Changes for page Lake Travis Ehresman Aff
Summary
-
Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)
-
Objects (0 modified, 19 added, 8 removed)
- Caselist.CitesClass[3]
- Caselist.CitesClass[5]
- Caselist.CitesClass[6]
- Caselist.CitesClass[7]
- Caselist.RoundClass[7]
- Caselist.RoundClass[9]
- Caselist.RoundClass[10]
- Caselist.RoundClass[11]
- Caselist.CitesClass[15]
- Caselist.CitesClass[17]
- Caselist.CitesClass[18]
- Caselist.CitesClass[19]
- Caselist.CitesClass[20]
- Caselist.CitesClass[21]
- Caselist.CitesClass[22]
- Caselist.CitesClass[23]
- Caselist.CitesClass[24]
- Caselist.RoundClass[21]
- Caselist.RoundClass[22]
- Caselist.RoundClass[23]
- Caselist.RoundClass[24]
- Caselist.RoundClass[25]
- Caselist.RoundClass[26]
- Caselist.RoundClass[27]
- Caselist.RoundClass[28]
- Caselist.RoundClass[29]
- Caselist.RoundClass[30]
Details
- Page properties
-
- Author
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -XWiki. katyaaehresman@gmailcom1 +xwiki:XWiki.Admin
- Caselist.CitesClass[3]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,100 +1,0 @@ 1 -====First, the purpose of debate education should be to train youth to challenge oppressive structures, not perpetuate them,==== 2 -**Bohmer 91** "Teaching Privileged Students about Gender, Race, and Class Oppression." Teaching Sociology, Vol. 19, No. 2 (April, 1991) pp. 154-163. 3 -Our strong emphasis on institutional oppression is not only due to our 4 -AND 5 -ways of introducing race, gender, and class into the sociology curriculum. 6 - 7 -====Second, structural violence excludes certain individuals from the moral sphere, meaning it’s impossible to create a coherent moral code without resolving issues of structural violence ==== 8 - 9 -====Third, Ideal theory ignores histories of injustice in its attempt to generalize a perfect society. Non Ideal theory is the only option to recognize and resist recreating injustice==== 10 -**Mills 2** "Ideal Theory" as Ideology CHARLES W. MILLS 11 -The crucial common claim—whether couched in terms of ideology and fetishism, or 12 -AND 13 -the more local level, the descriptive concepts arrived at may be misleading. 14 - 15 - 16 -====Fourth, discussions cannot be based on ideal theory- we must engage in real world discussions but those discussions mean nothing unless they change the values to the people they affect,==== 17 -**Curry 14** Dr. Tommy J. Curry 1 The Cost of a Thing: A Kingian Reformulation of a Living Wage Argument in the 21st Century. 2014 18 -Despite the pronouncement of debate as an activity and intellectual exercise pointing to 19 -AND 20 -used to currently justify the living wages in under our contemporary moral parameters. 21 - 22 -====Therefore, the role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who takes the best action to improve conditions for marginalized groups. This requires state action, not just critical reflection- moving away from the state dooms the lefts’ critique to failure—we must work within the state without being statist, meaning if the neg alt isn’t a state policy I’m the only one with a risk of offense==== 23 -**Connally 2k8 **~~William, Professor of Political Science at John Hopkins, Capitalism and Christianity, American Style, page numbers are at the bottom of the card.~~ 24 -Before turning to possible strategies to promote these objectives, we need to face an 25 -AND 26 -were it to occur, would undermine rather than vitalize democratic culture. 27 - 28 - 29 -====Implications:==== 30 - 31 - 32 -====A) Ceding the political leaves politics to the right; we probably don’t want Trump as president so we cant avoid politics entirely. B) Even if the state is implicitly bad, winning aff solvency shows a shift from its representations. C), State is necessary to affect material oppression in the AC.==== 33 - 34 - 35 -====Thus I advocate that countries ought to prohibit the production of nuclear power ==== 36 - 37 - 38 -==Contention 1: Indigenous sovereignty == 39 - 40 - 41 -====Colonialism has been a implicit part of American patriotism – first they took away the land and forced indigenous peoples onto reservations and now they are taking away the remaining red sovereignty by bribing and abusing the indigenous land and reservations by placing dangerous nuclear power plants ==== 42 -**Angel 91** Bradley (an international leader in the environmental health and justice movement, working with communities to stop pollution threats and to promote pollution prevention) "The Toxic Threat to Indian Lands" Greenpeace 1991 http://www.ejnet.org/ej/toxicthreattoindianlands.pdf DOA: 8.11.16//KAE 43 -Five hundred years ago explorer Christopher Columbus sailed from Europe, setting in motion a 44 -AND 45 -traditions and sovereignty becomes known, resistance by Indian people has spread rapidly. 46 - 47 - 48 -====Aboriginals and indigenous peoples face similar discrimination ==== 49 -**Green 16 **Radioactive waste and the nuclear war on Australia's Aboriginal people Jim Green 1st July 2016 http://www.theecologist.org/News/news'analysis/2987853/radioactive'waste'and'the'nuclear'war'on'australias'aboriginal'people.html Dr James "Jim" Green is the national anti-nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and Australian coordinator of the Beyond Nuclear Initiative.~~1~~ Green is a regular media commentator on nuclear waste issues.~~2~~ He has an honours degree in public health from the University of Wollongong and was awarded a PhD in science and technology studies for his analysis of the Lucas Heights research reactor debates.~~3~~ 50 -This isn't the first time that Aboriginal people in South Australia have faced the imposition 51 -AND 52 -This took place with no forewarning and no consultation with Aboriginal people. 53 - 54 - 55 -==== Prohibiting productin of nuclear power solves; eliminates the need for waste disposal and ==== 56 -**Rozman 14** Izzati (Scholar and Author) "ARGUMENTATIVE REPORT SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT NUCLEAR POWER ENERGY BE BANNED GLOBALLY?" University Sultan Zainal Abidin, 2014 https://www.academia.edu/10107346/ARGUMENTATIVE'REPORT'SHOULD'OR'SHOULD'NOT'NUCLEAR'POWER'ENERGY'BE'BANNED'GLOBALLY DOA: 8.11.16//KAE 57 -Nuclear power should be banned globally not because of the availability of extensive reasons that 58 -AND 59 -depleting precious potable water resources and bring hazardous effect towards human and environment. 60 - 61 - 62 -==Contention 2: Japan == 63 - 64 - 65 -====Nuclear power production entered Japan into an age of racial violence ==== 66 -**Shrader-Frechette 1 **ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Volume 5, Number 3, 2012 a Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/env.2011.0045 Nuclear Catastrophe, Disaster-Related Environmental Injustice, and Fukushima, Japan: Prima-Facie Evidence for a Japanese ‘‘Katrina’’ Kristin Shrader-Frechette http://www3.nd.edu/~~kshrader/pubs/ksf-ej-2012-fukushima.pdf // KAE 67 -Besides poor people, prima-facie, pre-FD-accident evidence also 68 -AND 69 -DREI victims? To answer these questions, consider first the FD accident. 70 - 71 - 72 -====Environmental injustice threats following nuclear power disasters promote racist and classist culture divides==== 73 -**Shrader-Frechette 2** ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Volume 5, Number 3, 2012 a Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/env.2011.0045 Nuclear Catastrophe, Disaster-Related Environmental Injustice, and Fukushima, Japan: Prima-Facie Evidence for a Japanese ‘‘Katrina’’ Kristin Shrader-Frechette http://www3.nd.edu/~~kshrader/pubs/ksf-ej-2012-fukushima.pdf // KAE 74 -Because Japan has few minorities, one might expect that its environmental-injustice 75 -AND 76 -that is able to assess the ultima-facie case for FD EI. 77 - 78 - 79 -==Contention 3: Masculinity == 80 - 81 - 82 -====Nuclear power personifies a male structure perpetuating forms of masculine domination ==== 83 -**Caputi 04**, Jane Goddesses and Monsters: Women, Myth, Power, and Popular Culture https://books.google.com/books/about/Goddesses'and'Monsters.html?id=C'r6meksRjUCandprintsec=frontcoverandsource=kp'read'button~~#v=onepageandq=nuclearandf=false 2004// KAE 84 -Feminist criticism has focused on exposing what Diana Russell (1989) calls "nuclear 85 -AND 86 -place, the mother’s body (Porter, 1991, 104-5). 87 - 88 - 89 -====Nuclear power is the symbol of masculinity – a political artifact that rapes the earth and creates a monopolization of control over the notion of femininity. Maintaining production of the atom bomb replicates the hierarchal chain of command and oppressive power structures that follow from nuclear power ==== 90 -**Grint and Gill 95** The Gender-technology Relation: Contemporary Theory and Research By Keith Grint, Rosalind Gill//KAE 91 -nuclear technology is a useful example to illustrate some fundamental differences in approach to technology 92 -AND 93 -that it be controlled by a centralized, rigidly hierarchical chain of command. 94 - 95 - 96 -====Nuclear weapons support the Patriarchy and male dominations==== 97 -**Canberra 84 **Published by Friends of the Earth (Canberra) in January 1984, ISBN 0 909313 27 X (pdf of original). A condensed version was published in Social Alternatives, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1986, pp. 9-16.//KAE 98 -Patriarchy - the collective domination of men over women - and other major social structures 99 -AND 100 -imagine the development of nuclear weapons in a society where feminine values predominated. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-09-11 23:01:25.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -7 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lake Travis Ehresman Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -SEPTOCT - Im basic AF - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Grapevine
- Caselist.CitesClass[5]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,33 +1,0 @@ 1 -====Violence against womyn in systems of white supremacy become internalized – marked identities begin to desire the purity of unmarked whiteness, and thus normalize their world view. Oppression thus becomes a condition of happiness – women are happy in the kitchen, they don’t want to go out to work. The ultimate form of white patriarchy is the oppressed desiring their own oppression, and we need to disrupt this naïve happiness.==== 2 -**Ahmed 10** Sara, 1/1/2010. Professor of Race and Cultural Studies, Goldsmiths College, University of London. The Promise of Happiness. Duke University Press. 3 -It is Sophy’s imagination… right way, to be assembled. 4 - 5 -====People do not take women seriously when they speak – now you have to. Rearticulation serves as a method to sever the ties of the power within language and speech acts from its historically gendered and racialized history. Nagging and disrupting the white-male hegemonic institutions in the academy creates a disruption of the language game that exists in the academy. Only by antagonizing the principles of exclusion can we disorient the habitual spaces of whiteness which is a prerequisite to combatting other forms of oppression ==== 6 -**Patton 04** (Dr. Tracey Owens Patton is the director of African American and Diaspora Studies and a professor in the Department of Communication and Journalism at the University of Wyoming. Dr. Patton's area of expertise is critical cultural communication and rhetorical studies.2004 Reflections of a Black Woman Professor: Racism and Sexism in Academia, Howard Journal of Communications, 15:3, 197-198, Accessed 6/27/16, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10646170490483629) 7 -Through my personal…common set of struggles. 8 - 9 -====Thus I affirm the entirety of the resolution. We affirm to open up a space to endorse the feminist kill joy and creates sites of discourse that disorients and reconfigures the social order. ==== 10 -**Ahmed 10** Sara Ahmed "Feminist Killjoys (And Other Willful Subjects)" The Scholar and Feminist Online The Barnard Center for Research on Women Summer 2010 11 -To be unseated… We must learn. 12 - 13 -====Our affirmative approach as a foundational criticism is necessary to resolve the structural antagonisms that formulate law – even the most progressive left legal reforms recreate those problems and attempt to disentangle the complexities of gender issues - Our aff is a prerequisite ==== 14 -**Brown and Halley 02 **Wendy Brown and Janet Halley, 2002 (Left Legalism/Left Critique, Wendy Brown is First Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley, where she is also affiliated with the Department of Rhetoric, and where she is a core faculty member in the Designated Emphasis in Critical Theory. Janet Halley is the Royall Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. p. 18-25) 15 -Left legalistic projects… that bred them. 16 - 17 -====The notion of free speech assumes that all voices are equally treated, when in reality power inequities shape who can speak what==== 18 -**Boler 2k** Megan Boler (Professor in the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto and editor of Digital Media and Democracy), "All Speech is Not Free: The Ethics of "Affirmative Action Pedagogy," Philosophy of Education, 2000 19 -All speech is not … limiting dominant voices. 20 - 21 -====Oppression in debate is perpetuated by the decisions community members make on a weekly basis. We look to real world implications in order to access debate’s liberatory potential. Thus, the role of the ballot is to vote for the best resistance strategy for the oppressed. ==== 22 -Smith 13, Elijah. A Conversation in Ruins: Race and Black Participation in Lincoln Douglas Debate 23 -It will be … students cannot escape. 24 - 25 -====Freedom of speech requires emancipation from social oppression – The aff challenge traditional notions of free speech from a negative individual right to an opportunity to subvert disempowerment. Instead of viewing freedom of speech as a negative individual right, we should understand it as the right to speak up. ==== 26 -**Hornsby 95** Jennifer Hornsby "Disempowered Speech" University of Arkansas Press Philosophical Topics, Vol. 23, No. 2, Feminist Perspectives on Language, Knowledge, and Reality (FALL 1995), 27 -Free speech, or …. will be indispensable. 28 - 29 -====If that speech was too shrill for you then that’s part of the problem. Feminine participation and speech inside of the debate space is constantly suppressed to a relegated status of happiness and conformity. ==== 30 -**Feinzig and Atyeo 11 **An Analysis of Gender Disparities in Lincoln-Douglas Debate Joshua Feinzig 31 -Natalie Atyeo 32 -Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School October 2, 2011 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract'id=1957437 33 -Though the cited … lower vocal pitches. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-17 00:25:59.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Nik Patel, Lu Barazza, Zachary Zertuche - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood AG - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -9 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Semis - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lake Travis Ehresman Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB - The nag AC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Churchill
- Caselist.CitesClass[6]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,57 +1,0 @@ 1 -====Recognition necessitates an understanding of social standpoints of the oppressed and fluidity of identity ==== 2 -**Butler 09 **Frames of War: When Is Life Grievable? JUDITH BUTLER 2009 Pg. 8 3 -How then is … radically democratic results? 4 - 5 -====Language facilitates recognition as an instrument for compelling agency by allowing us to address one another and recognize existence. This allows for language to socially determine our existence and submits us to linguistic ontology.==== 6 -**Butler 97** "Excitable Speech: A Politics of Performativity" by Judith Butler 1997 p. 5 7 -Language sustains the … of survivable subjects. 8 - 9 -====Ontology comes first because underpins all other impacts and is the basis for all politics==== 10 -**Dillon 99 **(Michael, Professor of Politics at the University of Lancaster, Moral Spaces, p. 97-98) 11 -As Heidegger – himself… decision and judgment. 12 -analytics 13 - 14 -====And, our heuristic means we learn about the State without being it. Our framework teaches contingent, but engaged, middle grounds. No State pessimism or optimism bias for extreme Alts.==== 15 -**Zanotti ’14** Dr. Laura Zanotti is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Virginia Tech. Her research and teaching include critical political theory as well as international organizations, UN peacekeeping, democratization and the role of NGOs in post-conflict governance." Governmentality, Ontology, Methodology: Re-thinking Political Agency in the Global World" – Alternatives: Global, Local, Political – vol 38(4):p. 288-304,. A little unclear if this is late 2013 or early 2014 – The Stated "Version of Record" is Feb 20, 2014, but was originally published online on December 30th, 2013. Obtained via Sage Database. KAE bracketed for grammar 16 -By questioning substantialist … and pessimistic activism. 17 - 18 -====Thus the standard is promoting critical social engagement. ==== 19 -====I defend the resolution; Resolved: Public colleges and Universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech. I defend the resolution as a general principle, so I don’t defend implementation.==== 20 -====The squo presents an inherent problem; colleges restrict students ability to exercise their free speech. ==== 21 -**Wheeler 16** , Lydia. "Colleges Are Restricting Free Speech on Campus, Lawmakers Say." TheHill. N.p., 02 Feb. 2016. Web. 06 Dec. 2016. 22 -In protecting students… use," he said. 23 - 24 -===Adv. 1 Activism=== 25 - 26 -====The thesis of the affirmative is to open up free speech on campus to endorse methods like counter speech, which is a method of literal interrogation against harmful speech. Counter-speech works to combat hate speech—empirically verified. ==== 27 -**Davidson ’16** The Freedom of Speech in Public Forums on College Campuses: A Single-Site Case Study on Pushing the Boundaries of the Freedom of Speech A Senior Project presented to The Faculty of the Journalism Department California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Bachelor of Science in Journalism By Alexander Davidson June 2016 28 -All experts agreed… combat the issue. 29 - 30 -====The aff creates a culture of counterspeech. Censorship is the only alternative and it undermines empowerment and makes offensive speakers into martyrs, increasing the effectiveness of their arguments—my evidence is directly comparative.==== 31 -**Strossen 95 **1995 Hate Speech and Pornography: Do We Have to Choose between Freedom of Speech and Equality Nadine Strossen New York Law School *** multiple examples come from public colleges at ASU and more. Examples cited in card ununderlined bc I wanted to be efficient sorry. Can point to it if you’d like 32 -The viewpoint-neutrality… it enfeebles them.4 P 33 - 34 -====Public colleges restricting free speech creates administrative intervention which destroys grassroot activism ==== 35 -**Brown 95 **~~Brown (Wendy L. Brown (born November 28, 1955) is an American professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley~~1~~ where she is also affiliated with the Department of Rhetoric, and where she is a core faculty member in the Designated Emphasis in Critical Theory.~~2~~), Wendy. "States of injury: Power and freedom in late modernity." (1995). //~~ 36 -It is important … essays arc written. 37 - 38 -====Censorship hurts the students’ ability to protest offensive speech in the future – granting college admin the authority to police speech creates a precident of rights infringement ==== 39 -**Milligan 15 **From Megaphones to Muzzles Free speech is under fire on college campuses – and the attacks are coming from students. By Susan Milligan ~| Staff Writer Nov. 25, 2015, http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/11/25/from-megaphones-to-muzzles-free-speech-safe-spaces-and-college-campuses 40 -To me, an institution… free speech rages on. 41 - 42 -====When colleges determine that certain words or concepts shouldn’t be said, it locks the trauma of oppression in the words themselves. By freeing up speech, the Aff takes away the oppressor’s ability to use those words as a weapon.==== 43 -**Butler 97**, Judith (Professor of Rhetoric and Comparative Literature, University of California-Berkeley), Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative, Routledge, 1997. 44 -Keeping such terms … is partially open. 45 - 46 -=== adv. 2 Education === 47 -====Free speech restrictions prevent colleges from doing what they were made to do: namely, to educate tomorrow’s innovators, leaders, and activists. ==== 48 -**Snyder 16** , Jeffrey Aaron, "Free Speech? Now That’s Offensive!" Inside Higher Ed, September 1, 2016. 49 -The Gallup survey… by its critics? 50 -analytics 51 -====Empirics prove that banning bigoted speech or acts doesn’t work. ==== 52 -**Malik 12** , Kenan, "Why hate speech should not be banned," April 12, 2012. 53 -And in practice, … hate speech is involved. 54 - 55 -====The University is no longer open- it controls what knowledge can be disseminated- this is a new form of intolerance that has replaced previous intolerances- this prevents creating the best knowledge possible by limiting discussion and preventing idea exchange- this leads to extremity, polarization, and hinders politics, decision-making, and societal progress==== 56 -**Nelson 15 **Nelson, Libby. Education Reporter Reporting on and explaining education. Previously: POLITICO Pro, Inside Higher Ed. Originally: Northwestern and Kansas City. "Obama on Liberal College Students Who Want to Be "coddled": "That's Not the Way We Learn"" Vox. Vox Media, Inc, 14 Sept. 2015. Web. 23 June 2016. http://www.vox.com/2015/9/14/9326965/obama-political-correctness. 57 -DES MOINES, Iowa —… , is all about." - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-19 05:23:57.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -10 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lake Travis Ehresman Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB - LAYs potato chip - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Churchill
- Caselist.CitesClass[7]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,52 +1,0 @@ 1 -====Look at how brave these universities are! They’re promising increased diversity and making a quota system for disadvantaged groups—well I mean, sorta. They don’t actually ever do anything and usually sweep problematic issues under the rug, but it’s the thought that counts right? ==== 2 - 3 -====The effect of university policies aimed at helping oppressed bodies vanishes in thin air, but the legal walls created stay in place. On-campus activists are put into a situation where they constantly make futile policies, while the university ignores its commitments==== 4 -**Ahmed 1** (Sara Ahmed is formerly the director of a new Centre for Feminist Research (CFR) at Goldsmiths, Professor of Race and Cultural Studies at Goldsmiths, and a scholar that writes on the intersection of queer theory, feminist theory, critical race theory, and post-colonialism/ Ahmed, Sara. Article from her independent research blog: Evidence Posted on July 12, 2016 – no pg. numbers, DOA 1/28/17 KE) 5 -To have evidence ... to silence the oppressed 6 - 7 -**Ahmed 2** (Sara Ahmed is formerly the director of a new Centre for Feminist Research (CFR) at Goldsmiths, Professor of Race and Cultural Studies at Goldsmiths, and a scholar that writes on the intersection of queer theory, feminist theory, critical race theory, and post-colonialism, "How Not to Do Things with Words" Wagadu: A Journal of Transnational Women’s and Gender Studies, 2016, vol. 16, pp 2-6.//Accessed 9/15/16 KE) 8 -How can not doing ...under the appearance of "having brought." 9 - 10 -====White patriarchy relies on this institutionalized promise of happiness, wherein oppression becomes happiness as it circulates the image of the happy woman in the kitchen, the thankful woman with lower pay and the happy slave. The contours of these restrictions relegate the Other to death through a denunciation of desire and will. ==== 11 -**Ahmed 2** (Sara Ahmed is formerly the director of a new Centre for Feminist Research (CFR) at Goldsmiths, Professor of Race and Cultural Studies at Goldsmiths, and a scholar that writes on the intersection of queer theory, feminist theory, critical race theory, and post-colonialism. Ahmed, Sara. The Promise of Happiness. Durham: Duke U Press, 2010. Pg. 63-64 //DOA 1/29/17 KE) 12 -It is Sophy’s imagination ... as the general or social will.* 13 - 14 -====Speech is an expression of will, but the voice of the oppressed is lost as it becomes docile. Violence becomes the corrective tool to reorient non-conforming bodies into obedience with oppressive rule systems "for their own good"==== 15 -**Ahmed 3** (Sara Ahmed is formerly the director of a new Centre for Feminist Research (CFR) at Goldsmiths, Professor of Race and Cultural Studies at Goldsmiths, and a scholar that writes on the intersection of queer theory, feminist theory, critical race theory, and post-colonialism, Willful Subjects, Duke University Press, pp 63-67.//Accessed 2/2/17 KE) 16 -The story gives us a ...are kept alive by forgetting 17 - 18 -====~~advo text~~ Thus I affirm the resolution. The 1AC is a standing resistance against institutionalized happiness in university settings through the figure of the killjoy. ==== 19 - 20 -====The 1AC is a personal killjoy manifesto against the oppressive structures of happiness in academic spaces. Our genealogy repeats the unhappy history of students and debaters alike, where every round forces the academic institution to continually take on the weight of its past. A manifesto allows us to use our personal experiences against the institution to reassert our wills and to collapse systems of violence. To be a killjoy is to be a political activist, a nonconforming queer, or the angry black woman. There can be joy in the killing of joy – our manifesto just determines a purpose of feminist flight. ==== 21 -**Ahmed 4** (Sara Ahmed is formerly the director of a new Centre for Feminist Research (CFR) at Goldsmiths, Professor of Race and Cultural Studies at Goldsmiths, and a scholar that writes on the intersection of queer theory, feminist theory, critical race theory, and post-colonialism, Living a Feminist Life, "Conclusion II", 2017, Duke University Press, pp 254-257 //Accessed 2/9/2017 GKKE) 22 -We must stay unhappy ...them if you can bear them. 23 - 24 -====The killjoy is the praxis point to resolve other violent power structures – our project of phenomenology expose the origin of violence and present a unified call to rage against points of oppression within politics. ==== 25 -**Ahmed 5** Sara Ahmed "Feminist Killjoys (And Other Willful Subjects)" The Scholar and Feminist Online The Barnard Center for Research on Women Summer 2010 26 -Phenomenology helps us ...with which they get associated. 27 - 28 -==== ~~rotb text?~~ The role of the ballot is vote for the debater that best mobilizes unhappiness as a way to fight oppression. Our manifesto is an archive of happiness that extends beyond the resolution; the ballot becomes a form of affect – every reading of the 1AC elicits an rfd, decision, and refutation which create new impressions to shape identity to reclaim the liberatory potential of academic settings. ==== 29 -**Ahmed 6 **(Sara Ahmed is formerly the director of a new Centre for Feminist Research (CFR) at Goldsmiths, Professor of Race and Cultural Studies at Goldsmiths, and a scholar that writes on the intersection of queer theory, feminist theory, critical race theory, and post-colonialism. Ahmed, Sara. The Promise of Happiness. Durham: Duke U Press, 2010. Pg. 19-20//DOA 1/29/17 KE) 30 -Every writer is first ... book is to make room. 31 - 32 -====This means that only the aff is effective to create a survival mechanism for the Other in the institution; silence creates complacency under the guise of "safety" which become less safe for the marginalized bodies in the institutions==== 33 -**Rodruiguez 11** (Dalia Rodriguez,2011, Qualitative Inquiry, "Silent rage and the politics of resitstance: countering seductions of whiteness and the road of politization and empowerment" https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/~~#inbox/155f2644f681f418?projector=1 ) pg. 594 34 -However, in addition to ...in the White academy. 35 - 36 -====Our manifesto points out the structures of complacency inside of institutions but critiques the normalcy of what it means to protest inside of it. Our refusal to be complacent with happiness in university settings redefines protest. Reshaping protest is crucial because institutions, like debate, discourage protest to maintain oppression and happiness. Speech is reregulated as the right to speak up. ==== 37 -**Nguyen 14** Nicole Nguyen and R. Tina Catania The Feminist Wire August 5 2014 "On Feeling Depleted: Naming, Confronting, and Surviving Oppression in the Academy" thefeministwire.com/2014/08/feeling-depleted-naming-confronting-surviving-oppression-academy/ 38 -We write because we ...strategize, to survive, to heal. 39 - 40 -====Our manifesto is a rupturing of happiness inside of debate's academic setting. Oppression in debate is perpetuated by the decisions community members make on a weekly basis. We look to real world implications in order to access debate’s liberatory potential. Thus, the role of the judge is to vote for the best resistance strategy for the oppressed. ==== 41 -**Smith 13, Elijah. A Conversation in Ruins: Race and Black Participation in Lincoln Douglas Debate ** 42 -It will be uncomfortable,...black students cannot escape. 43 - 44 -====Scenarios of nuclear war or extinction are deemed as the ‘good form of debate’ and help construct a space where violence against womxn is especially hidden and force female debaters to be complacent reading those positions. We are supposed to be nice debaters, more compelling, appropriate and sweet. Failure to do so creates more affect against the marginalized female body. Thus, the figure of the killjoy is uniquely good in debate. ==== 45 -Bjork 92 (Rebecca, debater and university coach, "Symposium: Women in Debate: Reflections on the Ongoing Struggle", Effluents and affluence: The Global Pollution Debate, 1992") 46 -While reflecting on my ... real power that we have. 47 - 48 -====/slow down/ if that speech was too shrill for you then you’re part of the problem. The status of comfort in the activity deems feminine speech as shrill and disfavored. Women in debate become The Other in a new setting of the institution. Feminine participation and speech inside of debate is constantly suppressed to a relegated status of happiness and conformity. ==== 49 -**Feinzig and Atyeo 11 **An Analysis of Gender Disparities in Lincoln-Douglas Debate Joshua Feinzig 50 -Natalie Atyeo 51 -Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School October 2, 2011 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract'id=1957437 52 -Though the cited studies... in the debate community. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-20 12:30:04.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -any - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -11 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lake Travis Ehresman Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB - The nag AC v2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard
- Caselist.RoundClass[7]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-09-11 23:01:24.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -only broken 1AC Round reports 1NC r2 - anthro k 1NC r3 - rotb spec coal DA 1NC r5 - espec consult natives PIC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Grapevine
- Caselist.RoundClass[9]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-17 00:25:54.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Nik Patel, Lu Barazza, Zachary Zertuche - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood AG - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Semis - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,2 +1,0 @@ 1 -1NC - revenge porn PIC endowments DA chilling effect DA mills fw 2 -1NR - PIC Fw - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Churchill
- Caselist.RoundClass[10]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -6 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-19 05:23:56.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Any - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -This was for lay rounds oops - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Churchill
- Caselist.RoundClass[11]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -7 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-20 12:30:03.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -any - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,3 +1,0 @@ 1 -R2 1NC intersectionality k academic freedom NC case turns - 1nr collapse to k turns 2 -R4 1NC Asexuality K 1NR collapse to floating word pik 3 -R6 1NC Wynter k white speech PIC case turns - 1NR collapse to PIC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Harvard
- Caselist.CitesClass[15]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,100 @@ 1 +====First, the purpose of debate education should be to train youth to challenge oppressive structures, not perpetuate them,==== 2 +**Bohmer 91** "Teaching Privileged Students about Gender, Race, and Class Oppression." Teaching Sociology, Vol. 19, No. 2 (April, 1991) pp. 154-163. 3 +Our strong emphasis on institutional oppression is not only due to our 4 +AND 5 +ways of introducing race, gender, and class into the sociology curriculum. 6 + 7 +====Second, structural violence excludes certain individuals from the moral sphere, meaning it’s impossible to create a coherent moral code without resolving issues of structural violence ==== 8 + 9 +====Third, Ideal theory ignores histories of injustice in its attempt to generalize a perfect society. Non Ideal theory is the only option to recognize and resist recreating injustice==== 10 +**Mills 2** "Ideal Theory" as Ideology CHARLES W. MILLS 11 +The crucial common claim—whether couched in terms of ideology and fetishism, or 12 +AND 13 +the more local level, the descriptive concepts arrived at may be misleading. 14 + 15 + 16 +====Fourth, discussions cannot be based on ideal theory- we must engage in real world discussions but those discussions mean nothing unless they change the values to the people they affect,==== 17 +**Curry 14** Dr. Tommy J. Curry 1 The Cost of a Thing: A Kingian Reformulation of a Living Wage Argument in the 21st Century. 2014 18 +Despite the pronouncement of debate as an activity and intellectual exercise pointing to 19 +AND 20 +used to currently justify the living wages in under our contemporary moral parameters. 21 + 22 +====Therefore, the role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who takes the best action to improve conditions for marginalized groups. This requires state action, not just critical reflection- moving away from the state dooms the lefts’ critique to failure—we must work within the state without being statist, meaning if the neg alt isn’t a state policy I’m the only one with a risk of offense==== 23 +**Connally 2k8 **~~William, Professor of Political Science at John Hopkins, Capitalism and Christianity, American Style, page numbers are at the bottom of the card.~~ 24 +Before turning to possible strategies to promote these objectives, we need to face an 25 +AND 26 +were it to occur, would undermine rather than vitalize democratic culture. 27 + 28 + 29 +====Implications:==== 30 + 31 + 32 +====A) Ceding the political leaves politics to the right; we probably don’t want Trump as president so we cant avoid politics entirely. B) Even if the state is implicitly bad, winning aff solvency shows a shift from its representations. C), State is necessary to affect material oppression in the AC.==== 33 + 34 + 35 +====Thus I advocate that countries ought to prohibit the production of nuclear power ==== 36 + 37 + 38 +==Contention 1: Indigenous sovereignty == 39 + 40 + 41 +====Colonialism has been a implicit part of American patriotism – first they took away the land and forced indigenous peoples onto reservations and now they are taking away the remaining red sovereignty by bribing and abusing the indigenous land and reservations by placing dangerous nuclear power plants ==== 42 +**Angel 91** Bradley (an international leader in the environmental health and justice movement, working with communities to stop pollution threats and to promote pollution prevention) "The Toxic Threat to Indian Lands" Greenpeace 1991 http://www.ejnet.org/ej/toxicthreattoindianlands.pdf DOA: 8.11.16//KAE 43 +Five hundred years ago explorer Christopher Columbus sailed from Europe, setting in motion a 44 +AND 45 +traditions and sovereignty becomes known, resistance by Indian people has spread rapidly. 46 + 47 + 48 +====Aboriginals and indigenous peoples face similar discrimination ==== 49 +**Green 16 **Radioactive waste and the nuclear war on Australia's Aboriginal people Jim Green 1st July 2016 http://www.theecologist.org/News/news'analysis/2987853/radioactive'waste'and'the'nuclear'war'on'australias'aboriginal'people.html Dr James "Jim" Green is the national anti-nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and Australian coordinator of the Beyond Nuclear Initiative.~~1~~ Green is a regular media commentator on nuclear waste issues.~~2~~ He has an honours degree in public health from the University of Wollongong and was awarded a PhD in science and technology studies for his analysis of the Lucas Heights research reactor debates.~~3~~ 50 +This isn't the first time that Aboriginal people in South Australia have faced the imposition 51 +AND 52 +This took place with no forewarning and no consultation with Aboriginal people. 53 + 54 + 55 +==== Prohibiting productin of nuclear power solves; eliminates the need for waste disposal and ==== 56 +**Rozman 14** Izzati (Scholar and Author) "ARGUMENTATIVE REPORT SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT NUCLEAR POWER ENERGY BE BANNED GLOBALLY?" University Sultan Zainal Abidin, 2014 https://www.academia.edu/10107346/ARGUMENTATIVE'REPORT'SHOULD'OR'SHOULD'NOT'NUCLEAR'POWER'ENERGY'BE'BANNED'GLOBALLY DOA: 8.11.16//KAE 57 +Nuclear power should be banned globally not because of the availability of extensive reasons that 58 +AND 59 +depleting precious potable water resources and bring hazardous effect towards human and environment. 60 + 61 + 62 +==Contention 2: Japan == 63 + 64 + 65 +====Nuclear power production entered Japan into an age of racial violence ==== 66 +**Shrader-Frechette 1 **ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Volume 5, Number 3, 2012 a Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/env.2011.0045 Nuclear Catastrophe, Disaster-Related Environmental Injustice, and Fukushima, Japan: Prima-Facie Evidence for a Japanese ‘‘Katrina’’ Kristin Shrader-Frechette http://www3.nd.edu/~~kshrader/pubs/ksf-ej-2012-fukushima.pdf // KAE 67 +Besides poor people, prima-facie, pre-FD-accident evidence also 68 +AND 69 +DREI victims? To answer these questions, consider first the FD accident. 70 + 71 + 72 +====Environmental injustice threats following nuclear power disasters promote racist and classist culture divides==== 73 +**Shrader-Frechette 2** ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Volume 5, Number 3, 2012 a Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/env.2011.0045 Nuclear Catastrophe, Disaster-Related Environmental Injustice, and Fukushima, Japan: Prima-Facie Evidence for a Japanese ‘‘Katrina’’ Kristin Shrader-Frechette http://www3.nd.edu/~~kshrader/pubs/ksf-ej-2012-fukushima.pdf // KAE 74 +Because Japan has few minorities, one might expect that its environmental-injustice 75 +AND 76 +that is able to assess the ultima-facie case for FD EI. 77 + 78 + 79 +==Contention 3: Masculinity == 80 + 81 + 82 +====Nuclear power personifies a male structure perpetuating forms of masculine domination ==== 83 +**Caputi 04**, Jane Goddesses and Monsters: Women, Myth, Power, and Popular Culture https://books.google.com/books/about/Goddesses'and'Monsters.html?id=C'r6meksRjUCandprintsec=frontcoverandsource=kp'read'button~~#v=onepageandq=nuclearandf=false 2004// KAE 84 +Feminist criticism has focused on exposing what Diana Russell (1989) calls "nuclear 85 +AND 86 +place, the mother’s body (Porter, 1991, 104-5). 87 + 88 + 89 +====Nuclear power is the symbol of masculinity – a political artifact that rapes the earth and creates a monopolization of control over the notion of femininity. Maintaining production of the atom bomb replicates the hierarchal chain of command and oppressive power structures that follow from nuclear power ==== 90 +**Grint and Gill 95** The Gender-technology Relation: Contemporary Theory and Research By Keith Grint, Rosalind Gill//KAE 91 +nuclear technology is a useful example to illustrate some fundamental differences in approach to technology 92 +AND 93 +that it be controlled by a centralized, rigidly hierarchical chain of command. 94 + 95 + 96 +====Nuclear weapons support the Patriarchy and male dominations==== 97 +**Canberra 84 **Published by Friends of the Earth (Canberra) in January 1984, ISBN 0 909313 27 X (pdf of original). A condensed version was published in Social Alternatives, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1986, pp. 9-16.//KAE 98 +Patriarchy - the collective domination of men over women - and other major social structures 99 +AND 100 +imagine the development of nuclear weapons in a society where feminine values predominated. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-05-10 01:13:12.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +all - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +all - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +21 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lake Travis Ehresman Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +SEPTOCT - Stock Oppression 1AC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Grapevine
