Changes for page Katy Taylor Ribera Neg
Summary
-
Objects (2 modified, 1 added, 13 removed)
- Caselist.CitesClass[18]
- Caselist.CitesClass[19]
- Caselist.CitesClass[20]
- Caselist.CitesClass[21]
- Caselist.CitesClass[22]
- Caselist.CitesClass[23]
- Caselist.CitesClass[24]
- Caselist.RoundClass[18]
- Caselist.RoundClass[19]
- Caselist.RoundClass[20]
- Caselist.RoundClass[21]
- Caselist.RoundClass[22]
- Caselist.RoundClass[23]
- Caselist.RoundClass[24]
- Caselist.RoundClass[25]
- Caselist.RoundClass[6]
Details
- Caselist.CitesClass[18]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -2017-01-14 17:44:39.0 1 +2017-01-14 17:44:39.610
- Caselist.CitesClass[19]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,23 +1,0 @@ 1 -CP text: The United States federal government ought to require rigorous and sustained training to police officers on a quarterly basis and involve the community in their design and implementation. 2 -Elzie et al 15 Johnetta Elzie, Deray Mckesson, Samuel Sinyangwe, and Brittany Packnett "Training" Campaign Zero http://www.joincampaignzero.org/train 01-15-2015 HSLASC 3 -The current training 4 -AND 5 -use of force. 6 - 7 -AND- CP solves for biased law enforcement. 8 -Swarts 15 Phillips Swarts, 01-13-2015, "Police brutality solutions are training, community relations, presidential task force told," Washington Times, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/13/police-brutality-solutions-are-training-community-/ HSLASC 9 -Civil rights advocates 10 -AND 11 -cultural and racial. 12 - 13 -AND- reformed training is key to create a value re-orientation with black communities and the police force. 14 -Swarts 2 Phillips Swarts, 01-13-2015, "Police brutality solutions are training, community relations, presidential task force told," Washington Times, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/13/police-brutality-solutions-are-training-community-/ HSLASC 15 -Law enforcement and 16 -AND 17 -in this area." 18 - 19 -AND- the aff can’t solve, SQUO police training fails- police default to handcuffing and shooting. 20 -Swarts 15 Phillips Swarts, 01-13-2015, "Police brutality solutions are training, community relations, presidential task force told," Washington Times, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/13/police-brutality-solutions-are-training-community-/ HSLASC 21 -Andrew Peralta, president 22 -AND 23 -Mr. Peralta said. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-14 18:03:37.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Kathy Thomas - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -idk - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -20 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Katy Taylor Ribera Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -NOV DEC - Reform Police Training CP - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -University of Texas
- Caselist.CitesClass[20]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,6 +1,0 @@ 1 -Police don’t pay legal fees- doesn’t create reform. 2 -De Stefan 16 Lindsey de Stefan, JD Candidate, Seton Hall University School of Law, “No Man is Above the Law and No Man is Below It: How Qualified Immunity Reform Could Create Accountability and Curb Widespread Police Misconduct,” Seton Hall Law Student Scholarship, July 26, 2016 (2017 Academic Year) 3 -The Court specifically fears that financial liability, in the form of paying compensatory damages to victims whose constitutional rights an officer has violated, will be a vehicle of overdeterrence.97 But the widespread practice of indemnification means that individual officers are almost never financially responsible for civil judgments against them, practically eliminating any fiscal motivation for avoiding harmful conduct.98 In fact, in many instances, even the police department that employs the officer suffers no direct financial consequences because police litigation costs and damages awards are often paid from a city or insurer’s general budget.99 The police department is not financially penalized, and thus has no incentive to discipline the officer or attempt to prevent him from repeating the unconstitutional behavior in the future. And because law enforcement officials are often unaware of the allegations set forth in lawsuits filed against them or their employees, officers’ conduct often goes uninvestigated and undisciplined, and allegations of unconstitutional conduct do not affect performance reviews or opportunities for promotion. 100 Finally, although many law enforcement officers claim that the threat of incurring liability deters them from misconduct, studies contrarily indicate that potential liability does not actually alter most officers’ on-the-job actions.101 4 - 5 -Turns case—excessive policing Kopf 16 Dan Kopf, data journalist. The Fining of Black America, Priceonomics, 6-24-2016, Accessible Online at https://priceonomics.com/the-fining-of-black-america/ SW 11-1-2016 6 -In March 2010, years before Ferguson, Missouri, became known for sparking the Black Lives Matter movement, the city’s Finance Director contacted the Chief of Police with a solution to the city’s budget problems. ¶ The Finance Director wanted the If police to generate more revenues from fines — money paid for infractions like traffic violations and missing court appointments. He warned that the city would be in financial trouble “unless ramps up ticket writing ramps up significantly before the end of the year.” “Given that we are looking at a substantial sales tax shortfall,” he wrote, “it’s not an insignificant issue.”