the best possible way, and in this case, we did not do so.” Perhaps this apology is on behalf of the staff adviser, Shawn Murphy, as well.¶ What comes after the mea culpa (and the non mea culpa)?¶ Indeed, communication is a powerful tool. But, in this case it seems passive and starkly insufficient. AKEBA, the SUNY Plattsburgh Black Student Union, held a town hall meeting on Monday, but this barely scrapes the surface. It behooves administrators to go beyond “discussion” and create a more aggressive plan to promote diversity and combat racism that looms in the locality. Saying “my bad” isn’t enough when students feel threatened in a place where (in theory) they are expected to thrive. ¶ In the words of Jelani Cobb, “Slavery did not begin because of miscommunication.” 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 -Racial stereotypes are used to justify mass violence and atrocities against minorities 12 -Green 99 (Laura,Virginia Commonwealth University) Stereotypes: Negative Racial Stereotypes and Their Effect on Attitudes Toward African-Americans, Perspectives on Multiculturalism and Cultural Diversity, 1998-1999 13 -¶ As human beings, we naturally evaluate everything we come in contact with. We especially try to gain insight and direction from our evaluations of other people. Stereotypes are "cognitive structures that contain the perceiver's knowledge, beliefs, and expectations about human groups" (Peffley et al., 1997, p. 31). These cognitive constructs are often created out of a kernel of truth and then distorted beyond reality (Hoffmann, 1986). Racial stereotypes are constructed beliefs that all members of the same race share given characteristics. These attributed characteristics are usually negative (Jewell, 1993).¶ This paper will identify seven historical racial stereotypes of African-Americans and demonstrate that many of these distorted images still exist in society today. Additionally, strategies for intervention and the implications of this exploration into racial stereotypes will be presented.¶ Description of the Problem¶ The racial stereotypes of early American history had a significant role in shaping attitudes toward African-Americans during that time. Images of the Sambo, Jim Crow, the Savage, Mammy, Aunt Jemimah, Sapphire, and Jezebelle may not be as powerful today, yet they are still alive.¶ Sambo¶ One of the most enduring stereotypes in American history is that of the Sambo (Boskin, 1986). This pervasive image of a simple-minded, docile black man dates back at least as far as the colonization of America. The Sambo stereotype flourished during the reign of slavery in the United States. In fact, the notion of the "happy slave" is the core of the Sambo caricature. White slave owners molded African-American males, as a whole, into this image of a jolly, overgrown child who was happy to serve his master. However, the Sambo was seen as naturally lazy and therefore reliant upon his master for direction. In this way, the institution of slavery was justified. Bishop Wipple's Southern Diary, 1834-1844, is evidence of this justification of slavery, "They seem a happy race of beings and if you did not know it you would never imagine that they were slaves" (Boskin, 1989, p. 42). However, it was not only slave owners who adopted the Sambo stereotype (Boskin, 1989). Although Sambo was born out of a defense for slavery, it extended far beyond these bounds. It is essential to realize the vast scope of this stereotype. It was transmitted through music titles and lyrics, folk sayings, literature, children's stories and games, postcards, restaurant names and menus, and thousands of artifacts (Goings, 1994). White women, men and children across the country embraced the image of the fat, wide-eyed, grinning black man. It was perpetuated over and over, shaping enduring attitudes toward African-Americans for centuries. In fact, "a stereotype may be so consistently and authoritatively transmitted in each generation from parent to child that it seems almost a biological fact" (Boskin, 1986, p. 12).¶ Jim Crow¶ The stereotyping of African-Americans was brought to the theatrical stage with the advent of the blackface minstrel (Engle, 1978). Beginning in the early 19th century, white performers darkened their faces with burnt cork, painted grotesquely exaggerated white mouths over their own, donned woolly black wigs and took the stage to entertain society. The character they created was Jim Crow. This "city dandy" was the northern counterpart to the southern "plantation darky," the Sambo (Engle, 1978 p. 3).¶ Performer T.D. Rice is the acknowledged "originator" of the American blackface minstrelsy. His inspiration for the famous minstrel dance-and-comedy routine was an old, crippled, black man dressed in rags, whom he saw dancing in the street (Engle, 1978). During that time, a law prohibited African-Americans from dancing because it was said to be "crossing your feet against the lord" (Hoffmann, 1986, video). As an accommodation to this law, African-Americans developed a shuffling dance in which their feet never left the ground. The physically impaired man Rice saw dancing in this way became the prototype for early minstrelsy (Engle 1978). In 1830, when "Daddy" Rice performed this same dance, "...the effect was electric..." (Bean et al., 1996, p. 7). White actors throughout the north began performing "the Jim Crow" to enormous crowds, as noted by a New York newspaper. "Entering the theater, we found it crammed from pit to dome..." (Engle, 1978, p. xiv). This popularity continued, and at the height of the minstrel era, the decades preceding and following the Civil War, there were at least 30 full-time blackface minstrel companies performing across the nation (Engle, 1978).¶ The "foppish" black caricature, Jim Crow, became the image of the black man in the mind of the white western world (Engle, 1978). This image was even more powerful in the north and west because many people never had come into contact with African-American individuals. It has been argued that "the image of the minstrel clown has been the most persistent and influential image of blacks in American history" (Engle, 1978, p. xiv). Words from the folk song "Jim Crow," published by E. Riley in 1830, further demonstrate the transmission of this stereotype of African-Americans to society: "I'm a full blooded niggar, ob de real ole stock, and wid my head and shoulder I can split a horse block. Weel about and turn about and do jis so, eb'ry time I wheel about I jump Jim Crow" (Bean et al., 1997, p. 11).¶ The method of representing African-Americans as "shuffling and drawling, cracking and dancing, wisecracking and high stepping" buffoons evolved over time (Engle, 1978, p. xiv). Self-effacing African-American actors began to play these parts both on the stage and in movies. Bert Williams was a popular African-American artist who performed this stereotype for white society. The response was also wildly enthusiastic as 26 million Americans went to the movies to see Al Jolson in the "Jazz Singer" (Boskin 1986).¶ The Savage¶ Movies were, and still are, a powerful medium for the transmission of stereotypes. Early silent movies such as "The Wooing and Wedding of a Coon" in 1904, "The Slave" in 1905, "The Sambo Series" 1909-1911 and "The Nigger" in 1915 offered existing stereotypes through a fascinating new medium (Boskin, 1986). The premiere of "Birth of a Nation" during the reconstruction period in 1915 marked the change in emphasis from the happy Sambo and the pretentious and inept Jim Crow stereotypes to that of the Savage. In this D.W. Griffith film, the Ku Klux Klan tames the terrifying, savage African-American through lynching. Following emancipation, the image of the threatening brute from the "Dark Continent" was revitalized. Acts of racial violence were justified and encouraged through the emphasis on this stereotype of the Savage. The urgent message to whites was, we must put blacks in their place or else (Boskin, 1986). 14 -Hate speech causes minority students to drop out, which means the only narrative within colleges will be that of the white male – that turns case. 15 -A.D.L. 13. Anti-Defamation League. “Responding to Bigotry and Intergroup Strife on Campus: Guide for College and University Administrators.” Defamation League. MCM. 16 -University and college officials need to demonstrate to all how the institution's interests are at stake when minority students fear assault or insult, leading to demoralization and high dropout rates. Even though many existing speech codes have failed in court, campus administrators should not be prevented or inhibited to act and speak out against racist, sexist, homophobic or anti-Semitic expression. Campus administrators should not tolerate or accept abusive discourse without a vigorous response. Those who misuse their freedom of expression to offend, demean or insult members of the academic community need to comprehend that their words are unacceptable in a civilized atmosphere, whether or not they are protected by the First Amendment. While administrators at private institutions have more freedom of action to regulate behavior than do their counterparts at public institutions, both can and should provide firm and unambiguous leadership in this area. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-05 00:52:16.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Adam Torson - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard Westlake JD - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -22 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Immaculate Heart Dosch Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB - Cartoons DA - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -USC Damus Spring Trojan Championships