- Caselist.CitesClass[17]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,52 @@ 1 +====Look at how brave these universities are! They’re promising increased diversity and making a quota system for disadvantaged groups—well I mean, sorta. They don’t actually ever do anything and usually sweep problematic issues under the rug, but it’s the thought that counts right? ==== 2 + 3 +====The effect of university policies aimed at helping oppressed bodies vanishes in thin air, but the legal walls created stay in place. On-campus activists are put into a situation where they constantly make futile policies, while the university ignores its commitments==== 4 +**Ahmed 1** (Sara Ahmed is formerly the director of a new Centre for Feminist Research (CFR) at Goldsmiths, Professor of Race and Cultural Studies at Goldsmiths, and a scholar that writes on the intersection of queer theory, feminist theory, critical race theory, and post-colonialism/ Ahmed, Sara. Article from her independent research blog: Evidence Posted on July 12, 2016 – no pg. numbers, DOA 1/28/17 KE) 5 +To have evidence ... to silence the oppressed 6 + 7 +**Ahmed 2** (Sara Ahmed is formerly the director of a new Centre for Feminist Research (CFR) at Goldsmiths, Professor of Race and Cultural Studies at Goldsmiths, and a scholar that writes on the intersection of queer theory, feminist theory, critical race theory, and post-colonialism, "How Not to Do Things with Words" Wagadu: A Journal of Transnational Women’s and Gender Studies, 2016, vol. 16, pp 2-6.//Accessed 9/15/16 KE) 8 +How can not doing ...under the appearance of "having brought." 9 + 10 +====White patriarchy relies on this institutionalized promise of happiness, wherein oppression becomes happiness as it circulates the image of the happy woman in the kitchen, the thankful woman with lower pay and the happy slave. The contours of these restrictions relegate the Other to death through a denunciation of desire and will. ==== 11 +**Ahmed 2** (Sara Ahmed is formerly the director of a new Centre for Feminist Research (CFR) at Goldsmiths, Professor of Race and Cultural Studies at Goldsmiths, and a scholar that writes on the intersection of queer theory, feminist theory, critical race theory, and post-colonialism. Ahmed, Sara. The Promise of Happiness. Durham: Duke U Press, 2010. Pg. 63-64 //DOA 1/29/17 KE) 12 +It is Sophy’s imagination ... as the general or social will.* 13 + 14 +====Speech is an expression of will, but the voice of the oppressed is lost as it becomes docile. Violence becomes the corrective tool to reorient non-conforming bodies into obedience with oppressive rule systems "for their own good"==== 15 +**Ahmed 3** (Sara Ahmed is formerly the director of a new Centre for Feminist Research (CFR) at Goldsmiths, Professor of Race and Cultural Studies at Goldsmiths, and a scholar that writes on the intersection of queer theory, feminist theory, critical race theory, and post-colonialism, Willful Subjects, Duke University Press, pp 63-67.//Accessed 2/2/17 KE) 16 +The story gives us a ...are kept alive by forgetting 17 + 18 +====~~advo text~~ Thus I affirm the resolution. The 1AC is a standing resistance against institutionalized happiness in university settings through the figure of the killjoy. ==== 19 + 20 +====The 1AC is a personal killjoy manifesto against the oppressive structures of happiness in academic spaces. Our genealogy repeats the unhappy history of students and debaters alike, where every round forces the academic institution to continually take on the weight of its past. A manifesto allows us to use our personal experiences against the institution to reassert our wills and to collapse systems of violence. To be a killjoy is to be a political activist, a nonconforming queer, or the angry black woman. There can be joy in the killing of joy – our manifesto just determines a purpose of feminist flight. ==== 21 +**Ahmed 4** (Sara Ahmed is formerly the director of a new Centre for Feminist Research (CFR) at Goldsmiths, Professor of Race and Cultural Studies at Goldsmiths, and a scholar that writes on the intersection of queer theory, feminist theory, critical race theory, and post-colonialism, Living a Feminist Life, "Conclusion II", 2017, Duke University Press, pp 254-257 //Accessed 2/9/2017 GKKE) 22 +We must stay unhappy ...them if you can bear them. 23 + 24 +====The killjoy is the praxis point to resolve other violent power structures – our project of phenomenology expose the origin of violence and present a unified call to rage against points of oppression within politics. ==== 25 +**Ahmed 5** Sara Ahmed "Feminist Killjoys (And Other Willful Subjects)" The Scholar and Feminist Online The Barnard Center for Research on Women Summer 2010 26 +Phenomenology helps us ...with which they get associated. 27 + 28 +==== ~~rotb text?~~ The role of the ballot is vote for the debater that best mobilizes unhappiness as a way to fight oppression. Our manifesto is an archive of happiness that extends beyond the resolution; the ballot becomes a form of affect – every reading of the 1AC elicits an rfd, decision, and refutation which create new impressions to shape identity to reclaim the liberatory potential of academic settings. ==== 29 +**Ahmed 6 **(Sara Ahmed is formerly the director of a new Centre for Feminist Research (CFR) at Goldsmiths, Professor of Race and Cultural Studies at Goldsmiths, and a scholar that writes on the intersection of queer theory, feminist theory, critical race theory, and post-colonialism. Ahmed, Sara. The Promise of Happiness. Durham: Duke U Press, 2010. Pg. 19-20//DOA 1/29/17 KE) 30 +Every writer is first ... book is to make room. 31 + 32 +====This means that only the aff is effective to create a survival mechanism for the Other in the institution; silence creates complacency under the guise of "safety" which become less safe for the marginalized bodies in the institutions==== 33 +**Rodruiguez 11** (Dalia Rodriguez,2011, Qualitative Inquiry, "Silent rage and the politics of resitstance: countering seductions of whiteness and the road of politization and empowerment" https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/~~#inbox/155f2644f681f418?projector=1 ) pg. 594 34 +However, in addition to ...in the White academy. 35 + 36 +====Our manifesto points out the structures of complacency inside of institutions but critiques the normalcy of what it means to protest inside of it. Our refusal to be complacent with happiness in university settings redefines protest. Reshaping protest is crucial because institutions, like debate, discourage protest to maintain oppression and happiness. Speech is reregulated as the right to speak up. ==== 37 +**Nguyen 14** Nicole Nguyen and R. Tina Catania The Feminist Wire August 5 2014 "On Feeling Depleted: Naming, Confronting, and Surviving Oppression in the Academy" thefeministwire.com/2014/08/feeling-depleted-naming-confronting-surviving-oppression-academy/ 38 +We write because we ...strategize, to survive, to heal. 39 + 40 +====Our manifesto is a rupturing of happiness inside of debate's academic setting. Oppression in debate is perpetuated by the decisions community members make on a weekly basis. We look to real world implications in order to access debate’s liberatory potential. Thus, the role of the judge is to vote for the best resistance strategy for the oppressed. ==== 41 +**Smith 13, Elijah. A Conversation in Ruins: Race and Black Participation in Lincoln Douglas Debate ** 42 +It will be uncomfortable,...black students cannot escape. 43 + 44 +====Scenarios of nuclear war or extinction are deemed as the ‘good form of debate’ and help construct a space where violence against womxn is especially hidden and force female debaters to be complacent reading those positions. We are supposed to be nice debaters, more compelling, appropriate and sweet. Failure to do so creates more affect against the marginalized female body. Thus, the figure of the killjoy is uniquely good in debate. ==== 45 +Bjork 92 (Rebecca, debater and university coach, "Symposium: Women in Debate: Reflections on the Ongoing Struggle", Effluents and affluence: The Global Pollution Debate, 1992") 46 +While reflecting on my ... real power that we have. 47 + 48 +====/slow down/ if that speech was too shrill for you then you’re part of the problem. The status of comfort in the activity deems feminine speech as shrill and disfavored. Women in debate become The Other in a new setting of the institution. Feminine participation and speech inside of debate is constantly suppressed to a relegated status of happiness and conformity. ==== 49 +**Feinzig and Atyeo 11 **An Analysis of Gender Disparities in Lincoln-Douglas Debate Joshua Feinzig 50 +Natalie Atyeo 51 +Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School October 2, 2011 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract'id=1957437 52 +Though the cited studies... in the debate community. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-05-10 01:14:47.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +any - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +23 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lake Travis Ehresman Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - The nag 1AC v2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harvard
- Caselist.CitesClass[18]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,33 @@ 1 +====Violence against womyn in systems of white supremacy become internalized – marked identities begin to desire the purity of unmarked whiteness, and thus normalize their world view. Oppression thus becomes a condition of happiness – women are happy in the kitchen, they don’t want to go out to work. The ultimate form of white patriarchy is the oppressed desiring their own oppression, and we need to disrupt this naïve happiness.==== 2 +**Ahmed 10** Sara, 1/1/2010. Professor of Race and Cultural Studies, Goldsmiths College, University of London. The Promise of Happiness. Duke University Press. 3 +It is Sophy’s imagination… right way, to be assembled. 4 + 5 +====People do not take women seriously when they speak – now you have to. Rearticulation serves as a method to sever the ties of the power within language and speech acts from its historically gendered and racialized history. Nagging and disrupting the white-male hegemonic institutions in the academy creates a disruption of the language game that exists in the academy. Only by antagonizing the principles of exclusion can we disorient the habitual spaces of whiteness which is a prerequisite to combatting other forms of oppression ==== 6 +**Patton 04** (Dr. Tracey Owens Patton is the director of African American and Diaspora Studies and a professor in the Department of Communication and Journalism at the University of Wyoming. Dr. Patton's area of expertise is critical cultural communication and rhetorical studies.2004 Reflections of a Black Woman Professor: Racism and Sexism in Academia, Howard Journal of Communications, 15:3, 197-198, Accessed 6/27/16, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10646170490483629) 7 +Through my personal…common set of struggles. 8 + 9 +====Thus I affirm the entirety of the resolution. We affirm to open up a space to endorse the feminist kill joy and creates sites of discourse that disorients and reconfigures the social order. ==== 10 +**Ahmed 10** Sara Ahmed "Feminist Killjoys (And Other Willful Subjects)" The Scholar and Feminist Online The Barnard Center for Research on Women Summer 2010 11 +To be unseated… We must learn. 12 + 13 +====Our affirmative approach as a foundational criticism is necessary to resolve the structural antagonisms that formulate law – even the most progressive left legal reforms recreate those problems and attempt to disentangle the complexities of gender issues - Our aff is a prerequisite ==== 14 +**Brown and Halley 02 **Wendy Brown and Janet Halley, 2002 (Left Legalism/Left Critique, Wendy Brown is First Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley, where she is also affiliated with the Department of Rhetoric, and where she is a core faculty member in the Designated Emphasis in Critical Theory. Janet Halley is the Royall Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. p. 18-25) 15 +Left legalistic projects… that bred them. 16 + 17 +====The notion of free speech assumes that all voices are equally treated, when in reality power inequities shape who can speak what==== 18 +**Boler 2k** Megan Boler (Professor in the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto and editor of Digital Media and Democracy), "All Speech is Not Free: The Ethics of "Affirmative Action Pedagogy," Philosophy of Education, 2000 19 +All speech is not … limiting dominant voices. 20 + 21 +====Oppression in debate is perpetuated by the decisions community members make on a weekly basis. We look to real world implications in order to access debate’s liberatory potential. Thus, the role of the ballot is to vote for the best resistance strategy for the oppressed. ==== 22 +Smith 13, Elijah. A Conversation in Ruins: Race and Black Participation in Lincoln Douglas Debate 23 +It will be … students cannot escape. 24 + 25 +====Freedom of speech requires emancipation from social oppression – The aff challenge traditional notions of free speech from a negative individual right to an opportunity to subvert disempowerment. Instead of viewing freedom of speech as a negative individual right, we should understand it as the right to speak up. ==== 26 +**Hornsby 95** Jennifer Hornsby "Disempowered Speech" University of Arkansas Press Philosophical Topics, Vol. 23, No. 2, Feminist Perspectives on Language, Knowledge, and Reality (FALL 1995), 27 +Free speech, or …. will be indispensable. 28 + 29 +====If that speech was too shrill for you then that’s part of the problem. Feminine participation and speech inside of the debate space is constantly suppressed to a relegated status of happiness and conformity. ==== 30 +**Feinzig and Atyeo 11 **An Analysis of Gender Disparities in Lincoln-Douglas Debate Joshua Feinzig 31 +Natalie Atyeo 32 +Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School October 2, 2011 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract'id=1957437 33 +Though the cited … lower vocal pitches. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-05-10 01:15:43.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Nik Patel, Lu Barazza, Zachary Zertuche - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Westwood AG - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +24 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Semis - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lake Travis Ehresman Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - The nag 1AC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Churchill
- Caselist.CitesClass[19]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,57 @@ 1 +====Recognition necessitates an understanding of social standpoints of the oppressed and fluidity of identity ==== 2 +**Butler 09 **Frames of War: When Is Life Grievable? JUDITH BUTLER 2009 Pg. 8 3 +How then is … radically democratic results? 4 + 5 +====Language facilitates recognition as an instrument for compelling agency by allowing us to address one another and recognize existence. This allows for language to socially determine our existence and submits us to linguistic ontology.==== 6 +**Butler 97** "Excitable Speech: A Politics of Performativity" by Judith Butler 1997 p. 5 7 +Language sustains the … of survivable subjects. 8 + 9 +====Ontology comes first because underpins all other impacts and is the basis for all politics==== 10 +**Dillon 99 **(Michael, Professor of Politics at the University of Lancaster, Moral Spaces, p. 97-98) 11 +As Heidegger – himself… decision and judgment. 12 +analytics 13 + 14 +====And, our heuristic means we learn about the State without being it. Our framework teaches contingent, but engaged, middle grounds. No State pessimism or optimism bias for extreme Alts.==== 15 +**Zanotti ’14** Dr. Laura Zanotti is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Virginia Tech. Her research and teaching include critical political theory as well as international organizations, UN peacekeeping, democratization and the role of NGOs in post-conflict governance." Governmentality, Ontology, Methodology: Re-thinking Political Agency in the Global World" – Alternatives: Global, Local, Political – vol 38(4):p. 288-304,. A little unclear if this is late 2013 or early 2014 – The Stated "Version of Record" is Feb 20, 2014, but was originally published online on December 30th, 2013. Obtained via Sage Database. KAE bracketed for grammar 16 +By questioning substantialist … and pessimistic activism. 17 + 18 +====Thus the standard is promoting critical social engagement. ==== 19 +====I defend the resolution; Resolved: Public colleges and Universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech. I defend the resolution as a general principle, so I don’t defend implementation.==== 20 +====The squo presents an inherent problem; colleges restrict students ability to exercise their free speech. ==== 21 +**Wheeler 16** , Lydia. "Colleges Are Restricting Free Speech on Campus, Lawmakers Say." TheHill. N.p., 02 Feb. 2016. Web. 06 Dec. 2016. 22 +In protecting students… use," he said. 23 + 24 +===Adv. 1 Activism=== 25 + 26 +====The thesis of the affirmative is to open up free speech on campus to endorse methods like counter speech, which is a method of literal interrogation against harmful speech. Counter-speech works to combat hate speech—empirically verified. ==== 27 +**Davidson ’16** The Freedom of Speech in Public Forums on College Campuses: A Single-Site Case Study on Pushing the Boundaries of the Freedom of Speech A Senior Project presented to The Faculty of the Journalism Department California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Bachelor of Science in Journalism By Alexander Davidson June 2016 28 +All experts agreed… combat the issue. 29 + 30 +====The aff creates a culture of counterspeech. Censorship is the only alternative and it undermines empowerment and makes offensive speakers into martyrs, increasing the effectiveness of their arguments—my evidence is directly comparative.==== 31 +**Strossen 95 **1995 Hate Speech and Pornography: Do We Have to Choose between Freedom of Speech and Equality Nadine Strossen New York Law School *** multiple examples come from public colleges at ASU and more. Examples cited in card ununderlined bc I wanted to be efficient sorry. Can point to it if you’d like 32 +The viewpoint-neutrality… it enfeebles them.4 P 33 + 34 +====Public colleges restricting free speech creates administrative intervention which destroys grassroot activism ==== 35 +**Brown 95 **~~Brown (Wendy L. Brown (born November 28, 1955) is an American professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley~~1~~ where she is also affiliated with the Department of Rhetoric, and where she is a core faculty member in the Designated Emphasis in Critical Theory.~~2~~), Wendy. "States of injury: Power and freedom in late modernity." (1995). //~~ 36 +It is important … essays arc written. 37 + 38 +====Censorship hurts the students’ ability to protest offensive speech in the future – granting college admin the authority to police speech creates a precident of rights infringement ==== 39 +**Milligan 15 **From Megaphones to Muzzles Free speech is under fire on college campuses – and the attacks are coming from students. By Susan Milligan ~| Staff Writer Nov. 25, 2015, http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/11/25/from-megaphones-to-muzzles-free-speech-safe-spaces-and-college-campuses 40 +To me, an institution… free speech rages on. 41 + 42 +====When colleges determine that certain words or concepts shouldn’t be said, it locks the trauma of oppression in the words themselves. By freeing up speech, the Aff takes away the oppressor’s ability to use those words as a weapon.==== 43 +**Butler 97**, Judith (Professor of Rhetoric and Comparative Literature, University of California-Berkeley), Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative, Routledge, 1997. 44 +Keeping such terms … is partially open. 45 + 46 +=== adv. 2 Education === 47 +====Free speech restrictions prevent colleges from doing what they were made to do: namely, to educate tomorrow’s innovators, leaders, and activists. ==== 48 +**Snyder 16** , Jeffrey Aaron, "Free Speech? Now That’s Offensive!" Inside Higher Ed, September 1, 2016. 49 +The Gallup survey… by its critics? 50 +analytics 51 +====Empirics prove that banning bigoted speech or acts doesn’t work. ==== 52 +**Malik 12** , Kenan, "Why hate speech should not be banned," April 12, 2012. 53 +And in practice, … hate speech is involved. 54 + 55 +====The University is no longer open- it controls what knowledge can be disseminated- this is a new form of intolerance that has replaced previous intolerances- this prevents creating the best knowledge possible by limiting discussion and preventing idea exchange- this leads to extremity, polarization, and hinders politics, decision-making, and societal progress==== 56 +**Nelson 15 **Nelson, Libby. Education Reporter Reporting on and explaining education. Previously: POLITICO Pro, Inside Higher Ed. Originally: Northwestern and Kansas City. "Obama on Liberal College Students Who Want to Be "coddled": "That's Not the Way We Learn"" Vox. Vox Media, Inc, 14 Sept. 2015. Web. 23 June 2016. http://www.vox.com/2015/9/14/9326965/obama-political-correctness. 57 +DES MOINES, Iowa —… , is all about." - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-05-10 01:16:07.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +25 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lake Travis Ehresman Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - LAYs potato chip 1AC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Churchill
- Caselist.CitesClass[20]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,56 @@ 1 +====This is the Ghost Dance==== 2 +**Elliot ’98** (Elliott, Michael A. "Ethnography, Reform, and the Problem of the Real: James Mooney's Ghost-Dance Religion." American Quarterly 50.2 (1998): 201-33. Web. Pg.1 ODA 9/1/16 //KAE+GK) 3 + 4 +The whole world is coming, 5 +A nation is coming, a nation is coming. 6 +The Eagle has brought a message to the tribe. 7 +The father says so, the father says so. 8 +Over the whole earth they are coming, 9 +The buffalo are coming, the buffalo are coming. 10 + 11 +====Gehres 01 explains==== 12 +(Edward D. Gehres III*, "Visions of the Ghost Dance: Native American Empowerment and the Neo-Colonial Impulse," Hein Online, 2001, Online, Accessed 8/20/16, Pages 135-137. *Associate, Arnold and Porter, Washington, D.C.; J.D., 2001, University of Virginia School of Law; MA., 1996, The Graduate School of Political Management at The George Washington University; A.B., 1994, University of Michigan. //KAE+GK) 13 + 14 +In the midst of a time of great suffering following their confinement to reservations, Indian2 nations in the central plains region focused their fears of the past and their hopes for the future on a new religious movement known as the ghost dance.3 The leaders of this movement believed that great change and rebirth were on the horizon for Indian nations and that the spirits of the dead who had lost their lives in the battles with the white man would come back to life, that the abundance of the buffalo would return, and that the white man would vanish from their land.4 It was a ritual embodying a hope for peace and prosperity that revived spirituality and hope among Indian nations.5 The ghost dance was brought to the people by a Paiute holy man named Wovoka, and it came to the government's attention when the great warrior Sitting Bull left his retirement home at Standing Rock Agency and joined the Oglala Sioux ghost dancers. 6 The ritual emboldened the people of these Indian nations to show cultural pride, and the government, fearing insurrection, cracked down on the practice of the ghost dance religion. Misconstruing it as a dangerous uprising instead of as a rebirth of national confidence and self-awareness among Indian people, the federal government dispatched a reconstituted Seventh Cavalry - the same unit that suffered defeat at Custer's last stand - to quell the practice of the ghost dance. 7 Disaster ensued as the Seventh Cavalry killed Sitting Bull for supposedly resisting arrest, and then continued on to murder 350 Indian refugees at Wounded Knee Creek.8 The tragedy of the ghost dance and the resulting massacre at Wounded Knee should serve as an allegorical warning for today's relations between Indian nations and the United States government. In the thirty some years since Richard Nixon articulated the federal policy of Self-Determination for Indian tribes, 9 many tribal governments have been plagued by malfeasance or insufficient resources, but there have also been some striking successes.10 In some cases, Indian tribes have "re-invented" themselves as modern day sovereign governments reflecting both the efficiency and functionality of successful state governments and the vital traditions of their past. These tribes have leveraged the few economic development footholds available to them into successful economic development ventures aimed at establishing a lasting tribal infrastructure and creating a sustainable prosperity for the future.11 This potent combination of enterprise development and tribal sovereignty intertwined with the cultural history and traditions of the past is the "new ghost dance" for Indian nations. 15 + 16 +**====Landrum 11 continues ====** 17 +(*Cynthia Landrum Shape-shifters, Ghosts, and Residual Power teaches in the Native American Studies Program at Portland State University. She received her PhD in history from Oklahoma State University. Phantom Past, Indigenous Presence: Native Ghosts in North American Culture and History, Ed. Colleen E. Boyd and Coll Thrush, 2011, Nebraska Press, 261-262 *editorial chapters done by multiple authors, Landrum is one section //KAE+GK) 18 + 19 +In the 1992 film Thunderheart, a young man of Sioux ancestry, Ray Levoi, returns to his homeland as an FBI agent to help solve a string of murders of Indian activists. He learns that his ancestor Thunderheart was among those murdered by U.S. soldiers during the 1890 massacre at Wounded Knee. After a while Ray begins to have fitful dreams and visions of the event. In the dream he is "running with the Old Ones" and is shot in the back. The film implies that his biological ties to the community are enough to trigger a series of metaphysical events. His ancestors return to haunt him and to help provide knowledge that will aid him in his quest for truth. Thunderheart is not the first film in which Hollywood has attempted to tell the story of one of the worst incidents of genocide in the history of the U.S.-Indigenous relations, the Wounded Knee Massacre. However, the filmmaker takes a different approach as he blends history and familiar uncanny motifs in an effort to move the story toward its inevitable conclusion. For instance, it is implied that Jimmy Looks Twice, a fictional activist played bY the real-life American Indian Movement (AIM) member John Trudell, has the power to shape-shift into a deer. An elderly medicine man, Grandpa Reaches, has mystical connections to the ancestral past—he simply "knows" things. When Ray Levoi wistfully wishes that Maggie (a character reminiscent of the real-life Anna Mae Aquash), a female activist murdered during the course of the film, could be there in person to see the triumph of good over evil, Walter Crow Horse (played by Graham Greene) gently remind him: "She was, Ray, she was." The film blends fact and fiction in a way that underscores that, for modern-day Lakota people, Wounded Knee is a haunted location. On December 29, 1890, the Minneconjou Sioux Chief Big Foot and his "bedraggles band of staving Ghost Dancers" were camped along the Wounded Knee Creek, where they were slain by members of the U.S. Cavalry on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota.17 Big Foot and his band were pursued by the U.S. Cavalry soldiers, who feared a localized outbreak of the Ghost Dance religion.18 In the aftermath of the massacre, the ethnologist James Mooney acquired objects and personal belongings, including the Ghost Dance shirts worn by the deceased, and shipped them east to the Smithsonian Institution. Under the auspices of the Bureau of Ethnology, Mooney was commissioned to acquire and curate an ethnographic collection for the World’s Columbian Exposition and to continue his work among the Cherokee of Oklahoma, which initially involved several trips west between 1891 and 1894.19 In the aftermath of the Wounded Knee Massacre,20 the Northern Plains people were both militarily and spiritually disarmed. And as their lands were occupied, they were corralled onto reservations and their secular and religious objects were placed in storage units in large metropolitan museums. According to the AIM activist, modern Ghost Dancer, and adopted Lakota Sioux tribal member Robert Van Pelt (Siletz/Umatilla), the people parted with their objects only when forced to by economic hardship and constant duress form outside forces.21 In a sense, the Ghost dance religion 22 succeeded, because the dead did return, but not in the fashion in which the followers of the religion had anticipated.23 According to Sioux tribal members today, the Wounded Knee site is haunted by those who were gunned down in the snow on December 29, 1890. The activist Mary Crow Dog, in her memoir, references the spirits of the site as she describes the birth of her first child during AIM’s occupancy at Wounded Knee: Monday, just as the morning star came out, my water broke and I went down to the sweat lodge to pray. I wanted to go into the sweat but the Black Elk would not let me. Maybe there was a taboo against my participating, just as a menstruating woman is not allowed to take part in a ceremony. I was disappointed. I did not feel that the fact that my water burst had made me ritually unclean. As i walked away from the vapor hut, for the third time, I heard the ghostly cry and lamenting of a woman and child coming out of the massacre ravine. Others had heard it too. I felt that the spirits were all around me. I was later told that some of the marshals inside their sandbagged positions had also heard it, and some could not stand it and had themselves transferred. 20 + 21 +====The Lakota Dancers teach us that these looming ghosts, like the ones at Wounded Knee, are the power of Native populations and embedded in the land itself. As the United States attempted to exterminate Native populations, the landscape became painted with the spiritual hauntings of historical colonial domination ==== 22 +**Landrum 11 ***Cynthia Landrum Shape-shifters, Ghosts, and Residual Power teaches in the Native American Studies Program at Portland State University. She received her PhD in history from Oklahoma State University. Phantom Past, Indigenous Presence: Native Ghosts in North American Culture and History, Ed. Colleen E. Boyd and Coll Thrush, 2011, Nebraska Press, 256-258 *editorial chapters done by multiple authors, Landrum is one section //KAE+GK) 23 + 24 +Stories of ghosts and hauntings are present in every society.1 The traditional conviction among most American Indian people is that ghosts can be malignant forces or act as guardian spirits. In particular, the Lakota believe that spirits or ghosts seen in daylight or at dusk can be dangerous and benevolent, depending on the context in which they are encountered. It is believed that benevolent ghosts can provide protection or guidance, or even become part of the landscape where a traumatic or powerful event occurred. Malevolent spirits, however, can cause spiritual, physical and/or emotional harm to the living.2 Stories of the uncanny or supernatural are actively reinforced by the oral historical narratives that emanate directly from tribal communities despite generations of assimilation, territorial conquest, spiritual colonialism, and academic and religious bigotry toward Northern Plains beliefs. Likewise, for many Lakota people, material objects that have been collected by museums still resonate with "power" despite the fact that they have been removed from their original context. As a result, such objects—and the new places they inhabit—may also become haunted. In this essay I will examine and compare Northern Plains beliefs about haunted locations, spirits, and objects in three contexts: the ghosts of victims massacred in 1890 at the Wounded Knee site in South Dakota; stories about the Deer People, shape-shifters that are half-deer and half-human; and hauntings that allegedly occurred around material objects displayed in the Great plains exhibition hall and storage areas at the National Museum of Natural History. Further, I will show that indigenous belief systems have survived despite cultural genocide, will demonstrate the hybridity of everyday beliefs as American Indians contribute to American popular culture, will show that Native beliefs are not hermetically sealed but rather engage the stories of colonial society as well, and, finally, discuss how these everyday/everywhere ghost stories are grounded in actual histories of colonialism. Traditional sacred sites, stories, and/or museum objects as vessels for "power"—both temporary and permanent—that connect the everyday world with the supernatural. The Northern Plains stores recorded here were told to me by individual consultants from various tribes, and museum employees and professionals who chose to remain anonymous. Some of the interviews are from as early as the fall of 1991, while others took place in the fall of 2008. However, I have worked with tribal members in the northern Plains since 1991. My work as a historian has caused primarily on American Indian government-sponsored boarding schools and the effect of the educational system upon the Northern Plains tribes. In addition to performing scholarly research, I have worked as a museum professional and have specifically dealt with the care of Native American museum objects. Over the years, individuals, native and non-Native alike, have shared with me stories of the uncanny—as these relate to the experience of boarding schools and policies of assimilation or as they relate to the frustration and anger many have felt concerning the removal of human remains and material objects form their original cultural settings. In both settings, many Indigenous people have experienced trauma, oppression, and uncertainty, the kinds of conditions that seem to elicit hauntings. This essay is the result of stories told to me while I worked in museum or was in the process of conducting research on other topics. And whether it was a conversation in passing or a formal interview, the information was shared with me in order to further illuminate how the dynamics among "power," sacred sites, traditional folklore, and/or material objects operate. Power for many American Indians, including the Lakota, is fixed in place. For Lakota people, sacred sites include the Black Hills, Bear Butte, Harney Peak, the Badlands, and Pipestone.3 Bear Butte has been a site for vision quests for the Lakota Sioux and Cheyenne for thousands of years. The eastern edge of the Black Hills in South Dakota, the area where the first peoples emerged, has been a focal point for religious activity involving sun dances, prayers, and fasting and prophecies. Pipestone also serves as an important religious site for many tribes, but in particular for the Dakota Sioux. For centuries, people have mined the red stone in eastern Minnesota in order to make the sacred pipe, pipe bowls, and other objects. Again, these sites serve as access points between the physical world and the realm of the spirits. Dreams, visions, and aberration are part of the lived reality of many Indian people, as are ghosts, spirits and witches. Indian traditionalists believe that those spiritual powers have control over their lives, and they use protective medicines and take precautions to keep themselves safe. It is a life where the metaphysical is more powerful than the physical world, and where certain ceremonies and important rites, performed at specific sacred sites, such as Bear Butte, are necessary for protection or blessings for individuals and communities as people seek deeper communion with those powers greater than themselves.4 25 + 26 +====The United States since its inception has been fascinated with Native spiritual connectivity to the Land—making the acquisition of Native Land the primary strategy for the first wave of colonization on Native peoples