¶ The Finance Director’s request surfaced as part of the U.S. Department of Justice’s investigation of the Ferguson Police Department. The investigation was instigated by the civil unrest that followed the fatal shooting of an 18-year-old African American man named Michael Brown in August 2014. Its goal was to better understand why the citizens of Ferguson felt so at odds with the police department chartered to protect them.¶ The Justice Department concluded that the mistrust between the police and the community primarily resulted from excessive fining. “Ferguson’s law enforcement practices are shaped by the City’s focus on revenue rather than by public safety needs,” the report read. The use of fines to fund the government undermined “law enforcement legitimacy among African Americans in particular.” ¶ Ferguson has a population of just over 20,000 that is 67 African American, and it raised over $2 million from fines and fees in 2012. This accounted for around 13 of all government revenue, and a disproportionate amount of this money came from the African American population.¶ Is Ferguson an anomaly?¶ Using the U.S. Census’s Survey of Local and State Finances, we investigated the proportion of revenues that cities typically receive from fines, as well as the characteristics of cities that rely on fines the most. What are these cities like? Are they rich or poor? In certain parts of the country? Heavily Black or White?¶ We found one demographic that was most characteristic of cities that levy large amounts of fines on their citizens: a large African American population. Among the fifty cities with the highest proportion of revenues from fines, the median size of the African American population—on a percentage basis—is more than five times greater than the national median.¶ Surprisingly, we found that income had very little connection to cities’ reliance on fines as a revenue source. Municipalities that are overwhelming White and non-Hispanic do not exhibit as much excessive fining, even if they are poor.¶ Our analysis indicates that the use of fines as a source of revenue is not a socioeconomic racial problem, but a racial one. The cities most likely to exploit residents for fine revenue are those with the most African Americans. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-14 18:07:41.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Kathy Thomas - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -idk - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -21 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Katy Taylor Ribera Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -NOV DEC - Indemnification DA - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -University of Texas
- Caselist.CitesClass[21]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,6 +1,0 @@ 1 -Increasing liability decreases police morale and makes them less likely to police actively. 2 -Leeuwen 16 Sean Van Leeuwen, Post June 23,2016, "Political rushes to judgement hurt public safety," Sean Van Leeuwen is Vice President of Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs 3 -Mosby's decision to bury multiple officers under an avalanche of criminal charges was perhaps politically expedient in the wake of rioting that ravaged the city following Gray's funeral. The results of the first three trials should now make it clear to Mosby and everyone else, it was also just plain wrong. Mosby's Legal rhetoric, such as the use of the term, "rough ride," to paints all the officers involved in the case with a broad brush, implying conspiracy and corruption has done long-lasting harm to police nationwide and communities' relationships with their officers. The acquittal of Officer Goodson who faced the most serious criminal charges in Freddie Gray's death, underscores two key elements of the case: the prosecution's politically fueled rush to judgement and the critical need for law enforcement officers to have a collective defense against malicious prosecutions. Law enforcement officers have a solemn duty to protect the public, a duty which ALADS members believe in and exemplify every day. We do not support actions which violate that duty. However, we do support careful, deliberate investigations that are motivated by a search for the truth, not politics. Peace officers are under more intense scrutiny today than ever before. Virtually every action we take is presumed by some to be an over-reaction or brutality. There is a belief that we should be able to handle every encounter without laying hands on a suspect or drawing a weapon. As Heather McDonald documents in her just released book , The War on Cops: How the Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe these continual misguided attacks only cause police to pull back from proactive policing and as a result crime soars. An example of how unhinged from reality these attacks have become is the anti-police rant