Changes for page La Canada Zhao Neg
Summary
-
Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 7 removed)
Details
- Caselist.CitesClass[75]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,5 +1,0 @@ 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
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-11 19:10:43.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Ellen Ivens-Duran - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Monta Vista LH - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -37 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -La Canada Zhao Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB - T - Restrict - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Stanford
- Caselist.CitesClass[76]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,3 +1,0 @@ 1 -Interpretation – the affirmative may not specify a public college or group of public colleges to implement the plan. 2 - 3 -Limits - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-12 00:07:41.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -John Scoggin - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lynbrook NA - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -38 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -La Canada Zhao Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -0 May Not Spec College - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Stanford
- Caselist.CitesClass[77]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,6 +1,0 @@ 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
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-16 21:26:47.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Knell, Merrill - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Immaculate Heart DD - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -40 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -La Canada Zhao Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB - K - Political Correctness - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cal RR
- Caselist.CitesClass[78]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,4 +1,0 @@ 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
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-16 21:26:48.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Knell, Merrill - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Immaculate Heart DD - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -40 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -La Canada Zhao Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB - DA - States CP - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cal RR
- Caselist.RoundClass[37]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -75 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -2017-02-11 19:10:41. 01 +2017-02-11 19:10:41.642
- Caselist.RoundClass[38]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -76 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-12 00:07:39.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -John Scoggin - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lynbrook NA - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Stanford
- Caselist.RoundClass[39]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-13 16:27:48.0 - 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.RoundClass[40]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -77,78 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-16 21:26:41.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Knell, Merrill - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Immaculate Heart DD - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cal RR
- Caselist.RoundClass[32]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-28 13:46:31.0 - 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