to forge a unified, assimilated, and nationalistic "American Identity"==== 27 +**Kavanagh 11 **(*Sarah Schnyder Kavanagh pg. 154-158 Sarah Schneider Kavanagh's research focuses on the pedagogy of teacher education Postdoctoral Scholar at the University of Washington, "Haunting Remains: Educating a New American Citizenry at Indian Hill Cemetery", Phantom Past, Indigenous Presence: Native Ghosts in North American Culture/ made in 2011/ edited by Colleen E. Boyd and thrush *editorial chapters done by multiple authors, Kavanagh is one section // EBOOK DOA 9/1/16 KAE+GK) 28 + 29 +Although the American Revolution marked the birth of the new nation-state, it was not until several decades later that U.S. citizens realized that their experimental government could transform into a lasting republic. American victories in the War of 1812 revealed that a unified national culture and history could help the United States become a "nation among nations."12 In his discussion of the cultural roots of nationalism, Benedict Anderson writes that "nation-states… always loom out of an immemorial past, and, still more important, glide into a limitless future."13 And so as American citizens realized that their experiment in republican government had this potential for a "limitless future," they were faced with the daunting task of constructing for themselves an "immemorial past." Wince accomplishing this task would be no small feat, it is not surprising that the end of the War of 1812 marked the beginning of what Blanche Linden-Ward has termed the "American monument-building era"—how better to construct the immemorial than with monuments and memorials? This era was defined by an explosion of cultural and artistic production in support of the men and principles that had founded the nation: a carving of a new U.S. history into old American stone.14 In 1836 Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, "Our age is retrospective. It builds the sepulchers of the fathers. It writes biographies, history, criticism. The foregoing generation beheld God and nature face to face; we, through their eyes."15 Although American history was being consciously constructed through many forms, including literature, painting, and oratory, it is no surprise that Emerson highlights the building of "sepulchers of the fathers" as the primary project of his era. Early-nineteenth-century scholars were quite aware of the implications of the fixation on tomb building. This fixation was made most visible through the Rural Cemetery Movement,16 an integral development in the conscious construction of U.S. history.17 In 1850 the creation of Indian Hill cemetery marked the spread of the mid-nineteenth-century monument-building fever into Middletown, Connecticut. The cemetery project, much like rural cemetery projects all along the east coast, was at its heart a patriotic enterprise.18 In his speech at the Indian Hill Cemetery dedication, Olin discussed how the site would instill patriotism in its visitors: "I trust I am no visionary, but I also give credit, in advance, to this enterprise for contributing something towards erecting a past for posterity—towards establishing a common centre for edifying remembrances and holy associations—a common ground where we of the present may wait to greet the men of the future, to commune with them and impart such lessons of wisdom as we have in store. I venture, also, to rely upon this improvement to strengthen, or even to create in some individuals and families much-needed local attachments, so essential an element of real patriotism."19 Olin’s focus on the patriotic purpose of the new cemetery echoes the sentiments of speakers at cemetery dedication ceremonies across the country during the nineteenth century.20 The rural-cemetery movement as a whole was informed by the needs of the monument-building era: the goal was to create national identity through the construction of an American past rooted in American soil. Such attempts at U.S. cultural production were often critiqued by European artists and scholars who agreed that architecture and art would be unsuccessful in creating a national culture and inciting true patriotism if the aesthetics used were borrowed and not developed "Indigenously."21 In spite of these critiques, the decades following the War of 1812 saw countless artistic attempts aimed at the construction of a national past. Linden-Ward claims that the "creation of public monuments and pastoral cemetery landscapes revealed Americans’ ability to adapt borrowed aesthetic forms to create their own usable past through self commemoration."22 However, nineteenth-century American must have agreed, at least in part, with European critiques. Even a brief glimpse into the relationship of the United States to both European and Native American populations makes clear that Euro-Americans "borrowed" much more than "aesthetic forms" to create a distinctly American past. They borrowed, appropriated, and abstracted native American identities in order to create a U.S. national identity and lay claim to American land. Without a claim to land upon which to anchor their nascent nation, Euro-Americans’ claim to nationhood was unsustainable. Richard Grusin argues, "The construction of American identity has always been inseparable from nature. Unlike European nations, whose identity derived from a common language, ethnic or racial heritage, religion, or cultural history, the identity of the United States of America as ‘nature’s nation’ was grounded in large part in the land itself."23 Because of this connection between land and nation, non-Natives have attempted to claim Indigenous identities to validate their own construction of national identity.24 The first claim is that Indigenous peoples belong to whites as a child belongs to a parent. Second, Indigenous identities have been claimed through the appropriation of Indigenous symbols, actions, and histories. These Euro-American claims to Indigenous identity manifest themselves in the histories and mythologies that Euro-Americans have created to stabilize their nation.25 From the American Revolution to the present day, examples abound of whites donning faux-Indian attire, yelping ultra-stereotyped war whoops, or engaging in stereotyped "Indian" rituals in moments of national crisis. In Playing Indian, Philip Deloria argues that these actions are associated with the white American need to dissociate with Europe and claim a different national heritage. He argues that whites covet what they have historically viewed as the Native connection to the land and its spirit.26 This is in part because a sense of place and an attachment to the land were prerequisites for the creation of a U.S. national identity. The Boston mayor Josiah Quincy stated in 1813 that "loyalty to place" was the nineteenth-century U.S. citizen’s primary connection with the nation.27 Ideas about the relationship between "loyalty to place" and national identity were not foreign to Middletown residents in the mid-nineteenth century. In fact, Stephen Olin spoke to the need for a loyalty to place in his speech at the 1850 opening of Indian Hill Cemetery. Discussing the creation of the cemetery, he expressed his "strong hope that ~~it~~ and similar improvements ~~that had~~ become so common in ~~the United States~~, ~~would~~ contribute, in some small measure, towards providing for one of the most urgent, though little appreciated wants for our great republic… the want of local attachments, and in so far as this essential element is concerned of love of country."28 Olin, like many nineteenth-century whites, was dedicated to the task of connecting his vision for the nation to the American landscape. In order to implant a national vision into the land itself, whites needed to grapp le not only with the history of American citizens and their forefathers but also with the Native peoples Indigenous to the land. In order for the United States to become a legitimate nation, it had to become, as one unknown writer said in 1828 "a perfect union of the past and present; the rigor of a nation just born walking over the hallowed ashes of a race whose history is too early for a record, and surrounded by the living forms of people hovering between the two."29 The drive for this perfect union of Native past with white present led whites toward two courses of action in their relations with Native peoples. First, if white Americans were to posit any claim over the land, they had to adopt the history, identity, and "spirit of the land" that belonged to the Native peoples Indigenous to the continent and glorify it, since it held such a central position in any sense of American nation.30 Second, through attempts at the ethnocide of Native American populations, whites tried to transform living societies into "the hallowed ashes of a race." As I will explore in the next section, this ethnocide was carried out both in the flesh and by the pen." 30 + 31 +====Since Wounded Knee, U.S. colonialism has entered the late stage—domination of the same kind but different form. The colonial spectre has possessed the nuclear industry, where the state disguises its imperialism in the form of development, coercing Native peoples to acquire and destroy the Land for nuclear waste dumping—this is the final conquest of the Frontier==== 32 +**Angel 91** (Bradley an international leader in the environmental health and justice movement, working with communities to stop pollution threats and to promote pollution prevention) "The Toxic Threat to Indian Lands" Greenpeace 1991 http://www.ejnet.org/ej/toxicthreattoindianlands.pdf DOA: 8.11.16//KAE+GK) 33 + 34 +Five hundred years ago explorer Christopher Columbus sailed from Europe, setting in motion a series of events leading to the genocidal war on Indigenous people in whose land he arrived uninvited. Hoping to claim these already inhabited lands for European royalty, invading European armies plundered the civilizations they came upon. Untold millions of Indigenous people were killed and enslaved, their cultures violently attacked and their way of life changed forever. Five hundred years later, the exploitation and assault on Indigenous people and their land continues. Instead of conquistadors armed with weapons of destruction and war, the new assault is disguised as "economic development" promoted by entrepreneurs pushing poisonous technologies. The modern day invaders from the waste disposal industry promise huge amounts of money, make vague promises about jobs, and make exaggerated and often false claims about the alleged safety of their dangerous proposals. Frustrated by intense grassroots opposition and complex permitting procedures in other communities across the United States, the waste disposal industry and the U.S. government have set their aim on what they believe to be the most vulnerable segment of society: Indian people and Indian land. Today, hundreds of Indian Nations (Tribes) are being approached by both the waste disposal industry and the United States Government in search of new dumping grounds for the unwanted toxic, nuclear, medical and solid waste of industrial society. Hoping to take advantage of the devastating chronic unemployment, pervasive poverty and sovereign status of Indian Nations, the waste disposal industry and the U.S. government have embarked on an all-out effort to site incinerators, landfills, nuclear waste storage facilities and similar polluting industries on Tribal land. The waste industry strenuously denies that they are targeting Indian lands, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Bureau of Indian Affairs officials downplay and underestimate the extent of industry’s efforts: the facts, however, contradict the waste industry’s claims and instead reveal a concerted effort to turn Indian lands into the dumping grounds for America’s poisons. Established companies such as Bechtel and Waste Tech (a subsidiary of Amoco Oil) have been joined by fly-by-night operators hoping to get rich quick by turning the last remaining land still controlled by Indian people into America’s new dumping ground. For example, lawyers for Bechtel have approached numerous tribes offering everything from hazardous and solid waste to nuclear waste dumps to nuclear power plants. A Waste Tech representative even admitted publicly during a meeting on the Kaibab-Paiute Reservation (located near the Arizona-Utah border) that their company hoped to site five commercial hazardous waste incinerators on five geographically distinct Indian Reservations in the United States. Waste Tech has publicly admitted to contacting about 15 tribes as of mid-1990, according to Ted Bryant, a Choctaw Cherokee Indian who is a middle man in some of the deals involving Waste Tech (reported in the St. Louis Post Dispatch, July 15, 1990). The overtures of the waste industry initially succeeded in making inroads with numerous tribal officials and governments. Many agreements were signed between company and tribal officials giving the initial go-ahead for proposed waste disposal facilities, usually without the knowledge or consent of the Tribal membership. As the truth about the serious threats posed by these projects to the peoples health, environment, culture, traditions and sovereignty becomes known, resistance by Indian people has spread rapidly. 35 + 36 +====The settler colonizes and dominates the Frontier to quarantine and then destroy the last remaining part of Native subjecthood—the Land. Colonial spatial strategies establish Natives as non-normative, unfit for life, and dead, reifying the power of metanarratives painting the Native subject’s inevitable fatality ==== 37 +**Kavanagh 11 **(*Sarah Schnyder Kavanagh pg. 168-171 Sarah Schneider Kavanagh's research focuses on the pedagogy of teacher education Postdoctoral Scholar at the University of Washington, "Haunting Remains: Educating a New American Citizenry at Indian Hill Cemetery", Phantom Past, Indigenous Presence: Native Ghosts in North American Culture/ made in 2011/ edited by Colleen E. Boyd and thrush *editorial chapters done by multiple authors, Kavanagh is one section // EBOOK DOA 9/1/16 KAE+GK) 38 + 39 +The Frontier Myth provides an easily conceptualized spatial boundary between the civilized self and the primitive other. For nineteenth-century believers in the Frontier Myth, the primitive, Indian other was conceptualized always on the other side of the imaginary line of the frontier; the other always occupied other spaces. The myth was so pervasive that White Middletown residents began thinking of the Indian as beyond the frontier line even while Native peoples remained living and working in their city.65 All cemeteries take on the task of quarantining non-normative others, the dead, on the other side of real spatial boundaries. In the case of Indian Hill Cemetery, the Indian is quarantined alongside, and thus equated with, the dead. Through the drawing of boundaries to keep out "other peoples," both cemeteries and the frontier clearly illustrate the relationships of power that are the foundations of place. The cemetery and the frontier are intentionally constructed as physical manifestations of power. In "Of Other Spaces," Michel Foucault outlines a theory of heterotopias. Foucault’s theory of heterotopias approaches places themselves (and particularly the cemetery, which he uses as a primary example of a heterotopia) as social texts. Although Foucault does not mention the Frontier Myth in his analysis of heterotopic spaces, his heterotopia and the frontier have much in common. Understanding the commonalities between these two spaces is useful in understanding the relationship between frontier mythology and Indian Hill Cemetery. In his theory of heterotopias, Foucault analyzes how a space created to house the deviant constructs space for the "normal." A heterotopia is a place that incites thought about what society is, by portraying what it is not, a place that sparks imagination about what should be, by displaying that which deviates from the norm.66 It is, in effect, a boundary between two worlds that contains and orders deviance, presenting an idealized version of normative society. Foucault’s heterotopia and the frontier both exist as abstracted spaces of interaction not only between the normative and the deviant, but also between the past and the present. Similar to the frontier, heterotopias are "often linked to slices in time… ~~and~~ begin to function at full capacity when men arrive at a sort of absolute break with their traditional time."67 To inhabit a cemetery, permanent residents (the dead) must break with real time. Visitors, through viewing the living quarters of the long-since dead, experience a break in traditional time as well. Through these temporal breakages, the cemetery fulfills "the idea of constituting a place of all times that is itself outside of time and inaccessible to its ravages, the projects of organizing in this way a sort of perpetual and indefinite accumulation of time in an immobile place."68 The cemetery becomes the timeless reflection of the city it stands outside of, reflecting a universalized and timeless society back onto itself in idealized, yet inverted form: a "city of the dead" to promote life in a city of the living. Foucault describes the role of a heterotopia as creating "a space that is other, another real space, as perfect, as meticulous, as well arranged as ours is messy, ill constructed, and jumbled."69 The heterotopic cemetery here becomes an idealized version of the city, displacing the city itself and ordering its complications into an organized form. Blanche Linden-Ward argues that Mount Auburn Cemetery was constructed as a complementary and idealized "city on a hill" that would "offer lessons to the entire nation."70 In both Mount Auburn Cemetery and Indian Hill Cemetery, the "mess, ill constructed, and jumbled" nature of real life is idealized through the easily organized dead. History, struggle, controversy, societal structure, family, and race relations are displayed through the structure of the rural cemetery as timeless and structured, meticulously arranged and seemingly inevitable. Indian Hill Cemetery presents an idealized mirror image of a particular social structure in several specific ways. As can be seen on the 1850 map of the original Indian Hill Cemetery, almost all of the trails that meander across the hill have faux-Indian names. There are a few paths that are named after actual Wangunk people who had been proprietors of the site prior to 1850. For example, "Sowheage Ave." can be found on the southeastern corner of the hill. Some evidence indicates that this particular path marks the spot where the remains of Sowheage, a Wangunk leader, were found and exhumed, although this cannot be verified.71 Evidence indicates that the exhumation of Native bodies at Wune Wahjet was commonplace in the years preceding the creation of the cemetery.72 While the corporeal evidence of Wangunk people has been erased, evidence of what Robert Berkhofer has termed "the white man’s Indian"73 have been systematically moved into the site through faux-Indian path names, plaques at the entry to the cemetery that depict Noble Savage-like profiles, and the words of the Revs. Olin and Goodwin. Indian Hill Cemetery is bounded by its outermost path, which is called "Mattebeseck Ave." Mattebeseck, the Wangunk name for the city of Middletown, becomes the outer boundary of this mirror city, this city of the dead. In an ironic twist of fate, the Wangunk are given full ownership of Wune Wahjet, but this ownership comes with the price of forever being understood as the definition of death itself. The Wangunk city of Mattebeseck is remembered only by its own death and is re-created as an embodiment of inevitable death. 40 + 41 +====Thus, I advocate that we speak with the haunting Native specters as a strategy to exorcise nuclear colonial power.==== 42 + 43 +====Haunting is the real strategy—hegemonic power structures are intrinsically spectral, meaning other starting points are flawed. As the material conditions of Native Americans have dwindled, the only viable option is to haunt the white subject to prevent Native erasure.==== 44 +**Kavanagh 11 **(*Sarah Schnyder Kavanagh pg. 171-173 Sarah Schneider Kavanagh's research focuses on the pedagogy of teacher education Postdoctoral Scholar at the University of Washington, "Haunting Remains: Educating a New American Citizenry at Indian Hill Cemetery", Phantom Past, Indigenous Presence: Native Ghosts in North American Culture/ made in 2011/ edited by Colleen E. Boyd and thrush *editorial chapters done by multiple authors, Kavanagh is one section // EBOOK DOA 9/1/16 KAE+GK) 45 + 46 +According to Jaques Derrida "haunting belongs to the structure of every hegemony." Renee Bergland, in The National Uncanny: Indian ghosts and American subjects, has unpacked Derrida’s statement thusly: "Power is unreal, insubstantial, somehow imaginary. At the same time, of course, it is undeniably real. When we describe hegemonies as socially constructed, we mean that they are built on history, memory, fear and desire. They are made from the same things that ghosts are made from. Because the politics of the national, the racial, the classed and the gendered are the politics of memory and false memory, they are also, necessarily, the politics of spectrality." Paining Derrida and Bergland’s analysis of haunting with Richard White’s analysis of place (which states that places enact power and are constructed within hegemonic systems) leads me to claim that all places are haunted. Perhaps Indian Hill cemetery is a revealing site for an analysis of place as a haunting and haunted actor not because it is extraordinary, but because it is so ordinary, so commonplace. Through the haunting of Indian ghosts, through the construction of mythic Indian tropes, and through the presentation of national narrative mythologies, Indian Hill Cemetery haunts the very city it serves. The place (re)presents power structures that are at once real and imaginary, tangible and insubstantial, here and not here. These tropes, mythologies, and power structures have been constructed locally, nationally and internationally for hundreds of years, "built on history, memory, fear and desire." "they are made," Bergland observes, "from the same things that ghosts are made from." And, in turn, ghosts have been made from them. The names and structures at Indian Hill Cemetery are physical metaphors that transmit ideological narratives. Tombstones, landscape design, and the name of the site itself are all tangible structures that stand in for and arrange into a meticulous order the "messy, ill constructed and jumbled" concepts of nation and race. These structural metaphors are haunted by the messages they were created to impart. At Indian Hill, hauntings are complicated by the fact that the Indian Ghost (that Olin suggests haunts the site) is itself a constructed structural metaphor. As discussed above, the Indian Ghost is introduced into the discourse surrounding Indian Hill Cemetery as a metaphor for the inevitable death of Native peoples; it is a tool for Indigenous erasure. If the Indian ghost itself is a structural metaphor, and metaphors are haunted by the messages that they impart, then, at Indian Hill, haunting ghosts are themselves haunted. The verb "to haunt" is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "of unseen or immaterial visitants." Thus, the creation of a metaphor is in fact the created of a haunted symbol. If a metaphor is defined by the simultaneous absence and presence of the "something else" that it is suggestive of, a metaphor then is a symbol that is constantly accompanied by that which is unseen or immaterial. Metaphors, symbols, and representations are all inherently haunted. What does the haunted nature of metaphor mean for a structure such as Indian Hill Cemetery, whose central metaphor is an Indian ghost? Could it be that the metaphoric ghost of Indian Hill is haunted not by the "imaginary or spiritual beings" but by narrative ideologies of nation, race, ethnocide, and removal? Could it be that at Indian Hill cemetery eve the ephemeral is haunted? In the speeches presented at the dedication ceremony, physical realities of history are treated as legend, and legends of lingering ghosts are treated as fact. The physical fact of Native existence is denied, while the ephemeral Indian ghost is ensconced. Indian Hill Cemetery was created to instill haunting citizenship into Middletown residents. In Olin’s words, the cemetery exerts "a real and powerful, though silent influence, in molding the character, and in exalting and purifying the sentiments of a people." This "silent influence’ is attained through a manipulation of "Indian-ness" in an attempt to construct non-Native American history and identity and also through an expansion of spatial frontier mythology in Middletown. The cemetery was a project aimed at expanding patriotism and active citizenship. The site’s founders approached this project by creating Indian ghosts and erasing Native bodies. Indian Hill cemetery was established in an attempt to ensure that, even as the visible remains of native people were removed, the special Indian, ghosted and forever haunting white citizenry, remains. 47 + 48 +====The haunting of ghosts bridge the gap between past and present and articulate what haven’t and cannot be expressed. The remembrance in Spectrality is key to disrupt and expose contradictions of narratives of continuity that prop up settler domination==== 49 +**Richardson 05 **(Judith Richardson Possessions: The History and Uses of Haunting in the Hudson Valley page 26-27 September 26, 2005 Judith Richardson is Assistant Professor in the English Department at Stanford University DOA 8/31/16 //KAE+GK) 50 + 51 +These types and images are not unique to the Hudson Valley: they echo larger traditions and iconographies. Yet the fact that is many of the ghosts of the region are so inchoate or faded, so incapable of being identified, has aesthetic and historical implications. Embedded in these depictions of ghosts is a problem of communication, a los of essential information, an inability to articulate—something reflected further in the general silence of the Hudson Valley’s ghostly population. European ghosts often speak; New York area ghosts rarely do.67 Like the ghosts that Rip Van Winkle encounters in the Catskill recesses, who disturb him most by the fact that "they maintained the gravest faces, the most mysterious silence," Hudson Valley ghosts are often either dead silent or, when they do try to communicate, are heard as muffled or otherwise incomprehensible.68 And in many cases ghosts rob witnesses of the power of speech as well, defying description and eroding verbal expression.69 The indescribable, unspeakable aspects of ghosts may simply stem from crises of abysmal horror or mourning. Yet the inarticulacy that defines is many instance of haunting in the Hudson Valley also shadows problems of historical continuity, of perennial change as repeatedly and cumulatively obscuring the regional past and undermining historical understanding. It is telling that whereas Irving describes the ghostly crew of "The Storm-Ship" as chanting, a late-nineteenth-century retelling says they chant "words devoid of meaning to the listners."70 The fault, of course, lies not with the ghosts, but with the observers. That is, if traces of the past presented themselves, if waves of settlers and visitors suspected things had happened here, they were largely at a loss to identify them or to understand their implications. 52 + 53 +====The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater that best recognizes the presence of spectrality. The specter is A priori to any ethical obligation or practice as it is the origin of such ethics, to live in and of it demands a politics of memory be burdened upon the individual. Life and death are one; the small passageway connecting the two is the resting place of memory. ==== 54 +**Derrida 94’ **Jacques Derrida, "Specters of Marx", 1994, P 17 http://m.friendfeed-media.com/411d68a9b887290f0f6a1621dad4ad2249ea7421//KAE 55 + 56 +But to learn to live, to learn it from oneself and by oneself, all alone, to teach oneself to live ("I would like to learn to live finally"), is that not impossible for a living being? Is it not what logic itself forbids? To live, by definition, is not something one learns. Not from oneself, it is not learned from life, taught by life. Only from the other and by death. In any case from the other at the edge of life. At the internal border or the external border, it is a heterodidactics between life and death. And yet nothing is more necessary than this wisdom. It is ethics itself: to learn to live-alone, from oneself, by oneself. Life does not know how to live otherwise. And does one ever do anything else but learn to live, alone, from oneself, by oneself? This is, therefore, a strange commitment, both impossible and necessary, for a living being supposed to be alive: "I would like to learn to live." It has no sense and cannot be just unless it comes to terms with death.2 Mine as (well as) that of the other. Between life and death, then, this is indeed the place of a sententious injunction that always feigns to speak like the just. What follows advances like an essay in the night-into the unknown of that which must remain to come-a simple attempt, therefore, to analyze with some consistency such an exordium: "I would like to learn to live. Finally" Finally what. If it - learning to live - remains to be done, it can happen only between life and death. Neither in life nor in death alone. What happens between two, and between all the "two's" one likes, such as between life and death, can only maintain itself with some ghost, can only talk with or about some ghost ~~s' entretenir de quelque fantomeJ. So it would be necessary to learn spirits. Even and especially if this, the spectral, is not. Even and especially if this, which is neither substance, nor essence, nor existence, is never present as such. The time of the "learning to live, a time without tutelary present, would amount to this, to which the exordium is leading us: to learn to live with ghosts, in the upkeep, the conversation, the company, or the companionship, in the commerce without commerce of ghosts. To live otherwise, and better. No, not better, but more justly. But with them. No being-with the other, no socius without this with that makes being-with in general more enigmatic than ever for us. And this being-with specters would also be, not only but also, a politics of memory, of inheritance, and of generations. If I am getting ready to speak at length about ghosts, inheritance, and generations, generations of ghosts, which is to say about certain others who are not present, nor presently living, either to us, in us, or outside us, it is in the name of justice. Of justice where it is not yet, not yet there, where it is no longer, let us understand where it is no longer present, and where it will never be, no more than the law, reducible to laws or rights.3 It is necessary to speak of the ghost, indeed to the ghost and with it, from the moment that no ethics, no politics, whether revolutionary or not, seems possible and thinkable and just that does not recognize in its principle the respect for those others who are no longer or for those others who are not yet there, presently living, whether they are already dead or not yet born. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-05-10 01:20:41.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Panel - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Westwood SM - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +26 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Quarters - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lake Travis Ehresman Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +SEPTOCT - Ghost Dance 1AC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Hendrickson TFA
- Caselist.CitesClass[21]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,141 @@ 1 +==Part 1 is Framework.== 2 + 3 + 4 +====The standard is Maximizing Expected Well-being.==== 5 + 6 + 7 +====First, values are meaningless until they’re experienced by us. ==== 8 +**Harris 10** Sam Harris 2010. ~~CEO Project Reason; PHD UCLA Neuroscience; BA Stanford Philosophy~~. The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values."~~KAE 9 + 10 +Here is my (consequentialist) starting point: all questions of value (right and wrong, good and evil, etc.) depend upon the possibility of experiencing such value. Without potential consequences at the level of experience—happiness, suffering, joy, despair, etc. —all talk of value is empty. Therefore, to say that an act is morally necessary, or evil, or blameless, is to make (tacit) claims about its consequences in the lives of conscious creatures (whether actual or potential). I am unaware of any interesting exception to this rule. Needless to say, if one is worried about pleasing God or His angels, this assumes that such invisible entities are conscious (in some sense) and cognizant of human behavior. It also generally assumes that it is possible to suffer their wrath or enjoy their approval, either in this world or the world to come. Even within religion, therefore, consequences and conscious states remain the foundation of all values. 11 + 12 +====Second, government actions entail trade-offs among citizens that only UTIL can resolve.==== 13 +**Woller 97** Gary Woller ~~BYU Prof., "An Overview by Gary Woller", A Forum on the Role of Environmental Ethics, June 1997, pg. 10~~KAE 14 + 15 +Moreover, virtually all public policies entail some redistribution of economic or political resources, such that one group's gains must come at another group's ex- pense. Consequently, public policies in a democracy must be justified to the public, and especially to those who pay the costs of those policies. Such justification cannot simply be assumed a priori by invoking some higher-order moral principle. Appeals to a priori moral principles, such as environmental preservation, also often fail to acknowledge that public policies inevitably entail trade-offs among competing values. Thus since policymakers cannot justify inherent value conflicts to the public in any philosophical sense, and since public policies inherently imply winners and losers, the policymakers' duty to the public interest requires them to demonstrate that the redistributive effects and value trade-offs implied by their polices are somehow to the overall advantage of society. At the same time, deontologically based ethical systems have severe practical limitations as a basis for public policy. At best, ~~Also,~~ a priori moral principles provide only general guidance to ethical dilemmas in public affairs and do not themselves suggest appropriate public policies, and at worst, they create a regimen of regulatory unreasonableness while failing to adequately address the problem or actually making it worse. For example, a moral obligation to preserve the environment by no means implies the best way, or any way for that matter, to do so, just as there is no a priori reason to believe that any policy that claims to preserve the environment will actually do so. Any number of policies might work, and others, although seemingly consistent with the moral principle, will fail utterly. That deontological principles are an inadequate basis for environmental policy is evident in the rather significant irony that most forms of deontologically based environmental laws and regulations tend to be implemented in a very utilitarian manner by street-level enforcement officials. Moreover, ignoring the relevant costs and benefits of environmental policy and their attendant incentive structures can, as alluded to above, actually work at cross purposes to environmental preservation. (There exists an extensive literature on this aspect of regulatory enforcement and the often perverse outcomes of regulatory policy. See, for example, Ackerman, 1981; Bartrip and Fenn, 1983; Hawkins, 1983, 1984; Hawkins and Thomas, 1984.) Even the most die-hard preservationist/deontologist would, I believe, be troubled by this outcome. The above points are perhaps best expressed by Richard Flathman, The number of values typically involved in public policy decisions, the broad categories which must be employed and above all, the scope and complexity of the consequences to be anticipated militate against reasoning so conclusively that they generate an imperative to institute a specific policy. It is seldom the case that only one policy will meet the criteria of the public interest (1958, p. 12). It therefore follows that in a democracy, policymakers have an ethical duty to establish a plausible link between policy alternatives and the problems they address, and the public must be reasonably assured that a policy will actually do something about an existing problem; this requires the means-end language and methodology of utilitarian ethics. Good intentions, lofty rhetoric, and moral piety are an insufficient though perhaps at times a necessary, basis for public policy in a democracy. 16 + 17 +====Third, prioritize existential risks – extinction is irreversible and destroys future value.==== 18 +**Bostrom 12 ~~**Nick Bostrom. Faculty of Philosophy and Oxford Martin School University of Oxford. "Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority." Global Policy (2012)~~KAE 19 + 20 +These reflections on moral uncertainty suggest an alternative, complementary way of looking at existential risk; they also suggest a new way of thinking about the ideal of sustainability. Let me elaborate. Our present understanding of axiology might well be confused. We may not now know — at least not in concrete detail — what outcomes would count as a big win for humanity; we might not even yet be able to imagine the best ends of our journey. If we are indeed profoundly uncertain about our ultimate aims, then we should recognize that there is a great option value in preserving — and ideally improving — our ability to recognize value and to steer the future accordingly. Ensuring that there will be a future version of humanity with great powers and a propensity to use them wisely is plausibly the best way available to us to increase the probability that the future will contain a lot of value. To do this, we must prevent any existential catastrophe. Even if we use the most conservative of these estimates, which entirely ignores the possibility of space colonization and software minds, we find that the expected loss of an existential catastrophe is greater than the value of 10~^16 human lives. This implies that the expected value of reducing existential risk by a mere one millionth of one percentage point is at least a hundred times the value of a million human lives. The more technologically comprehensive estimate of 10 54 human brain-emulation subjective life-years (or 10 52 lives of ordinary length) makes the same point even more starkly. Even if we give this allegedly lower bound on the cumulative output potential of a technologically mature civilization a mere 1 chance of being correct, we find that the expected value of reducing existential risk by a mere one billionth of one billionth of one percentage point is worth a hundred billion times as much as a billion human lives. One might consequently argue that even the tiniest reduction of existential risk has an expected value greater than that of the definite provision of any ordinary good, such as the direct benefit of saving 1 billion lives. And, further, that the absolute value of the indirect effect of saving 1 billion lives on the total cumulative amount of existential riskâ€"positive or negativeâ€"is almost certainly larger than the positive value of the direct benefit of such an action.10 21 + 22 +====AND, death is ontologically the worst evil since it destroys the subject itself.