published by the Washington Post, following Officer Goodson's not guilty verdict. The author, Jon O. Newman, is a sitting Federal Appellate judge, who urged Congress to abolish qualified immunity for law enforcement, and to appoint United States Attorneys to bring civil suits against police officers on behalf of plaintiffs. Clearly, this jurist does not understand or more likely refuses to accept the rationale for qualified immunity which states if a police officer's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights a reasonable person would have known of, there should not be civil liability. In fact, the judge in Officer Goodson's case, who unlike Newman, listened to and gave careful consideration to all the evidence ruled, "Having found that a reasonable person would act similarly to the defendant, the Court does not find that his actions were reckless and, therefore, finds that there is no criminal liability under the theory that the defendant's failure to act recklessly endangered Mr. Gray." If you want to see active policing plummet, tell law enforcement officers they will be civilly liable for conduct which no reasonable person could have foreseen was a violation of any rights! Here's an idea. Let's make Federal Appellate Court judges civilly liable for every decision they have reversed by the Supreme Court. Unlike cops, who have to make real time decisions affecting legal rights, often under life-threatening circumstances, judges have the luxury of time, law clerks and quiet, safe, well-appointed chambers to make sure their legal decisions are correct. Why shouldn't they be accountable for rendering legal opinions the Supreme Court determines are wrong? 4 -Empirically proven to increase crime- more homicides- turns adv 1 5 -Heather Mac Donald 16 (Heather Mac Donald, Thomas W. Smith fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor to City Journal, ) The Ferguson effect, Washington Post 7-20-2016 LADI 6 -The most controversial aspect of my new book, “The War on Cops,” is my claim that violent crime is up in many American cities because officers are backing off of proactive policing. I have dubbed this double phenomenon of de-policing and the resulting crime increase the “Ferguson effect,” picking up on a phrase first used by St. Louis’s police chief. Violence began increasing in the second half of 2014, after two decades of decline. The Major Cities Chiefs Association convened an emergency session in August 2015 to discuss the double-digit surge in violent felonies besetting its member police departments. The violence continued into fall 2015, prompting Attorney General Loretta Lynch to summon more than 100 police chiefs, mayors and federal prosecutors in another emergency meeting to strategize over the rising homicide rates. Arrests, summonses and pedestrian stops were dropping in many cities, where data on such police activity were available. Arrests in St. Louis City and County, for example, fell by a third after the shooting of Michael Brown. Misdemeanor drug arrests fell by two-thirds in Baltimore through November 2015. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel told Lynch that his officers were going “fetal”: “They have pulled back from the ability to interdict,” he said. “They don’t want to be a news story themselves, they don’t want their career ended early, and it’s having an impact.” 2015 closed with a 17 percent increase in homicides in the 56 largest cities, a nearly unprecedented one-year spike. Twelve cities with large black populations saw murders rise anywhere from 54 percent in the case of the District to 90 percent in Cleveland. Baltimore’s per capita murder rate was the highest in its history in 2015. Robberies also surged in the 81 largest cities in the 12 months after the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo. In the first quarter of 2016, homicides were up 9 percent and non-fatal shootings up 21 percent in 63 large cities, according to a Major Cities Chiefs Association survey. Chicago is a prime example of the Ferguson effect. Stops were down nearly 90 percent in the first part of this year compared with last year. Shootings citywide through July 17 were up 50 percent compared with the same period in 2015; shootings were up 87 percent compared with the same period in 2014. In Austin, on the West Side, shootings are up 220 percent compared with 2014. Through July 19, 2,234 people have been shot in the city, averaging one an hour during some weekends. Yesterday, a 6-year-old girl was seriously wounded in her abdomen while sitting on her porch, when a violent shoot-out between three cars broke out; she is one of at least 21 children younger than 13 shot so far this year, including a 3-year-old boy shot on Father’s Day who is now paralyzed for life. (One would have assumed, pursuant to the Black Lives Matter narrative, that racist cops were responsible for a significant portion of those shootings, given that their victims have been overwhelmingly black. In fact, Chicago cops shot 11 people, all armed and dangerous, through July 19, comprising 0.5 percent of all shootings.) This crime increase, I argue, is due to officers’ reluctance to engage in precisely the proactive policing that has come under