- Caselist.CitesClass[32]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,16 +1,0 @@ 1 -CP text: Public colleges and universities should end restrictions on journalist speech except for cult recruitment in college journalism. Public colleges and universities should prohibit cult recruitment in college journalism. 2 -Cult recruitments are rampant in college newspapers – cults target college-aged students and recruit thousands each year 3 -Crimson 93 “Beware Cults that Recruit at Harvard,” The Harvard Crimson, 12/6/93 4 -Although Amanda C. Pustilnik seems to have presented an objective view of Transcendental Meditation (TM) in the recent Crimson article (Wednesday, October 27), I cannot help feeling that TM will look upon this article with favor~-~-certainly as anything but "bad press." But for the occasional words of a TM malcontent and some doubtful aspersions on TM's "statistics," the article leaves one with the impression that TM is a "good thing." Believe me, it is not.¶ There are many destructive cults operating in and near Boston at this time, and some of them have targeted the college/graduate school age group. TM is one; others include Scientology, Unification Church ("Moonies"), Emin, and the itinerant group locally known as the New England Meditation Society. All of these groups practice some form of mind control, primarily through trance induction. TM is a prime example.¶ But what makes a cult a cult is not its techniques, per se, but the deception used in recruitments and the exploitation that follows, for example, the extremely high "fees" for "courses" given by these groups. A book called Combating Cult Mind Control by Steve Hassan (himself a former member of a cult) is widely available in bookstores and is an excellent primer on the methods and dangers of destructive cults, including a checklist of what constitutes a cult (TM fits the category).¶ I am sure most Harvard and Radcliffe students look upon cults as laughable frauds. However, there is a small percentage of vulnerable and highly talented people that the cults appeal to and recruit by the thousands each year, and Harvard is one of the chiefly targeted campuses for the cults referred to above.¶ I have seen very find (read: accurate and revealing) presentations on cult activity at Yale, with first-hand accounts by several persons directly involved. This particular article is anything but scrupulous in getting at the facts. Superficial journalism is worse than no journalism, and the article in question is a case in point. Though it seems doubtful that TM would lead to a debacle such as the Branch Davidian conflagration in Waco, Texas last summer, the slow disintegration of ego and self-esteem occasioned by the mind control of more "peaceable" cults can prove to be a living hell to those under its control.¶ One last point: The indiscriminate use of the word "meditation" is an invitation to trouble. Meditation can describe a serene contemplation of a beautiful flower, as well as a zombie-like trance induced by mechanical mental machinations. The phrase, "meditation is good for you" is about as meaningless as "milk is good for you." What kind, how much, and how often are qualifiers that are needed to validate such vague claims. Richard St. Clair '68 5 - 6 -Cult recruitment is constitutionally protected – KKK proves 7 -AP 16 (The Associated Press), ACLU: Man’s KKK fliers are protected under First Amendment, Washington’s Top News, 10/25/16 8 -BURLINGTON, Vt. (AP) — A white man charged with distributing Ku Klux Klan recruitment fliers to two minority women is protected by the First Amendment, the American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont said in a filing with the state Supreme Court.¶ William Schenk earlier this year pleaded no contest to a disorderly conduct charge that he distributed KKK recruitment fliers to a black woman and a Hispanic woman in Burlington last October. He served a 120-day sentence.¶ Schenk has appealed his case to the state Supreme Court. He argued his speech was protected by the Constitution because he was trying to recruit new members.¶ ACLU attorney Jay Diaz argued the state is attempting to criminalize political speech and needs to prove the speech is threatening.¶ “Although finding an impersonal political message may place a reasonable person in fear, the protected conduct involved in delivering that message to another’s door cannot be criminalized without evidence that it was delivered with intent to place the recipient in fear of bodily harm,” Diaz wrote. 9 - 10 -Cults coerce members into mass suicides, attempt financial ruin, and commit acts of sexual abuse and murder 11 -Grafenstein 14 (Jeremy, freelance writer, game writer, and author. He has numerous publications to his credit and articles have been featured on various web sites since 2008, including: carsdirect.com and therichest.com), 10 if the Most Dangerous Religious Cults, The Richest, 6/03/14 12 -A cult is defined as a system which venerates one particular individual, ideal or object. They can be a select group of fanatics, or a group of misguided outsiders whose ideals have segmented them from the norm. Many cults don’t begin as dangerous sects – and in fact, if asked, those involved with them wouldn’t describe their group as a cult at all. However, many cults have sinister or extreme agendas that are so far outside they norm they become dangerous. This manifests in mass-suicides, brainwashing, extremist behavior, attacks, abductions, extortion and vandalism. Here are 10 of the most dangerous religious cults of all time.¶ 10) Scientology Scientologists are not your typical doomsday cult grabbing headlines with graphic or shocking religious doctrines and actions. Those who’ve escaped from this cult speak of brainwashing, fraud, and attempts at financial ruin. They talk of open threats and other dangerous methods which cult leaders use to ensure loyalty. The basis of the cult is a confusing mess of alien influence and the human psyche. But at the core, Scientology seems to be about a lot of money. They sue the pants off anyone who speaks ill of them. They seem to act at times like a massive global corporation, and not a religious organization. Famously there are several highly-paid actors who’ve become members, including Tom Cruise among others.¶ 9) The Unification Church They are called “Moonies” and they are the followers of Sun Myung Moon. They also believe Moon to be a divine being worthy of worship. Moon’s cult was so damning that Germany banned him from the country as it was deemed he was a danger to the people – especially easily influenced youth. Since the Unification Church believes Moon to be God, he is fully supported by his church in every sense of the word. The cult itself has been accused of luring young members into the fold and actively working to separate them from their families or support systems. Moon constantly speaks out against the Christian church, claims that Korea is the chosen realm, and openly expects to be treated as a deity by his followers.¶ 8) The Ku Klux Klan¶ The KKK is famous for their white robes, pointed hoods and their stance on white supremacy. Lost in this history is the fact that at its core the KKK is, or at least was, a religious sect of extremist Christians. Formed initially after the Civil War, the KKK once boasted nearly four million members. Their terror tactics and stance on blacks, Jews, Catholics and other minorities certainly didn’t win them any favors, but it was the fear tactics and murders which made them exceedingly dangerous. The anonymity of the clan was another contributing factor. Members could live in open society and participate robed and hidden if they desired. They clan lives on today, and while their influence has dwindled considerably they still remain a rather secretive and dangerous cult.¶ 7) The Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God¶ Based in Uganda, this cult believed that the end of the world was inevitable and would take place on January 1st, 2000. They strictly adhered to the Ten Commandments. In fact, they were so reverent to the word of God that they went to unusual lengths to not break it. They rarely spoke to one another and many even used sign language so that they wouldn’t bear false witness and break the ninth commandment. They refrained from sexual relations and fasted regularly. When January 1st, 2000 passed without incident the cult began to lose followers whose faith was suddenly shattered. As a result, the cult leaders predicted a new apocalypse in March that year. When 500 followers gathered at a church prior to the end times, it exploded. There were accusations of mass suicide, but most of the victims were strangled or poisoned and it was believed murder was the primary cause of death.