==== 23 +**Paterson 3** Department of Philosophy, Providence College, Rhode Island (Craig, "A Life Not Worth Living?", Studies in Christian Ethics, http://sce.sagepub.com)KAE 24 + 25 +Contrary to those accounts, I would argue that it is death per se that is really the objective evil for us, not because it deprives us of a prospective future of overall good judged better than the alter- native of non-being. It cannot be about harm to a former person who has ceased to exist, for no person actually suffers from the sub-sequent non-participation. Rather, death in itself is an evil to us because it ontologically destroys the current existent subject — it is the ultimate in metaphysical lightening strikes.80 The evil of death is truly an ontological evil borne by the person who already exists, independently of calculations about better or worse possible lives. Such an evil need not be consciously experienced in order to be an evil for the kind of being a human person is. Death is an evil because of the change in kind it brings about, a change that is destructive of the type of entity that we essentially are. Anything, whether caused naturally or caused by human intervention (intentional or unintentional) that drastically interferes in the process of maintaining the person in existence is an objective evil for the person. What is crucially at stake here, and is dialectically supportive of the self-evidency of the basic good of human life, is that death is a radical interference with the current life process of the kind of being that we are. In consequence, death itself can be credibly thought of as a ‘primitive evil’ for all persons, regardless of the extent to which they are currently or prospectively capable of participating in a full array of the goods of life.81 In conclusion, concerning willed human actions, it is justifiable to state that any intentional rejection of human life itself cannot therefore be warranted since it is an expression of an ultimate disvalue for the subject, namely, the destruction of the present person; a radical ontological good that we cannot begin to weigh objectively against the travails of life in a rational manner. To deal with the sources of disvalue (pain, suffering, etc.) we should not seek to irrationally destroy the person, the very source and condition of all human possibility.82 26 + 27 + 28 +==Part 2 is Harms.== 29 + 30 +===Advantage 1 is Cyber.=== 31 + 32 + 33 +====A major cyber-attack against nuclear power plants is coming now – security is weak.==== 34 +**BBC 15** ("Global nuclear facilities 'at risk' of cyber attack"; 10-5-2015; BBC News; http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34423419)KAE 35 + 36 +The risk of a "serious cyber attack" on nuclear power plants around the world is growing, warns a report. The civil nuclear infrastructure in most nations is not well prepared to defend against such attacks, it added. Many of the control systems for the infrastructure were "insecure by design" because of their age, it said. Published by the influential Chatham House think tank, the report studied cyber defences in power plants around the world over an 18-month period. Core breach Cyber criminals, state-sponsored hackers and terrorists were all increasing their online activity, it said, meaning that the risk of a significant net-based attack was "ever present". Such an attack on a nuclear plant, even if small-scale or unlikely, needed to be taken seriously because of the harm that would follow if radiation were released. In addition, it said "even a small-scale cyber security incident at a nuclear facility would be likely to have a disproportionate effect on public opinion and the future of the civil nuclear industry". Unfortunately, research carried out for the study showed that the UK's nuclear plants and associated infrastructure were not well protected or prepared because the industry had converted to digital systems relatively recently. This increasing digitisation and growing reliance on commercial software is only increasing the risks the nuclear industry faces. There was a "pervading myth" that computer systems in power plants were isolated from the internet at large and because of this were immune to the kind of cyber attacks that have dogged other industries. However, it said, this so-called "air gap" between the public internet and nuclear systems was easy to breach with "nothing more than a flash drive". It noted that the destructive Stuxnet computer virus infected Iran's nuclear facilities via this route. The story of Stuxnet In 2009, a malicious computer program called 'Stuxnet' was manually uploaded into a nuclear plant in Iran. The worm took control of 1,000 machines involved with producing nuclear materials, and instructed them to self-destruct. What made the world's first cyber-weapon so destructive? The researchers for the report had also found evidence of virtual networks and other links to the public internet on nuclear infrastructure networks. Some of these were forgotten or simply unknown to those in charge of these organisations. Already search engines that sought out critical infrastructure had indexed these links making it easy for attackers to find ways in to networks and control systems. Keith Parker, chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association, said: "Security, including cyber security, is an absolute priority for power station operators." "All of Britain's power stations are designed with safety in mind and are stress-tested to withstand a vast range of potential incidents," he added. "Power station operators work closely with national agencies such as the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure and other intelligence agencies to always be aware of emerging threats." In addition, said Mr Parker, the industry's regulator continuously monitors plant safety to help protect it from any outside threats. In June this year the International Atomic Energy Agency held its first international conference about the cyber threats facing plants and manufacturing facilities. At the conference Yukiya Amano, director of the IAEA, said both random and targeted attacks were being directed at nuclear plants. 37 + 38 +====Cyber-attacks cause power plant meltdowns and economic decline.==== 39 +**Oppenheimer 16** (Andy Oppenheimer AIExpE MIABTI is Editor of CBNW (Chemical, Biological and Nuclear Warfare) journal and a consultant in CBRNE and counter-terrorism. He is author of IRA: The Bombs and the Bullets (Irish Academic Press, 2008) and of the CBRN and IEDs module courses for the St Andrews University Certificate in Terrorism Studies; "Not with a bang, but a meltdown – Andy Oppenheimer looks at cyber-attacks on nuclear power plants"; 2-29-2016; CBRNe Portal; http://www.cbrneportal.com/not-with-a-bang-but-a-meltdown-andy-oppenheimer-looks-at-cyber-attacks-on-nuclear-power-plants/)KAE 40 + 41 +And among the most dangerous is a cyber-attack on a nuclear power plant (NPP) or nuclear reprocessing plant such as Sellafield, due to the possible release of radiation from reactors or spent fuel ponds. A cyber-attack by terrorists on NPP systems and back-ups powering reactor cooling systems could trigger a meltdown incident similar to Fukushima Daichi in 2011. According to Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Gen. Yukiya Amano, in August 2015, "reports of actual or attempted cyber-attacks are now virtually a daily occurrence." As a state-launched attack, the Stuxnet worm set back Iran’s nuclear programme in 2009 by instructing 1,000 centrifuges to self-destruct – and has since escaped into programmes in other countries. In March 2015 the South Korean government accused the North Koreans of carrying out cyber-attacks in December 2014 on Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power (KHNP). Nuclear industry "barely grappled with cyber" In October 2015 a Chatham House report, Cyber Security at Civil Nuclear Facilities: Understanding the Risks, based on an 18-month study on cyber defences in NPPs, stated that UK’s plants and associated infrastructure "were not well protected or prepared because the industry had converted to digital systems relatively recently." Based on 30 interviews with senior nuclear officials at plants and in government in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the UK, Ukraine and the US, the researchers found that risks were compounded by increased digitisation and the industry’s growing reliance on commercial software. There was a "pervading myth" that computer systems in power plants were isolated from the Internet at large and thought they were immune to the level of cyber-attacks affecting other industries. Virtual networks and other links to the public internet on nuclear infrastructure networks were not known to organization directors. Search engines that sought out critical infrastructure had indexed these links – making it easy for attackers to find ways into networks and control systems. The report also found the "air gap" between the public Internet and nuclear systems was easy to breach with "nothing more than a flash drive": Stuxnet infected Iran’s nuclear facilities via this route. Operational NPP technology engineers and cyber security personnel had difficulty communicating and many cyber security personnel were located off site, and many plants lacked preparedness for large-scale attacks outside office hours. Patricia Lewis, research director of Chatham House’s international security programme, said: "The nuclear industry is beginning – but struggling – to come to grips with this new, insidious threat." And the report author, Caroline Baylon, added: "Cyber security is still new to many in the nuclear industry. They are really good at safety and, after 9/11, they’ve got really good at physical security. But they have barely grappled with cyber." There was a "culture of denial" at many nuclear plants, with a standard response from engineers and officials being that because their systems were not connected to the internet, it would be very hard to compromise them. Accidents will happen… Past instances of accidental disruption include a 48-hour emergency shutdown in March 2008 in the Hatch NPP near Baxley, Georgia after an engineer installed a software update on a computer designed to synchronize data. According to a report filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, when the updated computer rebooted, it reset the data on the control system, causing safety systems to errantly interpret the lack of data as a drop in water reservoirs that cool the plant’s radioactive nuclear fuel rods. As a result, automated safety systems at the plant triggered a shutdown. Later that year the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a scathing report about cyber security weaknesses at the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the USA’s largest public power company and operator of three NPPs, including Browns Ferry, Alabama when a key safety system was overwhelmed with network traffic and nearly led to a meltdown in 2006. The GAO found that TVA’s Internet-connected corporate network was linked with systems used to control power production, and that security weaknesses pervasive in the corporate side could be used by attackers to manipulate or destroy vital control systems. Computers on TVA’s corporate network lacked security software updates and anti-virus protection, and firewalls and intrusion detection systems on the network were easily bypassed and failed to record suspicious activity. These incidents were eight years ago, with cyberattacks having mushroomed (pun not intended) since then, along with the rise of ISIL (Daesh, ISIS) and continued operations by al-Qaeda, each equally intent on ‘economic jihad’ – the destruction of Western economies. Taking down a NPP with subsequent collapse of systems and meltdown would be high on their list. 42 + 43 +====Economic decline causes nuclear war.==== 44 +**Harris and Burrows 09** (Counselor in the National Intelligence Council, Member at the National Intelligence Council - Mathew J. Burrows, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World—an unclassified report by the NIC published every four years that projects trends over a 15-year period, has served in the Central Intelligence Agency since 1986, holds a Ph.D. in European History from Cambridge University, and Jennifer Harris, Member of the Long Range Analysis Unit at the National Intelligence Council, holds an M.Phil. in International Relations from Oxford University and a J.D. from Yale University, 2009 ("Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis," The Washington Quarterly, Volume 32, Issue 2, April, Available Online at http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr'Burrows.pdf, Accessed 08-22-2011, p. 35-37)KAE 45 + 46 +Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample ~~end page 35~~ opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorism’s appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups—inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks—and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises. ~~end page 36~~ Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world. 47 + 48 +===Advantage 2 is Biodiversity.=== 49 + 50 + 51 +====Coastal nuclear power plants will fail. (Why?)==== 52 +**Roulstone 16** Tony Roulstone 16 ~~(Tony Roulstone, ) China wants a fleet of floating nuke plants, CNN 5-10-2016~~ KAE 53 + 54 +While the barge can provide similar safety systems there many are questions whether these reactors will be safe on the seas. They will be exposed to the vagaries and the uncertainties known by seafarers and to extreme storms and waves — sinking of the barge is a possibility. Also, it could be harder to protect seaborne reactors – opposed to their land-based counterparts – from external threats such as the loss of off-site power or a terrorist attack. Maintenance, key to safe operation, will be much more difficult in remote locations. These are new and different hazards from those considered for land-based reactors. The crucial issues of flooding for nuclear reactors and the loss of power required for cooling were highlighted by the accident at Fukushima. 55 + 56 + 57 +====Power plants contaminate marine mammals – failure exacerbates this.==== 58 +**NIRS 16** NIRS. "Top 11 Reasons to Oppose Nuclear Power". Web. http://www.nirs.org/nukerelapse/background/toptenreasons.htm. 8/9/16 KAE 59 + 60 +Nuclear Power reactors release radioactivity to the air and the water on an ongoing basis, even with no accident. These routine and intermittent releases of radioactivity are like a dirty secret, since they are quietly allowed by the federal regulator. It would not be possible to run the reactor without them. Such releases contribute to radiation exposures in communities both near and far from the site. Radiation standards are being consistently relaxed to allow older, leakier reactors to continue to operate. Coastal reactors have been shown to kill sea mammals and threaten the endangered sea turtle. The reactor requires massive volumes of cooling water, and those with a "once through" cooling system are the worst. About ½ of the 103 nuclear reactors currently operated in the US use a "once through" system, and could be upgraded. 61 + 62 + 63 +====Marine mammals are uniquely essential to biodiversity.==== 64 +**Bohle 8 (**Robert Bohle, 25 years of experience writing for professional publications specializing in Oceanography, "The Effects of Ocean Pollution on Marine Mammals", Blue Voice Organization, March 2008, http://www.bluevoice.org/news'issueseffects.php)KAE 65 + 66 +What the study didn’t cover directly may be even more disturbing: marine mammals are suffering dramatic rises in devastating illnesses, such as nervous and digestive system problems, liver disease, contaminant-induced immunosuppression, endocrine system damage, reproductive malformations, and growth and development issues. Worse yet is the alarming growth in cancer cases. Many scientists around the world believe these illnesses are being caused by contamination of the ocean with man-made toxic chemicals. Because marine mammals are at the top of their food chain, the toxins in their food sources accumulates in their bodies, especially in their fatty tissues and breast milk. Toxins in plankton are consumed by small fish, which are in turn eaten by larger fish, which are eaten by even larger fish. Eventually marine mammals and humans, each higher up the food chain, eat the now-toxic fish, further concentrating the toxins. This bio-concentration is what causes high levels of toxins in dolphins, whales, and other marine mammals. Nine of the 10 species with the highest polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) levels are marine mammals. The Toxic Top Ten: bottlenose dolphin, orca. Risso’s dolphin, harbor seal, beluga, Mediterranean monk seal, common dolphin, gray seal, polar bear. The 10th is the Steller’s sea eagle. The declining health of ocean-going mammals, especially the increase in various cancers, sends an undeniable message to humans. Thus dolphins and other marine mammals are showing us our future – unless we change our ways. Marine mammals are sending an unambiguous message to humankind: clean up the toxic soup we live next to, swim in, and draw fish from, or pay a very high price in human lives. 67 + 68 + 69 +====Ocean Biodiversity is key to human survival.==== 70 +**Englart 12** (member of environmental NGOs and community groups for 30 years in Australia, an editor and contributor with Australia Indymedia. Climate Indymedia http://takvera.blogspot.com/2012/01/biodiversity-crisis-habitat-loss-and.html)KAE 71 + 72 +Scientists meeting at the University of Copenhagen have warned that biodiversity is declining rapidly throughout the world, describing the loss of species as the 6th mass extinction event on the earth. The world is losing species at a rate that is 100 to 1000 times faster than the natural extinction rate, with the challenges of conserving the world's species larger than mitigating the negative effects of global climate change. The scientists and policymakers met last week in Copenhagen to discuss how to organise the future UN Intergovernmental Panel for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) - an equivalent to the UN panel on climate change (IPCC). The conference was arranged and hosted in cooperation with the Danish Ministry of Environment and took place at the University of Copenhagen, where more than 100 scientists and decision makers, primarily from EU countries were gathered. The conference concluded that dealing with the biodiversity crisis requires political will and needs to be based on a solid scientific knowledge for action to be taken to ensure a safe future for the planet. It is estimated that about 30,000 species go extinct each year, some three species per hour. This is not a new crisis. The World Conservation Union in 2004 reported on the Escalating global species extinction crisis. Two recent scientific papers have emphasised that Climate change and habitat loss threaten biodiversity, extinction rate underestimated. The oceans are also in imminent peril with Marine Extinction looming with Ocean Acidification increasing, with marine scientists warning in June 2011 that the Oceans at high risk of unprecedented Marine extinction, including Extinction of coral reef ecosystems. Caption: Territory size shows the proportion of species worldwide that became extinct between 1500 current era and 2004, that became extinct there. Five previous mass extinctions have occurred in the planet's history, the last time being 65 million years ago - the end of the age of dinosaurs. These previous extinction events were driven by global changes in climate and in atmospheric chemistry, impacts by asteroids and volcanism. The present event, the 6th mass extinction, is driven by a competition for resources between one species on the planet – humans – and all others. Accelerating habitat degredation and loss is the primary process. The process is worsened by the ongoing human-induced climate change which particularly impacts fragmented ecosystems. Human population is basically overpopulating the planet and driving species to extinction through destruction of native habitat and landuse conversion to industrial scale agriculture. Kevin J Gaston in a 2005 paper on Biodiversity and extinction: species and people (PDF) detailed that "The most important agent of change in the spatial patterns of much of biodiversity at present is ultimately the size, growth and resource demands of the human population...giving rise to levels of global species extinction largely unprecedented outside periods of mass extinction." Researchers have found that bird species most at risk are predominantly narrow-ranged and endemic to the tropics, where species have small ranges and are imperiled by human land use conversions. Most of these species are currently not recognized as imperiled. "Land conversion and climate change have already had significant impacts on biodiversity and associated ecosystem services. Using future land-cover projections from the recently completed Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, we found that 950–1,800 of the world's 8,750 species of land birds could be imperiled by climate change and land conversion by the year 2100." says the research paper on Projected Impacts of Climate and Land-Use Change on the Global Diversity of Birds published in PLoS Biology in June 2007. Another recent multi-author study has found that preservation of plant biodiversity provides a crucial buffer to negative effects of climate change and desertification in drylands. This is important as Dryland ecosystems cover 41 of the land surface of the Earth and support 38 of the human population. Scientists have recently calculated the velocity of climate change to be 27.3 km/decade on land, and 21.7 km/decade in the ocean. This rate of movement of thermal climate envelopes poses problems for species facing a high speed migration, or a difficult and abrupt adaptation or extinction. For terrestrial species this involves migration polewards or to a greater altitude. For species that live on the top of mountains, ecosystem islands in the sky, they face a grim future of adapting to a warmer environment or extinction as they compete with species moving up from lower altitudes. Species from the tropics with small ranges are particularly threatened. Professor Carsten Rahbek, Director for the Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate, University of Copenhagen said "The biodiversity crisis – i.e. the rapid loss of species and the rapid degradation of ecosystems – is probably a greater threat than global climate change to the stability and prosperous future of mankind on Earth. There is a need for scientists, politicians and government authorities to closely collaborate if we are to solve this crisis. This makes the need to establish IPBES very urgent, which may happen at a UN meeting in Panama City in April." 73 + 74 + 75 +===Advantage 3 is Terror.=== 76 + 77 + 78 +====Terrorists will hijack power plants and build nuclear weapons – security is weak.==== 79 +**Macfarlane 16** (Allison M. Macfarlane directs the Center for International Science and Technology Policy at George Washington University, where she is Professor of Public Policy and International Affairs; "How to protect nuclear plants from terrorists"; Energy Post; April 26, 2016; http://www.energypost.eu/protect-nuclear-plants-terrorists/)KAE 80 + 81 +The risk of terrorists obtaining nuclear material to make a dirty bomb, or hijacking a nuclear plant, is real, observes Allison Macfarlane, a Professor at George Washington University and former Chair of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. According to Macfarlane, countries with nuclear plants need to improve security quickly before it’s too late. They can learn from the United States, whose nuclear power plants are among the most well-guarded facilities in the world. Article courtesy of The Conversation. In the wake of terrorist attacks in Brussels, Paris, Istanbul, Ankara and elsewhere, nations are rethinking many aspects of domestic security. Nuclear plants, as experts have long known, are potential targets for terrorists, either for sabotage or efforts to steal nuclear materials. Currently there are 444 nuclear power plants operating in 30 countries around the world and 243 smaller research reactors, which are used to produce isotopes for medical uses and to train nuclear engineers. The nuclear industry also includes hundreds of plants that enrich uranium and fabricate fuel for reactors. Some of these facilities contain materials terrorists could use to build a nuclear or "dirty" bomb. Alternatively, power plants could be "hijacked" to create an accident of the sort experienced at Chernobyl and Fukushima, sending clouds of radioactivity over hundreds of miles. At last month’s Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, D.C., representatives from 52 countries pledged to continue improving their nuclear security and adopted action plans to work together and through international agencies. Authorities investigating the Paris attacks discovered video surveillance footage of a Belgian nuclear official in the home of one of the Paris suspects But significant countries like Russia and Pakistan are not participating. And many in Europe are just beginning to consider physical security measures. From my perspective as a former nuclear regulator and now as director of the Center for International Science and Technology Policy at George Washington University, it is clear that nuclear plants are vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Physical and cyber threats It is not news that security is weak at many civilian nuclear power and research facilities. In October 2012, Greenpeace activists entered two nuclear power plants in Sweden by breaking open a gate and scaling fences without being stopped by guards. Four of them hid overnight on a roof at one reactor before surrendering the next morning. Just this year, Sweden’s nuclear regulatory agency adopted a requirement for armed guards and additional security measures at the plants. However, these upgrades do not have to be in place until early 2017. In 2014 French nuclear plants were plagued by unexplained drone overflights. And Greenpeace activists broke into the Fessenheim nuclear plant near the German border and hung a large banner from the reactor building. In light of the recent Brussels attacks, reports from Belgium are more alarming. In 2012 two employees at the country’s Doel nuclear power station left Belgium to fight in Syria. In 2014 an unidentified saboteur tampered with lubricant in the turbine at the same reactor, causing the plant to shut down for five months. And earlier this year authorities investigating the Paris attacks discovered video surveillance footage of a Belgian nuclear official in the home of one of the Paris suspects. 82 + 83 + 84 +====Terrorists have the capability and motivation – the threat is real.==== 85 +**Cirincione 15** (Joe Cirincione is President of Plougshares Fund, a global security foundation. He is author of Nuclear Nightmares: Securing the World Before It Is Too Late, and is featured in the documentary film, Countdown to Zero. He is a member of the Secretary of State's International Security Advisory Board and the Council on Foreign Relations; " The Risk of a Nuclear ISIS Grows"; 10-7-2015; Huffington Post; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-cirincione/the-risk-of-a-nuclear-isi'b'8259978.html)KAE 86 + 87 +It is hard to imagine a more terrifying prospect than an extremist group like ISIS armed with nuclear or radiological weapons. But as the Associated Press revealed this week, that possibility may be much closer than we would like to think. Over the past five years the FBI, working in conjunction with local authorities in Moldova, have interrupted four attempts made by nuclear smugglers to sell radioactive materials to Middle Eastern extremists, including ISIS. According to the AP, "the latest known case came in February this year, when a smuggler offered a huge cache of deadly cesium — enough to contaminate several city blocks — and specifically sought a buyer from the Islamic State group." ISIS has already shown its willingness to use chemical weapons against civilian targets, so there should be no question that if given the means and opportunity, they would do the same with nuclear or radiological weapons. As I have written before: The risks of ISIS getting a nuclear bomb are small. But they are not zero... it is impossible now for ISIS to build a nuclear bomb from scratch. Doing so would require large, industrial facilities to enrich uranium, billions of dollars and gigawatts of energy. But if they could get the highly-enriched uranium — about 100 pounds would do, about the size of a soccer ball — it is possible that they could assemble the equipment and small technical team to build the bomb. 88 + 89 +====Nuclear terrorism causes extinction.==== 90 +**Myhrvold 14** (Nathan P: chief executive and founder of Intellectual Ventures and a former chief technology officer at Microsoft; Nathan was a postdoctoral fellow in the department of applied mathematics and theoretical physics at Cambridge University, and he worked with Professor Stephen Hawking. He earned a doctorate in theoretical and mathematical physics and a master's degree in mathematical economics from Princeton University, and he also has a master's degree in geophysics and space physics and a bachelor's degree in mathematics from UCLA, Strategic Terrorism: A Call to Action; cco.dodlive.mil/files/2014/04/Strategic'Terrorism'corrected'II.pdf)KAE 91 + 92 +Technology contains no inherent moral directive—it empowers people, whatever their intent, good or evil. This has always been true: when bronze implements supplanted those made of stone, the ancient world got scythes and awls, but also swords and battle-axes. The novelty of our present situation is that modern technology can provide small groups of people with much greater lethality than ever before. We now have to worry that private parties might gain access to weapons that are as destructive as—or possibly even more destructive than— those held by any nation-state. A handful of people, perhaps even a single individual, could have the ability to kill millions or even billions. Indeed, it is possible, from a technological standpoint, to kill every man, woman, and child on earth. The gravity of the situation is so extreme that getting the concept across without seeming silly or alarmist is challenging. Just thinking about the subject with any degree of seriousness numbs the mind. The goal of this essay is to present the case for making the needed changes before such a catastrophe occurs. The issues described here are too important to ignore. Failing nation-states—like North Korea—which possess nuclear weapons potentially pose a nuclear threat. Each new entrant to the nuclear club increases the possibility this will happen, but this problem is an old one, and one that existing diplomatic and military structures aim to manage. The newer and less understood danger arises from the increasing likelihood that stateless groups, bent on terrorism, will gain access to nuclear weapons, most likely by theft from a nation-state. Should this happen, the danger we now perceive to be coming from rogue states will pale in comparison. The ultimate response to a nuclear attack is a nuclear counterattack. Nation states have an address, and they know that we will retaliate in kind. Stateless groups are much more difficult to find which makes a nuclear counterattack virtually impossible. As a result, they can strike without fear of overwhelming retaliation, and thus they wield much more effective destructive power. Indeed, in many cases the fundamental equation of retaliation has become reversed. Terrorists often hope to provoke reprisal attacks on their own people, swaying popular opinion in their favor. The aftermath of 9/11 is a case in point. While it seems likely that Osama bin Laden and his henchmen hoped for a massive overreaction from the United States, it is unlikely his Taliban hosts anticipated the U.S. would go so far as to invade Afghanistan. Yes, al-Qaeda lost its host state and some personnel. The damage slowed the organization down but did not destroy it. Instead, the stateless al-Qaeda survived and adapted. The United States can claim some success against al-Qaeda in the years since 9/11, but it has hardly delivered a deathblow. Eventually, the world will recognize that stateless groups are more powerful than nation-states because terrorists can wield weapons and mount assaults that no nationstate would dare to attempt. So far, they have limited themselves to dramatic tactical terrorism: events such as 9/11, the butchering of Russian schoolchildren, decapitations broadcast over the internet, and bombings in major cities. Strategic objectives cannot be far behind. 93 + 94 +===Advantage 4 is Space.=== 95 + 96 + 97 +====Countries are increasing their use of nuclear power for space missions.==== 98 +**WNA 16** (World Nuclear Association; "Nuclear Reactors and Radioisotopes for Space"; February 2016; http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/nuclear-reactors-for-space.aspx)KAE 99 + 100 +After a gap of several years, there is a revival of interest in the use of nuclear fission power for space missions. While Russia has used over 30 fission reactors in space, the USA has flown only one - the SNAP-10A (System for Nuclear Auxiliary Power) in 1965. Early on, from 1959-73 there was a US nuclear rocket programme – Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Applications (NERVA) – which was focused on nuclear power replacing chemical rockets for the latter stages of launches. NERVA used graphite-core reactors heating hydrogen and expelling it through a nozzle. Some 20 engines were tested in Nevada and yielded thrust up to more than half that of the space shuttle launchers. Since then, "nuclear rockets" have been about space propulsion, not launches. The successor to NERVA is today's nuclear thermal rocket (NTR). Another early idea was the US Project Orion, which would launch a substantial spacecraft - about 1000 tonnes - from the earth using a series of small nuclear explosions to propel it. The project was commenced in 1958 by General Atomics and was aborted in 1963 when the Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty made it illegal, but radioactive fallout could have been a major problem. The Orion idea is still alive, as other means of generating the propulsive pulses are considered. The United Nations has an Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA)* implements decisions of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) set up in 1959 and now with 71 member states. UNOOSA recognises "that for some missions in outer space nuclear power sources are particularly suited or even essential owing to their compactness, long life and other attributes" and "that the use of nuclear power sources in outer space should focus on those applications which take advantage of the particular properties of nuclear power sources." It has adopted a set of principles applicable "to nuclear power sources in outer space devoted to the generation of electric power on board space objects for non-propulsive purposes," including both radioisotope systems and fission reactors. 101 + 102 +====Nuclear power has a 10 failure rate in space missions.==== 103 +**Grossman 15** (Karl Grossman is professor of journalism at the State University of New York / College at Old Westbury; "NASA's warning - SpaceX crash highlights dangers of nuclear power in space"; The Ecologist; 2nd July 2015; http://www.theecologist.org/blogs'and'comments/Blogs/2929123/nasas'warning'spacex'crash'highlights'dangers'of'nuclear'power'in'space.html)KAE 104 + 105 +That claim of no hazardous consequences is not true, as the late Dr. John Gofman, professor at the University of California at Berkeley, long maintained. Of the three US space nuclear accidents, the most serious was the fall back to Earth in 1964 of a satellite with a SNAP-9A plutonium system onboard. The satellite and plutonium system disintegrated in the fall, the plutonium was dispersed worldwide and caused, in Dr. Gofman's estimation, an increase in the global lung cancer rate. Dr. Gofman, an M.D. and Ph.D., co-discoverer of several radioisotopes, and was a pioneer in the earliest experiments with plutonium. A 10 failure rate in space nuclear power missions has also been the case for Russia and, before it, the Soviet Union. The worst Soviet space nuclear accident occurred in the fall in 1978 of Cosmos satellite 954, with an atomic reactor onboard, which disintegrated as it plummeted to Earth, spreading nuclear debris for hundreds of miles across the Northwest Territories of Canada. Despite the study's rosy history of space nuclear power, it also says "it may be prudent to build in more time in the development of schedule for the first launch of a new space reactor. Public interest would likely be large, and it is possible that opposition could be substantial." The explosion after launch Sunday from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida of a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket on a mission to deliver supplies to the International Space Station was an event again underlining the danger of using nuclear power on spacecraft. Officials were warning that "potentially hazardous debris could wash ashore." What if a radioisotope thermoelectric generator was onboard and plutonium was also dispersed? Or a nuclear reactor or atomic propulsion system, and an array of radioactive poisons rained down in the debris. US Representative Donna Edwards of Maryland, a member of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, announced that "the launch failure this morning shows us once again that space is difficult - it requires near perfection." Inserting nuclear poisons into a danger-prone equation that "requires near perfection" - especially when it is unnecessary - is reckless, and the consequences are potentially devastating. Estimates in NASA's Final Environmental Impact Statement, for instance, of the cost of plutonium decontamination if there were an accident when the Curiosity rover was launched in 2011 to Mars were put at $267 million for each square mile of farmland, $478 million for each square mile of forests and $1.5 billion for each square mile of "mixed-use urban areas". It was powered with a plutonium-energized RTG, although previously NASA Mars rovers were able to function well with solar power. When the Cassini space probe was sent off to Saturn in 1997 - with three RTGs containing 72.3 pounds of Plutonium-238, the most plutonium ever used on a spacecraft - NASA in its Final Environmental Impact Statement said that if an "inadvertent reentry" of Cassini into the Earth's atmosphere occurred causing it to disintegrate and release its plutonium, "5 billion...of the world's population...could receive 99 percent or more of the radiation exposure." Noting that "technology frequently goes wrong", Gagnon of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, says: "When you consider adding nuclear power into the mix it becomes an explosive combination. We've long been sounding the alarm that nuclear power in space is something the neither public nor the planet can afford to take a chance on." 106 + 107 +====Nuclear failure in space creates space debris, exponentially increasing the chance of collisions.