relentless attack as racist. For the past two years, activists, academics, the press and many politicians have charged that pedestrian stops and low-level public order enforcement (also known as “broken windows” policing) are little more than biased oppression of minority citizens. That political message is accompanied by increasing tension on the street, inflamed by the persistent allegation that racist officers are the biggest threat facing young black males today. A garden-variety Black Lives Matter march that I attended last November on Fifth Avenue in New York featured “F–––the Police,” “Murderer Cops” and “Racism Is the Disease, Revolution Is the Cure” T-shirts as well as “Stop Police Terror” signs. Officers working in urban areas are now routinely surrounded by angry crowds when they question a suspect or make an arrest. “In my 19 years in law enforcement, I haven’t seen this kind of hatred towards the police,” a Chicago cop who works on the South Side told me in May. “People want to fight you. ‘F––– the police. We don’t have to listen,’ they say.” A police officer in Los Angeles’s Newton Division reports: “Our officers are getting surrounded, cursed and jeered at every time they put handcuffs on someone.” Officers continue to rush to crime scenes after someone has already been victimized, sometimes getting shot at in the process. But in that large area of discretionary policing that aims to prevent crime before it occurs — getting out of a squad car at 1 a.m., for example, to question someone who appears to have a gun or may be casing a target — many officers are deciding to drive on by rather than risk a volatile, potentially career-ending confrontation that they are under no obligation to instigate. “Every cop today is thinking: ‘If this stop goes bad, I’m in the mix,’ ” says Lou Turco, president of the Lieutenants Benevolent Association in New York City. An officer in South Central Los Angeles described the views of his fellow cops: “Guys and gals in coffee shops are saying to each other: ‘If you get out of your car, you’re crazy, unless there’s a radio call.’ ” That officers would lessen their discretionary engagement under this barrage of criticism and hatred is both understandable and inevitable. Policing is political. If a powerful segment of society sends the message that proactive policing is bigoted, the cops will eventually do less of it. This is not unprofessional conduct; it is how the calibration of police legitimacy is supposed to work. Cops, moreover, are human. In a speech last October at the University of Chicago law school, FBI Director James Comey said that officers in one big city precinct had recounted being surrounded and taunted from the moment they made a pedestrian stop. “’We feel like we’re under siege, and we don’t feel much like getting out of our cars,’ ” they told him. Under such conditions, it is not surprising that proactive policing is down. Remember, such policing is discretionary. Cops don’t have to do it. And they have been told not to do it by activists and the media, who accuse them of racism for making stops in high-crime areas. The only surprise is that many of those same activists are now accusing the cops of not “doing their job,” as a result of which “people are dying,” in the words of Black Lives Matter activist Shaun King. This is the same King who launched a petition in 2014 demanding that Attorney General Eric Holder “meet with local black and brown youth across the country” who were being oppressed by “broken windows” policing and pedestrian stops. The connection between de-policing and crime increases has been documented before. A 2005 study of de-policing after the anti-cop riots in Cincinnati in 2001 by University of Washington economist Lan Shi, for example, found a significant increase in felony crime caused by the drop-off in officer engagement. Acknowledging the connection between de-policing and crime is unacceptable, however, to those who reject the idea that data-driven, proactive policing can lower crime. To be sure, no one has conducted randomly controlled experiments to confirm that the current crime spike in urban areas is the result of officers reverting to a reactive style of policing. But no other explanation fits the timing of the post-Ferguson crime increase. As Comey said last October, de-policing “is the one explanation that does explain the calendar and the map and that makes the most sense to me.” University of Missouri, St. Louis, criminologist Richard Rosenfeld reached the same conclusion in a study of the post-Ferguson crime increase for the Justice Department: “The only explanation that gets the timing right is a version of the Ferguson effect,” he told the Guardian in May. The crime increase is real, driven by officer disengagement, and is resulting in more black lives being lost. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-14 18:09:36.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Kathy Thomas - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -idk - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -22 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Katy Taylor Ribera Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -NOV DEC - Crime DA - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -University of Texas
