Changes for page La Canada Zhao Neg
Summary
-
Objects (0 modified, 21 added, 1 removed)
- Caselist.RoundClass[32]
- Caselist.CitesClass[75]
- Caselist.CitesClass[76]
- Caselist.CitesClass[79]
- Caselist.CitesClass[80]
- Caselist.CitesClass[81]
- Caselist.CitesClass[82]
- Caselist.CitesClass[83]
- Caselist.CitesClass[84]
- Caselist.CitesClass[85]
- Caselist.CitesClass[86]
- Caselist.CitesClass[87]
- Caselist.CitesClass[88]
- Caselist.RoundClass[37]
- Caselist.RoundClass[38]
- Caselist.RoundClass[39]
- Caselist.RoundClass[41]
- Caselist.RoundClass[42]
- Caselist.RoundClass[43]
- Caselist.RoundClass[44]
- Caselist.RoundClass[45]
- Caselist.RoundClass[46]
Details
- Caselist.RoundClass[32]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-28 13:46:31.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Jaden Lessnick - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Hawken HG - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Emory
- Caselist.CitesClass[75]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,5 @@ 1 +Interpretation: the affirmative must defend the removal of a statute, regulation or contract provision by public colleges and universities that limits free speech. 2 +The Legal Dictionary defines restriction "restriction" 3 +n. any limitation on activity, by statute, regulation or contract provision. In multi-unit real estate developments, condominium and cooperative housing projects, managed by homeowners' associations or similar organizations are usually required bystate law to impose restrictions on use. Thus, the restrictions are part of the "covenants, conditions and restrictions,"intended to enhance the use of common facilities and property, recorded and incorporated into the title of each owner. 4 + 5 +Limits - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-11 19:10:43.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Ellen Ivens-Duran - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Monta Vista LH - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +37 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +La Canada Zhao Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - T - Restrict - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Stanford
- Caselist.CitesClass[76]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,3 @@ 1 +Interpretation – the affirmative may not specify a public college or group of public colleges to implement the plan. 2 + 3 +Limits - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-12 00:07:41.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +John Scoggin - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lynbrook NA - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +38 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +3 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +La Canada Zhao Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +0 May Not Spec College - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Stanford
- Caselist.CitesClass[79]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,13 @@ 1 +Interpretation – the aff may only defend removing restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. 2 +Research and academic freedom are distinct from freedom of speech 3 +Post 16 (renowned legal scholar and dean of Yale Law School), "Robert C. Post on why speech at universities must be regulated," Brown University News, 11/14/2016 AZ 4 +“There are different kinds of freedoms that are related to the two different kinds of missions of a modern university — research on the one hand, teaching on the other,” he said. “But in either case, these freedoms are conceptually distinct from the kind of freedom of speech that derives from the political arena, where all are equal and all have to exist for the end of self-governance. The university is not about self-governance. The university is about the attainment of education and the attainment of knowledge.” To frame his argument, Post first defined three basic rules governing freedom of speech as outlined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and defined by the Supreme Court: first, the state can’t tell a speaker that they have to speak about any particular content; second, there are no true or false opinions and all ideas are equal; and third, the state cannot compel a person to speak. He then defined the mission of most universities as being primarily two things — research, or the discovery and advancement of knowledge; and teaching, the conveying of knowledge. In order to advance these two goals, he said, universities cannot and should not follow these three basic rules of freedom of speech. Research, Post said, is ultimately based in the notion that not everyone has equal knowledge of a given topic and that expert knowledge is created through disciplinary study. “When we are talking about university research and expanding knowledge, it is resting on a disciplinary hierarchy, which is exactly opposite of the democratic equality on which freedom of speech rests,” he said. 5 +Academic freedom isn't even a constitutionally protected right – it's merely a societal norm designed to promote the common good 6 +Weinstein 13 James Weinstein (Dan Cracchiolo Chair in Constitutional Law at Arizona State University, Faculty Fellow, Center for Law, Science and Innovation 7 +Associate Fellow, Centre for Public Law, University of Cambridge, "Academic Freedom, Democracy, and the First Amendment," 2013 AZ 8 +The signal contribution that the modern American university has made to the progress of society cannot be seriously doubted. Among other measures, this enormous contribution is confirmed by the impressive number of Nobel Prizes that have been awarded to faculty at American Universities.177 Nor can there be any reasonable doubt that academic freedom has been integral to the creation and dissemination of the knowledge upon which the progress of society depends. But what is open to question is whether it is either appropriate or necessary for the judiciary to vigorously protect academic freedom as constitutional norm. The burden of this paper has been to suggest that the judiciary should have only a modest role in that enterprise. This is because academic freedom has never been conceived as a true individual right but rather as a means of promoting “the common good.” Under our Constitution, it is emphatically the province the political branches government, not the judiciary, to effectuate the common good by balancing competing and often incommensurate general welfare concerns. 9 + 10 +Ground 11 +Limits 12 + 13 +Vote neg - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-17 03:41:06.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lonam, Phillips - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Newark Science BA - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +41 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +4 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +La Canada Zhao Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - T - Not Research - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Cal RR
- Caselist.CitesClass[80]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,17 @@ 1 +Public colleges and universities ought not restrict constitutionally protected speech, especially in regards to academic freedom, with the exception of synthetic biology research. Public colleges and universities ought to prohibit research aimed at enhancing the deadliness of pathogens. 2 +Synthetic biology at colleges specifically is risky – releasing blueprints for crafting new diseases leads to extinction 3 +Myhrvold 13 Nathan, PhD in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics from Princeton, and founded Intellectual Ventures after retiring as Chief Strategist and Chief Technology Officer of Microsoft Corporation, July, "Stratgic Terrorism: A Call to Action," http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Strategic-Terrorism-Myhrvold-7-3-2013.pdf 4 +A virus genetically engineered to infect its host quickly, to generate symptoms slowly—say, only after weeks or months—and to spread easily through the air or by casual contact would be vastly more devastating than HIV. It could silently penetrate the population to unleash its deadly effects suddenly. This type of epidemic would be almost impossible to combat because most of the infections would occur before the epidemic became obvious. A technologically sophisticated terrorist group could develop such a virus and kill a large part of humanity with it. Indeed, terrorists may not have to develop it themselves: some scientist may do so first and publish the details. Given the rate at which biologists are making discoveries about viruses and the immune system, at some point in the near future, someone may create artificial pathogens that could drive the human race to extinction. Indeed, a detailed species-elimination plan of this nature was openly proposed in a scientific journal. The ostensible purpose of that particular research was to suggest a way to extirpate the malaria mosquito, but similar techniques could be directed toward humans.16 When I’ve talked to molecular biologists about this method, they are quick to point out that it is slow and easily detectable and could be fought with biotech remedies. If you challenge them to come up with improvements to the suggested attack plan, however, they have plenty of ideas. Modern biotechnology will soon be capable, if it is not already, of bringing about the demise of the human race— or at least of killing a sufficient number of people to end high-tech civilization and set humanity back 1,000 years or more. That terrorist groups could achieve this level of technological sophistication may seem far-fetched, but keep in mind that it takes only a handful of individuals to accomplish these tasks. Never has lethal power of this potency been accessible to so few, so easily. Even more dramatically than nuclear proliferation, modern biological science has frighteningly undermined the correlation between the lethality of a weapon and its cost, a fundamentally stabilizing mechanism throughout history. Access to extremely lethal agents—lethal enough to exterminate Homo sapiens—will be available to anybody with a solid background in biology, terrorists included. The 9/11 attacks involved at least four pilots, each of whom had sufficient education to enroll in flight schools and complete several years of training. Bin laden had a degree in civil engineering. Mohammed Atta attended a German university, where he earned a master’s degree in urban planning—not a field he likely chose for its relevance to terrorism. A future set of terrorists could just as easily be students of molecular biology who enter their studies innocently enough but later put their skills to homicidal use. Hundreds of universities in Europe and Asia have curricula sufficient to train people in the skills necessary to make a sophisticated biological weapon, and hundreds more in the United States accept students from all over the world. Thus it seems likely that sometime in the near future a small band of terrorists, or even a single misanthropic individual, will overcome our best defenses and do something truly terrible, such as fashion a bioweapon that could kill millions or even billions of people. Indeed, the creation of such weapons within the next 20 years seems to be a virtual certainty. The repercussions of their use are hard to estimate. One approach is to look at how the scale of destruction they may cause compares with that of other calamities that the human race has faced. 5 +Specifically, research into deadly disease is dangerous and should be banned – accidents or terrorists could release contagious pathogens 6 +Horgan 12 John Horgan, "Let's Ban Research That Makes the Bird-Flu Virus and Other Pathogens Deadlier," Scientific American, 2/6/2012 AZ 7 +D: Ban all research, open or classified, aimed at making pathogens deadlier. This is my "least-bad" choice, because I believe that the risks of research like the recent H5N1 experiments outweigh potential benefits. In general, I favor unrestricted research and communication, just as I favor free speech. But if scientists keep introducing more lethal pathogens into the world, the odds grow that one of them will be unleashed intentionally or accidentally. Moreover, if the U.S. keeps pursuing research into new strains of infectious disease, other nations and groups are more likely to do so as well. My fears stem in part from the history of biological-warfare research, as detailed in accounts such as A Higher Form of Killing: The Secret History of Chemical and Biological Warfare, by Robert Harris and Jeremy Paxman (Random House, 2002). Such research, which has been carried out at least since World War II by the U.S., United Kingdom, Soviet Union, Japan and other states, has repeatedly led to releases of pathogens. In 1979, biological-warfare experiments in a Soviet facility in Sverdlovsk triggered an anthrax epidemic that killed 70 people. 8 +College youth are uniquely vulnerable to radicalization 9 +Fox Boston 15 "Islamic State recruiting older teens, college students," 8/29/2015 AZ 10 +College students are heading back to the dorms and lecture halls. They are adjusting to life away from home and finding a new identity for themselves. While it may seem far-fetched, for some that makes them the perfect target for something sinister and it's happening more than you think. FOX25 investigates the way ISIS is recruiting on campus. A MOTHER'S PLEA Nineteen year old Mohammed Hamzah Khan is accused of trying to support ISIS and is facing serious terror charges. His mother, Zarine, has a public plea to the terror group to stop recruiting children: "Without the internet, without social media this would never had happened and my son would not be in this situation he is in today. Leave our children alone. Please. That's my only message. Just stop recruiting these children. They're too young they don't know what's going on . They're vulnerable. Their thinking skills have not completely developed and these people are preying on that" ISIS RECRUITMENT TACTICS AND SOCIAL MEDIA ISIS is changing it's recruitment tactics. Experts say propaganda videos are less bloody and produced professionally. Social media is a high priority and they're taking online communication to the next level to catch the eye of college students. The number of websites, forums, Twitter accounts, Facebook pages that belong to ISIS and other similar organizations have increased . Professor Dana Janbek of Lasell College studies global terrorism and new media. She says the online magazine ISIS publishes is an example of how the terror group is trying to get their message across by seeming more legitimate in an attempt at luring young people with higher skill sets. Janbek says the magazine includes current events, making it relevant and it is professionally written. ISIS RECRUITING COLLEGE STUDENTS Professor Dana Janbek tells FOX25 that even though ISIS is viewed as a extremist terror organization, they see themselves as a legitimate government and they are aiming high when recruiting college students. They rely on people with different backgrounds and different skill sets including students and professionals who have a medical backgrounds. 