==== 108 +**Paradise 15** (Leo: Science Clarified, Encyclopedia of Science; "Does the accumulation of "space debris" in Earth's orbit pose a significant threat to humans, in space and on the ground?"; 1/23/15; Vol. 1)KAE 109 + 110 +Falling Debris and Exposure to Radioactivity Risks posed by orbital debris to people on the ground aren't limited to the heavy, twisted chunks of metal that fail to burn on reentry and fall from the sky. What very few people consider are the substances carried inside the various spacecrafts and rockets. Many times, these substances fall back to Earth. On January 24, 1978, after suffering a technical malfunction onboard, the Soviet satellite Cosmos 954 disintegrated over the Northern Territories in Canada. Scattered across a vast area were thousands of radioactive particles, pieces of the satellite's nuclear power core that survived reentry. The Soviets were unable to predict where Cosmos 954 might fall—they estimated somewhere between Hawaii and Africa; nor were they able to alter the satellite's flight path on reentry. Over 60 nuclear devices were launched into orbit so far. NASA will launch three more missions involving nuclear-powered crafts in the coming years. The army isn't saying much, but nuclear militarization of space is a known trend and an ongoing debate. What happens if a nuclear space rocket is hit by space debris? Nine nuclear spacecrafts have fallen back to Earth, so far. The Cosmos 954 incident was the worst one, and in fairness, some cores were never breached. But of the nuclear-powered spacecraft that fell to Earth, some released measurable radioactivity into the atmosphere. How do we know what effect the release of radioactivity into our atmosphere had on our health? Can we be sure that the next nuclear-powered craft that falls to Earth will once again miss a populated area, and that its core won't be breached? Nuclear material falling from orbit is not the only hazardous substance humans are exposed to when space debris falls to Earth. The village of Ploskoye, in Siberia, is directly under the flight path of Russian launch vehicles, and has been so for 40 years. When the first stage of the rockets separates, a large amount of unused rocket fuel explodes and rains down on the village. The fuel used in some of these rockets contains a substance known to cause liver and blood problems. The fuel coats crops and contaminates the water supply. Ploskoye and its neighbors report cancer rates 15 times higher than the national average. There is also an extremely high rate of birth defects in the area. The village doctor reports a spate of new patients after each launch, and schoolteachers report that children complain of various ailments in the days following launches. In the past five years, there hasn't been a healthy newborn in the village. The traditional space debris—fragments from the rockets—has killed cattle in the area. More often than not, accurate predictions cannot be made about landing sites of falling debris, unless the reentry is controlled from the ground. When the Russian Mars probe (another nuclear-power craft) fell to Earth in 1996, the U.S. Space Command targeted Australia in its predictions of the probe's landing site. The probe disintegrated over South America. Nor can we currently predict how much of a spacecraft will survive reentry. Intentional de-orbiting of some dead satellites, with the expectation that they will burn up on reentry, showed otherwise. According to the Center for Orbital and Reentry Debris Studies, "recent evidence shows that some portions…sometimes significant pieces, may survive reentry and pose a hazard to people and property on the ground." Some significant reentry events include a second stage of a Delta rocket that rained debris on Oklahoma and Texas on January 22, 1997. One woman was struck by a small piece of debris. Another Delta second stage reentered in early spring, 2000. Debris was found in a farm in South Africa. Increasing Risks and Dangers When considering the risk posed by orbital debris, one must look not only at the current state of debris environment in space, but also into future conditions in the same environment. In a report issued in 1999, the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space found that the probability of collisions between operational spacecrafts (including satellites) or between spacecraft and existing debris is increasing. To date, there is only one known case of a collision between cataloged man-made objects. In 1996, a fragment of an exploded Ariane upper stage rocket damaged the French satellite CERISE. As the report points out, the cause of many spacecraft break-ups in orbit is unknown, and might be the result of collision with orbiting debris. It is impossible to tell if the CERISE collision is truly a unique unfortunate event, or only the tip of the iceberg. The continuing launches of spacecraft compounds the existing problem. More objects in orbit mean a greater chance of collision. These collisions, in turn, will generate more fragments. The end result, if significant remedial measures are not implemented, will be an exponential increase in both the number of orbital debris and the number of resulting collisions. These resulting collisions, according to NASA, will be more and more likely to happen between larger objects, compounding the problem. 111 + 112 +====That risks miscalculation and nuclear war.==== 113 +**Byrd 16** (Norman Byrd: a writer for Blasting News; "Space junk collisions could provoke armed conflict, Russian scientists warn"; Blasting News; 1/26/16; http://us.blastingnews.com/news/2016/01/space-junk-collisions-could-provoke-armed-conflict-russian-scientists-warn-00754097.html)KAE 114 + 115 +The increase in the amount of space junk orbiting the Earth has the potential to not only damage satellites, spacecraft, and devices already in orbit, but could potentially lead to war. A recent study posits that errant space junk colliding with satellites could easily be misconstrued as an attack and cause political friction, even provoke warfare. The Independent reported January 25th that a study conducted by scientists at the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow contends that debris orbiting the Earth poses a "special political danger" to operational satellites in that it would be difficult to determine the origin of the damaging impactor. In short, the impacted satellite's controller would not be able to ascertain if the impact had been caused by ordinary space junk or if it had come under attack. To make matters worse, as more space junk accumulates and more of the orbiting pieces collide, the amount of debris in orbit increases, thus increasing the likelihood of collisions with the aforementioned security-sensitive satellites. "The owner of the impacted and destroyed satellite can hardly quickly determine the real cause of the accident," astrophysicist Vitaly Adushkin explained in the study, which was published in Acta Astronautica. He noted that such uncertainty could very well "provoke political or even armed conflict between space-faring nations." To illustrate the potential dangers involved, the expansive ring of space junk has been accumulating since the space race began in the late 1950's. Over decades of test flights, satellite placements (both governmental and private sector), spacecraft launches, and various other space missions by literally dozens of national players, thousands of man-made objects have become part of the debris ring. Given intentional ejections, cast-offs, dead satellites, and inevitable collisions that come with pieces and particles moving at varying speeds in ever-decreasing orbits as Earth's gravity takes it toll, the number of pieces of space junk has soared. The Guardian noted that U. S. and Russian space agencies already monitor some 23,000 pieces of space junk measuring larger than 10 centimeters in diameter. One of those pieces of space junk, dubbed WT1190F or "WTF," had been tracked since 2013 and re-entered Earth's atmosphere in November. But estimates as to the true scope of orbiting fragments push the number into the trillions when considering smaller particles. At present, the fragments pose problems for orbiting satellites and the International Space Station, which celebrated 15 years as a living space habitat in November. A 2015 Russian Space Agency report noted that, in 2014, the station had to take evasive action against potentially harmful wreckage five times. Adushkin's warning follows an incident in 2013 when a Russian satellite was disabled by a piece of space junk created after China, using a missile to test its anti-satellite capabilities, shot down one of its own weather satellites in 2007. That demonstration produced an estimated additional 3,000 pieces of debris. Adushkin's research corroborates a 2011 NASA report that revealed the level of debris circling the Earth had reached a "tipping point," was increasing exponentially, and had become a danger to satellites and the ISS. The astrophysicist further warned that, unless something is done to clean up the ring of space debris, the dangers presented will only get worse due to the "cascade process" of ongoing collisions. space launches. 116 + 117 +==Part 3 is Solvency.== 118 + 119 + 120 +====Thus the plan: Countries should prohibit the production of nuclear power.==== 121 +**Lucas 12** Caroline Lucas ~~an British politician, and since 2 September 2016, Co-Leader of the Green Party of England and Wales~~, 2-17-2012, "Why we must phase out nuclear power," Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/17/phase-out-nuclear-power KAE 122 + 123 +The inherent risk in the use of nuclear energy, as well as the related proliferation of nuclear technologies, can and does have disastrous consequences. The only certain way to eliminate this potentially devastating risk is to phase out nuclear power altogether. Some countries appear to have learnt this lesson. In Germany, the government changed course in the aftermath of Fukushima and decided to go ahead with a previously agreed phase out of nuclear power. Many scenarios now foresee Germany sourcing 100 of its power needs from renewables by 2030. Meanwhile Italian citizens voted against plans to go nuclear with a 90 majority. The same is not yet true in Japan. Although only three out of its 54 nuclear reactors are online and generating power, while the Japanese authorities conduct "stress tests", the government hopes to reopen almost all of these and prolong the working life of a number of its ageing reactors by to up to 60 years. The Japanese public have made their opposition clear however. Opinion polls consistently show a strong majority of the population is now against nuclear power. Local grassroots movements opposing nuclear power have been springing up across Japan. Mayors and governors in fear of losing their power tend to follow the majority of their citizens. 124 + 125 + 126 +==Part 4 is the Underview.== 127 + 128 +====Nuclear power is unsustainable and will result in a catastrophe.==== 129 +**Covino 13** (K: independent journalist, BA in English, nuclear power researcher; "The Most Unsustainable Energy Source on Earth"; 6-11-2013; HubPages; http://hubpages.com/politics/Unsustainable-Nuclear)KAE 130 + 131 +In our technologically developed society, concerns about electricity generation have become one of the central issues up for political debate. With so many sustainable ways to harness the latent energy of nature—wind, hydro, solar, etc.—it is concerning that so many environmentalists are still championing the nuclear cause. Many environmental celebrities, such as George Manbiot in his article "Why Fukushima Made Me Stop Worrying and Love Nuclear Power," seem to ignore the devastating effects that reactor meltdowns have already had around the world. It is not until you research into the real state of the nuclear industry that it becomes clear the public is not being told the whole story. In an interview with Alex Jones, critically acclaimed author and researcher Gar Williams stated, "I think reckless is built into the technology. There is no way…that an engineering plan that would create a nuclear reactor could be considered logically sustainable" (Infowars.com). The fact is that the high radiation output, as well as the tremendous heat produced, starts eating the facilities from the inside: in this sense they are (inadvertently) built to fail. Several experts claim these services are necessary to meet energy demands, but the shocker is that nuclear energy does not produce electricity directly. These facilities are designed to produce immense amounts of heat, turning water to steam that is then harnessed by large turbines. In reality this form of power generation only produces two things, a lot of heat and a lot of radioactive waste. There are plenty of ways to produce heat for steam energy that are much safer—geothermal energy, wind energy, hydroelectric energy, coal, natural gas—some which are more desirable than others. It is interesting to note that among all of the energy industries, there is only one that believes in global warming, and that is the nuclear industry. They argue that global warming can be solved with nuclear energy because it does not produce CO2 gasses; however, this argument falls on its head because CO2 emissions are still generated from building the plant, and extracting and refining the ore that the reactors use. In reality, the only time these facilities aren’t producing CO2 gasses (dismantling them also creates it) is when it is producing radioactive waste. Can this really be called sustainable? On top of the present dangers, the nuclear industry is nowhere near as efficient or profitable as it used to be, but the risks of relying on their facilities grow with every passing day. According to Euronuclear.org, there are a total of 435 nuclear energy installations currently operational around the world. Most of these reactors are thirty-five years old—and in some cases older—despite the fact that their operational lifespan was only supposed to be twenty-five to thirty years. (Nuclear Roulette) It is fairly evident that the nuclear industry is becoming collectively self-destructive, and their decision to keep outdated facilities running is placing the public at large in considerable risk. The meltdowns at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and more recently Fukushima—as well as 50 other significant reactor accidents around the world—show that this form of energy generation has the potential to completely destroy the environment. "Nuclear Roulette," a New York Times Bestseller written by Gar Smith, reports that radiation levels have more than doubled what they were 60 years ago. (Nuclear Roulette) This spike in radiation is not strictly the cause of the nuclear industry, as the incidents at Nagasaki and Hiroshima have contributed pointedly, but the high number of facilities around the world pose a much more immediate threat than nuclear war. One need only look at the dirty history of the nuclear industry to understand that this form of energy creation is, as Gar Smith calls it, "a ticking time bomb" (Nuclear Roulette). Not only are faulty reactors kept running, but nuclear officials have plans to build additional old-design reactors, and keep those already built running in the meantime. It is clear they want to keep the old facilities operational because it’s a way to continue making money. The entire industry seems to be in denial of the fact that one day they are going to have to tear these plants down. This is a rather intimidating prospect, as disposing of the nuclear waste is a much more laborious process than I have time to elaborate on. What is clear without elaboration is that nuclear power poses on the biggest environmental threats to this planet. Unless something is done very soon (and I mean practically immediately), our species could face extinction level threats from the radioactive exposure these plants have built into their design. In Fukushima, three reactors exploded one after the other, and the fourth was significantly damaged to the point of massive leakage. Incidentally, the reactors that blew up in Japan were American made, and were designed and built by the GE Corporation. (Infowars.com) These facilities were inadvertently made to explode, all in the name of generating steam. There are currently 23 Fukushima design reactors in the United States, located at 16 sites in 12 states, a statistic that brings considerable fear about our future. Should a natural disaster similar in scope to the Fukushima incident strike one of these facilities, our planet would be thrown even farther down the radioactive rabbit-hole. However, it is not as easy as shutting the plants down tomorrow morning. The estimated cost of decommissioning all the reactors in the U.S. is ½ billion – 1 billion dollars, and ten years to isolate and dispose of the nuclear waste. (Nuclear Roulette) This is (presumably) what keeps the nuclear industry from taking on the challenge of decommissioning, but it has to happen. My only suggestion for making a change is to call and write your Senator and demand that nuclear power be banned, and the facilities shut down. Nothing short of our best effort will put a lid on this global threat, and it is increasingly clear the industry won’t do it by itself. The politicians in America took an oath to uphold the Constitution and to protect the interests of the American people; to deny citizens the voice they need to fight this dangerous practice is to stand in direct opposition to that oath. Please, help me save the world: call and write your government officials today. 132 + 133 + 134 +====Coal is phasing out – will be non-existent in the next two decades.==== 135 +**Worldwatch 13** (The Worldwatch Institute works to accelerate the transition to a sustainable world that meets human needs; "Clean Energy Poised to Phase Out Coal and Avert Catastrophic Climate Change"; 2013; http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5948)KAE 136 + 137 +Washington, D.C.- New technologies will permit rapid decarbonization of the world energy economy in the next two decades, according to a new report from the Worldwatch Institute. These new energy sources will make it possible to retire hundreds of coal-fired power plants that now provide 40 percent of the world's power by 2030, eliminating up to one-third of global carbon dioxide emissions while creating millions of new jobs. "We no longer need to say ‘in the future' when talking about a low-carbon energy system," says Christopher Flavin, President of Worldwatch and author of the report, Low-Carbon Energy: A Roadmap. "These technologies-unlike carbon-capture facilities-are being deployed now and are poised to make the most carbon-intensive fossil fuels obsolete." Reducing dependence on fossil fuels will not only strike a defiant blow to the climate crisis, it will also act as an agent of recovery for an ailing global economy. Rebuilding the global energy system has the potential to create thousands of new businesses and millions of new jobs, starting immediately. Decarbonizing the energy economy requires several key steps: the accelerated deployment of solar, wind, and biomass power plants; integrating variable power sources with digital smart grids that are more flexible in their ability to balance demand and supply; developing the capacity to store energy economically; and selectively adding a new generation of efficient micro power plants that provide heat as well as reliable electricity when it is needed. The new report provides an overview of the state of renewable energy technologies as well as a roadmap charting their role in the transition to a low-carbon economy: Buildings consume about 40 percent of global energy and emit a comparable share of carbon dioxide emissions. With technologies available today, such as more-efficient lighting and appliances and improved walls and windows, the energy needs of buildings can be reduced by 70 percent or more, with the investment paid for via lower energy bills. 138 + 139 + 140 +====AFF gets RVIs – ==== 141 +analytics - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-05-10 01:26:14.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Berdugo - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lawmag - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +27 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +5 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lake Travis Ehresman Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +SEPTOCT - Pootil 1AC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +St Marks
- Caselist.CitesClass[22]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,82 @@ 1 +====TW: some cards have explicit language of sexual assault ==== 2 + 3 +====Qualified Immunity extends beyond the court room and legal proceedings. It operates silently in investigations, turns its head to damages in the prison cell, and, ultimately, engenders spaces in which the prison industrial complex can take hold. QI cannot be isolated within momentary legal questioning. Instead, it requires interrogation of subjects’ life in greater methods of control in and out of the criminal justice system: from traffic stop, to court room, to prison cell.==== 4 + 5 +===Part 1 is the arrest: === 6 + 7 +====Sandra Bland wasn’t the first or only. When calling to report arrest, gender violence encapsulates the accountability of police officers. Marlaetra Montanez "called the police to report her teenage daughter missing and hours later she was being compelled by the responding officer to have sex with him in her living room."==== 8 + 9 +====The choice in response is also gendered; Police fail to intervene when called on the scene of intimate partner violence; leaving survivors powerless and without legal protection ==== 10 +**Harper ‘90** (Laura S. is a writer for the Cornell Law Review specializing in domestic violence) "Battered Women Suing Police for Failure to Intervene: Viable Legal Avenues After Deshaney v. Winnibago County Department of Social Services" Cornell Law Review Article 4 Volume 75 Issue 6 September 1990 http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3473andcontext=clr KAE 11 + 12 +In the domestic violence context, the viability of a battered woman's section 1983 claim turns on the second element-proving the deprivation of a constitutional right. Although no constitutional right to police protection exists on a general basis, courts have recognized two exceptions.' 6 First, under the due process clause, the state owes a duty to protect an individual's liberty interests when a special relationship exists between that individual and state agents.1 7 Second, under the equal protection clause, the state may not discriminate in providing protection to the public.18 Battered women have used both exceptions, contending that police, through inaction, have violated their rights to due process and equal protection of the laws. 19 The United States Supreme Court has stressed repeatedly, however, that the scope of section 1983 is not so broad as to convert "every tort committed by a state actor into a constitutional violation."'20 A. Due Process Violations in the Domestic Violence Context The due process clause of the fourteenth amendment provides that "~~n~~o State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."' 21 Battered women's substantive due process claims under section 1983 typically allege a liberty deprivation resulting from the failure of police to intervene in domestic assault situations. 22 Courts have acknowledged that an individual's right to liberty may include the "right to personal security" 23 and the "right to be free from physical harm and restraint. '24 In this context, the special relationship doctrine, derived from tort law,25 may trigger the state's affirmative constitutional duty, under the due process clause, to provide protective services. 26 Courts have been inconsistent in their consideration of the factors that comprise special relationships. 27 Specific factors which courts frequently, but not uniformly, consider include: (1) whether the state created or assumed a custodial relationship toward the plaintiff, (2) whether the state was aware of a specific risk of harm to the plaintiff; (3) whether the state affirmatively placed the plaintiff in a position of danger; or (4)whether the state affirmatively committed itself to the protection of the plaintiff.28 By emphasizing the second and fourth factors, a battered woman has argued successfully that a special relationship existed between her and the state by virtue of a court order of protection from abuse and police notification of domestic violence. 29 The special relationship doctrine, however, has not always been helpful to battered women plaintiffs.30 B. Equal Protection Violations in the Domestic Violence Context The equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment requires that "~~n~~o State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." 3' Battered women bringing equal protection claims under section 1983 usually argue that police differentiate between domestic violence calls and nondomestic violence calls. This classification, they contend, results in less protection to domestic violence victims than to nondomestic victims. 32 Therefore, because women typically are the victims in domestic assaults, a police policy using this classification discriminates against women.33 Equal protection analysis of challenged classifications based on gender discrimination involves two legal standards, depending upon the type of classification involved. 34 First, if a classification represents an explicit, purposefully gender-based discriminatory policy, this policy must withstand an intermediate level of scrutiny to pass constitutional muster.3 5 Specifically, the government must show that the challenged policy is substantially related3 6 to an important government objective or interest.37 Second, a policy may contain a classification which is gender-neutral on its face but, as applied and administered, discriminates against women.38 The gender-neutral standard requires that a plaintiff prove a discriminatory intent or purpose for such a policy in order to invoke a court's intermediate scrutiny.39 The Supreme Court, however, has stressed repeatedly that a plaintiff cannot rely solely upon a showing of disproportionate impact to prove discriminatory intent.40 Even so, the Court has not rejected disproportionate impact as irrelevant to finding a discriminatory purpose.41 In this connection, the Court has found that certain circumstantial evidence may support the inference of discriminatory purpose: a policy's historical background,42 extreme disparate impact,43 or the extreme discriminatory effect of administering a facially neutral policy upon a particular class of individuals. 44 Courts typically invoke a gender-neutral standard to police classifications distinguishing between "domestic violence" and "nondomestic violence" situations when battered women claim that such classifications discriminate against women victims. 45 Thus, in order for a battered woman to establish an actionable section 1983 claim based on an equal protection violation, she must proffer the requisite showing of discriminatory intent or purpose.46 13 + 14 +====Discrimination increases harm and creates a culture of indifference towards IPV ==== 15 +**Harper ‘90** (Laura S. is a writer for the Cornell Law Review specializing in domestic violence) "Battered Women Suing Police for Failure to Intervene: Viable Legal Avenues After Deshaney v. Winnibago County Department of Social Services" Cornell Law Review Article 4 Volume 75 Issue 6 September 1990 http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3473andcontext=clr 16 + 17 +Because courts will apply a heightened level of scrutiny 8 9 to classifications based on gender, battered women's chances for recovery are enhanced if they can establish that a police policy classification discriminates against women. Gender-neutral standards' 90 requiring evidence of discriminatory intent will pose unjustly difficult hurdles for plaintiffs if courts remain unwilling to accept evidence of extreme disparate impact on women as sufficient evidence of discriminatory intent. Despite studies showing that women predominate the class of domestic violence victims, 191 and that police are well aware of this,192 courts may find insufficient evidence of discriminatory intent if other police justifications adequately explain challenged policy classifications. For example, police may argue that domestic violence victims typically drop charges or request that their batterers not be arrested.1 93 Consequently, to- improve efficient police resource allocation, police may adopt a policy differentiating between domestic and nondomestic assaults. 94 Courts, police departments, and municipalities should not disregard the statistical fact' 9 5 that affording less protection to domestic violence victims means that women will be adversely affected. Many municipalities have acknowledged this and are revising their policies accordingly.' 9 6 Since it is unlikely that courts will judicially notice explicit gender-based classifications given the neutral labels of domestic violence/nondomestic violence, battered women should be prepared to present evidence of disparate impact and treatment. Courts and juries could infer discriminatory intent against women from police statistics showing that women comprised the majority of domestic assaults, and that domestic assault arrest rates were consistently lower than other assault arrest rates. 97 Evidence of police training methods that discourage arrests in domestic violence cases or rationalize different treatment for domestic violence victims may support statistical discrepancies between domestic and nondomestic categories. 19 8 These forms of evidence might also be proffered to support a Stoneking (policy or custom) or Canton (failure to train) theory of liability.199 Battered women could argue that municipal policymakers' deliberate indifference can be inferred from statistically evident disproportionate harm to battered women as a result of persistent unequal protection by police policies or inadequate police training. 18 + 19 +===Part 2 is behind the bars: === 20 + 21 +====Now in the cell there is continued institutionalized violence. ==== 22 + 23 +====Sexual assault is rampant in US prisons – women are abused with impunity and reports of misconduct are ignored. These actions create a pathology of victimization and violent power dynamics==== 24 +**ACLU 16** American Civil Liberties Union, Not for profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to protecting civil liberties "Words From Prison: Sexual Abuse in Prison," 2016 KAE bracketed for grammar 25 + 26 +In many women's prisons, male corrections officers are allowed to watch the women when they are dressing, showering, or using the toilet, and some guards regularly harass women prisoners. Women also report groping and other sexual abuse by male staff during pat frisks and searches. For victims of prior abuse, this environment further exacerbates their trauma. In Dorothy's prison housing unit, one particular correctional officer began singling her out and asking for sexual favors in exchange for providing her with food or her normal share of personal hygiene products. At first, Dorothy thought he was not serious, but then his threats became real; he started withholding about half of her meals, as well as soap and toilet paper. The imbalance of power between prisoners and guards leads to the use of both direct physical force and indirect force based on the prisoners' total dependence on guards for basic necessities and the guards' ability to withhold privileges. Studies on abuse of women in prison reveal that male correctional officers sexually abuse female prisoners with almost total impunity. ~~One woman~~ did not know whom to tell or what to do because the guard was senior among the prison staff. Other women who had reported sexual harassment or abuse against other officers in the past had been ignored by prison officials, or worse yet, had been labeled troublemakers. Dorothy knew that such a label could affect her good standing while in prison and also her chances at parole. She had heard of guards ~~limit~~ women's visitation rights, ~~handed~~ out rules-infraction tickets, or even ~~put~~ women who spoke out into solitary confinement. So, Dorothy told no one and did nothing, hoping that the guard would eventually leave her alone. Unfortunately, that's not what happened. In 1999, the federal government concluded that abuse by correctional staff occurs in women's prisons, but that the full extent of the problem is unknown because many women prisoners are reluctant to report staff sexual misconduct. One day, the guard found Dorothy alone in the laundry room. He locked the door from the inside, and although Dorothy struggled, he raped her. The guard told her that if she complained, no one would believe her. The sexual assault brought up all of Dorothy's experiences of violence at the hands of her husband. The feelings of despair, worthlessness, and total helplessness washed over her again. Now, more than ever, Dorothy could see no escape. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women found that sexual misconduct by male corrections officers against women prisoners is widespread in United States prisons and constitutes a human rights violation. 27 + 28 +====Established legal standards aren’t sufficient to protect prisoners ==== 29 +**Bader 12 **Women Prisoners Endure Rampant Sexual Violence; Current Laws Not Sufficient Friday, 21 December 2012 00:00 By Eleanor J. Bader http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13280-women-prisoners-endure-rampant-sexual-violence-current-laws-not-sufficient KAE bracketed for grammar 30 + 31 +Then there's the issue of corroboration and whether prison officials will believe incarcerated complainants or side with their own colleagues. Lewis and Vela are dubious that coworkers will turn one another in. "It is clear to us that staff interprets their obligation to report as being triggered only when they observed actual sexual touching," their letter to the commission continues. "They did not believe that seeing an officer give a particular prisoner cigarettes or other gifts, or whispering to a particular prisoner in close proximity for long periods about personal matters, was enough to trigger the duty ~~to report what they saw~~. ~~but~~ the fact is that sexual contact almost always happens in private: If a duty to report is to mean anything, then indicia of an improper relationship must also be reported." Equally glaring, they add, is that PREA does nothing about nonsexual abuse. A.L. was an inmate at New York City's Bayview Correctional Facility - a small, low-security women's prison that has the highest percentage of inmate abuse complaints in the country. Incarcerated from 2006 to 2009, A.L. says that she was routinely ridiculed by staff. "I am a lesbian," she says, "and did not dress as feminine as the guards liked. Some of the officers would harass me real hard, make comments about my loose shirt and pants. They singled me out for torment and were always pushing up on me and the other girls." Worse, she continues, they turned their backs when she was jumped by other prisoners. "I was sitting on the toilet with my pants around my ankles when two inmates kicked down the door. I was not hurt so badly that I needed hospitalization, but I got 15 days for fighting even though there were two of them and one of me." Years later, she confides, she still cannot use public restrooms or close a bathroom door. Whitehorn also reports living with residual injury. "The fact that guards would grab ~~women~~ in inappropriate ways - one would jam his hand into ~~their~~ crotch and squeeze ~~their~~ breasts extremely hard – ~~which~~ has been damaging," she says. Then there's the random drug testing. "You regularly have to give urine samples, and they can ask for them at any time of the day or night. They literally watch you pee," said Whitehorn. She recalls her cellmate in California's Federal Correctional Institution in Dublin being called out for testing and returning to the cell visibly upset. Whitehorn later ascertained that the guards had made her strip and then lift one leg up to pee. "They told her that they wanted to make sure she did not have a vial of clean urine taped to her thigh that she could pour into the toilet," she says. Whitehorn was so outraged that she protested to the unit manager. The inmates later filed a formal complaint, and in the process, learned that dozens of other women in Dublin had been subjected to the same treatment. "They were humiliated," she recalls, "by both what had happened and because they had not protested out of fear of going to the hole or losing the few privileges they had." "This is the issue," said Whitehorn. "You can have a relatively short two-year sentence and still be hurt by it. When I was released and began working, if my boss gave me extra work, no matter how much, I'd just do it and would not speak up or complain." "I'd panic on the street if my girlfriend took my hand," she said. "I'd scream, 'We can't do that!' I had hyper-anxious responses to police sirens and wore clothes that were many sizes too big because I wanted to be covered up and protected." As for PREA, while it may make a dent in curtailing the most egregious sexual abuse, advocates agree that a great deal more needs to be done to address the many issues facing women prisoners. "Power abuse is the root of the problem," Whitehorn concludes, "and until incarcerated women have a way to defend their bodily integrity, prisons will continue to mimic - and exaggerate - the male supremacy of US society." 