¶ 6) Aum Shinrikyo This Japanese cult translates to the “Supreme Truth” and it was founded by Shoko Asahara in 1984. Under the cover of a yoga and meditation cult, this group was granted religious status and eventually became increasingly dangerous. In the decade that passed Asahara and his followers were accused of forced donations, fraud, and even murder. In 1995 the police began to take a serious look at Asahara and these accusations. So much so that Asahara ordered the release of sarin gas in the subway system hoping to distract the authorities. While the resulting fallout was devastating, the police did manage to capture Asahara and discovered a massive stockpile of weapons, explosives and even live captives. Among the materials the police discovered was enough poisonous gas to kill four million people, a Russian helicopter, drugs (including LSD), and chemical weapons like anthrax. Asahara was imprisoned and his cult disbanded, but some variation of his ideals lives on today in another cult, though the leader has distanced himself from this new sect.¶ 5) Children of God¶ Few cults are as creepy as those that call themselves the Children of God which was founded by David Berg. The primary belief practiced by followers of this organization is that sex with children is not only ok, but a divine right. Needless to say, there was an extensive history of sexual abuse within this cult. Young women were turned towards prostitution and used to lure new members into the fold. There was an entire system in place for recruitment. Two rather famous actors grew up inside this cult, Rose McGowan and River Phoenix were raised in this “family,” though both eventually escaped and went on to better things.¶ 4) Order of the Solar Temple This strange cult is based upon the ancient belief that the Knights Templar still exist and that salvation is only available to converted worshippers who would ascend into heaven. It was founded in 1984 by Joseph Di Mambro and Luc Jouret. The group’s activities are extremely secretive, but in 1994 cultists brutally murdered an infant because they believed it to be the anti-Christ. What followed was a series of mass suicides (including one in Switzerland, where inner-circle members were poisoned to death, and second one in Canada.) Cultists were shot, poisoned, burned, and suffocated. In the end over 100 people died, mostly by their own hand or at the hands of their leaders.¶ 3) Branch Davidians¶ David Koresh convinced his followers that anyone not aligned with him, and particularly the United States, were enemies of God. This was the stereotypical apocalyptic doomsday cult built on a foundation of lies, terror and blind faith. Koresh himself claimed he was a voice of a God and even the Messiah and he used his power to regularly engage in sexual relations with his female followers. He moved his followers into a massive compound outside Waco, Texas. Eventually the authorities investigated the compound after accusations of sexual abuse and child molestation were leveled at Koresh and his cult. In a famous standoff in 1994 the ATF fired teargas into the compound. Fires erupted from the building, though no one was certain who started them or if they were a result of law enforcement. In the end 76 people died in the ensuing chaos.¶ 2) The People’s Temple¶ This sect of religious fanatics was led by Jim Jones, a former Marxist and communist supporter turned Methodist priest. Jones was extremely popular and charismatic. He was also outspoken, particularly against the social elite. Poor and downtrodden members flocked to him in droves and he fully supported their plight. But what started innocently eventually morphed into a strange cult as Jones became more outspoken against the bible and more paranoid about a nuclear catastrophe. Jones was forced to flee the United States for Guyana where persistent sexual abuse was reported. Jones’ congregation took matters into their own hands and assassinated a US Congressman. Eventually, on the orders of their leader, over 900 people committed the largest mass suicide in history by drinking poison-laced Kool Aid, thus coining the term “drinking the Kool Aid.”¶ 13 - 14 -That turns case - cults brainwash and force societal isolation – that increases intellectual singularity and makes fruitful debate and civic engagement impossible 15 -Layton no date (Julia, holds a B.A. in English literature from Duke University and a M.F.A. in creative writing from the University of Miami) “How Cults Work,” How Stuff Works, no date 16 -A destructive cult uses countless techniques to get its members to stay, commit themselves and take part in what may be harmful activities. The sum of these techniques constitutes what some people call "mind control." It's also known as "thought reform," "brainwashing" and "coercive persuasion," and it involves the systematic breakdown of a person's sense of self. Patty Hearst, heiress to the Hearst publishing fortune, became famous in the 1970s after she was kidnapped by the Symbionese Liberation Army (the SLA, which some deem a "political cult") and allegedly brainwashed into joining the group. There are reports that Hearst was locked in a dark closet for several days after her kidnapping and was kept hungry, tired, brutalized and afraid for her life while SLA members bombarded her with their anti-capitalist political ideology. Within two months of her kidnapping, Patty had changed her name, issued a statement in which she referred to her family as the "pig-Hearsts" and appeared on a security tape robbing a bank with her kidnappers. Thought reform is an umbrella term for any number of manipulative techniques used to get people to do something they wouldn't otherwise do. The concept of thought reform itself is a controversial one ~-~- some say it's mere propaganda designed to scare people away from new religions and political movements. But most psychologists believe that cult brainwashing techniques, which are similar to techni¬ques used in prisoner interrogation, do change a person's thought processes. In cult recruiting and indoctrination, these techniques include: Deception - Cults trick new recruits into joining the group and committing themselves to a cause or lifestyle they don't fully understand. Cults mislead new recruits/members as to the true expectations and activities of the group. Cults may hide any signs of illegal, immoral or hyper-controlling practices until the recruit has fully immersed himself in the group. A cult leader may use members' altered consciousness, induced by activities like meditation, chanting or drug use, to increase vulnerability to suggestion. Isolation - Cults cut off members from the outside world (and even each other) to produce intense introspection, confusion, loss of perspective and a distorted sense of reality. The members of the cult become the person's only social contact and feedback mechanism. Cults may keep new recruits from talking to other new recruits. They may only be allowed to speak with long-committed members for a period of time. Cults may not allow unsupervised contact with the "outside world." In this way, there is no chance for a "reality check" or validation of a new member's concerns regarding the group. Cults typically instill the belief that "outsiders" (non-cult members) are dangerous and wrong. Induced Dependency - Cults demand absolute, unquestioning devotion, loyalty and submission. A cult member's sense of self is systematically destroyed. Ultimately, feelings of worthlessness and "evil" become associated with independence and critical thinking, and feelings of warmth and love become associated with unquestioning submission. The leader typically controls every minute of a member's waking time. There is no free time to think or analyze. Members are told what to eat, what to wear, how to feed their children, when to sleep ... the member is removed from all decision-making. Any special talents the member has are immediately devalued and criticized in order to confuse the member's sense of self-worth. Any doubts, assertiveness or remaining ties to the outside world are punished by the group through criticism, guilt and alienation. Questions and doubts are systematically "turned around" so that the doubter feels wrong, worthless, "evil" for questioning. The member is loved again when he renounces those doubts and submits to the will of the leader. The member may be deprived of adequate sustenance and/or sleep so the mind becomes muddled. The leader may randomly alternate praise and love with scorn and punishment to keep the member off-balance and confused and instill immense self-doubt. The leader may offer occasional gifts and special privileges to encourage continued submission. The member may be pressured to publicly confess sins, after which he is viciously ridiculed by the group for being evil and unworthy. He is loved again when he acknowledges that his devotion to the cult is the only thing that will bring him salvation. Dread - Once complete dependence is established, the member must retain the leader's good favor or else his life falls apart. The leader may punish doubt or insubordination with physical or emotional trauma. Once all ties to the outside world have been cut, the member feels like his only family is the group, and he has nowhere else to go. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-07 02:43:27.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Zane Dille, Aron Berger, Leo Kim - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard Westlake VC - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -23 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Octas - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Immaculate Heart Dosch Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB - Cults PIC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -USC Damus Spring Trojan Championships