- Caselist.CitesClass[22]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,11 +1,0 @@ 1 -. Public colleges and universities in the United States oughtnot restrict constitutionally protected journalist speech except hate speech. 2 - 3 -B. Competes through mutual exclusivity- case bans hate speech cp doesn’t 4 - 5 -C. Hate speech runs rampant in journalism- from holocaust denial to outright bigotry. 6 -Lew et al 08, Glen, National Chair, Abraham H. Foxman, National Director, Kenneth Jacobson, Deputy National Director, David Millstone, Chair, Education Committee, Ed S. Alster, Director, Education Division, Marvin Nathan, Chair, Civil Rights Committee, Deborah Lauter, National Civil Rights Director, Stacey Berkowitz, Director, Campus and Confronting Anti-Semitism Initiatives, Deborah Cohen, Assistant Director of Legal Affairs, “RESPONDING to BIGOTRY and INTERGROUP STRIFE on CAMPUS, http://www.adl.org/assets/pdf/education-outreach/Responding-to-Bigotry-and-Intergroup-Strife-on-Campus.pdf 7 -To place an outright ban on certain speech would be unconstitutional and contrary¶ to a fundamental tenet of American democracy. However, the Constitution does not¶ oblige universities to host everyone who wants to speak or write there, nor does it¶ require campus newspaper editors to publish every item submitted to them. Campus¶ leaders and journalists must responsibly draw a line between valid, fact-based opinions¶ and outright bigotry. The sections in this chapter outline common hate speech¶ issues on campus. Each section contains background information, legal analysis,¶ suggested action steps and examples of university responses.¶ When dealing with specific speech issues on campus, there are certain fundamental¶ guidelines that can be applied in most situations.¶ • Be a public presence on campus by voicing your support or opposition in tensesituations.¶ • Establish university response protocols to deal with hate incidents. These protocols must be¶ communicated to the campus through student policy manuals, orientation materials, the¶ institution’s Web site and clear step-by-step instructions placed in every campus building.¶ • Continually review and train on the emergency protocols and be able to direct victims to¶ where they can get assistance.¶ • Appoint a central university ombuds officer as a point person to dealing with issues of hate,¶ bigotry and intimidation.¶ • Establish high-priority, long-term human relations and anti-bias programming¶ within the curriculum, in the orientation process, through student services and in¶ university publications.¶ • Be equally concerned about and respond equally to instances of bias directed at any group on¶ campus. Base your response on the incident itself, not the group identity of thetargets.¶ • Hold fraternities, sororities and other student organizations responsible for acts of¶ bigotry committed by their members participating in any fraternity, sorority or¶ organizational activity.¶ • Encourage alumni, parents and members of the larger community to speak out on issues of¶ bigotry on campus. Their voices can have a significant positive impact on the atmosphere¶ on campus. ISSUE¶ The campus media are a natural venue for the¶ expression of ideas. Hate groups may take advantage¶ of this and place paid advertisements, paid inserted¶ supplements, opinion/editorial articles and letters¶ to the editor in campus newspapers and other¶ publications. This was a favorite, high-profile tactic¶ of the Holocaust denial movement in the late¶ 1990s, which succeeded in placing such materials in¶ publications on more than 200 campuses.¶ Editors should be aware that privately owned¶ publications have editorial autonomy to decide what¶ they will and will not publish. Courts generally view¶ student newspapers (even those at public schools)¶ as private when student editors, and not school¶ administrators, make the decisions about content¶ and advertising policies. University regulation and¶ subsidization do not transform a newspaper from a¶ private body into an arm of the state or university.¶ Despite their claims, extremist groups have no¶ legitimate First Amendment right to have their¶ advertisements placed in campus publications.¶ The First Amendment guarantees that they may¶ stand in public areas speaking hateful messages,¶ hold meetings and send racist fliers through the¶ mail and the government cannot censor or punish¶ them. However, the First Amendment does not¶ secure anyone the right to be placed in a private¶ newspaper. Private companies are not bound by the¶ constraints of the First Amendment, and individuals¶ have no First Amendment right to force a private,¶ professional or college newspaper to run a story or¶ advertisement. One federal appellate court observed:¶ “The right to freedom of speech does not open every¶ avenue to one who desires to use a particular outlet¶ for expression.”12 Determining the paper’s editorial¶ content and deciding what stories to print is solely¶ the province of editors.¶ SUGGESTED ACTION STEPS¶ • Since campus newspaper staff change from¶ year to year, educate campus newspaper editors¶ on a continuing basis about their journalistic¶ responsibilities. Proactive outreach is needed¶ before any bigoted advertisements, articles or¶ opinion pieces are received.