32 + 33 +====Dehumanized and relegated to a position of social inferiority… the prisoner becomes voiceless as a result – the discussion in the 1AC is key to combating myths about prison life, which makes reform possible. ==== 34 +**Jacobs 04**. Andrea. University of Washington, B.A., cum laude, 2001; J.D., California Western School of Law. "Prison Power Corrupts Absolutely: Exploring the Phenomenon of Prison Guard Brutality and the Need to Develop a System of Accountability." California Western Law Review. KAE 35 + 36 +Although quite often unknown to the American public, inmate abuse is a common problem in prisons and jails across the country. Because it is difficult to penetrate prison walls to produce evidence of abusive practices, and it is rare for a prison guard to defy his fellow officers and speak out against wrongful conduct,' society is generally unaware of how American inmates are handled. An informed public, however, would be disappointed to know that when inmates are mistreated, the possibility of redress is limited and guards are often not held accountable. Whereas inmates in the past could file civil actions in federal district court to seek remedy, a United States Supreme Court decision in 2002 interpreted the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)8 as requiring an inmate alleging abusive treatment to exhaust his administrative remedies in the prison facility before bringing an action in district court.9 ¶ Forcing inmates to file administrative grievances for assault and abuse by corrections officers brings a new set of litigation to the court system. In the aftermath of Porterv. Nussle,0' inmates are filing com- plaints that their prison grievances are not being properly handled, and even worse, are being ignored." This comment will address the real- ity of inmate abuse, how prison culture can transform those with power, and the problem Portercreated in giving the corrections sys- tem complete discretion to assess inmates' claims of excessive force against the institution's own employees. Part II of this comment sets out the factual background and rationale of the Porterdecision. Part III critiques the validation behind passage of the PLRA and discusses incidents of inmate brutality. Finally, Part IV compares the inadequate aspects of grievance procedures in various state prisons and jails to a model grievance process, the Administrative Remedy Program of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. 2 This comment concludes with the suggestion of a program that should be adopted and well-funded in each state to fairly handle inmate grievances and take discretion away from prison guards. ¶ To deny … the difference between punching a prisoner in the face and serving him unappetizing food is to ignore the 'concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and decency' that animate the ¶ Eighth Amendment."13 In Porter the United States Supreme Court had an opportunity to ¶ provide inmates with a voice to protest acts of violence against them before a federal judge. Instead, the Court took a harsh route and denied an exception to the exhaustion of remedies requirement in the PLRA for claims of excessive force, finding no difference between egregious prisoner abuse and generic prison condition complaints.14 Consequently, inmates have been left to struggle within the corrections system. ¶ A. Factual and Procedural Background ¶ On June 15, 1996, corrections officers at the Cheshire Correctional Institution in Connecticut subjected Ronald Nussle to an unprovoked and unjustified beating.' 5 The assault was so severe that Nussle "lost control of his bowels, and ... was warned by the guards that he would be killed if he reported the beating."' 16 ¶ On June 10, 1999, Nussle filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 198317 in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut stating that corrections officers violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. 8 The District ¶ Court dismissed the action due to Nussle's failure to exhaust the prison's administrative remedies 9 under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).2° ¶ Nussle appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which reversed the district court's ruling and held that exhaustion of administrative remedies was not required for prisoner claims of assault or excessive force brought under § 1983.21 The court decided that excessive force was not a "prison condition," for which the grievance process must be exhausted through administrative reme- dies." The Second Circuit found the term "prison conditions" in the language of § 1997e(a) ambiguous2 3 because the PLRA did not clearly define the parameters of what encompassed "prison conditions."24 The court of appeals reasoned that because claims of excessive force were not the type of frivolous suits that the PLRA sought to deter, but instead were "actual violations of prisoners' rights,"25 exhaustion of administrative remedies should not apply.26 ¶ B. Rationale of the United States Supreme Court ¶ Whereas the Second Circuit realized the distinction between seri- ous claims of excessive force and daily prison conditions, the Su- preme Court focused on the need to rid the court system of frivolous claims and excessive inmate litigation. As a result, the Court placed grievances for physical abuse into the same category as general prison complaints. ¶ The United States Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit decision in Porter v. Nussle, holding that the "exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve gen- eral circumstances or particular episodes, and ...allege excessive force or some other wrong.'"27 The Court reasoned that § 1997e(a) ac- tions with respect to "prison conditions" were challenges against conditions of confinement, and that included complaints of excessive ¶ force.28 The Court stressed that the important policy interests in ap- plying the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies to pris- oner litigation were: (1) to "afford corrections officials time and op- portunity to address complaints ...within the corrections system before allowing the initiation of a federal case" 29 and (2) the more dominant concern, to "filter out ...frivolous claims. ' 30 It appears that the Supreme Court did not take into account our troubled prison sys- tem, nor did the Court foresee that inmate litigation regarding unfair and inconsistent administrative remedies would continue to burden federal courts. Eliminating judicial discretion and placing it in the hands of correctional officers allows misconduct to go unreported and unpunished when guards wield their power in improper ways by creating officer allegiances that stifle accountability.3 It is difficult for those behind prison bars to get society to listen to them and, even more difficult, to get them to have sympathy. This becomes a more onerous task when prison life is either exaggerated or downplayed to the extent the public is misinformed. In passing the PLRA, Congress did not accurately represent prisoner litigation and scarcely mentioned the problem of inmate abuse, thus implying its insignificance. The problem is not created because those who become prison guards are bad people. In fact, those who mistreat inmates de- moralize the corrections officers who perform their "difficult job with diligence and professionalism. ' 32 The problem exists because there is a negative facet in the human mind that can act out in harmful ways when given power and control over others. The corrections system must recognize and acknowledge the potential for this problem and discipline accordingly, instead of protecting the wrongdoers stemming from the "us versus them" mentality that tends to exist between prison guards and inmates. ¶ "Some believe that this legislation which has a far-reaching ef- fect on prison conditions and prisoners' rights deserved to have been the subject of significant debate. It was not."33 ¶ The Senators supporting passage of the PLRA painted a picture of inmate litigation as entirely frivolous, reporting exaggerated examples of prisoner claims such as being served chunky peanut butter instead of creamy, not being invited to a pizza party, and insufficient storage locker space, to name a few.14 One reason for overstating prison com- plaints could be because the goal of the PLRA was to limit prisoner lawsuits and to deter federal courts from "micromanaging America's prisons."35 What emerged from the congressional debates was a sentiment that all inmate litigation is inherently trivial, and few spoke out on behalf of the many meritorious prisoner claims of excessive force.36 ¶ Although Senators spoke harshly against the discretion given to federal judges,37 the underlying purpose of the PLRA was to reduce the number of petitions filed by inmates claiming civil rights viola- tions, petitions that clog the court docket and cost the judicial system tremendous amounts of money.38 Congressional proponents of the PLRA stressed their point through statistics, showing a vast increase in the number of lawsuits filed by inmates, increasing from "6,606 in 1975 to 39,065 in 1994."39 These statistics, however, were not taken in the proper context and thus swayed others into believing the sole reason for the increase in litigation was litigious inmates bringing meritless claims. It was quite unfair for Congress to blame the in- crease in lawsuits on idle prisoners when in actuality it was primarily attributable to the increase in the prison population.'n In fact, between 1980 and 1995, the rate at which state inmates filed civil rights claims ¶ was stable, even with the prison population increasing more than threefold.4 Moreover, it is only a natural effect for escalation in the nation's prison population to cause an increase in prisoner litigation.4 2 ¶ Congress was mistaken to strongly intimate that the federal courts monitor only petty prisoner complaints. In fact, a 1995 Bureau of Jus- tice Statistics report indicated that physical security was the most fre- quently cited issue in civil rights petitions filed by inmates. 3 ¶ Congress maintained that the PLRA was intended to "help restore balance to prison conditions litigation and . . . ensure that federal court orders would be limited to remedying actual violations of pris- ¶ oners' rights."' But the exhaustion of remedies requirement prohibits federal courts from hearing any claim unless the inmate exhausts all administrative remedies within the correctional institution. To fulfill its objective of remedying actual violations, Congress should have created an excessive force exception to § 1997e(a) instead of a "broad exhaustion requirement to ensnare ' 45 all forms of inmate grievances.4 6 In essence, Congress and the Supreme Court have blocked inmates' access to federal court. This was done in haste47 and was done with- out explaining the statistics or adequately representing actual viola- tions against prisoners in the form of abuse.48 If Congress plans on concealing the harsh realities of inmate life and the Supreme Court defers to their judgment, it becomes difficult for society to appreciate the problems of abuse, and that diminishes the chance for change. 37 + 38 +===Part 3 is in court: === 39 + 40 +====Qualified immunity protects officers who failed to protect or adequately address survivors in the cases of Intimate partner violence==== 41 +**Farber 08 **2008 (7) AELE Mo. L. J. 101 Civil Liability Law Section – July, 2008 Civil Liability and Domestic Violence Calls – Part Three http://www.aele.org/law/2008LRJUL/2008-7MLJ101.pdf p. 108 Bernard J. Farber Civil Liability Law Editor KAE 42 + 43 +Also of interest is Shipp v. McMahon, ~~#98-31317, 234 F.3d 907 (5th Cir. 2000), in which a federal appeals court set forth a legal test for an equal protection claim based on unequal protection given to victims of domestic violence, while holding that sheriffs and deputies were entitled to qualified immunity from liability for failure to prevent husband's abduction, rape, and shooting of his estranged wife, since the law was not previously "clearly established" on the subject. The court found that a possible alternate ground for liability, however, might be based on ill will towards the victim as a "class of one." Same-sex couples, including live-in domestic partners or, in several states now, spouses, are sometimes also involved in domestic disputes, and there have been claims in a number of cases that law enforcement personnel engaged in sexual orientation discrimination in responding to domestic violence calls by gay or lesbian persons. In Price-Cornelison v. Brooks, No. 05-6140, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 9628, 524 F.3d 1103, (10th Cir.), the court ruled that an undersheriff was entitled to qualified immunity on an equal protection claim asserted by a lesbian who obtained an emergency protective order based on alleged domestic violence by her estranged girlfriend, but not on claims that he refused to enforce a permanent protective 108 order that she subsequently obtained. The emergency order allowed the girlfriend to access the home for a period of time to retrieve some of her property, while the permanent order barred her from the premises altogether. The plaintiff claimed that she was provided with a lesser degree of protection than that provided to heterosexual victims of domestic violence. The court also allowed a Fourth Amendment claim to proceed on the basis that the undersheriff told the plaintiff not to return to her home while her girlfriend was present, and that he would arrest her if she did, which allegedly facilitated the girlfriend's seizure of some of the plaintiff's property from the premises. 44 + 45 +====Qualified immunity creates unnecessary barriers for accountability of police officials and prison administrators in the context of sexual assault; setting precedents to prevent curtailed abuse ==== 46 +**Bell et all 99** 1999 Yale Law and Policy Review Article 6 Rape and Sexual Misconduct in the Prison System: Analyzing America's Most "Open" Secret Cheryl Bell Martha Coven John P. Cronan Christian A. Garza Janet Guggemos http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1385andcontext=ylpr p. 213 KAE bracketed for grammar 47 + 48 +In Carrigan v. Delaware, even when an official was aware of incidents of sexual harassment within his prison, that awareness was not sufficient to constitute "deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm." The rationale that the court adopted was that because this was the first rape that the specific plaintiff had brought to the attention of the official, there was "no display of deliberate indifference." Therefore, as interpreted by the circuit courts, Farmer ~~have~~ significantly limited the circumstances in which judges can hold prison officials accountable. The doctrine of qualified immunity also limits the liability of prison administrators. Qualified immunity balances the constitutional rights of inmates against a reasonable deference to prison administrators’ policy determinations within their particular facilities. In Carrigan, the court ruled that the defendants enjoyed qualified immunity under the Harlow-Anderson formula. Under Harlow-Anderson, defendants have qualified immunity unless the plaintiffs: 1) state a claim that their constitutional rights have been violated; 2) demonstrate that the rights and law at issue are clearly established; and 3) show that a reasonably competent official should have known that his or her conduct was unlawful. The Carrigan court ruled that the administrator was entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established in the area of sexual assault by a prison guard, rape counseling, training policies, or procedures the prison officials must follow to avoid incidents. Consistent with this holding, plaintiffs must further prove that the law-making defendant’s conduct unconstitutional is clearly established, thereby increasing the difficulty of holding officials responsible. 49 + 50 +====Qualified immunity makes it impossible for victims to receive redress==== 51 +**Harper ‘90** (Laura S. is a writer for the Cornell Law Review specializing in domestic violence) "Battered Women Suing Police for Failure to Intervene: Viable Legal Avenues After Deshaney v. Winnibago County Department of Social Services" Cornell Law Review Article 4 Volume 75 Issue 6 September 1990 http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3473andcontext=clr KAE 52 + 53 +Should a battered woman plaintiff proffer sufficient evidence of an equal protection or due process violation, municipal police officers can still assert a qualified immunity defense.47 Under the qualified immunity doctrine, state officers performing discretionary functions48 are immune from lawsuits for damages provided their conduct does not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." 49 A municipality itself, however, cannot invoke the qualified immunity defense. 50 Thus, courts have allowed suits involving an unconstitutional policy or custom to proceed against a city even when qualified immunity shields the individual police officers who executed the challenged policy. 51 Because qualified immunity entitles an officer to "immunity from suit," a defendant-officer must assert the defense on a motion for summary judgment.52 If a plaintiff proffers evidence creating a genuine and material issue of fact,53 this defense is lost and the case proceeds to trial.54 Courts will grant qualified immunity "if reasonable officials in the defendants' position at the relevant time could have believed, in light of clearly established law, that their conduct comported with established legal principles." 55 Based on this objective test, an officer's entitlement to qualified immunity depends on the clarity of the law as it existed when a defendant-officer acted or failed to act.56 "IT~~he contours of the ~~constitutional~~ right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates the law."' 57 Section 1983 litigation involving battered women represents an evolving area of law in which the Supreme Court has not ruled, lower courts have been inconsistent, and many court opinions have either gone unpublished or cases have been dismissed due to settlements between the parties.58 Thus, police officers can argue that the law was not "clearly established" as an authoritative guide to their conduct in responding to domestic violence situations. 59 The Third Circuit applied the qualified immunity doctrine to a case in which the mother and children of a battered woman decedent brought an equal protection claim under section 1983 against police officers who failed to protect the decedent.60 The court explained the rationale for the qualified immunity defense as 46a compromise between the conflicting concerns of permitting the recovery of damages for vindication of constitutional rights caused by the abuse of public office and permitting government officers to perform discretionary functions without fear of harassing litigation." 61 The court, after reviewing general qualified immunity doctrine, enunciated the following standard for battered women's equal protection claims: ~~A~~ police officer loses a qualified immunity to a claim that a facially neutral policy is executed in a discriminatory manner only if a reasonable police officer would know that the policy has a discriminatory impact on women, that bias against women was a motivating factor behind the adoption of the policy, and that there is no important public interest served by the adoption of the policy.62 This standard merely restates the elements of a gender-neutral equal protection claim. 63 Regarding the intent element, a police officer can argue that a reasonable officer in his position would not know that the originators of the policy were biased against women, or that this bias was a reason for adopting the police policy. Thus, the Third Circuit standard exemplifies the combined effect of the qualified immunity doctrine and a gender-neutral equal protection standard-a powerftl defense for police officers, and a formidable hurdle for battered women seeking redress for the deprivation of their constitutional rights. 54 + 55 +===Part 4 is the resistance (?):=== 56 + 57 +====Thus, the advocacy is that the United States federal government should limit qualified immunity for police officers by removing the clearly established standard. ==== 58 + 59 +====Reform is needed to create a stable application of qualified immunity – legal standards advocate for the plan. Subjective legal standards are always reinstated as racist ones which actively creates a need for solvency. ==== 60 +**Wright 15 **Want to Fight Police Misconduct? Reform Qualified Immunity By SAM WRIGHT 26 Comments / Nov 3, 2015 at 2:05 PM http://abovethelaw.com/2015/11/want-to-fight-police-misconduct-reform-qualified-immunity/KAE 61 + 62 +Instead, police officers have recourse to the broad protections of the judicially established doctrine of qualified immunity. Under this doctrine, state actors are protected from suit even if they’ve violated the law by, say, using excessive force, or performing an unwarranted body cavity search — as long as their violation was not one of "clearly established law of which a reasonable officer would be aware." In other words, if there’s not already a case where a court has held that an officer’s identical or near-identical conduct rose to the level of a constitutional violation, there’s a good chance that even an obviously malfeasant officer will avoid liability — will avoid accountability. To bring about true accountability and change police behavior, this needs to change. And change should begin with an act of Congress rolling back qualified immunity. Removing the "clearly established" element of qualified immunity would be a good start — after all, shouldn’t it be enough to deviate from a basic standard of care, to engage in conduct that a reasonable officer would know is illegal, without having to show that that conduct’s illegality has already been clearly established in the courts? That’s just a start. There are plenty of other reforms that could open up civil rights lawsuits and help ensure police accountability for bad conduct. Two posts (one, two) at Balkinization by City University of New York professor Lynda Dodd provide a good overview. Campaign Zero should consider adding civil rights litigation reform to its platform, our policymakers should consider making civil rights litigation more robust, and, if we want to see justice done, we should push to make it happen. 63 + 64 +====Accountability causes a cultural shift away from abusive prison practices that make violence inevitable. ==== 65 +**Rothenberg 15** David, Associate Vice President of the Hope Society. "You can judge a society by how it treats its people in its prisons" Fortune Society. 3/9/15 KAE 66 + 67 +Frederick Douglass — the social reformer, orator, and former slave — once said, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." In no place is this truer today than in our jails and prisons. We have given birth to a system where jail/prison guards have absolute power, power to abuse jail/prison residents with almost complete impunity. In the past few weeks, the New York Times reported on patterns of abuse that take place on Rikers Island and in Attica, a New York state prison. The Department of Justice issued a scathing report on the "deep-seated culture of violence" against adolescents on Rikers. And U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara stated unequivocally that, "for adolescent inmates, Rikers Island is broken." I commend the New York Times and the DOJ for their reporting. However, they didn’t discover nor uncover brutality of which we weren’t aware. Indeed abuse in these institutions has been rampant for eons. It just hasn’t been important enough to become front-page news. I was there. I spent 15 years inside, more than 11 of them in maximum-security prisons. I recall seeing incidents of violence exacted against individuals by guards, and I heard about it from victims, witnesses, and through the grapevine, which included officers and civilians. I recall a time when I was on Rikers in the "bing" (solitary confinement). The guy in the cell next to me had an argument with an officer. They slung verbal insults at one another before the officer capitulated and walked off. In the wee hours of the morning, I was awakened by the screams of my neighbor as guards were beating him–almost certainly for the earlier verbal exchange. The next day it was business as usual. My neighbor didn’t even go to the infirmary, although he confessed to having been beaten pretty severely. When I was transferred upstate, the saga of violence continued. It was not uncommon for an individual to be handcuffed and kicked down a flight of stairs, have his head rammed into a wall, or to be beaten with batons until bones were broken. I recall being in a prison near Syracuse where the winters are brutally cold. On multiple occasions, a few guards would open the windows and leave them open for hours because someone had not complied with an order, a radio was blasting, guys were talking too loud, or someone had cursed at an officer. In a prison near the Canadian border, in a unit where people were housed in transit, guards would not only open the windows, they would sometimes secure a hose and spray individuals with cold water. The violence wasn’t always physical. I happened to be in the prison yard when fights erupted. Several times the officer in the tower responded by ordering everyone to the ground. When people didn’t hastily hit the deck, the guard would fire shots into the ground near the incident or over the heads of the guys fighting even though there might be dozens of people in the vicinity. I remember also seeing a guy, who clearly suffered from mental illness, strike a female guard in the face. He was swiftly subdued and transferred to the box. My immediate thought was that he would be beaten to a bloody pulp. Indeed, the spiel ordinarily given to people being processed in reception is that, if you put your hands on a guard, you would be made to pay for it dearly. If we know that this abuse occurs, why do we tolerate it? Much of it has to do with the perception of the people in these facilities. They are "criminals," "cons," and "prisoners." Just like the U.S. did with Blacks during slavery, these individuals have been dehumanized. And they have limited power or recourse to change the behavior of their handlers. A huge part of the problem is that the system perpetuates itself. There is little scrutiny of what transpires inside prison. When abuse happens, what is an incarcerated person to do? Grievance programs are incapable of addressing these issues; supervisors often don’t care or will not reprimand their officers for fear they will be perceived as coddling to "inmates," and other staff simply turn a blind eye because it’s clearly not in their interest to report abuse. Although these callous acts of violence are usually carried out by a select few, even those who don’t condone the violence are powerless to stop it. Moreover, despite evidence of unprovoked patterns of abuse and systemic violence perpetrated against people in prison, the unions that represent guards always insist that inmates are violent and that guards employ only the amount of force that is necessary to quell a situation. There is talk about addressing the violence by installing cameras. Cameras can make a difference, but they are no panacea. Cameras can be turned off or manipulated. If guards want to beat a person, they can simply take him to a place where there are no cameras. Technology can improve the human condition, videos can shock the conscience, but the violence will persist until the culture changes. Simply put, it has become acceptable to beat or brutalize people in jails and prisons in the name of maintaining order. The proof is in the pudding — guards are rarely ever disciplined for acts of violence, it is very rare that they are fired, and they are almost never prosecuted for these actions. And if a case is prosecuted, the outcome confirms the contradictions in our society. The most recent example is the Attica case. Notwithstanding the evidence of guilt against the three officers, they were allowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, retire, and keep their pensions. They had raised thousands of dollars and hired high-powered defense attorneys. The savage beating was deemed appropriate, a fair response for someone working with "the lowest of the low." Over the past few decades, Americans have mounted campaigns against violence. As a society, we want people to go about their daily lives without fear of being assaulted or abused. We train parents not to abuse their children. People are urged not to mistreat their pets. A rich and hugely popular football star was sent to prison for dog fighting; he was put to shame for his crime. We care about children, we adore our pets, but we care very little about "criminals," even if they haven’t been convicted of a crime. It is a crime to physically assault someone, especially to the point of breaking bones, knocking out teeth, and causing permanent physical and/or psychological damage, unless the perpetrator does so wearing the uniform of an officer. Unless there is a culture change and laws start to apply to guards as much as they do to the people for whom they are there to provide care, custody and control, then nothing will change. There needs to be real accountability and oversight. When violence is pervasive, it acts like a disease. Like any disease, you can treat the symptoms, but the infection will continue to fester. A nip here, a tuck there will not do it. Removal of a few cancer cells will not eradicate the disease. As with any epidemic, you must treat the underlying cause of the disease. This raises a fundamental question about the system — can it be reformed? Then again, how much reform is needed for us to have jails/prisons where people are treated humanely as a matter of law? I have never considered myself a prison abolitionist, but there is a compelling argument to abolish prisons as they currently exist. There are prisons in other countries where the incarcerated population retains its dignity and humanity. Some people need to be imprisoned, but the law should protect them too. 68 + 69 +====Gendered violence has historically been depoliticized and privatized – as ALWAYS external to normative impact calculus both inside and outside of debate – Thus you must prioritize the slow violence that has been erased in conversations about "high" politics ==== 70 +**Scheper-Hughes and Bourgois ‘**4 Prof of Anthropology @ Cal-Berkely; Prof of Anthropology @ UPenn)(Nancy and Philippe, Introduction: Making Sense of Violence, in Violence in War and Peace, pg. 19-22 KAE 71 + 72 +This large and at first sight "messy" Part VII is central to this antholgy’s thesis. It encompasses everything from the routinized, bureaucratized, and utterly banal violence of children dying of hunger and maternal despair in Northeast Brazil (Scheper-Hughes, Chapter 33) to elderly African Americans dying of heat stroke in Mayor Daly’s version of US apartheid in Chicago’s South Side (Klinenberg, Chapter 38) to the racialized class hatred expressed by British Victorians in their olfactory disgust of the "smelly" working classes (Orwell, Chapter 36). In these readings violence is located in the symbolic and social structures that overdetermine and allow the criminalized drug addictions, interpersonal bloodshed, and racially patterned incarcerations that characterize the US "inner city" to be normalized (Bourgois, Chapter 37 and Wacquant, Chapter 39). Violence also takes the form of class, racial, political self-hatred and adolescent self-destruction (Quesada, Chapter 35), as well as of useless (i.e. preventable), rawly embodied physical suffering, and death (Farmer, Chapter 34). Absolutely central to our approach is a blurring of categories and distinctions between wartime and peacetime violence. Close attention to the "little" violences produced in the structures, habituses, and mentalites of everyday life shifts our attention to pathologies of class, race, and gender inequalities. More important, it interrupts the voyeuristic tendencies of "violence studies" that risk publicly humiliating the powerless who are often forced into complicity with social and individual pathologies of power because suffering is often a solvent of human integrity and dignity. Thus, in this anthology we are positing a violence continuum comprised of a multitude of "small wars and invisible genocides" (see also Scheper- Hughes 1996; 1997; 2000b) conducted in the normative social spaces of public schools, clinics, emergency rooms, hospital wards, nursing homes, courtrooms, public registry offices, prisons, detention centers, and public morgues. The violence continuum also refers to the ease with which humans are capable of reducing the socially vulnerable into expendable nonpersons and assuming the license - even the duty - to kill, maim, or soul-murder. We realize that in referring to a violence and a genocide continuum we are flying in the face of a tradition of genocide studies that argues for the absolute uniqueness of the Jewish Holocaust and for vigilance with respect to restricted purist use of the term genocide itself (see Kuper 1985; Chaulk 1999; Fein 1990; Chorbajian 1999). But we hold an opposing and alternative view that, to the contrary, it is absolutely necessary to make just such existential leaps in purposefully linking violent acts in normal times to those of abnormal times. Hence the title of our volume: Violence in War and in Peace. If (as we concede) there is a moral risk in overextending the concept of "genocide" into spaces and corners of everyday life where we might not ordinarily think to find it (and there is), an even greater risk lies in failing to sensitize ourselves, in misrecognizing protogenocidal practices and sentiments daily enacted as normative behavior by "ordinary" good-enough citizens. Peacetime crimes, such as prison construction sold as economic development to impoverished communities in the mountains and deserts of California, or the evolution of the criminal industrial complex into the latest peculiar institution for managing race relations in the United States (Waquant, Chapter 39 constitute the "small wars and invisible genocides" to which we refer. This applies to African American and Latino youth mortality statistics in Oakland, California, Baltimore, Washington DC, and New York City. These are "invisible" genocides not because they are secreted away or hidden from view, but quite the opposite. As Wittgenstein observed, the things that are hardest to perceive are those which are right before our eyes and therefore taken for granted. In this regard, Bourdieu’s partial and unfinished theory of violence (see Chapters 32 and 42) as well as his concept of misrecognition is crucial to our task. By including the normative everyday forms of violence hidden in the minutiae of "normal" social practices - in the architecture of homes, in gender relations, in communal work, in the exchange of gifts, and so forth - Bourdieu forces us to reconsider the broader meanings and status of violence, especially the links between the violence of everyday life and explicit political terror and state repression, Similarly, Basaglia’s notion of "peacetime crimes" - crimini di pace - imagines a direct relationship between wartime and peacetime violence. Peacetime crimes suggests the possibility that war crimes are merely ordinary, everyday crimes of public consent applied systematically and dramatically in the extreme context of war. Consider the parallel uses of rape during peacetime and wartime, or the family resemblances between the legalized violence of US immigration and naturalization border raids on "illegal aliens" versus the US government- engineered genocide in 1938, known as the Cherokee "Trail of Tears." Peacetime crimes suggests that everyday forms of state violence make a certain kind of domestic peace possible. Internal "stability" is purchased with the currency of peacetime crimes, many of which take the form of professionally applied "strangle-holds." Everyday forms of state violence during peacetime make a certain kind of domestic "peace" possible. It is an easy-to-identify peacetime crime that is usually maintained as a public secret by the government and by a scared or apathetic populace. Most subtly, but no less politically or structurally, the phenomenal growth in the United States of a new military, postindustrial prison industrial complex has taken place in the absence of broad-based opposition, let alone collective acts of civil disobedience. The public consensus is based primarily on a new mobilization of an old fear of the mob, the mugger, the rapist, the Black man, the undeserving poor. How many public executions of mentally deficient prisoners in the United States are needed to make life feel more secure for the affluent? What can it possibly mean when incarceration becomes the "normative" socializing experience for ethnic minority youth in a society, i.e., over 33 percent of young African American men (Prison Watch 2002). In the end it is essential that we recognize the existence of a genocidal capacity among otherwise good-enough humans and that we need to exercise a defensive hypervigilance to the less dramatic, permitted, and even rewarded everyday acts of violence that render participation in genocidal acts and policies possible (under adverse political or economic conditions), perhaps more easily than we would like to recognize. Under the violence continuum we include, therefore, all expressions of radical social exclusion, dehumanization, depersonalization, pseudospeciation, and reification which normalize atrocious behavior and violence toward others. A constant self-mobilization for alarm, a state of constant hyperarousal is, perhaps, a reasonable response to Benjamin’s view of late modern history as a chronic "state of emergency" (Taussig, Chapter 31). We are trying to recover here the classic anagogic thinking that enabled Erving Goffman, Jules Henry, C. Wright Mills, and Franco Basaglia among other mid-twentieth-century radically critical thinkers, to perceive the symbolic and structural relations, i.e., between inmates and patients, between concentration camps, prisons, mental hospitals, nursing homes, and other "total institutions." Making that decisive move to recognize the continuum of violence allows us to see the capacity and the willingness - if not enthusiasm - of ordinary people, the practical technicians of the social consensus, to enforce genocidal-like crimes against categories of rubbish people. There is no primary impulse out of which mass violence and genocide are born, it is ingrained in the common sense of everyday social life. The mad, the differently abled, the mentally vulnerable have often fallen into this category of the unworthy living, as have the very old and infirm, the sick-poor, and, of course, the despised racial, religious, sexual, and ethnic groups of the moment. Erik Erikson referred to "pseudo- speciation" as the human tendency to classify some individuals or social groups as less than fully human - a prerequisite to genocide and one that is carefully honed during the unremark- able peacetimes that precede the sudden, "seemingly unintelligible" outbreaks of mass violence. Collective denial and misrecognition are prerequisites for mass violence and genocide. But so are formal bureaucratic structures and professional roles. The practical technicians of everyday violence in the backlands of Northeast Brazil (Scheper-Hughes, Chapter 33), for example, include the clinic doctors who prescribe powerful tranquilizers to fretful and frightfully hungry babies, the Catholic priests who celebrate the death of "angel-babies," and the municipal bureaucrats who dispense free baby coffins but no food to hungry families. Everyday violence encompasses the implicit, legitimate, and routinized forms of violence inherent in particular social, economic, and political formations. It is close to what Bourdieu (1977, 1996) means by "symbolic violence," the violence that is often "nus-recognized" for something else, usually something good. Everyday violence is similar to what Taussig (1989) calls "terror as usual." All these terms are meant to reveal a public secret - the hidden links between violence in war