- Caselist.CitesClass[33]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,10 +1,0 @@ 1 -The ACs faith in deliberation is a view mired in white privilege. Racism isn’t grounded in naiveté, but a deliberate act designed to reinforce social hierarchies. Efforts at convincing the racist they’re wrong ignore social realities and result in violence against minorities. 2 -Delgado and Yun 94 (Richard, teaches civil rights and critical race theory at University of Alabama School of Law) “Pressure Valves and Bloodied Chickens: An Analysis of Paternalistic Objections to Hate Speech Regulation,” California Law Review, 7/94. DRD 3 -Regulation, 82 Cal. L. Rev. 871 (1994) D. "More Speech"-Talking Back to the Aggressor as a Preferable Solution to the Problem of Hate Speech Defenders of the First Amendment sometimes argue that minorities should talk back to the aggressor.85 Nat Hentoff, for example, writes that antiracism rules teach black people to depend on whites for protection, while talking back clears the air, emphasizes self-reliance, and strengthens one's self-image as an active agent in charge of one's own destiny.8 6 The "talking back" solution to campus racism draws force from the First Amendment principle of "more speech," according to which additional dialogue is always a preferred response to speech that some find troubling.87 Proponents of this approach oppose hate speech rules, then, not so much because they limit speech, but because they believe that it is good for minorities to learn to speak out. A few go on to offer another reason: that a minority who speaks out will be able to educate the speaker who has uttered a racially hurtful remark."8 Racism, they hold, is the product of ignorance and fear. If a victim of racist hate speech takes the time to explain matters, he or she may succeed in altering the speaker's perception so that the speaker will no longer utter racist remarks.8 9 How valid is this argument? Like many paternalistic arguments, it is offered blandly, virtually as an article of faith. In the nature of paternalism, those who make the argument are in a position of power, and therefore believe themselves able to make things so merely by asserting them as true.90 They rarely offer empirical proof of their claims, because none is needed. The social world is as they say because it is their world: they created it that way.91 In reality, those who hurl racial epithets do so because they feel empowered to do so. 92 Indeed, their principal objective is to reassert and reinscribe that power. One who talks back is perceived as issuing a direct challenge to that power. The action is seen as outrageous, as calling for a forceful response. Often racist remarks are delivered in several-on-one situations, in which responding in kind is foolhardy. 93 Many highly publicized cases of racial homicide began in just this fashion. A group began badgering a black person. The black person talked back, and paid with his life.94 Other racist remarks are delivered in a cowardly fashion, by means of graffiti scrawled on a campus wall late at night or on a poster placed outside of a black student's dormitory door.95 In these situations, more speech is, of course, impossible. Racist speech is rarely a mistake, rarely something that could be corrected or countered by discussion. What would be the answer to "Nigger, go back to Africa. You don't belong at the University"? "Sir, you misconceive the situation. Prevailing ethics and constitutional interpretation hold that I, an African American, am an individual of equal dignity and entitled to attend this university in the same manner as others. Now that I have informed you of this, I am sure you will modify your remarks in the future"? 96 The idea that talking back is safe for the victim or potentially educative for the racist simply does not correspond with reality. It ignores the power dimension to racist remarks, forces minorities to run very real risks, and treats a hateful attempt to force the victim outside the human community as an invitation for discussion. Even when successful, talking back is a burden. Why should minority undergraduates, already charged with their own education, be responsible constantly for educating others? 4 -Under the guise of "defending free speech,” opposition to political correctness is a tactic used by the right to rebrand racism and shut down political discussion spreading authoritarianism everywhere 5 -Weigel 16. Moira Weigel is a writer and academic. Her book Labor of Love: The Invention of Dating is published on 17 May. “Political correctness: how the right invented a phantom enemy.” The Guardian. 6 -Trump claimed that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were willing to let ordinary Americans suffer because their first priority was political correctness. “They have put political correctness above common sense, above your safety, and above all else,” Trump declared after a Muslim gunman killed 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando. “I refuse to be politically correct.” What liberals might have seen as language changing to reflect an increasingly diverse society – in which citizens attempt to avoid giving needless offence to one another – Trump saw a conspiracy. Throughout an erratic campaign, Trump consistently blasted political correctness, blaming it for an extraordinary range of ills and using the phrase to deflect any and every criticism. During the first debate of the Republican primaries, Fox News host Megyn Kelly asked Trump how he would answer the charge that he was “part of the war on women”.¶ “You’ve called women you don’t like ‘fat pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ ‘slobs,’ and ‘disgusting animals’,” Kelly pointed out. “You once told a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees …”¶ “I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct,” Trump answered, to audience applause. “I’ve been challenged by so many people, I don’t frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn’t have time either.”¶ Trump used the same defence when critics raised questions about his statements on immigration. In June 2015, after Trump referred to Mexicans as “rapists”, NBC, the network that aired his reality show The Apprentice, announced that it was ending its relationship with him. Trump’s team retorted that, “NBC is weak, and like everybody else is trying to be politically correct.”¶ In August 2016, after saying that the US district judge Gonzalo Curiel of San Diego was unfit to preside over the lawsuit against Trump Universities because he was Mexican American and therefore likely to be biased against him, Trump told CBS News that this was “common sense”. He continued: “We have to stop being so politically correct in this country.” During the second presidential debate, Trump answered a question about his proposed “ban on Muslims” by stating: “We could be very politically correct, but whether we like it or not, there is a problem.”¶ Every time Trump said something “outrageous” commentators suggested he had finally crossed a line and that his campaign was now doomed. But time and again, Trump supporters made it clear that they liked him because he wasn’t afraid to say what he thought. Fans praised the way Trump talked much more often than they mentioned his policy proposals. He tells it like it is, they said. He speaks his mind. He is not politically correct.¶ Trump and his followers never defined “political correctness”, or specified who was enforcing it. They did not have to. The phrase conjured powerful forces determined to suppress inconvenient truths by policing language. There is an obvious contradiction involved in complaining at length, to an audience of hundreds of millions of people, that you are being silenced. But this idea – that there is a set of powerful, unnamed actors, who are trying to control everything you do, right down to the words you use – is trending globally right now. Britain’s rightwing tabloids issue frequent denunciations of “political correctness gone mad” and rail against the smug hypocrisy of the “metropolitan elite”. In Germany, conservative journalists and politicians are making similar complaints: after the assaults on women in Cologne last New Year’s Eve, for instance, the chief of police Rainer Wendt said that leftists pressuring officers to be politisch korrekt had prevented them from doing their jobs. In France, Marine Le Pen of the Front National has condemned more traditional conservatives as “paralysed by their fear of confronting political correctness”.