¶ • Advise student editors to devise and record an¶ advertising policy, which they can reference when¶ declining to run hateful ads.¶ • Encourage students to use the campus media as¶ a tool for civil and respectful dialogue instead of¶ hate or bigotry.¶ • Encourage the student leadership of the campus¶ media to engage their staff in a dialogue regarding¶ their rights and responsibilities as journalists.¶ • Encourage faculty members and top¶ administrators to take a public stand against the¶ use of the campus newspaper to spread hateful¶ propaganda. Administrators always have the¶ right to criticize an article or the decisions made¶ by newspaper staff. 8 - 9 -Even if the negative doesn’t solve hate speech- universities ought not tolerate these viewpoints. Forcing the responsibility onto the students is victim blaming. 10 -Delgado 16 (Delgado, Richard. "Pressure Valves And Bloodied Chickens: An Analysis Of Paternalistic Objections To Hate Speech Regula." 82 Cal. L. Rev. December 09, 1994. Web. December 03, 2016. h p://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol82/iss4/5.) 11 -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"? 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? - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-15 19:29:12.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Nick Steele - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -TP Falcon JS - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -23 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Katy Taylor Ribera Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JAN FEB - Hate Speech CP - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard Westlake
- Caselist.CitesClass[23]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,13 +1,0 @@ 1 -Free speech on college campuses for white people is rooted in white supremacy and creates the myth of a post racial America. 2 -Downey 14 R. Jamaal Downey is a doctoral student at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. 3-11-2014, "The Paradox of Free Speech within the Context of White Supremacy -," Racism Review, http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2014/03/11/paradox-free-speech-within-context-white-supremacy/ HSLA//SC 3 -The ability of some white people to shout a single word to enact such rage among such a large group, and then cry when said rage ensues, should be charged with a crime. I understand that personal judgment is subjective and does not hold weight in court, but the use of this word to tease black people into confrontation should not be legally sanctioned, by omission. I don’t know the answer I am trying to get at; hell I don’t know the question. I do know that in this age of colorblindness even though overt racism is evermore present today than in the past, the school to prison pipeline at its strongest, and capitalism’s uncanny stranglehold on education has created a false sense of a post-racial America. This pseudo-post-racial-world that is being created in attitudes and minds of younger Americans but which is not actualizing and materializing in real life, has as much supporting theory as trickledown economics. We are on a slippery slope that descends us back into pre-civil rights times. The ability to use language in this manner, as a carrot on a stick in which I will beat you once you reach for the carrot, is the same structure that was used to dehumanize the large swaths of people that have been systematically oppressed. (W)e (T)he (P)eople, pertaining to whites only, can freely speak their minds without thought. (W)e (T)he brown (P)eople must succumb to their freedom of speech embedded in White Supremacy. 4 - 5 -Allowing free speech on college campuses gives white people the ability to say and do racist shit about minorities without suffering consequences. 6 -Raible 09 Dr. John W. Raible received his doctorate from the University of Massachusetts Amherst in Teacher Education and Curriculum Studies, concentrating in Language, Literacy, and Culture. 3-18-2009, "‘White people have no freedom of speech’," Resist racism, https://resistracism.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/white-people-have-no-freedom-of-speech/ HSLA//SC 7 -So why do white people want freedom of speech? They want to be able to write racist shit about other people without suffering the consequences. Because they don’t want their racist speech “stifled.” They want to be able to dress up in redface and mock First Nations people. Because racism is a part of “personal expression” as well as free speech. They want to spew nice-sounding words about cultural diversity while doing nothing about racist “South of the Border” parties. They want to defend Don Imus’ right to call black college students “nappy headed hos.” Because “shutting down offensive speech” is against the First Amendment and because black people are haters too! They want to wear racist Halloween costumes if they feel like it. Because it’s “all in good fun” and because they have the right to free speech! So there! They want to display confederate flags. And then officials are shocked and don’t know what to do when racial tensions erupt into violence. They want to use the n-word. And then defend themselves … why, those black people just misunderstood and misinterpreted what I said! Because I was actually making a complex free speech argument! They want the freedom to use ethnic and sexual slurs. Because they are against censorship, yanno. Ultimately what it boils down to is that white people want the right to do anything they damn well please. They are not interested in invoking free speech rights to criticize the government or making any kind of social change. No, they want to be able to wear a headdress and dance around barefoot. 