Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[54]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[55]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[54]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-12-16 16:43:12.217
	1	+2016-12-16 16:43:12.0

Caselist.CitesClass[55]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,17 @@
	1	+The notion of free speech assumes that all voices are equally treated, when in reality power inequities shape who can speak what
	2	+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 AZ
	3	+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.
	4	+Free exchange of ideas is outweighed by need for direct action – anything else accepts racism, neoliberalism, and economic inequality as the norm
	5	+Tillett-Saks 13 Andrew Tillett-Saks (organizer with UNITE HERE Local 217), "Neoliberal Myths," Counterpunch, 11/7/2013 AZ
	6	+The twofold argument against the protestors stems from two central myths of neoliberalism. The argument for free discourse as the enlightened path to justice ignores that direct action protest is primarily responsible for most of the achievements we would consider ‘progress’ historically (think civil rights, workers’ rights, suffrage, etc.), not the free exchange of ideas. The claim that silencing speech in the name of freedom is self-defeating indulges in the myth of the pre-existence of a free society in which freedom of speech must be preciously safeguarded, while ignoring the woeful shortcomings of freedom of speech in our society which must be addressed before there is anything worth protecting.
	7	+Critics of the protest repeatedly denounced direct action in favor of ideological debate as the path to social justice. “It would have been more effective to take part in a discussion rather than flat out refuse to have him speak,” declared one horrified student to the Brown Daily Herald. Similarly, Brown University President Christina Paxson labeled the protest a detrimental “affront to democratic civil society,” and instead advocated “intellectual rigor, careful analysis, and…respectful dialogue and discussion.” Yet the implication that masterful debate is the engine of social progress could not be more historically unfounded. Only in the fairy tale histories of those interested in discouraging social resistance does ‘respectful dialogue’ play a decisive role in struggles against injustice. The eight-hour workday is not a product of an incisive question-and-answer session with American robber barons. Rather, hundreds of thousands of workers conducted general strikes during the nineteenth century, marched in the face of military gunfire at Haymarket Square in 1886, and occupied scores of factories in the 1930’s before the eight-hour work day became American law. Jim Crow was not defeated with the moral suasion of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s speeches. Rather, hundreds of thousands marched on Washington, suffered through imprisonment by racist Southern law enforcement, and repeatedly staged disruptive protests to win basic civil rights. On a more international scale, Colonialism, that somehow-oft-forgotten tyranny that plagued most of the globe for centuries, did not cease thanks to open academic dialogue. Bloody resistance, from Algeria to Vietnam to Panama to Cuba to Egypt to the Philippines to Cameroon and to many other countries, was the necessary tool that unlocked colonial shackles. Different specific tactics have worked in different contexts, but one aspect remains constant: The free flow of ideas and dialogue, by itself, has rarely been enough to generate social progress. It is not that ideas entirely lack social power, but they have never been sufficient in winning concessions from those in power to the oppressed. Herein lies neoliberal myth number one—that a liberal free-market society will inexorably and inherently march towards greater freedom. To the contrary, direct action has always proved necessary.
	8	+Racism must be rejected in every instance without surcease. It justifies atrocities, and is truly the capital sin.
	9	+Memmi 2k – Albert, Professor Emeritus of Sociology @ Unv. Of Paris, Albert (RACISM, translated by Steve Martinot, pp.163-165) jwang
	10	+The struggle against racism will be long, difficult, without intermission, without remission, probably never achieved, yet for this very reason, it is a struggle to be undertaken without surcease and without concessions. One cannot be indulgent toward racism. One cannot even let the monster in the house, especially not in a mask. To give it merely a foothold means to augment the bestial part in us and in other people which is to diminish what is human. To accept the racist universe to the slightest degree is to endorse fear, injustice, and violence. It is to accept the persistence of the dark history in which we still largely live. It is to agree that the outsider will always be a possible victim (and which person man is not themself himself an outsider relative to someone else?). Racism illustrates in sum, the inevitable negativity of the condition of the dominated; that is it illuminates in a certain sense the entire human condition. The anti-racist struggle, difficult though it is, and always in question, is nevertheless one of the prologues to the ultimate passage from animality to humanity. In that sense, we cannot fail to rise to the racist challenge. However, it remains true that one’s moral conduct only emerges from a choice: one has to want it. It is a choice among other choices, and always debatable in its foundations and its consequences. Let us say, broadly speaking, that the choice to conduct oneself morally is the condition for the establishment of a human order for which racism is the very negation. This is almost a redundancy. One cannot found a moral order, let alone a legislative order, on racism because racism signifies the exclusion of the other and his or her subjection to violence and domination. From an ethical point of view, if one can deploy a little religious language, racism is “the truly capital sin.”fn22 It is not an accident that almost all of humanity’s spiritual traditions counsel respect for the weak, for orphans, widows, or strangers. It is not just a question of theoretical counsel respect for the weak, for orphans, widows or strangers. It is not just a question of theoretical morality