11 +Studies prove 12 +Greer 14 Scott Greer (deputy editor), "Study: Spoiled, wealthy college students more likely to support terrorism," Daily Caller, http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/20/study-spoiled-wealthy-college-students-more-likely-to-support-terrorism/#ixzz4VsjULps 13 +According to the study conducted by Queen Mary University in London found that youth, wealth and a full-time education are significant risk factors for violent radicalization. The researchers worked from the belief that radicalization is a process and focused on the factors that define the pre-radicalization phase and make individuals susceptible to the messaging of extremist groups in their study. 14 +Synth bio research is protected by academic freedom 15 +Miller 7 Seumas Miller (Professor of Philosophy at Charles Sturt University, and Senior Research Fellow, 3TU Centre for Ethics and Technology), Michael J. Selgelid, "Ethical and Philosophical Consideration of the Dual-use 16 +Dilemma in the Biological Sciences," 2007 AZ 17 +The dual-use dilemma is obviously a dilemma for researchers, viz. those researchers involved in biological research that has the potential to be misused by bioterrorists, criminal organisations and governments engaged in biowarfare. But it is also a dilemma for the private and public institutions, including universities, that fund or otherwise enable research to be undertaken. The dilemma is made more acute for university-based researchers and for universities, given their commitments to such values as academic freedom and the unfettered dissemination of research findings; and for private companies, given their commitment to free-enterprise. More generally, it is a dilemma for the individual communities for whose benefit or, indeed, to whose potential detriment, the research is being conducted, and for the national governments who bear the moral and legal responsibility of ensuring that the security of their citizens is provided for. Finally, in the context of an increasingly interdependent set of nation-states—the so-called, global community— the dual-use dilemma has become a dilemma for international bodies such as the United Nations. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-17 03:41:07.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lonam, Phillips - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Newark Science BA - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +41 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +4 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +La Canada Zhao Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - CP - Synth Bio - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Cal RR
- Caselist.CitesClass[81]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,6 @@ 1 +The construction of "political correctness" is an attempt to dismiss the legitimate concerns of oppressed groups – the impact is racism, sexism, and ableism 2 +Serano 16 Julia Serano Author of Whipping Girl (now in 2nd edition!), Outspoken (her latest book!), and Excluded: Making Feminist and Queer Movements More Inclusive. juliaserano.com. "Prejudice, 'Political Correctness,' and the Normalization of Donald Trump.” Medium. 3 +To put it another way, “political correctness” is not an ideology, nor is it a specific set of behaviors. It is simply a slur that people utter when they want to dismiss an expression of social justice activism that they do not like. One person’s “political correctness” is another person’s common decency or righteous activism. It is also crucial to note that, while many people resent activist attempts to change social norms, we are not the only ones engaged in such actions: Those who harbor prejudices are also constantly trying to assert and/or change social norms, albeit in the opposite direction. And yet, these latter attempts do not face similar scrutiny or smearing. If I promote gender-neutral restrooms or pronouns, I will be dismissed as being “politically correct,” whereas North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory (who championed HB2, the law that criminalizes trans people who use public restrooms) is never described as “politically correct” (even though he has clearly engaged in political attempts to enforce a social norm of his own creation). When college students in 2015 tried to protest and no-platform Germaine Greer (an extreme and outspoken transphobe) people called it political-correctness-run-amok, but conservative protesters who attempt to protest and no-platform transgender activists (as happened to me in 2004) are never dismissed as “politically correct.” This asymmetry, along with its vagueness and inconsistent usage, is why I detest the term “political correctness,” and why I think we should all stop using it. From my vantage point, there are bigots who are pushing for social norms that conform to their beliefs, and social justice activists who are pushing for social norms that conform to our beliefs. And the population at large will have varied opinions about whether any given social norm is worthy or unworthy, advantageous or disadvantageous. 4 +The alternative is to acknowledge that political correctness is a concept that is an effective tool in identifying bigotry. 5 +Croft 15. Adam. News Editor at The Branding Iron. “Why Being ‘PC’ Matters.” The Branding Iron. MCM. 6 +These days the notion of “political correctness” carries a pretty negative connotation. Sixty-one percent of Americans believe America is becoming too politically correct, according to a poll from Rasmussen Reports, making political correctness less popular than the president, whose approval rating is just over 50 percent. On Facebook I routinely see posts claiming America is becoming too politically correct and comments railing against the fact that cultural mainstays of yesteryear have been abandoned for being offensive. People mourn the loss of the ‘Dukes of Hazzard’ while proudly referring to Caitlin Jenner as a man, all under the guise of “fighting politically correct nonsense.” A grown man on my Facebook feed defended his use of the slur “retard,” because he’s “always used that word.” Just this week one of our best writers was scorned for pointing out the overt racism in Pinedale’s Rendezvous celebration. People act as though being “PC” is an unnecessary annoyance that threatens their very way of life. They act as though it’s a disease spreading from liberal coastal states into their neat, conservative homes in landlocked vacuums. However, everyone so vehemently opposed to political correctness makes the same mistake when critiquing political correctness: they make it about themselves. You see, we as a society do not choose to remove certain words from our vernacular at random. A secret committee of liberal politicians doesn’t meet once a year and decide red-face pageants are racist just to stick it to the good people of Pinedale. In fact, we as a society remove language, symbols or practices from our societal discourse when groups identify those elements as offensive, or when they decide they don’t want to be identified by certain terminology anymore. Moreover, you do not have any say in whether or not those terms are offensive if you do not belong to the group those terms affect. At that point, you’re in a position of privilege. For example, the man on my Facebook feed that used the R-word had no right to defend that word’s use as he is not a member of the group that word affects. He comes from a background of privilege, as someone who has never dealt with the negative connotations of that term. He doesn’t know what it’s like to be bullied by the use of that word. Instead, he should have recognized he has no frame of reference when it comes to that term, and left it to disabled persons to determine whether or not it is appropriate. So, when you “take a stand” against political correctness by sharing a picture of a confederate flag, using the R-word or referring to transgender individuals by the wrong pronoun, you’re not fighting for your right to say whatever you want. That right will always be there. You’re just proving that you are inconsiderate of the wishes of subjugated groups to self-identify. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-17 05:59:35.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Knell, Merrill - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Immaculate Heart DD - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +42 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +La Canada Zhao Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - K - Political Correctness - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Cal RR
- Caselist.CitesClass[82]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,4 @@ 1 +The 50 United States and the District of Columbia state legislatures should require that public colleges and universities not restrict any constitutionally protected speech. 2 +Solves the case 3 +Leef 2/5 George Leef (law school graduate who went into teaching rather than legal practice and then began to see how badly government has mangled education at all levels. Since 1999, I have worked at the John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, a think tank that takes a critical view of higher education. Also, I do lots of free-lance writing and book reviews for a number of free-market organizations), "Lawmakers Haven't Protected Free Speech On Campus~-~-Here's How They Can," Forbes, 2/5/2017 AZ 4 +Much as administrators and faculty may dislike it, the fact is that public colleges are subject to both the First Amendment and the state legislatures that fund them. Legislators shouldn’t micromanage the campuses, but they must set some basic rules. One of those rules should be that free speech and open inquiry will be protected. You might find it surprising that academics need to be told to protect free speech and inquiry, but American campuses have become increasingly intolerant of speech that conflicts with “progressive” orthodoxy. I have often written about the rules imposed by campus officials that run afoul of the First Amendment, such as the speech infringement at Iowa State and the miniscule “free speech zone” at Grand Valley State. Conservative and libertarian speakers have frequently been shouted down or disinvited from giving a scheduled address; students who say something that hurts someone’s feelings are likely to face charges brought by a “bias incident” team. In one of the most shameful events of all, a speaker at the University of Wisconsin, Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity, was prevented from completing his off-campus talk when a mob of students that had been organized by a school administrator broke into the room where he was discussing the evidence of racial preferences in UW admissions. Hitting the nail squarely on the head, in his January 31 Wall Street Journal column, Professor Peter Berkowitz wrote, “The yawning gap between universities’ role as citadels of free inquiry and the ugly reality of campus censorship is often the fault of administrators who share the progressive belief that universities must restrict speech to protect the sensitivities of minorities and women. They often capitulate to the loudest and angriest demonstrators just to get controversies off the front page.” Precisely. College administrators often find it easier to allow zealous and intolerant activists to have their way. Sometimes they’re complicit. It is time for state legislators to assert themselves and restore the First Amendment and its values on the campuses they are responsible for. One of the three drafters is Stanley Kurtz of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. In an article published February 1 by the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, Kurtz explained the importance of free speech. He wrote, “Freedom is not a license to attack your foes. License of that sort is the opposite of freedom. If you want to understand freedom, consider what Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes of the Supreme Court famously said in 1929: ‘If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls out for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought – not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.’” Kurtz continued, “If true freedom of speech is ‘freedom for the thought that we hate,’ then freedom is actually a form of self-mastery. Far from being license, true freedom is actually an act of self-control, a refusal to physically extinguish even the speech we abhor.” He’s right, but a lesson that too few college students ever learn is that as civilized people, they need to exert self-mastery and tolerate speech they disagree with. The bill would restore free speech on campus through several means. First and foremost, schools would have to eliminate speech codes, speech zones, and other policies that unreasonably restrict speech. They would also have to discipline students who break the free speech rules. Another provision is that state colleges and universities would have to include in their orientations a discussion of the importance of free speech and tolerance for dissenting views. While it doesn’t specify this, schools should consider assigning John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty in addition to or perhaps instead of the “summer book” they often assign to incoming students. That would be far more instructive than the usual soppy, politically-themed books they usually choose – see this report by the National Association of Scholars in that regard. And capping everything off, the bill requires the creation of a Committee on Free Expression within the board of trustees of each state college and university. These committees would be charged with issuing a yearly report on the status of free expression on campus, a report that would go to the governor, the state legislature, and be available to the public. This obligation would, Kurtz argues, create a counterforce to the pressure that anti-free speech agitators put on school officials. Summing up his case for the bill, Kurtz writes, “By strongly affirming the core principles of free expression, creating a discipline policy for those who interfere with the freedom of others, informing students of the principles of free speech and the penalty for disregarding it, and then holding administrators publicly accountable for failure to enforce the provisions of the bill, the model bill is designed to create a virtuous cycle that will prevent speaker shout-downs and disinvitations from ever happening in the first place.” - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-17 05:59:36.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Knell, Merrill - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Immaculate Heart DD - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +42 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +La Canada Zhao Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - CP - States - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Cal RR