8 -AND Oklahoma state proves- white supremacy is normalized in the N word on college campuses daily because of a protection of free speech. This makes black people victims to anti-blackness. 9 -Downey 14 R. Jamaal Downey is a doctoral student at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. 3-11-2014, "The Paradox of Free Speech within the Context of White Supremacy -," Racism Review, http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2014/03/11/paradox-free-speech-within-context-white-supremacy/ HSLA//SC 10 -Given the historical context of white supremacy from the Spanish Asiento to English culpability in the institution of African slavery in the American colonies, the modern use of the word “nigger” continues to carries with it collective memories of a violent and oppressive era. It is because of this past that the use of this word by white people is unacceptable. No other word inflames the passion of black Americans more than the word “nigger” as it is a constant reminder of the debased status of blacks in the United States and justice that never fully materialized in our so-called post racial society. Some white Americans, whether conscious or not, use the word “nigger” to provoke black Americans into confrontation. Marcus Smart, a sophomore basketball player at Oklahoma St. and a top 10 NBA prospect in the 2014 draft, dove into the crowd to save a ball during a game. As he stands and gathers his composure preparing to return to the court, a white man (who has been deemed the biggest Texas Tech basketball fan and was profiled by the team) yells a derogatory something at him. Marcus Smart turns around charges and shoved the fan. It is up for debate as to the specific words used—the fan swears he did not use the word “nigger”; Smart is adamant that “nigger” was used in his direction by the fan. Again, violence is not the answer and this is not a call for vigilante justice. I am, however, concerned with the ability for a person to wave a piece of meat in front of a lion and then claim the lion to be a savage beast when it attacks. For black people, the word “nigger” is the carrot on a stick; it is used in order to generate a reaction that will then have serious and real-world repercussions, not for the name caller, but for the one called names. Smart was suspended for three games and forced to write a full apology to the fan; the same man that Texas Tech and the media framed as a lifelong and avid fan which may have in the past toed the line of obscene comments, but that has never crossed said line. Bullshit. They praise the one who used the language; they made the victim, yes, the victim of racist actions surrender without any humility; dehumanization. 11 -Alt- Restrict free speech for white people on college campuses. Sally Kohn a CNN editor is the solvency advocate. 12 -Berrien 16 Hank Berrien, The Daily Wire is an American news and conservative opinion website founded in 2015 by political commentator Ben Shapiro, who currently serves as Editor-in-chief. 9-18-2016, "Sally Kohn Rips Free Speech For Whites," Daily Wire, http://www.dailywire.com/news/9236/sally-kohn-rips-free-speech-whites-hank-berrien HSLA//SC 13 -Leftist CNN contributor Sally Kohn revealed how clearly the left hates free speech on Friday, telling an audience at the University of Missouri (MU) that free speech by upper and middle class whites should be limited because they didn’t understand their “white privilege.” At a symposium revolving around campus free speech. Kohn debated CNN contributor Kirsten Powers, Kohn made it a habit to target the “Koch-funded” Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which has defended campus free speech, saying FIRE is part of a “broad conservative agenda” to protect conservative views, and free speech was only a vehicle for the promulgation of said conservatism. In the same breath, Kohn ludicrously argued that disruptive protests that prevent the airing of political views are a form of free speech. Powers argued that speech should be protected because words aren’t dangerous; Kohn responded countered that Powers was unaware of her own white privilege. She argued that speech that seemed innocuous to middle or upper-class whites could threaten poor and non-white communities. In contrast to Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro’s mantra, “Facts don’t care about your feelings,” Kohn pontificated, “Feelings are valid. I’m never going to argue with people’s feelings.” She didn’t mind threatening conservatives, condoning the idea of conservatives feeling intimidated by peers or professors and thus reticent to express themselves, opining, “If they feel like they can no longer speak against positive social change, good.” Kohn concluded, “They think diversity is dumbing down humanity, or the greatness and exceptionalism of America. I’m happy that’s under assault.” - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-15 22:17:34.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Chris Castillo - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lynbrook NS - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -24 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -6 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Katy Taylor Ribera Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JAN FEB - Post Racial America K - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard Westlake