and violence in peace, and between war crimes and "peace-time crimes." Bourdieu (1977) finds domination and violence in the least likely places - in courtship and marriage, in the exchange of gifts, in systems of classification, in style, art, and culinary taste- the various uses of culture. Violence, Bourdieu insists, is everywhere in social practice. It is misrecognized because its very everydayness and its familiarity render it invisible. Lacan identifies "rneconnaissance" as the prerequisite of the social. The exploitation of bachelor sons, robbing them of autonomy, independence, and progeny, within the structures of family farming in the European countryside that Bourdieu escaped is a case in point (Bourdieu, Chapter 42; see also Scheper-Hughes, 2000b; Favret-Saada, 1989). Following Gramsci, Foucault, Sartre, Arendt, and other modern theorists of power-violence, Bourdieu treats direct aggression and physical violence as a crude, uneconomical mode of domination; it is less efficient and, according to Arendt (1969), it is certainly less legitimate. While power and symbolic domination are not to be equated with violence - and Arendt argues persuasively that violence is to be understood as a failure of power - violence, as we are presenting it here, is more than simply the expression of illegitimate physical force against a person or group of persons. Rather, we need to understand violence as encompassing all forms of "controlling processes" (Nader 1997b) that assault basic human freedoms and individual or collective survival. Our task is to recognize these gray zones of violence which are, by definition, not obvious. Once again, the point of bringing into the discourses on genocide everyday, normative experiences of reification, depersonalization, institutional confinement, and acceptable death is to help answer the question: What makes mass violence and genocide possible? In this volume we are suggesting that mass violence is part of a continuum, and that it is socially incremental and often experienced by perpetrators, collaborators, bystanders - and even by victims themselves - as expected, routine, even justified. The preparations for mass killing can be found in social sentiments and institutions from the family, to schools, churches, hospitals, and the military. They harbor the early "warning signs" (Charney 1991), the "priming" (as Hinton, ed., 2002 calls it), or the "genocidal continuum" (as we call it) that push social consensus toward devaluing certain forms of human life and lifeways from the refusal of social support and humane care to vulnerable "social parasites" (the nursing home elderly, "welfare queens," undocumented immigrants, drug addicts) to the militarization of everyday life (super-maximum-security prisons, capital punishment; the technologies of heightened personal security, including the house gun and gated communities; and reversed feelings of victimization) 73 + 74 +====The prison system reproduces itself through educational spaces like debate; resisting further prison industrialization is a prior question to resolving other standpoints of oppression. Thus, the role of the ballot is to validate a movement to deconstruct the prison industrial complex. ==== 75 +**Rodriguez 10** Professor and Chair of Ethnic Studies @ UC Riverside Dylan Rodríguez, "The Disorientation of the Teaching Act: Abolition as Pedagogical Position," Radical Teacher, Number 88 (Summer 2010) The (Pedagogical) Necessity of the Impossible. Pg 12-17 KAE 76 + 77 +A compulsory deferral of abolitionist pedagogical possibilities composes the largely unaddressed precedent of teaching in the current historical period. It is this deferral—generally unacknowledged and largely presumed—that both undermines the emergence of an abolitionist pedagogical praxis and illuminates abolitionism’s necessity as a dynamic practice of social transformation, over and against liberal and progressive appropriations of "critical/ radical pedagogy." Contrary to the thinly disguised ideological Alinskyism that contemporary liberal, progressive, critical, and "radical" teaching generally and tacitly assumes in relation to the prison regime, what is usually required, and what usually works as a strategy for teaching against the carceral common sense, is a pedagogical approach that asks the unaskable, posits the necessity of the impossible, and embraces the creative danger inherent in liberationist futures. About a decade of teaching a variety of courses at the undergraduate and graduate levels at one of the most demographically diverse research universities in the United States (the University of California, Riverside) has allowed me the opportunity to experiment with the curricular content, assignment form, pedagogical mode, and conceptual organization of coursework that directly or tangentially addresses the formation of the U.S. prison regime and prison industrial complex. Students are consistently (and often unanimously) eager to locate their studies within an abolitionist genealogy—often understanding their work as potentially connected to a living his- tory of radical social movements and epistemological-political revolt—and tend to embrace the high academic demands and rigor of these courses with far less resistance and ambivalence than in many of my other Ethnic Studies courses. Here are some immediate analytical and scholarly tools that form a basic pedagogical apparatus for productively exploding the generalized common sense that creates and surrounds the U.S. prison regime. In fact, it is crucial for teachers and students to collectively understand that it is precisely the circulation and concrete enactment of this common sense that makes it central to the prison regime, not simply an ideological "supplement" of it. Put differently, many students and teachers have a tendency to presume that the cultural symbols and popular discourses that signify and give common sense meaning to prisons and policing are external to the prison regime, as if these symbols and discourses (produced through mass media, state spokespersons and elected officials, right-wing think tanks, video games, television crime dramas, etc.) simply amount to "bad" or "deceptive" propaganda that conspiratorially hide some essential "truth" about prisons that can be uncovered. is is a seductive and self-explanatory, but far too simplistic, way of understanding how the prison regime thrives. What we require, instead, is a sustained analytical discussion that considers how multiple layers of knowledge—including common sense and its different cultural forms—are constantly producing a "lived truth" of policing and prisons that has nothing at all to do with an essential, objective truth. Rather, this fabricated, lived truth forms the tem- plate of everyday life through which we come to believe that we more or less understand and "know" the prison and policing apparatus, and which dynamically produces our consent and/or surrender to its epochal oppressive violence. As a pedagogical tool, this framework compels students and teachers to examine how deeply engaged they are in the violent common sense of the prison and the racist state. Who is left for dead in the com- mon discourse of crime, "innocence," and "guilt"? How has the mundane institutionalized violence of the racist state become so normalized as to be generally beyond comment? What has made the prison and policing apparatus in its current form appear to be so permanent, necessary, and immovable within the common sense of social change and historical transformation? In this sense, teachers and students can attempt to concretely understand how they are a dynamic part of the prison regime’s production and reproduction— and thus how they might also be part of its abolition through the work of building and teaching a radical and liberatory common sense (this is political work that any- one can do, ideally as part of a community of social movement). Additionally, the abolitionist teacher can prioritize a rigorous—and vigorous— critique of the endemic complicities of liberal/progressive reformism to the transformation, expansion, and ultimate reproduction of racist state violence and (proto)genocide; this entails a radical critique of everything from the sociopolitical legacies of "civil rights" and the oppressive capacities of "human rights" to the racist state’s direct assimilation of 1970s-era "prison reform" agendas into the blue- prints for massive prison expansion discussed above.17 e abolitionist teacher must be willing to occupy the di cult and often uncomfortable position of political leadership in the classroom. To some, this reads as a direct violation of Freirian conceptions of critical pedagogy, but I would argue that it is really an elaboration and amplification of the revolutionary spirit at the heart of Freire’s entire lifework. at is, how can a teacher expect her/ his students to undertake the courageous and di cult work of inhabiting an abolitionist positionality—even if only as an "academic" exercise—unless the teacher herself/himself embodies, performs, and oozes that very same political desire? In fact, it often seems that doing the latter is enough to compel many students (at least momentarily) to become intimate and familiar with the allegedly impossible. Finally, the horizon of the possible is only constrained by one’s pedagogical willingness to locate a particular political struggle (here, prison abolition) within the long and living history of liberation movements. In this context, "prison abolition" can be understood as one important strain within a continuously unfurling fabric of liberationist political horizons, in which the imagination of the possible and the practical is shaped but not limited by the specific material and institutional conditions within which one lives. It is useful to continually ask: on whose shoulders does one sit, when undertaking the audacious identifications and political practices endemic to an abolitionist pedagogy? Here is something profoundly indelible and emboldening in realizing that one’s "own" political struggle is deeply connected to a vibrant, robust, creative, and beautiful legacy of collective imagination and creative social labor (and of course, there are crucial ways of comprehending historical liberation struggles in all their forms, from guerilla warfare to dance). While I do not expect to arrive at a wholly satisfactory pedagogical endpoint anytime soon, and am therefore hesitant to o er prescriptive examples of "how to teach" within an abolitionist framework, I also believe that rigorous experimentation and creative pedagogical radicalism is the very soul of this praxis. ere is, in the end, no teaching formula or pedagogical system that nally ful lls the abolitionist social vision, there is only a political desire that understands the immediacy of struggling for human liberation from precisely those forms of systemic violence and institutionalized dehumanization that are most culturally and politically sanctioned, valorized, and taken for granted within one’s own pedagogical moment. To refuse or resist this desire is to be unaccountable to the historical truth of our moment, in which the structural logic and physiological technologies of social liquidation (removal from or effective neutralization within civil society) have merged with history’s greatest experiment in punitive human captivity, a linkage that increasingly lays bare racism’s logical outcome in genocide.1 Given the historical context I have brie y outlined, and the practical-theoretical need for situating an abolitionist praxis within a longer tradition of freedom struggle, I contend that there can be nonliberatory teaching act, nor can there be an adequately critical pedagogical practice, that does not also attempt to become an abolitionist one. Provisionally, I am conceptualizing abolition as a praxis of liberation that is creative and experimental rather than formulaic and rigidly programmatic. Abolition is a "radical" political position, as well as a perpetually creative and experimental pedagogy, because formulaic approaches cannot adequately apprehend the biopolitics, dynamic statecraft, and internalized violence of genocidal and proto-genocidal systems of human domination. As a productive and creative praxis, this conception of abolition posits the material possibility and historical necessity of a social capacity for human freedom based on a cultural-economic infrastructure that supports the transformation of oppressive relations that are the legacy of genocidal conquest, settler colonialism, racial slavery/capitalism,19 compulsory hetero-patriarchies, and global white supremacy. In this sense, abolitionist praxis does not singularly concern itself with the "abolition of NUMBER 88 • RADICAL TEACHER This content downloaded from 70.112.144.221 on Mon, 28 Nov 2016 01:50:25 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 15 the prison industrial complex," although it fundamentally and strategically prioritizes the prison as a central site for catalyzing broader, radical social transformations. In significant part, this suggests envisioning and ultimately constructing "a constellation of alternative strategies and institutions, with the ultimate aim of removing the prison from the social and ideological landscape of our society."20 In locating abolitionist praxis within a longer political genealogy that anticipates the task of remaking the world under transformed material circumstances, this position refracts the most radical and revolutionary dimensions of a historical Black freedom struggle that positioned the abolition of "slavery" as the condition of possibility for Black—hence "human"—freedom. To situate contemporary abolitionism as such is also to recall the U.S. racist state’s (and its liberal allies’) displacement and effective political criminalization of Black radical abolitionism through the 13th Amendment’s 1865 recodification of the slave relation through the juridical re- invention of a racial-carceral relation: Amendment XIII Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Given the institutional elaborations of racial criminalization, policing, and massive imprisonment that have prevailed on the 13th Amendment’s essential authorization to replace a regime of racist chattel slavery with racist carceral state violence, it is incumbent on the radical teacher to assess the density of her/his entanglement in this historically layered condition of violence, immobilization, and capture. Prior to the work of formulating an executive curriculum and teaching strategy for critically engaging the prison industrial complex, in other words, is the even more difficult work of examining the assumptive limitations of any "radical pedagogy" that does not attempt to displace an epistemological and cultural common sense in which the relative order and peace of the classroom is perpetually reproduced by the systemic disorder and deep violence of the prison regime. In relation to the radical challenging of common sense discussed above, another critical analytical tool for building an abolitionist pedagogy entails the rigorous, scholarly dismantling of the "presentist" and deeply ahistorical understanding of policing and prisons. Students (and many teachers) frequently enter such dialogues with an utterly mystified conception of the policing and prison apparatus, and do not generally understand that 1) these apparatuses in their current form are very recent creations, and have not been around "forever"; and 2) the rise of these institutional forms of criminalization, domestic war, and mass-scale imprisonment forms one link in a historical chain of genocidal and proto-genocidal mobilizations of the racist state that regularly take place as part of the deadly global process of U.S. nation-building. In other words, not only is the prison regime a very recent invention of the state (and therefore is neither a "permanent" nor indestructible institutional assemblage), but it is institution- ally and historically inseparable from the precedent and contemporaneous structures of large-scale racist state violence. Asserting the above as part of the core analytical framework of the pedagogical structure can greatly enable a discussion of abolitionist possibility that thinks of the critical dialogue as a necessary continuation of long historical struggles against land conquest, slavery, racial colonialism, and imperialist war. is also means that our discussions take place within a longer temporal community with those liberation struggles, such that we are neither "crazy" nor "isolated." I have seen students and teachers speak radical truth to power under di cult and vulnerable circumstances based on this understanding that they are part of a historical record. I have had little trouble "convincing" most students—across distinctions of race, class, gender, age, sexuality, and geography—of the gravity and emergency of our historical moment. It is the analytical, political, and practical move toward an abolitionist positionality that is (perhaps predictably) far more challenging. is is in part due to the fraudulent and stubborn default position of centrist-to-progressive liberalism/reformism (including assertions of "civil" and "human" rights) as the only feasible or legible response to reactionary, violent, racist forms of state power. Perhaps more troublesome, however, is that this resistance to engaging with abolitionist praxis seems to also derive from a deep and broad epistemological and cultural disciplining of the political imagination that makes liberationist dreams unspeakable. is disciplining is most overtly produced through hegemonic state and cultural apparatuses and their representatives (including elected officials, popular political pundits and public intellectuals, schools, family units, religious institutions, etc.), but is also compounded through the pragmatic imperatives of many liberal and progressive nonprofit organizations and social movements that reproduce the political limitations of the nonprofit industrial complex.22 In this context, the liberationist historical identifications hailed by an abolitionist social imagination also require that such repression of political-intellectual imagination be fought, demystified, and displaced. Perhaps, then, there is no viable or defensible pedagogical position other than an abolitionist one. To live and work, learn and teach, and survive and thrive in a time defined by the capacity and political willingness to eliminate and neutralize populations through a culturally valorized, state sanctioned nexus of institutional violence, is to better understand why abolitionist praxis in this historical moment is primarily pedagogical, within and against the "system" in which it occurs. While it is conceivable that in future moments, abolitionist praxis can focus more centrally on matters of (creating and not sim- ply opposing) public policy, infrastructure building, and economic reorganization, the present moment clearly demands a convening of radical pedagogical energies that can build the collective human power, epistemic and knowledge apparatuses, and material sites of learning that are the precondition of authentic and liberatory social transformations. The prison regime is the institutionalization and systemic expansion of massive human misery. It is the production of bodily and psychic disarticulation on multiple scales, across different physiological capacities. The prison industrial complex is, in its logic of organization and its production of common sense, at least proto-genocidal. Finally, the prison regime is inseparable from—that is, present in—the schooling regime in which teachers are entangled. Prison is not simply a place to which one is displaced and where one’s physiological being is disarticulated, at the rule and whim of the state and its designated representatives (police, parole officers, school teachers). The prison regime is the assumptive premise of classroom teaching generally. While many of us must live in labored denial of this fact in order to teach as we must about "American democracy," "freedom," and "(civil) rights," there are opportune moments in which it is useful to come clean: the vast majority of what occurs in U.S. classrooms—from preschool to graduate school—cannot accommodate the bare truth of the proto-genocidal prison regime as a violent ordering of the world, a primary component of civil society/school, and a material presence in our everyday teaching acts. As teachers, we are institutionally hailed to the service of genocide management, in which our pedagogical labor is variously engaged in mitigating, valorizing, critiquing, redeeming, justifying, lamenting, and otherwise reproducing or tolerating the profound and systemic violence of the global-historical U.S. nation building project. As "radical" teachers, we are politically hailed to betray genocide management in order to embrace the urgent challenge of genocide abolition. The short-term survival of those populations rendered most immediately vulnerable to the mundane and spectacular violence of this system, and the long-term survival of most of the planet’s human population (particularly those descended from survivors of enslavement, colonization, conquest, and economic exploitation), is significantly dependent on our willingness to embrace this form of pedagogical audacity. 78 + 79 +====Our heuristic means we learn about the State without being it. Our framework teaches contingent, but engaged, middle grounds. No State pessimism or optimism bias for extreme Alts.==== 80 +**Zanotti ’14** Dr. Laura Zanotti is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Virginia Tech. Her research and teaching include critical political theory as well as international organizations, UN peacekeeping, democratization and the role of NGOs in post-conflict governance." Governmentality, Ontology, Methodology: Re-thinking Political Agency in the Global World" – Alternatives: Global, Local, Political – vol 38(4):p. 288-304,. A little unclear if this is late 2013 or early 2014 – The Stated "Version of Record" is Feb 20, 2014, but was originally published online on December 30th, 2013. Obtained via Sage Database. KAE bracketed for grammar 81 + 82 +By questioning substantialist representations of power and subjects, inquiries on the possibilities of political agency are reframed in a way that focuses on power and subjects’ relational character and the contingent processes of their (trans)formation in the context of agonic relations. Options for resistance to governmental scripts are not limited to ‘‘rejection,’’ ‘‘revolution,’’ or ‘‘dispossession’’ to regain a pristine ‘‘freedom from all constraints’’ or an immanent ideal social order. ~~Resistance to governmental scripts~~ is found instead in multifarious and contingent struggles that are constituted within the scripts of governmental rationalities and at the same time exceed and transform them. This approach questions oversimplifications of the complexities of liberal political rationalities and of their interactions with non-liberal political players and nurtures a radical skepticism about identifying universally good or bad actors or abstract solutions to political problems. International power interacts in complex ways with diverse political spaces and within these spaces it is appropriated, hybridized, redescribed, hijacked, and tinkered with. Governmentality as a heuristic focuses on performing complex diagnostics of events. It invites historically situated explorations and careful differentiations rather than overarching demonizations of ‘‘power,’’ romanticizations of the ‘‘rebel’’ or the ‘‘the local.’’ More broadly, theoretical formulations that conceive the subject in non-substantialist terms and focus on processes of subjectification, on the ambiguity of power discourses, and on hybridization as the terrain for political transformation, open ways for reconsidering political agency beyond the dichotomy of oppression/rebellion. These alternative formulations also foster an ethics of political engagement, to be continuously taken up through plural and uncertain practices, that demand continuous attention to ‘‘what happens’’ instead of fixations on ‘‘what ought to be." Such ethics of engagement would not await the revolution to come or hope for a pristine ‘‘freedom’’ to be regained. Instead, it would constantly attempt to twist the working of power by playing with whatever cards are available and would require intense processes of reflexivity on the consequences of political choices. To conclude with a famous phrase by Michel Foucault ‘‘my point is not that everything is bad, but that everything is dangerous, which is not exactly the same as bad. If everything is dangerous, then we always have something to do. So my position leads not to apathy but to hyper- and pessimistic activism. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-05-10 01:39:13.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Panel - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Anderson BM - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +28 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Semis - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lake Travis Ehresman Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +NOVDEC - Law Order SVU 1AC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +SMHS TFA
- Caselist.CitesClass[23]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,100 @@ 1 +First, the purpose of debate education should be to train youth to challenge oppressive structures, not perpetuate them, 2 +Bohmer 91 “Teaching Privileged Students about Gender, Race, and Class Oppression.” Teaching Sociology, Vol. 19, No. 2 (April, 1991) pp. 154-163. KAE 3 + 4 +Our a strong emphasis on institutional oppression is not only due to our sociological approach to social psychology; it is also an outcome of our interactions with students. Let us repeat that mostly of our students are white and middle class students, with limited exposure to group diversity. Much of the material we present is new to them and often difficult to absorb. One of their major problems lies in moving from individualistic explanations to a sociological analysis. Teaching in this setting, we have found that a focus on micro-level processes is fruitful only after we have addressed the concept of institutional oppression. Without an understanding of institutional aspects students decontextualize social interactions; they equate prejudice with oppression and argue that members of privileged groups are also oppressed. This position, of course, is untenable if we want the concept to remain useful for an analysis of class, race, and gender relations in our society. Even while we emphasize institutional barriers for members of oppressed groups, we do not deny human agency by portraying oppressed individuals as trapped entirely by the confines of society. Balancing the two perspectives, however, is difficult, and the outcome depends strongly on our audience. With primarily white, middle-class students, who tend to advance individualistic explanations and who seem largely unaware of the institutional nature of oppression, we believe it is appropriate to stress barriers and limitations. If we taught a more diverse population we are certain that our discussion of oppression would focus more sharply on human agency as a potential for change. It can be both trying and challenging to integrate considerations of race, gender, and class into an introductory course on social psychology. We have experienced resistance, guilt, anger, and denial from many of our privileged students. Our greatest frustration is that students are reinforced in their resistance and denial because they experience little follow-up in other classes and have little ongoing exposure to the concepts we have introduced. We believe, however, that exposure to the concept of oppression in ou r classes helps at least some students to gain a greater understanding and appreciation for those who are different from themselves. Such exposure also leads some students to raise questions in other courses that do not take race, gender, and class into account. These students, who we hope will apply their knowledge to their everyday interactions with members of other groups, and encourage us to find new ways of introducing race, gender, and class into the sociology curriculum. 5 +Second, structural violence excludes certain individuals from the moral sphere, meaning it’s impossible to create a coherent moral code without resolving issues of structural violence 6 + 7 +Second, Ideal theory ignores histories of injustice in its attempt to generalize a perfect society. Non Ideal theory is the only option to recognize and resist recreating injustice 8 +Mills 2“Ideal Theory” as Ideology CHARLES W. MILLS KAE 9 + 10 +The crucial common claim—whether couched in terms of ideology and fetishism, or androcentrism, or white normativity—is that all theorizing, both moral and nonmoral, takes place in an intellectual realm dominated by concepts, assumptions, norms, values, and framing perspectives that reflect the experience and group interests of the privileged group (whether the bourgeoisie, or men, or whites). So a simple empiricism will not work as a cognitive strategy; one has to be self-conscious about the concepts that “spontaneously” occur to one, since many of these concepts will not arise naturally but as the result of social structures and hegemonic ideational patterns. In particular, it will often be the case that dominant concepts will obscure certain crucial realities, block- ing them from sight, or naturalizing them, while on the other hand, concepts necessary for accurately mapping these realities will be absent. Whether in terms of concepts of the self, or of humans in general, or in the cartography of the social, it will be necessary to scrutinize the dominant conceptual tools and the way the boundaries are drawn. This is, of course, the burden of standpoint theory—that certain realities tend to be more visible from the perspective of the subordinated than the privileged (Harding 2003). The thesis can be put in a strong and implausible form, but weaker versions do have considerable plausibility, as illustrated by the simple fact that for the most part the crucial conceptual innovation necessary to map nonideal realities has not come from the dominant group. In its ignoring of oppression, ideal theory also ignores the consequences of oppression. If societies are not oppressive, or if in modeling them we can abstract away from oppression and assume moral cognizers of roughly equal skill, then the paradigmatic moral agent can be featureless. No theory is required about the particular group-based obstacles that may block the vision of a particular group. By contrast, nonideal theory recognizes that people will typically be cognitively affected by their social location, so that on both the macro and the more local level, the descriptive concepts arrived at may be misleading. 11 + 12 +Third, Legal militarism and police permeates the spaces we occupy and has killed democracy. Challenging its ideological stronghold on the academy is key to creating viable alternatives for change. Means any step to challenge police abuse is key 13 +Giroux 15 Henry A. Giroux 15 ~American scholar and cultural critic. One of the founding theorists of critical pedagogy in the United States, he is best known for his pioneering work in public pedagogy~, "Beyond Dystopian Visions in the Age of Neoliberal Authoritarianism", Truthout, 4 Nov 2015, KAE 14 + 15 +If neoliberal authoritarianism is to be challenged and overcome, it is crucial that intellectuals, unions, workers, young people and various social movements unite to reclaim democracy as a central element in fashioning a radical imagination. Such action necessitates interrogating and rupturing the material and symbolic forces that hide behind a counterfeit claim to participatory democracy. This requires rescuing the promises of a radical democracy that can provide a living wage, quality health care for all, public works and massive investments in education, child care, housing for the poor, along with a range of other crucial social provisions that can make a difference between living and dying for those who have been relegated to the ranks of the disposable. The growing global threat of neoliberal authoritarianism signals both a crisis of politics and a crisis of beliefs, values and individual and social agency. One indication of such a crisis is the fact that the economic calamity of 2008 has not been matched by a shift in ideas about the nature of finance capital and its devastating effects on US society. Banks got bailed out, and those everyday Americans who lost their houses bore the brunt of the crisis. The masters of finance capital were not held accountable for their crimes, and many of them received huge bonuses paid for by US taxpayers. Matters of education must be at the heart of any viable notion of politics, meaning that education must be at the center of any attempt to change consciousness - not just the ways in which people think, but also how they act and construct relationships to others and the larger world. Americans seem to have forgotten that the fate of democracy is inextricably linked to the profound crisis of knowledge, critical thinking and agency. As education is removed from the demands of civic culture, it undermines the political, ethical and governing conditions for individuals and social groups to participate in politics. Under such circumstances, knowledge is commodified, contingent faculty replace full-time tenured faculty, governance is removed from faculty control, the culture of higher education is replaced by the culture of business and students are viewed as customers. Consequently, higher education no longer is viewed as a public good or a place where students can imagine themselves as thoughtful and socially responsible citizens, and furthers the destructions of the formative culture that makes a democratizing politics possible. Politics is an imminently educative task, and it is only through such recognition that initial steps can be taken to challenge the powerful ideological and affective spaces through which market fundamentalism produces the desires, identities and values that bind people to its forms of predatory governance. The noxious politics of historical, social and political amnesia and the public pedagogy of the disimagination machine must be challenged and disassembled if there is any hope of creating meaningful alternatives to the dark times in which we live. Young people need to think otherwise in order to act otherwise, but in addition, they need to become cultural producers who can produce their own narratives about their relationship to the larger world, what it means to sustain public commitments, develop a sense of compassion for others, locally and globally. 16 + 17 +Fourth, US legal action requires justice; retributivism is the best ethic of action in legal precedence 18 +Parsley 11 4-28-2011 Rethinking Legal Retribution Stephen Parsley Georgia State University http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1097andcontext=philosophy_theses// KAE 19 + 20 +Michael Moore’s justification of retributivism takes a notably different approach from those of Morris and Hampton. Rather than attempting to identify a single immoral feature of crimes (such as unfairness or defaming the victim), Moore employs a coherence strategy. He argues (see Ch 2 of Moore) that we have retributivist intuitions when faced with particular crimes. Moore relies on extremely evil crimes, such as those committed by Steven Judy, who raped and murdered a woman and drowned her three children (98). Cases such as these, says Moore, elicit emotional and cognitive responses in most people that can be characterized as retributivist—the criminal ought to be punished even when the punishment is unnecessary to produce some result, such as deterrence or incapacitation (99). From there, he uses “this psychological fact as the basis for an inference to a moral fact, viz., that there is such a thing as retributive justice and that we should design our penal institutions so as to realize this kind of justice” (104). Moore’s argument, then, is that we have reliable intuitions that certain crimes deserve to be punished, and those reactions are best explained by “the truth of retributivism” (109). Conversely, let us consider crimes in which there is no pre-legal moral obligation to abstain. Consider, says Dolinko, a person who jaywalks in the early morning across a deserted street, where no cars are traveling. It seems unlikely that many of us would experience indignation towards the jaywalker or have the intuition that she deserves punishment (554). These two thought experiments suggest that the legality of an act plays little, if any, role in our intuitive judgments regarding desert. Rather, these intuitive judgments seem to be better explained by a principle such as, “Harm deserves to be punished, whether that act was prohibited by statute or not.”20 21 + 22 +Thus the standard is maximizing retributive justice 23 + 24 +Fifth, discussions cannot be based on ideal theory- we must engage in real world discussions but those discussions mean nothing unless they change the values to the people they affect, 25 +Curry 14 Dr. Tommy J. Curry 1 The Cost of a Thing: A Kingian Reformulation of a Living Wage Argument in the 21st Century. 