- Caselist.CitesClass[83]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,16 @@ 1 +Donations to colleges growing at rapid rate – survey of 983 colleges proves 2 +Lederman 16 Doug Lederman (editor, co-founder of Inside Higher Ed), "In Giving to Colleges, the One Percenters Gain," Inside Higher Ed, 1/27/2016 AZ 3 +The Council for Aid to Education's study is one of a handful of annual reports (along with today's on endowments, last week's on state support for higher education, and some others) that provide a baseline sense of the state of higher education finances. The survey drew fund-raising information from 983 institutions, and it extrapolates from those results to estimate total giving for 3,900 colleges and universities. The 7.6 percent rise revealed for 2015 by the council's survey, which followed a 10.8 percent gain from 2013 to 2014, was driven largely by giving from individuals (alumni and not), which increased sharply. Donations from foundations and corporations, meanwhile, were either modest or flat, as seen in the table below. Continuing a trend of recent years, the amount of money donated by alumni rose sharply, by 10.2 percent, to $10.85 billion, but the proportion of alumni who contributed fell to 8.4 percent, from 8.6 percent. (It was 11.7 percent in 2007.) Ann E. Kaplan, who directs the survey, attributed the decline mostly to the fact that digital and other technologies are helping colleges track down more alumni. "Participation will only increase if the number of donors rises more than the number of located alumni," Kaplan said in a news release. "This is unlikely in a technological age in which individuals may have multiple means of contact that make them easy to locate. Finding an address is much simpler than cultivating a relationship that leads to a contribution." Giving by nonalumni individuals (donors, parents, etc.) rose by more than any other category, 23.1 percent. Donations for current operations (as opposed to capital purposes) rose by 13.1 percent in fiscal 2015, while funds for endowments, facilities and other purposes were flat. The study attributes the latter result to the fact that there was a huge ~-~- 23.3 percent ~-~- rise the previous year (fiscal 2014) in gifts to restricted endowments, which is the largest category of capital purposes. That kind of donation tends to track the stock market, which was stronger in 2014 than in 2015. 4 +Benefactors blame colleges for allowing unregulated speech on campus 5 +MacDonald 05 6 +G. Jeffrey MacDonald Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor. Donors: too much say on campus speech? ; Colleges feel more pressure from givers who want to help determine who'll be speaking on campus. The Christian Science Monitor Boston, Mass 10 Feb 2005: 11. Premier 7 +According to Hamilton President Joan Hinde Stewart, angry benefactors threatened to quit giving if the Clinton, N.Y., college were to give a podium to the University of Colorado professor who had likened World Trade Center workers to Nazis in a 2001 essay. In doing so, they employed an increasingly popular tactic used at colleges in Utah, Nevada and Virginia with mixed degrees of success last fall in attempts to derail scheduled appearances by "Fahrenheit 9-11" filmmaker Michael Moore. Although demanding givers are nothing new, observers of higher education see in recent events signs of mounting clout for private interests to determine which ideas get a prominent platform on campus and which ones don't. Faced with such pressures, administrators say they're trying to resist manipulation. Mr. Hamilton canceled Mr. Churchill's speech, Stewart said, only after a series of death threats pushed the situation "beyond our capacity to ensure the safety of our students and visitors." Yet in an age when financiers increasingly want to set the terms for how their gifts are to be used, those responsible for the presentation of ideas and speakers seem to be approaching them much like other commodities on campus. "People are wanting their values portrayed and wanting institutions to do exactly what they want them to do," said Dr. Wes Willmer, vice president of university advancement at Biola University in La Miranda, Calif., and a frequent writer on the topic of university fundraising. "They're not giving for the common good. They're giving because they want to accomplish something, and that plays out in the speaker realm as well." Pressure to reshape the landscape of ideas is coming from various corners. At the University of Nevada, Reno, seven-figure donor Rick Reviglio threatened this fall to stop giving altogether unless the university, which had invited Mr. Moore, would instead arrange for the filmmaker to debate a prominent conservative. The university declined his $100,000 offer to stage the event. In California and Virginia, state lawmakers helped persuade presidents at California State University San Marcos and George Mason University, respectively, that upwards of $30,000 for Moore's appearance would constitute an "inappropriate" use of state funds on the eve of an election. The San Marcos campus hosted the event anyway, however, after a student group raised its own money to sponsor it. In the case of Mr. Churchill, the controversy rages on. Since Hamilton's decision, administrators have nixed Mr. Churchill's scheduled appearances at Wheaton College (Mass.), Eastern Washington University and even his own institution, the University of Colorado at Boulder. Security concerns were officially to blame in each case, although activists who opposed Churchill's message have offered another explanation. "Everything comes back down to money, and they were worried about funding at Hamilton College," says Bill Doyle, outreach director for the World Trade Center United Families Group. He said survivors who lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks had lobbied Hamilton's four largest corporate donors to withhold future gifts if Churchill were allowed to speak. "You have all these rich corporations throughout the world and the country. Perhaps they'll take a look at what they're funding," says Doyle, especially in terms of paid speakers who "promote hate." 8 +Endowments are key to education quality 9 +ACE 14 "Understanding College and University Endowments," American Council on Education, 2014 AZ 10 +An endowment is an aggregation of assets invested by a college or university to support its educational mission in perpetuity. An institution’s endowment actually comprises hundreds or thousands of individual endowments. An endowment allows donors to transfer their private dollars to public purposes with the assurance that their gifts will serve these purposes for as long as the institution continues to exist. An endowment represents a compact between a donor and an institution. It links past, current, and future generations. It also allows an institution to make commitments far into the future, knowing that resources to meet those commitments will continue to be available. Endowments serve institutions and the public by: • Providing stability. College and university revenues fluctuate over time with changes in enrollment (tuition), donor interest (gifts), and public (largely state and federal) support. Although endowment earnings also vary with changes in financial markets and investment strategies, most institutions follow prudent guidelines (spending rates) to buffer economic fluctuations that are intended to produce a relatively stable stream of income. Since endowment principal is not spent, the interest generated by endowment earnings supports institutional priorities year after year. This kind of stability is especially important for activities that cannot readily be started and stopped, or for which fluctuating levels of support could be costly or debilitating. Endowments frequently support student aid, faculty positions, innovative academic programs, medical research, and libraries. • Leveraging other sources of revenue. In recent years, as the economy has been severely stressed, institutions have dramatically increased their own student aid expenditures, and endowments have enabled institutions to respond more fully to changing demographics and families’ financial need. It is not surprising that the colleges and universities with the largest endowments are also the ones most likely to offer needblind admission (admitting students without regard to financial circumstances and then providing enough financial aid to enable those admitted to attend). An endowment also allows a college or university to provide a higher level of quality or service at a lower price than would otherwise be possible. This has been especially important in recent years, particularly for publicly supported institutions that have experienced significant cuts in state support. Without endowments or other private gifts, institutions would have had to cut back even further on their programs, levy even greater increases in their prices to students, and/or obtain additional public funding to maintain current programs at current prices. Encouraging innovation and flexibility. An endowment enables faculty and students to conduct innovative research, explore new academic fields, apply new technologies, and develop new teaching methods even if funding is not readily available from other sources, including tuition, gifts, or grants. Such innovation and flexibility has led to entirely new programs and to important discoveries in science, medicine, education, and other fields. • Allowing a longer time horizon. Unlike gifts expended upon receipt, an endowed gift keeps giving over time. Endowed institutions can plan strategically to use a more reliable stream of earnings to strengthen and enhance the quality of their programs, even if many years will be required to achieve some of their goals. By making endowed gifts, alumni and others take responsibility for ensuring the long-term well-being of colleges and universities; their gifts help enable future generations of students to benefit from a higher quality of education and allow these institutions to make even greater contributions to the public good 11 +High quality training and research at colleges is key to solve climate change 12 +Snibbe 15 Kris Snibbe, "Colleges have ‘special’ role in fighting climate change," Harvard Gazette, 3/17/2015 AZ 13 +In an address to faculty and students at Tsinghua University today, Harvard President Drew Faust argued forcefully that universities have a unique and critical role to play in combating climate change. She opened her remarks by recalling her last visit to Tsinghua in 2008. “There is a proverb that the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago — and the second-best time is now,” Faust told the audience of about 250 Chinese students, faculty, and journalists. “When I first visited Tsinghua seven years ago … I planted a tree with former Tsinghua President Gu Binglin in the Friendship Garden … I am glad the Tsinghua-Harvard tree stands as a symbol of the many relationships across our two universities, relationships which continue to grow and thrive,” she said. “More than ever, it is as a testament to the possibilities that, by working together, we offer the world. That is why I want to spend a few minutes today talking about the special role universities like ours play in addressing climate change.” Faust’s speech marked the culmination of a series of events in Beijing at which climate change was a central topic. At a gathering of alumni, faculty, and friends on Sunday, she looked on as Ali Malkawi, professor of architectural technology at the Harvard Graduate School of Design (GSD) and founding director of the Harvard Center for Green Buildings and Cities, explained his efforts to reduce the carbon footprint of large human-made structures and systems, from individual buildings to whole cities. On Monday, Faust and Chinese President Xi Jinping, meeting at the Great Hall of the People, discussed governmental and academic efforts to address the threat of climate change. Faust used the opportunity to highlight the important work being undertaken by faculty and students at Harvard and at institutions across the globe such as Tsinghua to develop substantive technological and policy solutions to this global challenge and to urge continued faculty collaborations. “Last November, President Xi and President Obama made a joint announcement on climate change, pledging to limit the greenhouse gas emissions of China and the United States over the next several decades,” Faust said. “It is a landmark accord, setting ambitious goals for the world’s two largest carbon-emitting countries and establishing a marker that presidents Xi and Obama hope will inspire other countries to do the same. “We could not have predicted such a shared commitment seven years or even one year ago between these two leaders — both, in fact, our alumni — one a Tsinghua graduate in chemical engineering and the humanities and the other a graduate of Harvard Law School,” she continued. “And yet our two institutions had already sown the seeds of this agreement decades ago by educating leaders who can turn months of discussion into an international milestone, and by collaborating for more than 20 years on the climate analyses that made the agreement possible. In other words, by doing the things universities are uniquely designed to do.” Calling the recent agreement a “defining moment … worthy of celebration,” and giving China credit for building the world’s largest wind-power capacity as well as the second-largest capacity in solar energy, Faust nonetheless said that these efforts represent “only a beginning” of what needs to be done. “Industry, education, agriculture, business, finance, individual citizens — all are necessary participants in what must become an energy and environmental revolution, a new paradigm that will improve public health, care for the planet, and put both of our nations on the path toward a prosperous, low-carbon economy,” she argued. “Universities are especially good at ‘thinking different,’ ” Faust said in her prepared text, quoting an expression often used by Apple founder Steve Jobs. “To every generation falls a daunting task. This is our task: to ‘think different’ about how we inhabit the Earth. Where better to meet this challenge than in Boston and Beijing? How better to meet it than by unlocking and harnessing new knowledge, building political and cultural understanding, promoting dialogue, and sharing solutions? Who better to meet it than you, the most extraordinary students — imaginative, curious, daring. The challenge we face demands three great necessities.” Faust made the case that the three great necessities of creating partnerships, undertaking research, and training students to ask and answer the big questions ultimately will yield substantive solutions to this global challenge. 14 +Warming is real, anthropogenic, and causes extinction – default to risk management – costs are inevitable, it’s only a question of magnitude – reducing emissions now is key 15 +Nuccitelli 14 Dana, MS in Physics from UC Davis and Environmental Scientist at a Private Environmental Consulting Firm in California, March 30, “IPCC Report Warns Of Future Climate Change Risks, But Is Spun By Contrarians,” http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/31/ipcc-warns-climate-change-risks 16 +The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has just published its latest Working Group II report detailing impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability associated with climate change. The picture it paints with respect to the consequences of continued climate change is rather bleak. For example, the report discusses the risk associated with food insecurity due to more intense droughts, floods, and heat waves in a warmer world, especially for poorer countries. This contradicts the claims of climate contrarians like Matt Ridley, who have tried to claim that rising carbon dioxide levels are good for crops. While rising carbon dioxide levels have led to 'global greening' in past decades and improved agricultural technology has increased crop yields, research has indicated that both of these trends are already beginning to reverse. While plants like carbon dioxide, they don't like heat waves, droughts, and floods. Likewise, economist Richard Tol has argued that farmers can adapt to climate change, but adaptation has its costs and its limits. In fact, the IPCC summary report notes that most studies project a decline in crop yields starting in 2030, even as global food demand continues to rise. The report also discusses risks associated with water insecurity, due for example to shrinking of glaciers that act as key water resources for various regions around the world, and through changing precipitation patterns. As a result of these types of changes, the IPCC also anticipates that violent conflicts like civil wars will become more common. The number of people exposed to river floods is projected to increase with the level of warming over the remainder of the century. Sea-level rise will also cause submergence, flooding, and erosion of coastal regions and low-lying areas. And ocean acidification poses significant risk for marine ecosystems; coral reefs in particular. The general risk of species extinctions rises as the planet warms. More climate change means that suitable climates for species shift. The faster these climate zones shift, the more species will be unable to track and adapt to those changes. "Many species will be unable to track suitable climates under mid- and high-range rates of climate change (i.e., RCP4.5, 6.0, and 8.5) during the 21st century (medium confidence). Lower rates of change (i.e., RCP2.6) will pose fewer problems." The report also estimates that global surface warming of approximately 2°C above current temperatures may lead to global income losses of 0.2 to 2.0 percent. However, "Losses are more likely than not to be greater, rather than smaller, than this range ... few quantitative estimates have been completed for additional warming around 3°C or above." Even in the IPCC's most aggressive greenhouse gas emissions reductions scenario, we only limit global warming to around 1°C above current temperatures. In a business-as-usual scenario, temperatures warm about another 4°C – yet we have difficultly estimating the costs of warming exceeding another 2°C. In other words, failing to curb human-caused global warming poses major risks to the global economy. Nevertheless, there will be a certain amount of climate change that we won't be able to avoid, and the IPCC report notes that adaptation to those changes is also critically important. However, we first need to accept the scientific reality of human-caused climate change in order to plan for what's to come. As a notable counter-example, the state of North Carolina recently introduced a bill that would require state coastal planning to ignore all new scientific research with regards to sea-level rise. Obviously we can't adapt to threats if we deny their existence. However, the IPCC report notes that many governments are already beginning to take steps to adapt to climate change impacts in their regions. The good news is that the IPCC reports that many of these climate risks can be reduced by cutting greenhouse gas emissions and thus avoiding the worst climate change scenarios. The IPCC states with high confidence that risks associated with reduced agricultural yields, water scarcity, inundation of coastal infrastructure from sea-level rise, and adverse impacts from heat waves, floods, and droughts can be reduced by cutting human greenhouse gas emissions. In the end it all boils down to risk management. The stronger our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the lower the risk of extreme climate impacts. The higher our emissions, the larger climate changes we'll face, which also means more expensive adaptation, more species extinctions, more food and water insecurities, more income losses, more conflicts, and so forth. Contrarians have tried to spin the conclusions of the report to incorrectly argue that it would be cheaper to try and adapt to climate change and pay the costs of climate damages. In reality the report says no such thing. The IPCC simply tells us that even if we manage to prevent the highest risk scenarios, climate change costs will still be high, and we can't even grasp how high climate damage costs will be in the highest risk scenarios. As Chris Field, Co-Chair of Working Group II noted, "With high levels of warming that result from continued growth in greenhouse gas emissions, risks will be challenging to manage, and even serious, sustained investments in adaptation will face limits" We're committed to a certain amount of climate change, and as glaciologist Lonnie Thompson famously put it, "The only question is how much we will mitigate, adapt, and suffer". The latest IPCC report confirms that minimizing adaptation and suffering through risk management by reducing human greenhouse gas emissions is a no-brainer. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-17 05:59:38.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Knell, Merrill - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Immaculate Heart DD - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +42 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +La Canada Zhao Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - DA - Endowments v2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Cal RR
- Caselist.CitesClass[84]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,14 @@ 1 +Student protests bloat administrative costs, which drives tuition up 2 +Kelly 15 Andrew Kelly (resident scholar and founding director of the Center on Higher Education Reform at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC), "The Real Winners In Campus Protests? College Administrators," Forbes, 11/24/2015 AZ 3 +The consequences for civil society are important. But the aftermath has implications for college costs and postsecondary opportunity, as well. College execs typically respond in the way they know best: by promising to layer new deans, services, and centers onto an already enormous administrative apparatus. Ironically, protests against the administration will almost certainly grow the ranks, power, and budget of administrators, and somebody will have to pay for the additional overhead. More often than not, students will be stuck with the bill; higher tuition prices, in turn, may further depress access for needy students. To be clear, student activism isn’t what’s causing administrative bloat. Colleges need little excuse beyond the changing of the fiscal year to hire more non-teaching staff. Data from the Delta Cost Project show that the number of non-teaching professionals at public research universities rose from 53 per 1,000 students in 1990 to 73 in 2010. The ranks of full-time faculty barely budged, moving from 62 per 1,000 to 64. At private universities, the average number of professionals went from 72 per 1,000 students to 102 over that same period. After evaluating spending patterns at four-year colleges between 1987 and 2008, economist Robert Martin concluded that growth in administrative spending and staffing (as opposed to teaching faculty) was a major driver of increasing college costs. But crises—bad press, student protests, competition from rival schools—provide a more immediate reason for colleges to gin up additional administrative positions. Whether an additional dean and some support staff will “solve” the problems on campus (they almost certainly will not), hiring them signals to campus activists and the media that leaders are doing something. (To be fair, protesters’ demands call for some of this growth; at Mizzou, students have called for more “funding, resources, and personnel” for “social justice centers” on campus.) Hence, Yale’s response to protests includes doubling funding for cultural centers and the creation of a new multicultural center (in addition to an existing $50 million campaign to increase the diversity of the faculty). Brown has promised a $100 million diversity initiative. Claremont McKenna will create “new leadership positions on diversity and inclusion” in the offices of academic and student affairs. At Ithaca College, site of more November protests, leaders announced the creation of a “Chief Diversity Officer.” Such positions are not rare in higher education. As the Manhattan Institute’s Heather MacDonald has shown, the set of administrative jobs dedicated to diversity in the University of California system actually grew in recent years despite a steep decline in state appropriations (and equally steep increase in tuition). And additional executives often bring sizable staffs with them; Berkeley’s vice chancellor for equity and inclusion has seventeen staff members listed in the “immediate office.” Now, activists will argue that not all of the new money will fund administrative positions, and that additional non-academic staff will help improve the rate at which minority and low-income students succeed. That may be true if spending goes toward productive ends like augmented student services. But it’s hard to see how simply adding a new administrative office will change longstanding incentives that lead colleges to exclude many qualified students in the first place. It will, however, certainly introduce new fixed costs to a university’s balance sheet, increasing long-term spending. For a school like Yale, with a big endowment, the additional administrative expense may not affect tuition and financial aid much. But at institutions where resources are scarcer, additional administrative spending will likely be financed on the backs of students. Incoming students who manage to get in and pay the bill may find a more welcoming environment (though that’s far from certain), but others may find that there’s less financial aid money around to help them pay. 4 +At public colleges specifically, increasing tuition kills enrollment rates 5 +Hemelt and Marcotte 8 Steven W. Hemelt (Assistant Professor in the Department of Public Policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), Dave E. Marcotte, "Rising Tuition and Enrollment in Public Higher Education," Institute for the Study of Labor, November 2008 AZ 6 +We do, however, find substantial differences in enrollment responses at different types of colleges and universities. We find larger effects of tuition increases on enrollment at Research I and “top 120” public universities than we do at comprehensive universities and public liberal arts colleges. Moreover, enrollment is less sensitive to aid at Research I universities, and those in the “top 120” of the U.S. News and World Report rankings. At public colleges and universities of this type, it appears that the near-term consequence of increased tuition is a decline in enrollment. On the other hand, at comprehensive universities it appears that tuition increases don’t necessarily mean lower enrollment, rather they mean more reliance on aid for the students who do enroll. 