- Caselist.CitesClass[24]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,6 +1,0 @@ 1 -Hi everyone! You can message me on facebook if you have any questions. 2 -My email is claudiaribera24@gmail.com :) 3 -Anything disclosed on Katy Taylor AW is fair game. 4 - 5 -PLEASE READ TRIGGER WARNINGS ON THE FOLLOWING CONTENT: 6 -Interp: Debaters must read trigger warnings if reading arguments about non-consensual sexual positions, IPV or mental illness/disabilities. To clarify, you must tell the judge and your opponent that you will be reading arguments about non-consensual sexual positions, IPV or mental illness/disabilities. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-29 00:04:46.402 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -any - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -25 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Quads - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Katy Taylor Ribera Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -0 - Contact info READ ME - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -any
- Caselist.RoundClass[18]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -18
- Caselist.RoundClass[19]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-14 17:53:52.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Kyle Fennessy - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -South Caroll SM - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,2 +1,0 @@ 1 -AC - Model Minority 2 -NC - K and turns - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -University of Texas
- Caselist.RoundClass[20]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -19 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-14 18:03:35.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Kathy Thomas - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -idk - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,5 +1,0 @@ 1 -AC - Foucault of doom 2 -NC - CP DA turns 3 -1AR - CP DA AC 4 -2N - DA Turns 5 -2AR - Condo Theory - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -University of Texas
- Caselist.RoundClass[21]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -20 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-14 18:07:39.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Kathy Thomas - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -idk - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,5 +1,0 @@ 1 -AC - Foucault of Doom 2 -NC - CP DA Case turns 3 -1AR - CP DA AC 4 -2N - DA Case turns 5 -2AR- Theory - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -University of Texas
- Caselist.RoundClass[22]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -21 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-14 18:09:35.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Kathy Thomas - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -idk - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -University of Texas
- Caselist.RoundClass[23]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -22 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-15 19:29:10.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Nick Steele - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -TP Falcon JS - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,2 +1,0 @@ 1 -AC 2 -NC - PIC K - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard Westlake
- Caselist.RoundClass[24]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -23 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-15 22:17:32.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Chris Castillo - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lynbrook NS - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -6 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,2 +1,0 @@ 1 -AC - Militarism 2 -NC - K - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard Westlake
- Caselist.RoundClass[25]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-29 00:04:44.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -any - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Quads - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -any
- Caselist.RoundClass[6]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +6 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-09-23 23:21:58.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +any - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Quads - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +any