Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[15]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[21]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[15]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-01-16 03:34:02.302
	1	+2017-01-16 03:34:02.0

Caselist.CitesClass[21]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,7 @@
	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	+
	5	+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
	6	+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.
	7	+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

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-01-16 03:34:03.901

Judge

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

Opponent

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

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+15

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+5

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Immaculate Heart Dosch Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+JANFEB - Agonism K

Tournament

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