7 + 8 +College graduation rates are key to US innovation and global competitiveness 9 +Elzey 10 (Karen, Vice President of the Institute for a Competitive Workforce) “Education: The Key to Global Competitiveness”, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation’s Center for Education and Workforce, 5/17/2010 DD 10 +As of January 2010, the United States’ jobless rate stood at 9.7 percent. Yet for individuals with a bachelor’s degree or higher, the rate was substantially less — 4.9 percent. Conversely, for people who lack a high school diploma, the rate was noticeably higher — 15.2 percent. Clearly, education matters. And it matters not just for the job seeker. America’s future in the global marketplace is at stake, too. The United States faces challenges on myriad education fronts. High school graduation rates are depressingly low, college remediation rates are rising, adult literacy levels are too low, and the numbers of Americans earning advanced degrees in science and engineering are lower than they have been in years. High school dropout rates in the United States are at or near 30 percent. For African American and Hispanic students, the rate is even higher — a staggering 50 percent. Even for those who do graduate from high school and make their way to college, many require some kind of remedial instruction. America’s leaders are beginning to gauge the seriousness of the issue. In his 2009 address to a joint session of Congress, President Obama pledged that “by 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.” This will be a significant challenge. Of the nation’s 307 million people, 93 million adults do not possess the necessary literacy levels to enter either postsecondary education or job-training programs, according to the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. DEMANDING JOBS Making matters even more challenging, the educational attainment level required for jobs continues to rise. Anthony Carnevale, Director of the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, estimates that by 2018, nearly two-thirds of all jobs in the United States will require some form of postsecondary education or training. In 1973, just 28 percent of jobs, or less than one-third, required such instruction. The demand for workers to obtain meaningful credentials has never been more important. America’s education system is critical in this effort. The United States has long prided itself on its leadership in innovation. Much of this innovation has come from expertise in science and engineering. America’s lengthy run atop the innovation scoreboard, some suggest, might be near the end. They point to the fact that the nation’s science and engineering workforce is aging. A serious skills shortage in these fields could be imminent if not enough graduates are produced to replace retiring scientists and engineers. 11 + 12 +US leadership prevents great power war and existential governance crises 13 +Brooks, Ikenberry, and Wohlforth ’13 (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) 14 +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 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-17 21:34:58.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Merrill, Kukreja, Harris - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harvard Westlake EE - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +43 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Semis - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +La Canada Zhao Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - DA - Tuition - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Cal RR
- Caselist.CitesClass[85]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,7 @@ 1 +The affirmative's process of consensus-building seeks to formulate universal norms for deliberation and an end to dialogue – by assigning a telos to speech, they render dialogue meaningless– reject this focus in favor of viewing speech as always unfinalizable and never finished 2 +Roberts 12 Roberts, John Michael. "Discourse or Dialogue? Habermas, the Bakhtin Circle, and the question of concrete utterances." Theory and society 41.4 (2012): 395-419 AZ 3 +Cooke has suggested that critics such as Benhabib who claim that Habermas neglects a concrete level of analysis have misinterpreted the rationale of the Habermasian enterprise. Accordingly Habermas's theory of argumentation demonstrates that participants "must be willing (in principle) to consider the arguments of everyone, no matter how poorly they are articulated, and to attach (in principle) equal weight to these arguments" (Cooke 1994, p. 160, italics in the original). Argumentation must therefore consider and respect the views of others in reaching a consensus. "This means, on the one hand, a recognition of everyone's equal entitlement to introduce new topics into discussion and to express needs and desires and, on the other, a willingness to confront the arguments of others in a fair and unbiased way" (Cooke 1994, p. 160). Each participant should be guided by universal moral respect for the other's argument and by egalitarian reciprocity. In itself this does not constitute a set of transcendentally binding norms of action but instead constitutes a set of argumentative duties and rights within the parameters of a discourse (Habermas 1998, pp. 44-45). As Cooke goes on to observe, such principles are not, as Benhabib and other critics maintain, moral arguments but are the very presuppositions of argumentation. In other words, these principles create a way of assessing the conduct of argumentation and not the arguments themselves. And so, for example, "judgements cannot be criticized on the basis of the knowledge they embody; they can be criticized only on the basis of the way in which they are reached" (Cooke 1994, p. 161; see also White 1988, pp. 73-74). Cooke's response to the critics on this point is both illuminating and important. Certainly it forcibly highlights a concrete procedural moment in Habermas's theory of communicative action; a moment that is often overlooked by his critics. However, this article suggests that Habermas's theory of discourse is found wanting from a Bakhtinian perspective. According to the Bakhtin Circle, dialogue can take one of two forms (Kent 1993, pp. 152-153). First, there is dialogue premised on face-to-face encounters between speakers and hearers (Voloshinov 1973, p. 95). Often dialogue in this instance is studied through distinctive "compositional forms" (Bakhtin 1981, p. 279) such as through speech acts. Second, however, there exists dialogism and this more dynamic use of language explores how single utterances are "only a moment in the continuous process of verbal communication" (Voloshinov 1973, p. 95, italics in the original). By this observation Voloshinov means that dialogism exists at different levels of abstraction in the "all-inclusive, generative process of a given social collective" (Voloshinov 1973, p. 95). Concrete utterances internalize and refract both verbal and non-verbal social processes, which is why Voloshinov is adamant that dialogism can accompany a whole host of dialogic interaction: face-to-face communication, a book, surveys, media, performance art, and so on. Dialogic events, or the utterance as a whole as the Bakhtin Circle also term them, consist precisely in examining utterances in such a way. In many respects Habermas can be said to study discourse rather than dialogism. Habermas is more interested in the first type of dialogue, namely the compositional form of speech. From a Bakhtinian perspective, while such an approach does open up important and interesting avenues to study language it also tends to study discourse at the level of clarity—being clear about speech acts and validity claims—rather than at the level of refracted utterances and dialogism (cf. Bakhtin 1981, p. 280). For the Bakhtin Circle, procedural democracy must at a minimum work in synthesis with faithfulness towards the fullness of the dialogic event (Bakhtin 1993, p. 38). This means being faithful not only to procedural principles such as "the contentual constancy of a principle, of a right, of a law, and even less so of being" (Bakhtin 1993, p. 38), but also implies being faithful to the whole uniqueness of answerable and unrepeatable concrete dialogic acts. Unsurprisingly therefore Bakhtin rejects those discursive approaches—as exem plified by a Habermasian perspective—that "think that truth (pravda) can only be the truth (istina) that is composed of universal moments; that the truth of a situation is precisely that which is repeatable and constant in it" (Bakhtin 1993, p. 37). On the contrary, and as Nikulin (2006, pp. 220-221) observes, the Bakhtin Circle reject theories of language that overly stress the importance of what is repeatable and thus trans-historically universal because this leads to the telos of reaching a consensus. The Bakhtin Circle is more interested in the unfinalizable nature of dialogue, how one's self as both a person and other is dialogically entwined in the other of others and entwined in a series of concrete mediations, and how we understand these processes in and through dialogue itself. Agreement and understanding between interlocutors is first and foremost agreement on the unfinalizability of dialogue. Consensus may result from unfinalizability but it is not a necessity (see also Koczanowicz 2011). A further advantage of this standpoint is that it is attuned to the contingency of hegemonic power relations to the extent that it questions the supposed completed form that a socially constructed consensus must assume. Bakhtinian ideas about utterances force us to critically analyse the constitution of concrete dialogic events including how socio-ideological contradictions come to be stabilised over time into a consensus which benefits some to the detriment of others (see Steinberg 1998, p. 858). If one of the original intentions of early Critical Theory in the guise of Adorno, et al. was "to challenge the very requirement of any moral universalism from the particular" (Morris 2001, p. 157) then the Bakhtin Circle can be said to share many similarities with these early theorists than with Habermas. 4 + 5 +Turns case – the endpoint of moral consensus converts meaningful dialogue into empty words – people view dialogue as a burden rather than liberation 6 +Gardner 96 James Gardner (Professor of Law, Western New England College School of Law; B.A. 1980, Yale University; J.D. 1984 University of Chicago Law School), "SHUT UP AND VOTE: A CRITIQUE OF DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY," Tennessee Law Review, 1996 AZ 7 +The first benefit of enhanced discourse is said to be the collective self-improvement of the citizenry.78 Deliberative democracy, however, is not well suited to deliver such a benefit because of its strong emphasis on consensus. In fact, the more strongly deliberative democracy is committed to the achievement of consensus, thereby successfully distinguishing itself from traditional liberal forms of protective democracy, the more severely it impedes the delivery of the developmental benefits of dialogic engagement. Deliberative democracy theorists are surely correct to note that participation alone will not improve the quality of political discourse or constitute citizens who are alert, interested and politically alive. To provide these benefits, the participation must be meaningful. Participation is only meaningful, however, when it is a means by which citizens can play a significant role in shaping the decisions that affect their lives.79 For this condition to hold, citizens must feel that there is some reasonable prospect for their participation to lead eventually to actions that affect them.80 When democratic deliberation is conducted under a requirement either of actual consensus or of something approaching actual consensus, citizens are unlikely to experience the sense of self-mastery necessary for them to benefit from the deliberative process. If consensus or near-consensus is a prerequisite to collective action, then little of consequence ever will be done. Citizens can talk all they want, but their talk ultimately disappears into a black hole. Deprived of the satisfaction of seeing their talk translated into social action, the citizens of a deliberative democracy are likely to experience dialogue as a burden-a kind of wasteful, tedious, and purely formal ritual useful only to demonstrate some form of socially mandatory respect for fellow citizens. Deliberative democracy's continual striving for consensus thus hobbles dialogue by undermining its power to benefit the citizenry. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-20 00:15:18.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Preston Stolte - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harvard Westlake SK - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +44 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +5 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +La Canada Zhao Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - K - Deliberative Democracy - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Berkeley