¶ Advertisement¶ Trump’s incessant repetition of the phrase has led many writers since the election to argue that the secret to his victory was a backlash against excessive “political correctness”. Some have argued that Hillary Clinton failed because she was too invested in that close relative of political correctness, “identity politics”. But upon closer examination, “political correctness” becomes an impossibly slippery concept. The term is what Ancient Greek rhetoricians would have called an “exonym”: a term for another group, which signals that the speaker does not belong to it. Nobody ever describes themselves as “politically correct”. The phrase is only ever an accusation.¶ If you say that something is technically correct, you are suggesting that it is wrong – the adverb before “correct” implies a “but”. However, to say that a statement is politically correct hints at something more insidious. Namely, that the speaker is acting in bad faith. He or she has ulterior motives, and is hiding the truth in order to advance an agenda or to signal moral superiority. To say that someone is being “politically correct” discredits them twice. First, they are wrong. Second, and more damningly, they know it.¶ If you go looking for the origins of the phrase, it becomes clear that there is no neat history of political correctness. There have only been campaigns against something called “political correctness”. For 25 years, invoking this vague and ever-shifting enemy has been a favourite tactic of the right. Opposition to political correctness has proved itself a highly effective form of crypto-politics. It transforms the political landscape by acting as if it is not political at all. Trump is the deftest practitioner of this strategy yet. Most Americans had never heard the phrase “politically correct” before 1990, when a wave of stories began to appear in newspapers and magazines. One of the first and most influential was published in October 1990 by the New York Times reporter Richard Bernstein, who warned – under the headline “The Rising Hegemony of the Politically Correct” – that the country’s universities were threatened by “a growing intolerance, a closing of debate, a pressure to conform”.¶ Advertisement¶ Bernstein had recently returned from Berkeley, where he had been reporting on student activism. He wrote that there was an “unofficial ideology of the university”, according to which “a cluster of opinions about race, ecology, feminism, culture and foreign policy defines a kind of ‘correct’ attitude toward the problems of the world”. For instance, “Biodegradable garbage bags get the PC seal of approval. Exxon does not.”¶ Bernstein’s alarming dispatch in America’s paper of record set off a chain reaction, as one mainstream publication after another rushed to denounce this new trend. The following month, the Wall Street Journal columnist Dorothy Rabinowitz decried the “brave new world of ideological zealotry” at American universities. In December, the cover of Newsweek – with a circulation of more than 3 million – featured the headline “THOUGHT POLICE” and yet another ominous warning: “There’s a ‘politically correct’ way to talk about race, sex and ideas. Is this the New Enlightenment – or the New McCarthyism?” A similar story graced the cover of New York magazine in January 1991 – inside, the magazine proclaimed that “The New Fascists” were taking over universities. In April, Time magazine reported on “a new intolerance” that was on the rise across campuses nationwide.¶ If you search ProQuest, a digital database of US magazines and newspapers, you find that the phrase “politically correct” rarely appeared before 1990. That year, it turned up more than 700 times. In 1991, there are more than 2,500 instances. In 1992, it appeared more than 2,800 times. Like Indiana Jones movies, these pieces called up enemies from a melange of old wars: they compared the “thought police” spreading terror on university campuses to fascists, Stalinists, McCarthyites, “Hitler Youth”, Christian fundamentalists, Maoists and Marxists.¶ Many of these articles recycled the same stories of campus controversies from a handful of elite universities, often exaggerated or stripped of context. The New York magazine cover story opened with an account of a Harvard history professor, Stephan Thernstrom, being attacked by overzealous students who felt he had been racially insensitive: “Whenever he walked through the campus that spring, down Harvard’s brick paths, under the arched gates, past the fluttering elms, he found it hard not to imagine the pointing fingers, the whispers. Racist. There goes the racist. It was hellish, this persecution.”¶ In an interview that appeared soon afterwards in The Nation, Thernstrom said the harassment described in the New York article had never happened. There had been one editorial in the Harvard Crimson student newspaper criticising his decision to read extensively from the diaries of plantation owners in his lectures. But the description of his harried state was pure “artistic licence”. No matter: the image of college students conducting witch hunts stuck. When Richard Bernstein published a book based on his New York Times reporting on political correctness, he called it Dictatorship of Virtue: Multiculturalism and the Battle for America’s Future – a title alluding to the Jacobins of the French Revolution. In the book he compared American college campuses to France during the Reign of Terror, during which tens of thousands of people were executed within months. None of the stories that introduced the menace of political correctness could pinpoint where or when it had begun. Nor were they very precise when they explained the origins of the phrase itself. Journalists frequently mentioned the Soviets – Bernstein observed that the phrase “smacks of Stalinist orthodoxy”– but there is no exact equivalent in Russian. (The closest would be “ideinost”, which translates as “ideological correctness”. But that word has nothing to do with disadvantaged people or minorities.) The intellectual historian LD Burnett has found scattered examples of doctrines or people being described as “politically correct” in American communist publications from the 1930s – usually, she says, in a tone of mockery.¶ The phrase came into more widespread use in American leftist circles in the 1960s and 1970s – most likely as an ironic borrowing from Mao, who delivered a famous speech in 1957 that was translated into English with the title “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People”. Ruth Perry, a literature professor at MIT who was active in the feminist and civil rights movements, says that many radicals were reading the Little Red Book in the late 1960s and 1970s, and surmises that her friends may have picked up the adjective “correct” there. But they didn’t use it in the way Mao did. “Politically correct” became a kind of in-joke among American leftists – something you called a fellow leftist when you thought he or she was being self-righteous. “The term was always used ironically,” Perry says, “always calling attention to possible dogmatism.”¶ Advertisement¶ In 1970, the African-American author and activist Toni Cade Bambara, used the phrase in an essay about strains on gender relations within her community. No matter how “politically correct” her male friends thought they were being, she wrote many of them were failing to recognise the plight of black women.¶ Until the late 1980s, “political correctness” was used exclusively within the left, and almost always ironically as a critique of excessive orthodoxy. In fact, some of the first people to organise against “political correctness” were a group of feminists who called themselves the Lesbian Sex Mafia. In 1982, they held a “Speakout on Politically Incorrect Sex” at a theatre in New York’s East Village – a rally against fellow feminists who had condemned pornography and BDSM. Over 400 women attended, many of them wearing leather and collars, brandishing nipple clamps and dildos. The writer and activist Mirtha Quintanales summed up the mood when she told the audience, “We need to have dialogues about SandM issues, not about what is ‘politically correct, politically incorrect’.”¶ By the end of the 1980s, Jeff Chang, the journalist and hip-hop critic, who has written extensively on race and social justice, recalls that the activists he knew then in the Bay Area used the phrase “in a jokey way – a way for one sectarian to dismiss another sectarian’s line”.¶ But soon enough, the term was rebranded by the right, who turned its meaning inside out. All of a sudden, instead of being a phrase that leftists used to check dogmatic tendencies within their movement, “political correctness” became a talking point for neoconservatives. They said that PC constituted a leftwing political programme that was seizing control of American universities and cultural institutions – and they were determined to stop it. The right had been waging a campaign against liberal academics for more than a decade. Starting in the mid-1970s, a handful of conservative donors had funded the creation of dozens of new thinktanks and “training institutes” offering programmes in everything from “leadership” to broadcast journalism to direct-mail fundraising. They had endowed fellowships for conservative graduate students, postdoctoral positions and professorships at prestigious universities. Their stated goal was to challenge what they saw as the dominance of liberalism and attack left-leaning tendencies within the academy.