and disinterested commandments. Such unanimity in the safeguarding of the other suggests the real utility of such sentiments. All things considered, we have an interest in banishing injustice, because injustice engenders violence and death. Of course, this is debatable. There are those who think that if one is strong enough, the assault on and oppression of others is permissible. But no one is ever sure of remaining the strongest. One day, perhaps, the roles will be reversed. All unjust society contains within itself the seeds of its own death. It is probably smarter to treat others with respect so that they treat you with respect. “Recall,” says the bible, “that you were once a stranger in Egypt,” which means both that you ought to respect the stranger because you were a stranger yourself and that you risk becoming once again someday. It is an ethical and a practical appeal – indeed, it is a contract, however implicit it might be. In short, the refusal of racism is the condition for all theoretical and practical morality. Because, in the end, the ethical choice commands the political choice. A just society must be a society accepted by all. If this contractual principle is not accepted, then only conflict, violence, and destruction will be our lot. If it is accepted, we can hope someday to live in peace. True, it is a wager, but the stakes are irresistible.
	11	+
	12	+Our alternative is a historicized ethics that reveals the racial contradictions within the law, empowering marginalized voices to overcome current problematic discourse
	13	+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 AZ
	14	+JUSTIFICATIONS FOR HISTORICIZED ETHICS On what basis might one justify an affirmative action pedagogy? The first justification is forwarded by legal scholars in the area of critical race theory. The authors of Words that Wound address the tension between the First and Fourteenth amendment. The tension arises because, in fact all people are not equally protected under the law due to the institutionalized inequities within our society. This complicates the effectiveness of the First Amendment. Scholarship in critical race theory and educational analyses document that in recent years we find incidents of hate speech primarily to be directed at racial, religious, or sexual minorities. Not surprisingly, one finds in turn that invocations of the right to free speech are most often invocations to protect the right of the members of the dominant culture to express their hatred toward members of minority culture. These authors make important legal and historical cases to support their observation that, in practice, while the rhetoric of the First Amendment is a buzz word that makes all of us want to rally for its principle, in practice “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.”4 Similarly, Judith Roof, a scholar from another discipline addresses classroom dynamics and argues that we must “read the appeal to the First Amendment as itself a kind of panic response in the same order as hate speech itself.”5 A second justification for privileging marginalized voices is based on the measurement of the psychological effect of hate speech on targeted groups and individuals. As one legal scholar explains, hate speech affects its victim in the visceral experience of a “disorienting powerlessness,” an effect achieved because hate speech is comparable to an act of violence.6 In reaction to hate speech, the target commonly experiences a “state of semishock,” nausea, dizziness, and an inability to articulate a response. This scholar gives an example of a student who is white and gay. The student reports that in an instance where he was called “faggot” he experienced all of the above symptoms. Yet when he was called “honky,” he did not experience the disorienting powerlessness. As the scholar remarks, “the context of the power relationships in which the speech takes place, and the connection to violence must be considered as we decide how best to foster the freest and fullest dialogue within our communities.”7
	15	+Colleges are key to challenging racism
	16	+Gordon and Johnson 95 Jill Gordon (Charles A. Dana Professor of Philosophy, Colby College) and Markus Johnson, "Race, Speech, and a Hostile Educational Environment: What Color Is Free Speech?" Journal of Social Philosophy, 2003 AZ
	17	+From racially motivated police brutality to kindly condescension, racism and racialized behavior pervade American life and manifest themselves in a range of phenomena.1 Psychologists and legal scholars have demonstrated the various ways in which sometimes subtle but invidious racism permeates American institutions and personal interactions between whites and blacks.2 We focus on one particular institution and set of interactions, namely, predominantly white college campuses and the antiblack racist speech and behavior that take place there, in an effort to analyze the type of harm done in this context and to suggest a solution analogous to the legal precedent set in cases involving “hostile work environments.” We believe that a hostile educational environment is one manifestation of what Charles Mills (1997) calls the legacy of the Racial Contract. Whites continue to express and act on racist beliefs and ideals, while refusing to recognize their ideas and behaviors as such, and when it comes to remedying the consequences of antiblack racism through legal means, pervasive white “moral cognitive dysfunction”3 keeps the legal system from recognizing and legitimizing the problem and from seeing potential avenues of redress already available. Unless or until there is redress of the harm to black students on predominantly white campuses, they are being denied a fundamental educational opportunity in institutions thought to be crucial to social and economic advancement in our democracy. This not only harms African Americans but threatens democracy itself

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-12-16 16:43:14.70

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Josh You

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Appleton East MM

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+21

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+La Canada Zhao Neg

Title

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

Tournament

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