- Caselist.CitesClass[86]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,4 @@ 1 +Plan Text: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected journalist speech with the exception of articles that deny the Armenian genocide. 2 +Denial of the Armenian genocide trivializes suffering of millions and occurs in college newspapers 3 +Hunter-Hart 17 Monica Hunter-Hart (reporter), "Why Cenk Uygur Is Getting Confronted about the Name "The Young Turks," and Why It Matters," Paste Magazine, 1/5/2017 AZ 4 +Essentially everyone agrees that thousands of Armenians died from massacres and hazardous deportation marches. During these marches, Armenians faced starvation, disease, and often wholesale slaughter. Turkey, however, claims that these events were an unfortunate byproduct of war and do not constitute genocide. According to Turkey, the deportations were necessary to prevent the Armenians from uprising or joining en masse with the encroaching Russian front, and the mass murders weren’t authorized by the government but instead perpetrated by independent actors. Turks generally estimate the number of Armenian victims to be around half a million. Scholars outside of Turkey usually place the figure between 1 and 1.5 million, and almost all of them apply the genocide label (though the U.S. government, to avoid angering its ally Turkey, does not). In their typical explanation of the events, an already-incendiary climate between Muslims and Christian Armenians intensified as Ottoman fortunes in the war declined, paranoia spread, and the scapegoating of Armenians took a systematically violent turn. Some argue that the murders were explicitly ordered by the Ottoman government. Others argue that they were a result of local-level radicalization. In any of these versions of the events, the Young Turks should be considered complicit in the carnage: they ordered, at minimum, the forced deportation of civilians in a dangerous, volatile environment. For many, this culpability comes to mind when the phrase “young Turks” is used. At a Nov. 9 symposium TYT held at California State University, an audience member tried to bring up this issue. “The rise in anti-immigrant sentiment,” the young man began, “brings back memories in history of other leaders of other groups, people that rose to power and have done much worse, such as the Young Turks.” Before he could finish his question, the TYT hosts—led by John Iadarola—cut him off, silenced the subsequent audience agitation, and moved to a break. Many have rightly criticized TYT for this reaction, which is particularly hypocritical since the network markets itself as a bastion of transparency in the media. Should TYT’s response or choice of name affect our consumption of its politics coverage? Some go so far as to claim that calling an organization “The Young Turks” is like calling it “Hitler Youth.” For many, concerns about the name are exacerbated by the fact that Cenk Uygur—who was born in Turkey and moved to the U.S. at age 8—wrote an op-ed for his college newspaper in 1991 denying the Armenian genocide. He has since retracted those words, but not in favor of a new stance; he has instead opted to “refrain from commenting.” - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-20 00:15:20.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Preston Stolte - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harvard Westlake SK - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +44 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +5 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +La Canada Zhao Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - CP - Armenian Genocide Denial - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Berkeley
- Caselist.CitesClass[87]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,30 @@ 1 +The aff promotes the idea that American-style liberalism can succeed where other empires have failed only if the progressive state apparatus is tolerant of opposing viewpoints, so as to not become an imperial autocracy. 2 +Mauro 12 Mauro, Evan, McMaster University. Fables of Regeneration: Modernism, Biopolitics, Reproduction. Diss. McMaster University, 2012. SW 4/28/217 3 +What followed was America's first major, national debate on film censorship, in which Griffith and other industry representatives argued successfully for industry selfregulation instead of censorship by local or federal authorities.19 Or in other words, the problem that Griffith's film opened up at the level of aesthetics moved up a level: now all those questions of sentimentalism's power to influence audiences were rearticulated as legal efforts to regulate the expanding film industry at the point of exhibition. Griffith's own intervention into the censorship debates, written while he was filming Intolerance, was a pamphlet called The Rise and Fall of Free Speech in America (1916). It demonstrates his uncertainty around the concept of the universal spectator, whose very universality was, against the backdrop of riots and efforts to censor his most popular film to date, now deeply uncertain. The Rise and Fall is part newspaper editorial, part avantgarde manifesto, with a rambling tract against censorship by Griffith, quotes from major newspapers and legislators in support of his view, and opposite-page illustrations emphasizing key points in bold typeface. With it, Griffith confronts Birth's critics with a now-familiar first amendment argument for film's right to freedom of expression. Most of Griffith's own statement against censorship tries to position film in the noble history of banned books, including the Bible and Shakespeare, and even modern journalism. Film, he argues, is threatening precisely because of the possibilities implicit in the medium: as “the laboring man's university,” film depicts “the truths of history today” to “the entire world, without cost, while at the same time bringing diversion to the masses” (n.p.). But in a less high-minded and more personal mode, Griffith asks, “How does any man dare to invest his money in any picture that speaks against any certain class or condition of people, however evil and open to condemnation their works may be, when he knows how easy it is for a few individuals to go to any one of the many hundreds of censorship boards in the country and influence them to destroy the property which the producer has gone to great pains and care to build up?” The idea of a universal spectator, here, comes apart at the seams, thanks to the protest of what Griffith calls “any certain class or condition of people” who become “a few individuals” bent on censoring him. In the pamphlet's latter section, Griffith fills out this complaint against censorship boards by assembling quotes from the press that followed Birth's battle with municipal censors. Through all of these newspaper quotes, whenever the problem of the film's racism is raised it is instantly dismissed under the tyranny of the universal: one newspaper writes, “The people are impatient of any censorship which limits that freedom (free speech) which they hold as a priceless heritage. They want exact fairness and justice for all races and creeds” (Boston Herald). There was apparently no irony in calling for justice and political freedom for the makers of a film whose central fantasy was rescinding these very principles where they apply to emancipated slaves. Another newspaper skips constitutional homilies and cuts right to the issue: “the time has not come when the people of Houston are to have their standards of thought or taste set or fixed or regulated by the negro citizenship” (Houston Chronicle). 4 +But the pamphlet's most interesting slip happens when Griffith cites English playwright George Bernard Shaw, apparently in support of the case for free speech in the movies. The way in which Griffith misunderstands Shaw is revealing. Criticizing the moral oversimplifications of melodrama, Shaw writes that “The danger of the cinema is not the danger of immorality, but of morality.” Griffith, curiously, misinterprets this as a statement against the moralizing censors he was currently battling. But Griffith includes the rest of Shaw's quote, which isn't the ringing endorsement Griffith seems to think it is, and which recasts cinematic “morality” in altogether different terms. Shaw writes, 5 +people who, like myself, frequent the cinemas, testify to their desolating romantic morality... there is no comedy, no wit, no criticism of morals by ridicule or otherwise, no exposure of the unpleasant consequences of romantic sentimentality and reckless tomfoolery in real life, nothing that could give a disagreeable shock to the stupid or shake the self-complacency of the smug... the levelling-down has been thoroughly accomplished. (quoted in Griffith n.p.) 6 +Griffith doesn't comment on Shaw's condescending view of film's “romantic sentimentality.” But it seems to work unconsciously on him. The former melodramatist, the director of hundreds of “blood and thunder” short films, completes his selftransformation into a feature length aesthete by identifying a new, more high-minded vocation for film. Further on in the pamphlet, Griffith writes: 7 +If all the people of today were really educated and knew the history of the world since the beginning of time, there would be no wars, there would be no capital punishment,—there would be much less evil from America's favorite sins of hate, hypocrisy and intolerance. It is ignorance that makes possible the terrible waves of hatred that have caused our many wars and murders, inspired by politics, religion and all the various other causes. This is the reason for the teaching of history. We force our children to spend many years in school. At least a few months of this time in an average education are spent in the study of history. Six moving pictures would give these students more knowledge of the history of the world than they have obtained from their entire study. Besides these, the vast majority who cannot spare the time for this study, could in a few hours get an excellent idea of the history of the world since its beginning, from moving pictures. (n.p.) 8 +Griffith was filming Intolerance when these words were written, and so that film's themes inform his commentary. Impossible as it is to distinguish the self-promoter from the highminded auteur with Griffith, his most important maneuver in The Rise and Fall is to redeem the medium of film by allying it with the discipline of history. History becomes a legitimating principle for Griffith's films in two ways. First, Griffith retrospectively claims for the contested representations in Birth a veneer of historical truth; in this pamphlet and in interviews, Griffith cites then-President—and former Princeton historian—Woodrow Wilson's (likely misattributed) comment at a private White House screening of Birth that it was “like writing history with Lightning.”20 Second, playing up film's historical and pedagogical capacity set the stage for his upcoming epic, Intolerance, in which critiques like Shaw's of the cinema's narrow sentimentality would be impossible: 9 +this was a different sort of film, tracing the adverse effects of intolerance in the broad sweep of history, the closest thing to a cinematic play of ideas—or of one big, vague one—that Griffith ever attempted. 10 +II. Imperial Allegory 11 +Intolerance's big idea was a key ideologeme of classical liberalism: in Western history, governments that tolerate different beliefs have been constantly usurped by power-hungry ideologues on moral crusades. The film depicts the crucifixion of Christ, the fall of Babylon, and the St. Bartholomew's day massacres as instances of this; but each of these is only a historical analogy to Griffith's present-day narrative, which was conceived and shot as its own self-contained film, called The Mother and the Law, prior to the addition of the three historical plotlines. In the present-day story, an official bureaucratic arm of the government meddles in the domestic life of a young family, upsetting the course of "natural" reproduction. Two elements of Griffith's idea of intolerance are important to note. First, it was unquestionably self-justifying: with this film, Griffith wanted to deflect the complaint against Birth's racism by striking back against his accusers. If racial intolerance is unacceptable, his film seems to say, it pales in comparison to the bureaucratic intolerance of those reformers who would censor him— just as, in Birth, any perceived injustice in Southern racial hierarchies can be overlooked given the social disruption of Reconstruction. Reformist and progressivist impulses are not so much satirized as maliciously libelled in Intolerance, with the women of the Jenkins Foundation depicted as monstrous spinsters driven by envy, taking up “Reform as a second choice” of women who “cease to attract men.” Second, Griffith's notion of intolerance is capacious. As if he wanted to show that his racial prejudice is just one of a potentially endless list of examples of intolerance, Griffith telescopes from world historical acts of intolerance to everyday slights and offenses. The film makes an astonishing series of questionable isomophisms, comparing sectarian religious conflicts, the struggle for empire, modern temperance movements, progressivist children's aid, and Christ's crucifixion itself under the banner of intolerance. 12 +But the modern plotline is distinguished from its three historical analogues by the fact that intolerance doesn't triumph in it.21 Jesus is crucified, Babylon falls, and Catherine de Medici's Catholics slaughter the Protestant Huegenots, but in the modern narrative the deus-ex-machina of the Friendless One's sudden confession frees the wrongly accused Boy from the gallows, and his family is reunited. In other words, the film's underlying argument is that American liberalism can succeed where other empires have failed, if only it can contain its own intolerant elements, which in Griffith's view reside entirely in the overzealousness of the progressivist state apparatus. All the comparisons with past Empires—Judea, Babylon, Huegenot France—reveal exactly where Griffith imagines America's destiny to be pointing. The film, as several commentators have noted, is structured allegorically: the characters aren't given proper names, but are instead assigned types, like Friendless One, Dear One, Brown-Eyed Girl, and so on; and the three historical episodes lack Griffith's usual melodramatic plotting machinery, but are put forward strictly as historical analogues to the present-day narrative, drawing out Griffith's cyclical view of history (Hansen 170-71). This allegorical level in Intolerance is the key to the real ideological work it wants to do. Fredric Jameson has argued that national allegory, prevalent in the pre-war modernisms of Wyndham Lewis and other writers, acted as a sort of epistemological horizon in the pre-war period: early modernist writers couldn't help but figure the relation between individual experience and a global totality in terms of competitive states and narratives about their corresponding national "types." Jameson writes that "national allegory should be understood as a formal attempt to bridge the increasing gap between the existential data of everyday life within a given nation-state and the structural tendency of monopoly capital to develop on a worldwide, essentially transnational scale” (Fables 94). The historical framework of Jameson's argument matters here: Jameson argues that the First World War broke apart that national system and epistemological horizon for modernists, as Europe's colonial spaces were suddenly foregrounded, and moved from a latent to a manifest content of the war. On Jameson's reading, the geopolitical consequence of the First World War was that it laid bare the genuinely global nature of the European nations' interests, and this newly visible set of relationships between Europe and its colonies made the old self-contained national types impossible to sustain.22 As I've argued, the early modernist period saw the U.S. repositioning itself in the international system, which suggests that America's singularity in Jameson's national allegory system needs to be carefully reconsidered. If (im)migration, exraterritorialism, and expanding into foreign markets were all determining factors in the U.S.'s early century economic expansion, the discourse that accompanied this new set of relations had to be explicit about America's place in the world system, and therefore it suffered relatively little of that typically modernist elision and indirection that Jameson successfully diagnoses elsewhere.23 In fact American film was singularly interested in representing foreign conflicts, from the Boer War to the Philippine invasion, in both newsreel and dramatic re-enactments. These films placed America in a global imaginary. As Amy Kaplan has argued, Griffith's own filmmaking prior to Intolerance was influenced by early cinematic treatments of foreign conflicts, films that were “about redrawing the boundaries between home and abroad, between the domestic and foreign, boundaries that were both threatened and reconstructed by imperial expansion” (154). 