¶ Advertisement¶ Starting in the late 1980s, this well-funded conservative movement entered the mainstream with a series of improbable bestsellers that took aim at American higher education. The first, by the University of Chicago philosophy professor Allan Bloom, came out in 1987. For hundreds of pages, The Closing of the American Mind argued that colleges were embracing a shallow “cultural relativism” and abandoning long-established disciplines and standards in an attempt to appear liberal and to pander to their students. It sold more than 500,000 copies and inspired numerous imitations.¶ In April 1990, Roger Kimball, an editor at the conservative journal, The New Criterion, published Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted our Higher Education. Like Bloom, Kimball argued that an “assault on the canon” was taking place and that a “politics of victimhood” had paralysed universities. As evidence, he cited the existence of departments such as African American studies and women’s studies. He scornfully quoted the titles of papers he had heard at academic conferences, such as “Jane Austen and the Masturbating Girl” or “The Lesbian Phallus: Does Heterosexuality Exist?”¶ In June 1991, the young Dinesh D’Souza followed Bloom and Kimball with Illiberal Education: the Politics of Race and Sex on Campus. Whereas Bloom had bemoaned the rise of relativism and Kimball had attacked what he called “liberal fascism”, and what he considered frivolous lines of scholarly inquiry, D’Souza argued that admissions policies that took race into consideration were producing a “new segregation on campus” and “an attack on academic standards”. The Atlantic printed a 12,000 word excerpt as its June cover story. To coincide with the release, Forbes ran another article by D’Souza with the title: “Visigoths in Tweed.”¶ These books did not emphasise the phrase “political correctness”, and only D’Souza used the phrase directly. But all three came to be regularly cited in the flood of anti-PC articles that appeared in venues such as the New York Times and Newsweek. When they did, the authors were cited as neutral authorities. Countless articles uncritically repeated their arguments.¶ In some respects, these books and articles were responding to genuine changes taking place within academia. It is true that scholars had become increasingly sceptical about whether it was possible to talk about timeless, universal truths that lay beyond language and representation. European theorists who became influential in US humanities departments during the 1970s and 1980s argued that individual experience was shaped by systems of which the individual might not be aware – and particularly by language. Michel Foucault, for instance, argued that all knowledge expressed historically specific forms of power. Jacques Derrida, a frequent target of conservative critics, practised what he called “deconstruction”, rereading the classics of philosophy in order to show that even the most seemingly innocent and straightforward categories were riven with internal contradictions. The value of ideals such as “humanity” or “liberty” could not be taken for granted.¶ Advertisement¶Responsiveads.com - 5833498a5c03118a43000344¶ ¶ andlt;IMG SRC="https://pixel.adsafeprotected.com/rfw/st/60379/11334465/skeleton.gif" BORDER=0 WIDTH=1 HEIGHT=1 ALT=""andgt;¶ It was also true that many universities were creating new “studies departments”, which interrogated the experiences, and emphasised the cultural contributions of groups that had previously been excluded from the academy and from the canon: queer people, people of colour and women. This was not so strange. These departments reflected new social realities. The demographics of college students were changing, because the demographics of the United States were changing. By 1990, only two-thirds of Americans under 18 were white. In California, the freshman classes at many public universities were “majority minority”, or more than 50 non-white. Changes to undergraduate curriculums reflected changes in the student population.¶ The responses that the conservative bestsellers offered to the changes they described were disproportionate and often misleading. For instance, Bloom complained at length about the “militancy” of African American students at Cornell University, where he had taught in the 1960s. He never mentioned what students demanding the creation of African American studies were responding to: the biggest protest at Cornell took place in 1969 after a cross burning on campus, an open KKK threat. (An arsonist burned down the Africana Studies Center, founded in response to these protests, in 1970.)¶ More than any particular obfuscation or omission, the most misleading aspect of these books was the way they claimed that only their adversaries were “political”. Bloom, Kimball, and D’Souza claimed that they wanted to “preserve the humanistic tradition”, as if their academic foes were vandalising a canon that had been enshrined since time immemorial. But canons and curriculums have always been in flux; even in white Anglo-America there has never been any one stable tradition. Moby Dick was dismissed as Herman Melville’s worst book until the mid-1920s. Many universities had only begun offering literature courses in “living” languages a decade or so before that.¶ In truth, these crusaders against political correctness were every bit as political as their opponents. As Jane Mayer documents in her book, Dark Money: the Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right, Bloom and D’Souza were funded by networks of conservative donors – particularly the Koch, Olin and Scaife families – who had spent the 1980s building programmes that they hoped would create a new “counter-intelligentsia”. (The New Criterion, where Kimball worked, was also funded by the Olin and Scaife Foundations.) In his 1978 book A Time for Truth, William Simon, the president of the Olin Foundation, had called on conservatives to fund intellectuals who shared their views: “They must be given grants, grants, and more grants in exchange for books, books, and more books.”¶ Advertisement¶ These skirmishes over syllabuses were part of a broader political programme – and they became instrumental to forging a new alliance for conservative politics in America, between white working-class voters and small business owners, and politicians with corporate agendas that held very little benefit for those people.¶ By making fun of professors who spoke in language that most people considered incomprehensible (“The Lesbian Phallus”), wealthy Ivy League graduates could pose as anti-elite. By mocking courses on writers such as Alice Walker and Toni Morrison, they made a racial appeal to white people who felt as if they were losing their country. As the 1990s wore on, because multiculturalism was associated with globalisation – the force that was taking away so many jobs traditionally held by white working-class people – attacking it allowed conservatives to displace responsibility for the hardship that many of their constituents were facing. It was not the slashing of social services, lowered taxes, union busting or outsourcing that was the cause of their problems. It was those foreign “others”.¶ PC was a useful invention for the Republican right because it helped the movement to drive a wedge between working-class people and the Democrats who claimed to speak for them. “Political correctness” became a term used to drum into the public imagination the idea that there was a deep divide between the “ordinary people” and the “liberal elite”, who sought to control the speech and thoughts of regular folk. Opposition to political correctness also became a way to rebrand racism in ways that were politically acceptable in the post-civil-rights era.¶ Soon, Republican politicians were echoing on the national stage the message that had been product-tested in the academy. In May 1991, President George HW Bush gave a commencement speech at the University of Michigan. In it, he identified political correctness as a major danger to America. “Ironically, on the 200th anniversary of our Bill of Rights, we find free speech under assault throughout the United States,” Bush said. “The notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land,” but, he warned, “In their own Orwellian way, crusades that demand correct behaviour crush diversity in the name of diversity.” After 2001, debates about political correctness faded from public view, replaced by arguments about Islam and terrorism. But in the final years of the Obama presidency, political correctness made a comeback. Or rather, anti-political-correctness did.¶ As Black Lives Matter and movements against sexual violence gained strength, a spate of thinkpieces attacked the participants in these movements, criticising and trivialising them by saying that they were obsessed with policing speech. Once again, the conversation initially focused on universities, but the buzzwords were new. Rather than “difference” and “multiculturalism”, Americans in 2012 and 2013 started hearing about “trigger warnings”, “safe spaces”, “microaggressions”, “privilege” and “cultural appropriation”.¶ Advertisement¶ This time, students received more scorn than professors. If the first round of anti-political-correctness evoked the spectres of totalitarian regimes, the more recent revival has appealed to the commonplace that millennials are spoiled narcissists, who want to prevent anyone expressing opinions that they happen to find offensive.¶ In January 2015, the writer Jonathan Chait published one of the first new, high-profile anti-PC thinkpieces in New York magazine. “Not a Very PC Thing to Say” followed the blueprint provided by the anti-PC thinkpieces that the New York Times, Newsweek, and indeed New York magazine had published in the early 1990s. Like the New York article from 1991, it began with an anecdote set on campus that supposedly demonstrated that political correctness had run amok, and then extrapolated from this incident to a broad generalisation. In 1991, John Taylor wrote: “The new fundamentalism has concocted a rationale for dismissing all dissent.” In 2015, Jonathan Chait claimed that there were once again “angry mobs out to crush opposing ideas”.¶ Chait warned that the dangers of PC had become greater than ever before. Political correctness was no longer confined to universities – now, he argued, it had taken over social media and thus “attained an influence over mainstream journalism and commentary beyond that of the old”. (As evidence of the “hegemonic” influence enjoyed by unnamed actors on the left, Chait cited two female journalists saying that they had been criticised by leftists on Twitter.)¶ Chait’s article launched a spate of replies about campus and social media “cry bullies”. On the cover of their September 2015 issue, the Atlantic published an article by Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff. The title, “The Coddling Of the American Mind”, nodded to the godfather of anti-PC, Allan Bloom. (Lukianoff is the head of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, another organisation funded by the Olin and Scaife families.) “In the name of emotional wellbeing, college students are increasingly demanding protection from words and ideas they don’t like,” the article announced. It was shared over 500,000 times. These pieces committed many of the same fallacies that their predecessors from the 1990s had. They cherry-picked anecdotes and caricatured the subjects of their criticism. They complained that other people were creating and enforcing speech codes, while at the same time attempting to enforce their own speech codes. Their writers designated themselves the arbiters of what conversations or political demands deserved to be taken seriously, and which did not. They contradicted themselves in the same way: their authors continually complained, in highly visible publications, that they were being silenced.¶ Advertisement¶ The climate of digital journalism and social media sharing enabled the anti-political-correctness (and anti-anti-political correctness) stories to spread even further and faster than they had in the 1990s. Anti-PC and anti-anti-PC stories come cheap: because they concern identity, they are something that any writer can have a take on, based on his or her experiences, whether or not he or she has the time or resources to report. They are also perfect clickbait. They inspire outrage, or outrage at the outrage of others.¶ Meanwhile, a strange convergence was taking place. While Chait and his fellow liberals decried political correctness, Donald Trump and his followers were doing the same thing. Chait said that leftists were “perverting liberalism” and appointed himself the defender of a liberal centre; Trump said that liberal media had the system “rigged”.¶ The anti-PC liberals were so focused on leftists on Twitter that for months they gravely underestimated the seriousness of the real threat to liberal discourse. It was not coming from women, people of colour, or queer people organising for their civil rights, on campus or elsewhere. It was coming from @realdonaldtrump, neo-Nazis, and far-right websites such as Breitbart. The original critics of PC were academics or shadow-academics, Ivy League graduates who went around in bow ties quoting Plato and Matthew Arnold. It is hard to imagine Trump quoting Plato or Matthew Arnold, much less carping about the titles of conference papers by literature academics. During his campaign, the network of donors who funded decades of anti-PC activity – the Kochs, the Olins, the Scaifes – shunned Trump, citing concerns about the populist promises he was making. Trump came from a different milieu: not Yale or the University of Chicago, but reality television. And he was picking different fights, targeting the media and political establishment, rather than academia.¶ As a candidate, Trump inaugurated a new phase of anti-political-correctness. What was remarkable was just how many different ways Trump deployed this tactic to his advantage, both exploiting the tried-and-tested methods of the early 1990s and adding his own innovations. First, by talking incessantly about political correctness, Trump established the myth that he had dishonest and powerful enemies who wanted to prevent him from taking on the difficult challenges facing the nation. By claiming that he was being silenced, he created a drama in which he could play the hero. The notion that Trump was both persecuted and heroic was crucial to his emotional appeal. It allowed people who were struggling economically or angry about the way society was changing to see themselves in him, battling against a rigged system that made them feel powerless and devalued. At the same time, Trump’s swagger promised that they were strong and entitled to glory. They were great and would be great again.¶ Advertisement¶ Second, Trump did not simply criticise the idea of political correctness – he actually said and did the kind of outrageous things that PC culture supposedly prohibited. The first wave of conservative critics of political correctness claimed they were defending the status quo, but Trump’s mission was to destroy it. In 1991, when George HW Bush warned that political correctness was a threat to free speech, he did not choose to exercise his free speech rights by publicly mocking a man with a disability or characterising Mexican immigrants as rapists. Trump did. Having elevated the powers of PC to mythic status, the draft-dodging billionaire, son of a slumlord, taunted the parents of a fallen soldier and claimed that his cruelty and malice was, in fact, courage.¶ This willingness to be more outrageous than any previous candidate ensured non-stop media coverage, which in turn helped Trump attract supporters who agreed with what he was saying. We should not underestimate how many Trump supporters held views that were sexist, racist, xenophobic and Islamophobic, and were thrilled to feel that he had given them permission to say so. It’s an old trick: the powerful encourage the less powerful to vent their rage against those who might have been their allies, and to delude themselves into thinking that they have been liberated. It costs the powerful nothing; it pays frightful dividends.¶ Trump drew upon a classic element of anti-political-correctness by implying that while his opponents were operating according to a political agenda, he simply wanted to do what was sensible. He made numerous controversial policy proposals: deporting millions of undocumented immigrants, banning Muslims from entering the US, introducing stop-and-frisk policies that have been ruled unconstitutional. But by responding to critics with the accusation that they were simply being politically correct, Trump attempted to place these proposals beyond the realm of politics altogether. Something political is something that reasonable people might disagree about. By using the adjective as a put-down, Trump pretended that he was acting on truths so obvious that they lay beyond dispute. “That’s just common sense.”¶ The most alarming part of this approach is what it implies about Trump’s attitude to politics more broadly. His contempt for political correctness looks a lot like contempt for politics itself. He does not talk about diplomacy; he talks about “deals”. Debate and disagreement are central to politics, yet Trump has made clear that he has no time for these distractions. To play the anti-political-correctness card in response to a legitimate question about policy is to shut down discussion in much the same way that opponents of political correctness have long accused liberals and leftists of doing. It is a way of sidestepping debate by declaring that the topic is so trivial or so contrary to common sense that it is pointless to discuss it. The impulse is authoritarian. And by presenting himself as the champion of common sense, Trump gives himself permission to bypass politics altogether.¶ Advertisement¶ Now that he is president-elect, it is unclear whether Trump meant many of the things he said during his campaign. But, so far, he is fulfilling his pledge to fight political correctness. Last week, he told the New York Times that he was trying to build an administration filled with the “best people”, though “Not necessarily people that will be the most politically correct people, because that hasn’t been working.”¶ Trump has also continued to cry PC in response to criticism. When an interviewer from Politico asked a Trump transition team member why Trump was appointing so many lobbyists and political insiders, despite having pledged to “drain the swamp” of them, the source said that “one of the most refreshing parts of … the whole Trump style is that he does not care about political correctness.” Apparently it would have been politically correct to hold him to his campaign promises.¶ As Trump prepares to enter the White House, many pundits have concluded that “political correctness” fuelled the populist backlash sweeping Europe and the US. The leaders of that backlash may say so. But the truth is the opposite: those leaders understood the power that anti-political-correctness has to rally a class of voters, largely white, who are disaffected with the status quo and resentful of shifting cultural and social norms. They were not reacting to the tyranny of political correctness, nor were they returning America to a previous phase of its history. They were not taking anything back. They were wielding anti-political-correctness as a weapon, using it to forge a new political landscape and a frightening future.¶ The opponents of political correctness always said they were crusaders against authoritarianism. In fact, anti-PC has paved the way for the populist authoritarianism now spreading everywhere. Trump is anti-political correctness gone mad. 7 - 8 -The alternative is to reinterpret the first amendment as a right concerned with protecting the material ability of minorities to participate in deliberation, as opposed to an abstract negative right that gives racists the ability to dehumanize and threaten minorities 9 -Matsuda 93 (Mari, Law Professor at the William S. Richardson School of Law at the University of Hawaii), “Words that Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the First Amendment,” Westview Press, 1993. DRD. 10 -The struggle against institutional, structural, and culturally ingrained unconscious racism and the movement toward a fully multicultural, postcolonial uni- versity is central to the work of the liberationist teacher. This is at bottom a fight to gain equal access to the power of the intelligentsia to construct knowledge, social meaning, ideology, and definitions of who “we” are. Now the defenders of the status quo have discovered, in the first amendment, a new weapon. The debate about affirmative action and the inclusion of historically excluded groups is being recast as a debate about free speech. We have begun to hear a rhetoric from those of our colleagues who are most fearful of change that sounds much like what we hear from first amendment fundamentalists: Arguments for absolutist protection of speech made without reference to historical context or uneven power relations. Academic freedom and intellectual pursuit are alleged to be threatened by “leftist speech police.” People of color, women, gays, and lesbians who insist on the inclusion of their voices in academic discourse and who speak out against persons and practices that continue to injure and demean them are said to impose a “new orthodoxy” upon the academy. Tenured professors say that they are afraid to raise controversial issues, use humor in their classes, or express friendli- ness toward their students for fear of being called a racist, a sexist, or a homophobe by “oversensitive” students. Stripped of its context this is a seductive argument. The privilege and power of white male elites is wrapped in the rhetoric of politically unpopular speech. Those with the power to exclude new voices from the official canon become an oppressed minority. Academic freedom to express one’s beliefs is decontextualized from the speaker’s power to impose those beliefs on others. The isolated Black, Brown, or Asian faculty member, the small group of students who risk future careers in raising their voices against racism, are cast as powerful censors. The first amendment arms conscious and unconscious racists—Nazis and liberals alike—with a constitutional right to be racist. Racism is just another idea deserving of constitutional protection like all ideas. The first amendment is employed to trump or nullify the only substantive meaning of the equal protection clause, that the Constitution mandates the disestablish-ment of the ideology of racism. What is ultimately at stake in this debate is our vision for this so- ciety. We are in this fight about the first amendment because it is more than a fight about how to balance one individual’s freedom of speech against another individual’s freedom from injury. This is a fight about the substantive content that we will give to the ideals of freedom and equality—how we will construct “freedom,” as a constitutional premise and a defining principle of democracy. This is the same fight that is the subject of all of our work. It is a fight for a vision of society where the substance of freedom is freedom from degradation, humiliation, battering, starvation, homelessness, hopelessness, and other forms of violence to the person that deny one’s full humanity. It is a fight for a constitutional community where “freedom” does not implicate a right to degrade and humiliate another human being any more than it implicates a right to do physical violence to another or a right to enslave another or a right to economically exploit another in a sweatshop, in a coal mine, or in the fields. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-04-29 14:39:33.854 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Aaron Timmons - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cedar Park MT - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -24 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Immaculate Heart Dosch Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB - Agonism K V2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Tournament of Champions
- Caselist.RoundClass[16]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -23 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-17 19:55:58.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 ---- - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Greenhill SK - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Quarters - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard Westlake
- Caselist.RoundClass[17]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -24 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-13 19:09:09.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -John Scoggin - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Dougherty Valley KK - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Stanford Invitational
- Caselist.RoundClass[18]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -25,26 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-18 18:58:34.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -panel - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cupertino HK - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Triples - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Stanford Invitational
- Caselist.RoundClass[19]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -27 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-18 18:59:53.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Arjun Tambe, Steve Knell - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Newark Science BA - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cal RR
- Caselist.RoundClass[20]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -28 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-05 00:45:08.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Zane Dille - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard Westlake MG - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -USC Damus Spring Trojan Championships
- Caselist.RoundClass[21]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -29,30 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-05 00:49:27.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Gabriela Gonzalez - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Polytechnic JL - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -USC Damus Spring Trojan Championships
- Caselist.RoundClass[22]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -31 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-05 00:52:13.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Adam Torson - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard Westlake JD - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -USC Damus Spring Trojan Championships
- Caselist.RoundClass[23]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -32 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-07 02:43:25.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Zane Dille, Aron Berger, Leo Kim - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard Westlake VC - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Octas - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -USC Damus Spring Trojan Championships
- Caselist.RoundClass[24]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-04-29 14:39:31.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Aaron Timmons - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cedar Park MT - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Tournament of Champions