Summary

• Objects (2 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[25]
  • Caselist.RoundClass[26]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[61]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[25]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-12-18 18:06:20.952
	1	+2016-12-18 18:06:20.0

Caselist.RoundClass[26]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-12-18 18:07:47.345
	1	+2016-12-18 18:07:47.0

Caselist.CitesClass[61]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,11 @@
	1	+Counterplan text:
	2	+Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict constitutionally protected speech other than fraternity advertising, organization, or membership.
	3	+Fraternities are sites of rape, serious injury, and death.
	4	+Flanagan 14 (Caitlin, the Atlantic, citing Douglas Fierberg, attorney specializing in fraternity-related litigation, “The Dark Power of Fraternities”, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/03/the-dark-power-of-fraternities/357580/)
	5	+“Until proven otherwise,” Fierberg told me in April of fraternities, “they all are very risky organizations for young people to be involved in.” He maintains that fraternities “are part of an industry that has tremendous risk and a tremendous history of rape, serious injury, and death, and the vast majority share common risk-management policies that are fundamentally flawed. Most of them are awash in alcohol. And most if not all of them are bereft of any meaningful adult supervision.” As for the risk-management policies themselves: “They are primarily designed to take the nationals’ fingerprints off the injury and deaths, and I don’t believe that they offer any meaningful provisions.” The fraternity system, he argues, is “the largest industry in this country directly involved in the provision of alcohol to underage people.” The crisis-management plans reveal that in “the foreseeable future” there may be “the death or serious injury” of a healthy young person at a fraternity function.
	6	+Ban on campus fraternities solves – even banning fraternity advertising alone is good
	7	+Ryan 14 (Julia, The Atlantic, “How Colleges Could Get Rid of Fraternities”, http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/03/how-colleges-could-get-rid-of-fraternities/284176/)
	8	+Perhaps the most obvious way to end fraternities is for universities to simply remove Greek life from their campuses. “It’s not even really a turf war anymore between universities and Greek groups because it’s as as if universities have given up,” Alexandra Robbins, author of Pledged: The Secret Life of Sororities, said in an interview. “If higher education really wanted to get rid of Greek groups, they could. All universities would have to do is put their foot down, but they don’t.” Universities could say no Greek groups or events on campus and prohibit advertising for Greek life on campus. Elizabeth A. Armstrong, a sociologist at University of Michigan and co-author of Paying for the Party, suggested universities could quell the power of Greek life just by treating fraternities like other clubs: “One method would be to say okay you are not so special. You do not get the special attention of the dean. We are going to actually allow other student groups on campus equal power,” she said. “We are going to supervise you just as much as everybody else.”
	9	+Fraternities are protected by the First Amendment's right to free speech
	10	+Lukianoff 11 Greg Lukianoff (President and CEO, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), "To Survive, Fraternities Need to Stand for Something, Anything," Huffington Post, 8/1/2015 AZ
	11	+A lot of fraternities seem to know that their freedom of association is protected by the First Amendment. (While the freedom to join and form groups is not technically listed in the text of the First Amendment, it is understood to arise from the protections of freedom of speech and the right to assembly.) What fraternities often do not know, however, is that there are several different kinds of freedom of association protected by the First Amendment, and they are not all made equal. The strongest kind of freedom of association protected by the First Amendment is the right to “intimate” association, best represented by the family. Our government recognizes that the bonds of family are particularly important and that it should do its best to avoid actions that interfere with this bond. The second strongest kind of freedom of association is called “expressive” association. Sensibly, courts understand that the right to freedom of expression would not mean a great deal if we are forbidden from joining together with like-minded individuals to amplify the power of our voices and take collective action. This understanding forms the basis of our right to form groups around commonly held beliefs whether they are religious, secular, or ideological. Everything from Mothers Against Drunk Driving to NORML is a kind of expressive association. (This includes my nonprofit, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, as well.)

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-12-18 18:07:50.27

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Alessandro, Tarsney, Carlson

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Scarsdale ZE

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+26

Round

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

Team

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

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+JANFEB - CP - Fraternities

Tournament

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