13 +For my purposes, the example of Griffith's Intolerance marks the transition from The Birth of a Nation's explicit national allegory to what might be best thought of instead as an imperial allegory. The film places America at the end of a long line of empires, inheriting the dominant imperial position from the old world; in this, it resembles the historiography of Brooks Adams, whose thesis on the inexorable passage of the seat of empire westward, and currently across the Atlantic, had by now become not only official state policy but a key part of the national mythology. Adams's influence was a signal that history itself was being interpreted in an allegorical mode. For Adams, America would be exceptional in the history of world empires only if imperial decline, historically inevitable, could somehow be held off. The way to do this, he argued, was avoiding colonial dispersion and instead controlling foreign economies and resources indirectly through the imposition of free markets. Achieving financial hegemony was central to Adams's idea of a “new” American empire: “Supposing the movement of the next fifty years only to equal that of the last, instead of undergoing a prodigious acceleration, the United States will outweigh any single empire, if not all empires combined. The whole world will pay her tribute. Commerce will flow to her from both east and west, and the order which has existed from the dawn of time will be reversed.” (Adams, New Empire 208-09). For Griffith, this economic liberalism found its corollary in a politically liberal government that would avoid the moral pitfalls of imperial autocracy. Opposing intolerance, to Griffith, was a way to imagine a lighter and more benign empire, much like the McKinley-era Open Door Policy, or market domination without colonial presence. Griffith's move from Birth to Intolerance, I want to suggest, marks the transition from a nationally-bounded imperialism to a form of empire that, as Hardt and Negri have it, “incorporates the entire global realm within its open, expanding frontiers” (xii). Importantly, this new empire was imagined outside of history, or at least outside of any imperial eschatology that followed the usual cycle of birth-growth-perfectiondecline. 24 For Adams, America's “new empire” could well be permanent, with the right geopolitical maneuvering; for Griffith, the solution to imperial decay lay in avoiding autocracy, and somehow combining liberal freedoms with America's assumed imperial destiny. 14 +The demand for tolerance requires otherized groups to assimilate a singular, universal ideal, through which territory and populations are controlled. 15 +Runions 11 Runions, Erin, Pomona College. "Tolerating Babel: Hie Bible, Film, and the Family in US Biopolitics1." (2011). SW 04/28/2017 16 +How then, do we make sense of these films' demand for tolerance, listening, and inclusion as political solutions, in the face of their simultaneous othering strategies, mirroring those of the biblical text? In depicting excessive and perverse sexuality, they enter into a logic that ultimately shores up the intolerance they seek to critique. They ask for tolerance, but are unable to grant it. 17 +Perhaps the problem is with tolerance discourse, which has been shown by cultural critics to be less benign than it purports. As Janet Jakobsen and Ann Pellegrini have argued in their discussion of social and legal responses to same-sex relationships, "tolerance doesn't really fight the problem of hatred; it maintains the very structures of hierarchy and discrimination on which hatred is based.... Tolerance sets up an us-them relation in which 'we' tolerate 'them'" (2003, 50). Tolerance further requires assimilation. The "us-them dynamic establishes the 'general public* as that with which 'minorities' should identify and aspire" (2003, 66). 18 +Wendy Brown likewise explicates the assimilationist logic of tolerance, suggesting that it operates "as a mode of incorporating and regulating the presence of the threatening Other within" (2006, 27). "Tolerance ... produces, organizes, and marks its subjects" (2006, 29). At the same time, she argues, it serves "to manage eruptions of the particular against the imagined universal," a universal which tolerance reinforces and relegitimates (2006, 86). Brown is interested in how tolerance works to shore up the power of the nation state, especially in the face of the "growing number of transnational affiliations .. .and dramatic international population migration" (2006, 95). She further recognizes the "imperial aims" of tolerance (2006, 205) that emerge as the discourse is deployed between nations and across cultures (2006, 176-205). The logic that strengthens the nation is also that which allows it to succeed as empire. 19 +Tolerance is about the sublation of difference into unity. Otherness is permitted and incorporated, as long as it is privatized and de-politicized (Jakobsen and Pellegrini 2003, 58-60; Brown 2006, 88-93). Tolerance both particularizes the other and universalizes the system into which it is incorporated. The other helps define the norms of inclusion and liberty on which the U.S. prides itself; at the same time, the threat of difference is neutralized through incorporation. 20 +The ambivalence toward both unity and diversity that I have been tracing in these films is symptomatic of the larger discourse of tolerance, on which they draw. Both films mark sexually and racially diverse subjects as other, but incorporate them into their universalizing impulse. They bring diverse narrative and formal elements together as a means of establishing cinema's ability to speak across these divides. But diversity of race and sexuality is contained by the private and de-political space of the family, which these films mark as the place in which intolerance can be overcome. Those who do not fit into the family are depicted as a threat to the social order. 21 +Biopolitical Babel 22 +Brown argues that the vacillation of the particular and the universal in tolerance discourse participates in biopolitics, precisely in the way it requires the particular, yet assimilates it into the whole. She writes, "simultaneously totalizing and individualizing, amassing and distinguishing, and achieving each effect through its seeming opposite, tolerance emerges as one technique in an arsenal for organizing and managing large and potentially unruly populations. As such, it is a strand of biopower" (2006, 79). Notably, in this account, tolerance and biopolitics both operate through the same slippage of unity and diversity that we have seen in both the biblical text and in these films. Diversity is required in order to establish hegemony. 23 +According to Foucault, biopolitics operates through a combination of mobility, racialization, and securitization. It requires openness and closure, diversity and unity, inclusion and exclusion, as does its offspring, tolerance discourse. In the context of globalization, some populations are positioned as disposable, some as commodity-labor forces, and some as investors. Although power seems dispersed across cultures, biopolitics also works to secure geographic hierarchies of domination. Workers' skill becomes a form of capital to be moved around (2008, 224). Migration becomes a tightly controlled biopolitical investment. As a kind of corollary to mobility, biopolitics often works through securitization and racialization. Political decisions are made about which populations are of most worth (2003, 254-263). Territories are securitized through war or other forms of militarized violence, keeping other populations at bay. 24 +Giles Deleuze elaborates Foucault s genealogy of power by calling it a shift from disciplinary societies to societies of control, in a way that highlights the spatial and conceptual slipperiness of the operation of biopolitics. He suggests that the enclosed spaces of the family, prison, hospital, factory, school and nation that inculcate disciplines are gradually being replaced by the corporation and globalization, which is more overarching and at the same time more ephemeral. The focus on the individual becomes the focus on the mass. Enclosure, repetition, habit, and surveillance are replaced with speed, flexibility, variance and securitization. Paradoxically, "societies of control" seem open, and at the same time, controlled; the point that both Deleuze and Foucault want to make is that this openness facilitates very particular movements of human capital. As Foucault puts it, freedom is increased through "additional control and intervention;" control becomes the "mainspring" of freedom (2008, 67). Deleuze indicates how openness and mobility (creating diversity) work together with enforced closure (securing unity for power) in biopolitics. 25 +The impact is biopolitical Empire - the new biopolitical machine that invades every space by destroying the nationalist boundaries of Modernity. The key condition of the Empire is absolute control, the complete consumption of life 26 +Hardt and Negri 01 Michael Hardt (American literary theorist and political philosopher) and Antonio Negri (Ph.D., is an Italian Marxist sociologist, scholar, revolutionary philosopher and teacher). “Empire.” 2001. Harvard University Press AJ 27 +Many contemporary theorists are reluctant to recognize the global- ization of capitalist production and its world market as a fundamen- tally new situation and a significant historical shift. The theorists associated with the world-systems perspective, for example, argue that from its inception, capitalism has always functioned as a world economy, and therefore those who clamor about the novelty of its 13 globalization today have only misunderstood its history. it is important to emphasize both capitalism's continuous foundational relationship to (or at least a tendency toward) the world market and capitalism's expanding cycles of power. We believe that this shift makes perfectly clear and possible today the capitalist project to bring together economic power and political power, to realize, in other words, a properly capitalist order. In constitutional terms, the processes of globalization are no longer merely a fact but also a source of juridical definitions that tends to project a single supranational figure of political power. Other theorists are reluctant to recognize a major shift in global power relations because they see that the dominant capitalist nation-states have continued to exercise imperialist domination over the other nations and regions of the globe. From this perspective, the contemporary tendencies toward Empire would represent not a fundamentally new phenomenon but simply a perfecting of imperi- 14 alism. Without underestimating these real and important lines of continuity, however, we think it is important to note that what used to be conflict or competition among several imperialist powers has in important respects been replaced by the idea of a single power that overdetermines them all, structures them in a unitary way, and treats them under one common notion of right that is decidedly postcolonial and postimperialist. This is really the point of departure for our study of Empire: a new notion of right, or rather, a new inscription of authority and a new design of the production of norms and legal instruments of coercion that guarantee contracts and resolve conflicts. We should point out here that we accord special attention to the juridical figures of the constitution of Empire at the beginning of our study not out of any specialized disciplinary interest—as if right or law in itself, as an agent of regulation, were capable of representing the social world in its totality—but rather because they provide a good index of the processes of imperial constitution. New juridical figures reveal a first view of the tendency toward the centralized and unitary regulation of both the world market and global power relations, with all the difficulties presented by such a project. Juridical transformations effectively point toward changes in the material constitution of world power and order. The transition we are witnessing today from traditional international law, which was defined by contracts and treaties, to the definition and constitu- tion of a new sovereign, supranational world power (and thus to an imperial notion of right), however incomplete, gives us a framework in which to read the totalizing social processes of Empire. In effect, the juridical transformation functions as a symptom of the modifications of the material biopolitical constitution of our societies. These changes regard not only international law and inter- national relations but also the internal power relations of each country. While studying and critiquing the new forms of interna- tional and supranational law, then, we will at the same time be pushed to the heart of the political theory of Empire, where the problem of supranational sovereignty, its source of legitimacy, and its exercise bring into focus political, cultural, and finally ontologi- cal problems. 28 +The alternative is to use a resistance that places the multitude as the starting point for a new subjectivity. This has two benefits – first, it subverts hegemonic structures to reveal an ontological alternative. Second, it leads production of subjectivity towards this alternative. 29 +Hardt and Negri 01 Michael Hardt (American literary theorist and political philosopher) and Antonio Negri (Ph.D., is an Italian Marxist sociologist, scholar, revolutionary philosopher and teacher). “Empire.” 2001. Harvard University Press AJ 30 +We cannot be satisfied, however, with that political condemnation of modern power that relies on the historia rerum gestamm, the objective history we have inherited. We need to consider also the power of the res gestae, the power of the multitude to make history that continues and is reconfigured today within Empire. It is a question of transforming a necessity imposed on the multitude—a necessity that was to a certain extent solicited by the multitude itself throughout modernity as a line of flight from localized misery and exploitation—into a condition of possibility of liberation, a new possibility on this new terrain of humanity. This is when the ontological drama begins, when the curtain goes up on a scene in which the development of Empire becomes its own critique and its process of construction becomes the process of its overturning. This drama is ontological in the sense that here, in these processes, being is produced and reproduced. This drama will have to be clarified and articulated much further as our study proceeds, but we should insist right from the outset that this is not simply another variant of dialectical enlightenment. We are not proposing the umpteenth version of the inevitable passage through purgatory (here in the guise of the new imperial machine) in order to offer a glimmer of hope for radiant futures. We are not repeating the schema of an ideal teleology that justifies any passage in the name of a promised end. On the contrary, our reasoning here is based on two methodological approaches that are intended to be nondialectical and absolutely immanent: the first is critical and deconstructive, aiming to subvert the hegemonic languages and social structures and thereby reveal an alternative ontological basis that resides in the creative and productive practices of the multitude; the second is constructive and ethico-political, seeking to lead the processes of the production of subjectivity toward the constitution of an effective social, political alternative, a new constituent power.6 Our critical approach addresses the need for a real ideological and material deconstruction of the imperial order. In the postmod- ern world, the ruling spectacle of Empire is constructed through a variety of self-legitimating discourses and structures. Long ago au- thors as diverse as Lenin, Horkheimer and Adorno, and Debord recognized this spectacle as the destiny of triumphant capitalism. Despite their important differences, such authors offer us real antici- pations of the path of capitalist development/ Our deconstruction of this spectacle cannot be textual alone, but must seek continually to focus its powers on the nature of events and the real determina- tions of the imperial processes in motion today. The critical approach is thus intended to bring to light the contradictions, cycles, and crises of the process because in each of these moments the imagined necessity of the historical development can open toward alternative possibilities. In other words, the deconstruction of the historia rcruiit gestarutn, of the spectral reign of globalized capitalism, reveals the possibility of alternative social organizations. This is perhaps as far as we can go with the methodological scaffolding of a critical and materialist deconstructionism—but this is already an enormous contribution!8 This is where the first methodological approach has to pass the baton to the second, the constructive and ethico-political approach. Here we must delve into the ontological substrate of the concrete alternatives continually pushed forward by the res gestae, the subjec- tive forces acting in the historical context. What appears here is not a new rationality but a new scenario of different rational acts—a horizon of activities, resistances, wills, and desires that refuse the hegemonic order, propose lines of flight, and forge alternative con- stitutive itineraries. This real substrate, open to critique, revised by the ethico-political approach, represents the real ontological referent of philosophy, or really the field proper to a philosophy of liberation. This approach breaks methodologically with every philosophy of history insofar as it refuses any deterministic conception of historical development and any "rational" celebration of the result. It demonstrates, on the contrary, how the historical event resides in potentiality. "It is not the two that recompose in one, but the one that opens into two," according to the beautiful anti-Confucian (and anti-Platonic) formula of the Chinese revolutionaries/' Philosophy is not the owl of Minerva that takes flight after history has been realized in order to celebrate its happy ending; rather, philosophy is subjective proposition, desire, and praxis that are applied to the event. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-29 14:46:29.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Kris Wright - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Walt Whitman XR - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +45 - 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 - Griffith - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +TOC
- Caselist.CitesClass[88]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,6 @@ 1 +Anti-Israel divestment harms the Palestinian economy, but has little impact on Israel 2 +Sheffield 15 Carrie Sheffield (Warren T. Brookes Journalism Fellow for the Competitive Enterprise Institute. A former researcher for American Enterprise Institute scholar Edward Conard, I wrote editorials for The Washington Times, covered Congress for POLITICO and The Hill), "Boycott Israel Movement Stunts The Palestinian Economy," Forbes Magazine, 2/22/2015 AZ 3 +A push to “boycott, divest and sanction” (BDS) Israeli companies has limited impact on the credit profile of Israel, yet it directly harms its intended beneficiaries, the Palestinians. The BDS movement, including universities, pension funds and leaders of some Christian denominations (to the chagrin of many congregants), ignores economic data. And it coincides with a disturbing rise of violent anti-Semitism across Europe. “The impact of BDS is more psychological than real so far and has had no discernible impact on Israeli trade or the broader economy,” Kristin Lindow, senior vice president at Moody's Investors Service and Moody’s lead analyst for Israel (in full disclosure, a former Moody’s colleague) told Forbes. “That said, the sanctions do run the risk of hurting the Palestinian economy, which is much smaller and poorer than that of Israel, as seen in the case of SodaStream.” While the broader Israeli economy is presently shielded from BDS, one victim is SodaStream, an Israeli company manufacturing DIY soda that shuttered a West Bank factory and moved it to southern Israel. This cut hundreds of jobs for Palestinians that reportedly paid between three and five times the local prevailing wage. SodaStream’s CEO Daniel Birnbaum denied the move was BDS-related, though its profits plunged after BDS activists locked the fizzy pop maker in its crosshairs. "It has nothing to do with politics; we're relocating to a modern facility that is three times the size," Birnbaum told The Independent. "But if it was up to me, I would have stayed. We showed the world Arabs and Jews can work together." The numbers speak for themselves: Israel (population 8.3 million) has GDP of $291 billion, the Palestinian Territories (population 4.1 million), $11.3 billion. In 2012, Israeli sales to the Palestinian Authority were $4.3 billion, about 5 of Israeli exports (excluding diamonds) less than 2 of Israeli GDP, according to the Bank of Israel. In 2012, Palestinian sales to Israel accounted for about 81 of Palestinian exports and less than a percentage point of Israeli GDP. Palestinian purchases from Israel were two-thirds of total Palestinian imports (or 27 of Palestinian GDP). Such trade flow asymmetry shows Palestine needs Israel, economically speaking. Yet the BDS crowd would impair economic ties between these areas, despite evidence that trade between peoples lessens outbreak of war. BDS-ers want to obliterate the vast trade surplus Israel extends to Palestine and offer nothing in its place. It’s easy to cast digital stones from the comfort of a California dorm room or a posh British mansion. It’s difficult to gainfully employ some 110,000 Palestinians as Israel does, or build 16 industrial parks in the West Bank and East Jerusalem hosting 1,000 facilities where Jews and Arabs work shoulder-to-shoulder. Despite overheated BDS rhetoric about exploitation, last year the Palestinian Authority’s official newspaper hailed working conditions for Palestinians employed by Israelis in West Bank settlements. It also scolded Palestinians hiring other Palestinians for low wages with no benefits. 4 +Palestinian growth high now – econ decline causes poverty and crushes quality of life 5 +EINZ 9 Palestinian Quality of Life," Embassy of Israel in New Zealand, 2009 AZ 6 +In 2009, the West Bank enjoyed a significant economic recovery, with economic growth reaching an unprecedented 8 - a continuation of positive trends reported in 2008. Macroeconomic conditions in the West Bank improved during 2009, mainly thanks to measures taken by Israel to support economic activity, improvements in the security situation in the West Bank, the continued financial support of the international community to the Palestinian Authority and increased foreign investment. This economic growth is reflected in an improved quality of life for the Palestinian population. There is an increase in new real estate projects, both residential and commercial. Rawabi, the first planned Palestinian city, is being built with the help of Israeli consultants. The West Bank boasts one of the world's strongest stock exchanges, the Palestinian Securities Exchange, (PSE), which grew 12.5 last year. It is ranked 33 among international stock exchanges and second in the region in terms of investor protection. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-29 21:04:26.99 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Phoebe Kuo - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Winston Churchill BW - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +46 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +3 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +La Canada Zhao Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - DA - Palestinian Econ - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +TOC
- Caselist.RoundClass[37]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +75 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-11 19:10:41.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Ellen Ivens-Duran - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Monta Vista LH - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Stanford
- Caselist.RoundClass[38]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +76 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-12 00:07:39.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +John Scoggin - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lynbrook NA - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +3 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Stanford
- Caselist.RoundClass[39]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-13 16:27:48.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Jaden Lessnick - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Hawken HG - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +3 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Emory
- Caselist.RoundClass[41]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +79,80 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-17 03:41:03.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lonam, Phillips - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Newark Science BA - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +4 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Cal RR
- Caselist.RoundClass[42]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +81,82,83 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-17 05:59:32.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Knell, Merrill - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Immaculate Heart DD - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Cal RR
- Caselist.RoundClass[43]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +84 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-17 21:34:55.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Merrill, Kukreja, Harris - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harvard Westlake EE - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Semis - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Cal RR
- Caselist.RoundClass[44]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +85,86 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-20 00:15:15.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Preston Stolte - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harvard Westlake SK - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +5 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Berkeley
- Caselist.RoundClass[45]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +87 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-29 14:46:26.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Kris Wright - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Walt Whitman XR - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +TOC
- Caselist.RoundClass[46]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-04-29 21:04:23.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Phoebe Kuo - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Winston Churchill BW - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +3 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +TOC