2014// KAE 26 + 27 +Despite the pronouncement of debate as an activity and intellectual exercise pointing to the real world consequences of dialogue, thinking, and (personal) politics when addressing issues of racism, sexism, economic disparity, global conflicts, and death, many of the discussions concerning these ongoing challenges to humanity are fixed to a paradigm which sees the adjudication of material disparities and sociological realities as the conquest of one ideal theory over the other. In “Ideal Theory as Ideology,” Charles Mills outlines the problem contemporary theoretical-performance styles in policy debate and value-weighing in Lincoln-Douglass are confronted with in their attempts to get at the concrete problems in our societies. At the outset, Mills concedes that “ideal theory applies to moral theory as a whole (at least to normative ethics as against metaethics); since ethics deals by definition with normative/prescriptive/evaluative issues, it is set against factual/descriptive issues.” i At the most general level, the conceptual chasm between what emerges as actual problems in the world (e.g.: racism, sexism, poverty, disease, etc.) and how we frame such problems theoretically—the assumptions and shared ideologies we depend upon for our problems to be heard and accepted as a worthy “problem” by an audience—is the most obvious call for an anti-ethical paradigm, since such a paradigm insists on the actual as the basis of what can be considered normatively. Mills, however, describes this chasm as a problem of an ideal-as-descriptive model which argues that for any actual-empirical-observable social phenomenon (P), an ideal of (P) is necessarily a representation of that phenomenon. In the idealization of a social phenomenon (P), one “necessarily has to abstract away from certain features” of (P) that is observed before abstraction occurs. This gap between what is actual (in the world), and what is represented by theories and politics of debaters proposed in rounds threatens any real discussions about the concrete nature of oppression and the racist economic structures which necessitate tangible policies and reorienting changes in our value orientations. As Mills states: “What distinguishes ideal theory is the reliance on idealization to the exclusion, or at least marginalization, of the actual,”i so what we are seeking to resolve on the basis of “thought” is in fact incomplete, incorrect, or ultimately irrelevant to the actual problems which our “theories” seek to address. Our attempts to situate social disparity cannot simply appeal to the ontologization of social phenomenon—meaning we cannot suggest that the various complexities of social problems (which are constantly emerging and undisclosed beyond the effects we observe) are totalizable by any one set of theories within an ideological frame be it our most cherished notions of Afro-pessimism, feminism, Marxism, or the like. At best, theoretical endorsements make us aware of sets of actions to address ever developing problems in our empirical world, but even this awareness does not command us to only do X, but rather do X and the other ideas which compliment the material conditions addressed by the action X. As a whole, debate (policy and LD) neglects the need to do X in order to remedy our cast-away-ness among our ideological tendencies and politics. How then do we pull ourselves from this seeming ir-recoverability of thought in general and in our endorsement of socially actualizable values like that of the living wage? It is my position that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s thinking about the need for a living wage was a unique, and remains an underappreciated, resource in our attempts to impose value reorientation (be it through critique or normative gestures) upon the actual world. In other words, King aims to reformulate the values which deny the legitimacy of the living wage, and those values predicated on the flawed views of the worker, Blacks, and the colonized (dignity, justice, fairness, rights, etc.) used to currently justify the living wages in under our contemporary moral parameters. 28 + 29 +Solvency 30 + 31 +Thus the advocacy: The United States Federal Government and surrounding territories should limit qualified immunity by removing the clearly established standard for police officers. 32 + 33 +Reform is needed to create a stable application of qualified immunity – legal standards advocate for the plan. Subjective legal standards are always reinstated as racist ones which actively creates a need for solvency. 34 +Wright 15 Want to Fight Police Misconduct? Reform Qualified Immunity By SAM WRIGHT 26 Comments / Nov 3, 2015 at 2:05 PM http://abovethelaw.com/2015/11/want-to-fight-police-misconduct-reform-qualified-immunity/KAE 35 + 36 +Instead, police officers have recourse to the broad protections of the judicially established doctrine of qualified immunity. Under this doctrine, state actors are protected from suit even if they’ve violated the law by, say, using excessive force, or performing an unwarranted body cavity search — as long as their violation was not one of “clearly established law of which a reasonable officer would be aware.” In other words, if there’s not already a case where a court has held that an officer’s identical or near-identical conduct rose to the level of a constitutional violation, there’s a good chance that even an obviously malfeasant officer will avoid liability — will avoid accountability. To bring about true accountability and change police behavior, this needs to change. And change should begin with an act of Congress rolling back qualified immunity. Removing the “clearly established” element of qualified immunity would be a good start — after all, shouldn’t it be enough to deviate from a basic standard of care, to engage in conduct that a reasonable officer would know is illegal, without having to show that that conduct’s illegality has already been clearly established in the courts? That’s just a start. There are plenty of other reforms that could open up civil rights lawsuits and help ensure police accountability for bad conduct. Two posts (one, two) at Balkinization by City University of New York professor Lynda Dodd provide a good overview. Campaign Zero should consider adding civil rights litigation reform to its platform, our policymakers should consider making civil rights litigation more robust, and, if we want to see justice done, we should push to make it happen. 37 + 38 +Discussion of reformism for qualified immunity is necessary to create tangible policy changes for civil rights law which is directly skewed under qualified immunity 39 +Hassel 99 http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3402andcontext=mlr // KAE 40 +Winter 1999 Living a Lie: e Cost of Qualified Immunity Diana Hassel professor at the University of Mississippi law school 41 +In Part 11 analyze the internal structure of the qualified immunity defense both as a type of legal directive and as applied in current litigation. By looking at the application of qualified immunity in recent cases, both the standard-like way in which the doctrine operates and the policy choices that underlie its application emerge. That some kinds of constitutional claims are more likely to result in a successful use of the qualified immunity defense than others illuminates the way qualified immunity provides cover for policy choices. The broad qualified immunity standard allows for a determination concerning liability of the defendant that is very flexible and almost completely subject to the policy beliefs of the judge making the decision. By applying the qualified immunity standard, the court will, in essence, determine whether it is just for a particular defendant to pay damages and whether a particular plaintiff should be compensated for a particular constitutional wrong. Rather than address the appropriateness of compensating a category of wrong or protecting a category of governmental behavior, the decision will be articulated in immunity- speak-was the constitutional right allegedly violated clearly established at the time of the particular defendant's action and should that right have reasonably been known to this particular defendant. The hard question of whether, for example, a suspect who is wrongfully detained in a large drug sweep should receive monetary compensation from a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent who was relying on incorrect information will not be addressed. Rather, the issue before the court will be whether the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. This way of resolving the issue of whether liability will be imposed is very effective in obscuring the policy decisions being made about the limits of liability. Only by piecing together many qualified immunity decisions is it possible to determine the pattern of likely results. The fact that certain kinds of constitutional wrongs will almost never subject a defendant to liability is not directly stated. Instead, the decisions articulate a particularized decision regarding a defendant's entitlement to immunity. In Part IV, I explore both the usefulness of a doctrine such as qualified immunity that allows substantive choices to be made silently and the costs inherent in such a doctrine. While the qualified immunity defense arguably encourages quiescence by letting steam out of what might otherwise be a divisive area of public debate, we pay a high cost for its sedative effect. The defense encourages us to pretend that we have an even-handed way to address a wide range of civil rights violations. In fact, we do not. The participants and onlookers in the civil rights drama in perhaps some unarticulated way know that no such system for redress is in place. However, qualified immunity makes it possible to avoid the necessity of directly facing the question of which kinds of constitutional wrongs, if any, should be redressed by damage awards. I conclude that the qualified immunity doctrine's usefulness is outweighed by the cost paid in the coherent development of civil rights law. Decisions concerning the direction of civil rights liability are being made but are not being acknowledged as such. Rather than continue this charade, the development of civil rights law would be better served by a more open judicial or legislative discussion of the policy choices that must be made. While there may be no immediate consensus on these choices, the formulation of the debate around the real issues, rather than the arcane requirements of the qualified immunity defense, will at least provide a language with which to have the needed policy debate. 42 + 43 +QI debates should focus on specific rights; considerations change based on context 44 +Derrick 13 Geoffrey J. Derrick (Fellow, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York, NY. J.D., magna cum laude, 2012, Boston University School of Law; B.S., 2007, Northwestern University). “Qualified Immunity and the First Amendment Right to Record Police.” 22 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J. 243 (2013). https://ssrn.com/abstract=2202388 // DOA 11/4/16 KAE 45 + 46 +Qualified immunity doctrine is a trans-substantive barrier to suits against government officials insofar as it applies equally to all underlying federal rights.33 But the chilling consideration arises only in qualified immunity cases concerning First Amendment rights, suggesting an analysis tailored to the First Amendment. A rights-specific analysis does not mean that an officer’s immunity is more or less strong depending on the right involved.34 Rather, mandating Saucier’s merits-first procedure in First Amendment cases would harness Pearson’s unguided discretion and better notify citizens about the extent of their recording rights. 47 +(write extension about why this means that PICS/Ban cant happen) 48 + 49 +Adv. 1 accountability 50 + 51 +Qualified Immunity allows for the justification of violence and many victims receive no justice. 52 +Senkel 1999 ( Tara. Attorney in New York. Civilians Often Need Protection From the Police: Let's Handcuff Police Brutality 15 N.Y.L. Sch. J. Hum. Rts. 385 (1998-1999). http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?public=falseandhandle=hein.journals/nylshr15andpage=385andcollection=journals#) KAE 53 + 54 +While victims of police brutality can bring an action under section 1983217 against the police officer and the municipality, the police officer and municipality are each subject to liability under two different theories.218 Police officers are found liable iUnder the statute if, "while acting under color of state law, their actions violate a person's constitutional rights. 219 Municipalities are not liable under the theory of respondeat superior, but may be found liable if the police officer's conduct follows an official policy or practice of the municipality.220 There are differences between an action brought against a police officer and an action brought against a municipality, such as the defenses that can be asserted.2 Once a victim brings an excessive force claim against a police officer under section 1983, the officer may assert a defense of qualified immunity.222 In Graham, the Supreme Court did not address the issue of qualified immunity in Fourth Amendment excessive force claims. 223 However, the Court did discuss the qualified immunity defense in Harlow v. Fitzgerald. 224 In Harlow, A. Ernest Fitzgerald sued Bryce Harlow and Alexander Butterfield, Richard Nixon's White House aides, alleging they had been involved in a conspiracy to violate his constitutional and statutory rights.225 The Court held that the aides were protected by a qualified immunity. 226 The Court stated that: Bare allegations of malice should not suffice to subject governmental officials either to the costs of trial or to the burdens of broad-reaching discovery. We therefore hold that government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not clearly violate, established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. 227 The Court went on to state that by defining the limits of the qualified immunity doctrine in objective terms, it was not authorizing lawless conduct.228 Rather, the objective reasonableness of an official's acts protects the public interest by discouraging unlawful conduct and compensating victims. 229 If an official could be expected to know that an act would violate statutory or constitutional rights, the officer should not perform the act, and if a person was injured by the act, that person should have a cause of action. 230 However, if the official's duties require action be taken in which clearly established rights are not involved, "the public interest may be better served by action taken 'with independence and without fear of consequences.' 231 The objective reasonableness standard was also used in Anderson v. Creighton.232 In Anderson, FBI agent Russell Anderson was working with other law enforcement officers involved in a warrantless search of Robert Creighton's home.233 The search was performed because the FBI agent believed that a bank robbery suspect might be in the house.2 34 Creighton brought an action in state court against Anderson, asserting a Fourth Amendment violation.235 Anderson removed the suit to federal court and then filed a motion for summary judgment, contending the claim was barred by his qualified immunity.236 However, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied Anderson's motion, finding that Creighton demonstrated that Anderson violated Creighton's right to be protected from warrantless searches of his home. An exception from this constitutional right, the court noted, was if officers have probable cause or in situations where there are exigent circumstances.237 55 + 56 +Clearly established law in Qualified immunity decreases accountability for police officers and creates subjective standards for legal application 57 +Wright 15 Sam Wright, "Want to Fight Police Misconduct? Reform Qualified Immunity", Above The Law, Public Interest, 11/03/2015/ KAE 58 +In order to truly hold police accountable for bad acts, civilians must be able to bring, and win, civil rights suits themselves — not rely on the Department of Justice, or special prosecutors, or civilian review boards to hold officers accountable. And in order to both bring and win civil rights suits, civilians need a level playing field in court. Right now, they don’t have one. Instead, police officers have recourse to the broad protections of the judicially established doctrine of qualified immunity. Under this doctrine, state actors are protected from suit even if they’ve violated the law by, say, using excessive force, or performing an unwarranted body cavity search — as long as their violation was not one of “clearly established law of which a reasonable officer would be aware.” In other words, if there’s not already a case where a court has held that an officer’s identical or near-identical conduct rose to the level of a constitutional violation, there’s a good chance that even an obviously malfeasant officer will avoid liability — will avoid accountability. 59 + 60 +Limiting qualified immunity is essential to ensuring justice for police wrongdoing and having adequate judicial scrutiny. 61 +Bernick 15 Evan Bernick, "To Hold Police Accountable, Don't Give Them Immunity", Foundation for Economic Education, 05/06/2015, https://fee.org/articles/to-hold-police-accountable-dont-give-them-immunity/KAE 62 + 63 +The sad fact is that is often effectively impossible to hold police officers accountable for unconstitutional acts. That fact is attributable in large part to a potent well of unchecked power that many Americans have never heard of. You will not find it in the Constitution. You will not find it in any federal law. It is a judge-made doctrine, invented by the Supreme Court. It is called qualified immunity. And if those charged with enforcing the law are to be kept within the bounds of their rightful authority, it must be abolished. Section 1983, the federal law that allows citizens to sue for constitutional violations, it is broad, unequivocal, and unambiguous. It says that “every person” who is acting “under color of” law who causes a “deprivation of any rights… secured by the Constitution and laws” “shall be liable to the party injured.” Section 1983 embodies a foundational principle of justice that resonates with Americans who have never heard of Marbury v. Madison: where there is a right, there is a remedy. But for decades, we have had rights without remedies. In the 1967 case of Pierson v. Ray, the Supreme Court held that police officers sued for constitutional violations can raise “qualified immunity” as a defense, and thereby escape paying out of their own pockets, even if they violated a person’s constitutional rights. This decision was unabashedly policy-oriented: it was thought that government officials would not vigorously fulfill their obligations if they could be held accountable for actions taken in good faith. Under current law, the general rule is that victims of rights violations pay the costs of their own injuries. In practice, qualified immunity provides a near-absolute defense to all but the most outrageous conduct. The Ninth Circuit has held that throwing a flash-bang grenade “blindly” into a house, injuring a toddler, isn’t outrageous enough. Just last year, in Plumhoff v. Rickard, the Supreme Court decided that firing 15 bullets at a motorist is a reasonable method to end the driver’s flight from the police. So much for “every person” “shall be liable.” Simply put, qualified immunity has to go. Qualified immunity shields police misconduct not only from liability but also from meaningful judicial scrutiny. Private lawsuits are an essential tool in uncovering the truth about police misconduct. The discovery process can yield information that makes broader policy changes within police departments possible. At trial, judicial engagement — an impartial, evidence-based determination of the constitutionality of the officer’s actions — can take place. Qualified immunity can cut this search for truth short. If qualified immunity is raised as a defense before trial and the judge denies it, that decision is immediately appealable. If it is granted, discovery stops, and there is no trial on the merits. 64 + 65 +Adv 2. Precedent 66 + 67 +Qualified immunity chills legal action against police misconduct 68 +Chen 15 (Alan K. Chen is the William M. Beaney Memorial Research Chair and professor of law at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, where he teaches courses in constitutional law, federal courts, and public interest law. An experienced civil rights litigator and former ACLU staff attorney, Professor Chen continues to do pro bono work in constitutional rights cases.) “Qualified Immunity Liming Access to Justice and Impeding Development of the Law” American Bar Association Vol. 41 No. 1KAE 69 + 70 +A final critique of qualified immunity is one that is difficult to prove empirically. Because of the many costs associated with this defense that I have identified above, plaintiffs and their attorneys may find that the game is not worth the candle. To prevail on a constitutional tort claim, which may not necessarily involve a large monetary recovery, the plaintiff must navigate the difficult path that the qualified immunity doctrine has hewn. They may be tied down for years litigating qualified immunity and defending multiple interlocutory appeals should they initially prevail on the qualified immunity claim in the trial court. Even with the incentive of attorney fee shifting under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, many plaintiffs may simply be discouraged from ever filing a constitutional tort claim because they anticipate that they will be drawn into a protracted and time consuming dispute. The suppression of potentially meritorious civil rights claims is a cost of qualified immunity that impedes access to justice in profound and troubling ways. 71 + 72 +This ensures rights never get established – paving the way for continuing violations 73 +Carter 15 (Tom Carter, World Socialist Website) US Supreme Court expands immunity for killer cops, International Committee of the Fourth International International Committee of the Fourth International 11-12-2015 KAE 74 + 75 + “Qualified immunity” is a reactionary doctrine invented by judges in the later part of the 20th century to shield public officials from lawsuits. As a practical matter, this doctrine allows judges to toss out civil rights cases without a jury trial if, in the judge’s opinion, the official misconduct in question was not “plainly incompetent” or a “knowing violation of clearly established law.” Over recent decades, the doctrine has been stretched to Kafkaesque proportions to shield police officers from accountability. In the landmark case of Tennessee v. Garner (1985), the Supreme Court held that it violates the Constitution to shoot an “unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect,” and required an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury before the police could open fire. But the Supreme Court in its decision on Monday dismissed this language as constituting a “high level of generality” that was not “particular” enough to “clearly establish” any particular constitutional rights. Since cases that are dismissed on the grounds of qualified immunity do not result in decisions on the constitutional issues, this circular pseudo-logic ensures that no rights will ever be “clearly established.” It also ensures that, instead of the democratic procedure of a jury trial, cases involving the police will be decided by judges. The Supreme Court issued Monday’s decision without full briefing or oral argument, designating it “per curiam,” i.e., in the name of the court, not any specific judges. Justice Antonin Scalia filed a concurring opinion, displaying his trademark sophistry. According to Scalia, Mullenix did not use “deadly force” within the meaning of the Supreme Court’s prior cases, since he was shooting at a car, not a person. (Four bullets struck Leija, but none of the six shots struck the engine block at which Mullenix was supposedly aiming.) Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed the sole dissent, noting that this decision “renders the protections of the Fourth Amendment hollow,” and sanctions a “shoot first, think later” approach to policing. However, Sotomayor wrote that she would have used a “balancing” analysis instead, in which a “particular government interest” would need to be “balanced” against the use of deadly force. This “balancing” rhetoric mirrors the Obama administration’s justifications for assassination and domestic spying, according to which national security is balanced against democratic rights. The Bill of Rights itself—that old, yellow, forgotten piece of paper—does not make itself contingent on the subjective mental states of police officers, “clearly established law,” or the “balancing” of “government interests.” America confronts a massive social crisis. Decades of endless war and occupations abroad, the degradation of wages and living conditions at home, the enrichment of a tiny layer of financial criminals at the expense of the rest of the society, rampant speculation and corruption at the highest levels—these factors contribute to mounting social tensions and the danger, from the standpoint of the ruling class, of the growth of social opposition. Such opposition can already be seen, in its earliest stages, in the struggle by autoworkers against the sellout contract being imposed by the United Auto Workers union. Like the tyrant who proposes to solve the problem of hunger by imposing a hefty fine on everyone who starves, the Supreme Court’s decision Monday confirms that the entire social system has nothing to offer by way of a solution to the crisis except more of the same. The abrogation of democratic rights, torture, military commissions, drone assassinations, unlimited surveillance, the lockdown of entire cities, internment camps, beatings, murder, martial law, war—this is how the ruling class plans to deal with the social crisis. Notwithstanding the epidemic of police violence, the flow of unlimited cash and military hardware to police departments from the Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon continues unabated. The buildup of the police as a militarized occupation force operating outside the law, pumped up and ready to kill, must be seen as a part of preparations by the ruling class for mass repression and dictatorship in response to the growth of working class opposition. 76 + 77 +These court decisions are key – they spill over to departmental reforms against police violence 78 +Meltsner 16 (Michael Meltsner, Matthews Distinguished Professor of Law at Northeastern and the author of The Making of a Civil Rights Lawyer, ) What it would really take to stop the killing, Boston 7-7-2016 KAE 79 + 80 +One wonders how much longer the justice system is going to maintain its reluctance to hold individual officers accountable for wrongdoing. There is no question that occasions arise where the police are justified in using force, including lethal force, to protect themselves and others. If that wasn’t clear to all before the slaughters in Dallas, it should be now. Police officers generally have great discretion in carrying out their duties. At the same time, it’s perfectly clear that the Constitution, especially the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee of the right of persons “to be secure . . . against unreasonable seizures,” prohibits law enforcement officials from using excessive force in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other seizures. The line between legitimate and illegitimate use of force depends on the facts and situation. Decisions often must be made quickly. Circumstances are usually unclear. For those reasons, the ultimate solution to the unjustified taking of lives will never be based on the promulgation of abstract legal rules by government, no matter how well-intentioned. Technological advances like body cameras, which have been adopted by some Massachusetts police (though not those in Boston, yet) may help, but real progress will occur only when law enforcement personnel are rigorously trained to understand that when bodily harm and death are possible, violent reactions should be truly a last resort. On the other hand, court decisions, most prominently Supreme Court decisions, can help influence the legal responsibilities of the nation’s more than 12,000 local police departments in schooling and disciplining officers, not to mention the important role of resolving particular cases—such as those in Ferguson, Cleveland, and New York—that have caused so much stress in minority communities. “Black lives matter” must be understood as a call for action, not as disrespect for all other lives. So far, however, the Supreme Court—and this includes those thought to be liberal as well as conservative—doesn’t seem to be listening. In a series of decisions spanning recent decades, the Court has upheld what Justice Sonia Sotomayor described in a November 2015 dissent as approving a “shoot first, think later” style of policing. The Court has decided these cases in different ways but with the same result. Despite factual disputes, it has thwarted jury trials and recast the facts based on documents rather than witness testimony. It has ruled that, unlike ordinary citizens, police have “qualified immunity,” meaning that if a legal rule was not absolutely certain before the officer acted, he or she could not be held responsible for violating it, even if the officer acted in a patently unreasonable way. Each of these cases involves wrangling about specifics, but a study of the Court’s jurisprudence in this area makes it clear that, regardless of the facts, it is very difficult to win a case against a police officer. The sense that the rules are stacked against those alleging excessive force leads prosecutors to decline even to bring cases where there is any colorable defense. That’s of even greater consequence than questionable decisions in individual disputes, and it’s caused community outrage in those places like Ferguson, Cleveland, and New York. Until the Court sends a message that bad acts—selling cigarettes illegally, driving too fast, trying to escape—don’t justify a level of aggressive policing that too often produces lethal force, the Louisiana and Minnesota killings will be remembered as just two more disturbing events on a growing list, one that includes equally destructive revenge. 81 + 82 +Even if unsuccessful, these lawsuits fill gaps in police departments’ reporting requirements, which results in reforms to the use of force 83 +Schwartz 10 (Joanna C. Schwartz. Acting Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law) "WHAT POLICE LEARN FROM LAWSUITS" 33 CARDOZO L. REV. (2010)KAE 84 + 85 +For these departments, lawsuits are a valuable source of information about police misconduct allegations. Departments that do not gather lawsuit data rely on civilian complaints and use-of-force reports to alert them to possible misconduct. In the litigation-attentive departments in my study, lawsuits have notified officials of misconduct allegations that did not surface through these other reporting systems. For example, the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department’s review of lawsuit claims revealed clusters of improper vehicle pursuits, illegal searches, and warrantless home entries.17 These vehicle pursuits, searches, and home entries did not appear in officers’ use-of-force reports because the events – while potentially serious constitutional violations – did not involve the application of force as defined by department policies and so did not trigger reporting requirements.18 The civilians involved in these lawsuits could have chosen to file civilian complaints but did not; people rarely file civilian complaints and may be particularly unlikely to do so if they are planning to sue.19 Even when a civilian complaint or use-of-force report is filed, the litigation process can unearth details that did not surface during the internal investigation. When, for example, a man died of blunt force chest trauma two hours after being taken into Portland police custody, a critical question was how much force the involved deputies had used to bring him to the ground.20 The night of the man’s death, the involved officer and deputy were videotaped at the Portland jail describing their confrontation.21 The audio portion of the tape was very scratchy, but Portland’s internal affairs investigators did nothing to improve the sound.22 Only during litigation did plaintiff’s counsel enhance the audio, at which point the involved officer’s statements were found to contradict his statement to internal affairs.2 Lawsuits filled critical gaps in police department internal reporting systems. 86 + 87 +Underview 88 + 89 +1. Try or die flows aff; US ought to limit qualified immunity means that if aff proves intrinsic harm with qualified immunity or that a limit would be a proactive change. 90 + 91 +A) QI is a primary tool that props up and holds a police state together, 92 +Pattis 10 Pattis, Norm. (Pattis is a lawyer focused on high stakes criminal cases and civil right violations. He is a veteran of more than 100 jury trials.) "Qualified Immunity And The Police State." Norm Pattis Blog. N.p., 16 Oct. 2010. Web. 30 Oct. 2016. http://www.pattisblog.com/index.php?article=Qualified_Immunity_And_The_Police_State_26 75// DOA 11/4/16 KAE 93 + 94 +I get many calls each week from people who believe they have been abused by the police. That is because for many years I was at the forefront of police misconduct litigation. But these days I rarely file a complaint against police officers. It is not that I have become a police groupie. Rather, I've read the handwriting on the wall. In the past decade, there has been a silent coup d' etat. Our courts have transformed themselves into the guardians of a police state in a stunning, and largely unnoticed, act of judicial activism. Their primary tool was a tricky legal doctrine known as qualified immunity.¶ This coup has gone unnoticed by the general public. Even academics seem blind to its import. Practitioners know better.¶ Consider the following fact pattern: A man calls to complain that his son was brutalized by local law enforcement officers. He was hit with fists, kicked and subjected to high-voltage shock by a police officer using a Taser. The man is angry. How could police do this?¶ I ask what crime the boy was charged with. The man seems surprised by the question. How had I known his son had been arrested? I know the boy must have been charged with interfering with a police officer, a charge that makes it a misdemeanor to obstruct, hinder or delay an officer in the performance of his lawful duty. Just what does this mean? The statute is so broad that almost anything other a supine bending of the knee is a crime. Police routinely charge the crime when force is used to take a person into custody. It is the first line of defense against a charge of unreasonable force: We needed to use force against resistance.¶ The boy's father did not want to hear a word of it. How can a boy in handcuffs resist arrest?, he asks with scorn. I tell him about cases I have seen. Young men in handcuffs who kicked out windows of police cruisers, in one case kicking so hard as to dislodge a car door from its joints. I try to explain that the law permits the police to use reasonable force to overcome a person's resistance. There are many judges who would conclude that the use of a Taser is justified against a person wildly kicking while cuffed. Bringing a civil action against the police carries with it a substantial risk that the case will be thrown out by a judge granting the police officers qualified immunity. By now the caller has transferred his anger against the police to me. The police were wrong, he tells me. The case is a slam dunk, he insists. I tell him to take the slam dunk elsewhere. There is no such thing in the world of police misconduct. The call ends with the man no doubt wondering whether I am defending police officers. I hate fielding such calls.¶ We boast about the rule of law, saying that no one is beyond the law's reach. That's not quite true. The law recognizes broad immunities. If life is a board game, the rule of law defines what pieces on the board can do to one another. An immunity removes a piece from the board, placing it beyond the reach of the law. Thus, a lawmaker trashing a person on the floor of a legislative chamber is absolutely immune from a suit for defamation. We say the lawmaker is immune by operation of law: In other words, any person who knows the law knows that the lawmaker cannot be sued.¶ A qualified immunity is one that a judge is free to impose or not, depending on the facts presented to the judge. In the context of police misconduct litigation, judges are free to grant a police officer immunity from suit if the officer's conduct does not violate clearly established law or if reasonable police officers could disagree about whether the alleged conduct violated the law. Translated into lay terms, police officers are given the benefit of the doubt in close cases. But judges, not juries, make this call. That's the coup.¶ Qualified immunity is a prime example of judicial activism, yet no one on the right seems very concerned when judicial activism narrows the rights of ordinary Americans. Fifteen years ago, the courts rarely granted qualified immunity to police officers; now it happens with a regularity that makes it pointless to file suit against police officers in all but the most egregious cases. In other words, a powerful legal doctrine created by judges has declared broader and broader ranges of police conduct beyond the reach of the law. Police misconduct cases rarely it to juries any longer. Judges, not the people, decide what is reasonable for police to do.¶ The judiciary is self-satisfied about this, and why not? Throwing a case out of court is a whole lot less trouble than going to trial. But it comes at a cost. The cost is a police state. Officers are free to act with impunity, their conduct beyond the review of ordinary citizens so long as it satisfies the jaundiced eye of a judiciary free to decided without real review what is and is not reasonable.¶ I read these judicial decisions and although I do not weep, I heed what they teach. There is little point in filing a suit that will simply be tossed from court. I send most callers away these days. There are a lot of angry people out there who aren't getting justice in the courts. I suppose when there are enough of them out there someone will listen. But the listeners aren't on the bench; the nation's judges have become accomplices in a police state; most of them don't even realize it. 95 + 96 +B) Qualified immunity is structurally violent- it forces deliberation to occur through the interpretation of the oppressor, as opposed to allowing contestation of these views in court – proving inherent danger in the doctrine 97 +Senkel 99 Civilians Often Need Protection From the Police: Let's Handcuff Police Brutality notes 98 +New York Law School Journal of Human Rights, Vol. 15, Issue 2 (Winter 1999), pp. 385-420 Senkel, Tara L. (Cited 6 times) 15 N.Y.L. Sch. J. Hum. Rts. 385 (1998-1999) // DOA 11/4/16 KAE 99 + 100 +While victims of police brutality can bring an action under section 1983217 against the police officer and the municipality, the police officer and municipality are each subject to liability under two different theories.218 Police officers are found liable iUnder the statute if, "while acting under color of state law, their actions violate a person's constitutional rights. 219 Municipalities are not liable under the theory of respondeat superior, but may be found liable if the police officer's conduct follows an official policy or practice of the municipality.220 There are differences between an action brought against a police officer and an action brought against a municipality, such as the defenses that can be asserted.2 Once a victim brings an excessive force claim against a police officer under section 1983, the officer may assert a defense of qualified immunity.222 In Graham, the Supreme Court did not address the issue of qualified immunity in Fourth Amendment excessive force claims. 223 However, the Court did discuss the qualified immunity defense in Harlow v. Fitzgerald. 224 In Harlow, A. Ernest Fitzgerald sued Bryce Harlow and Alexander Butterfield, Richard Nixon's White House aides, alleging they had been involved in a conspiracy to violate his constitutional and statutory rights.225 The Court held that the aides were protected by a qualified immunity. 226 The Court stated that: Bare allegations of malice should not suffice to subject governmental officials either to the costs of trial or to the burdens of broad-reaching discovery. We therefore hold that government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not clearly violate, established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. 227 The Court went on to state that by defining the limits of the qualified immunity doctrine in objective terms, it was not authorizing lawless conduct.228 Rather, the objective reasonableness of an official's acts protects the public interest by discouraging unlawful conduct and compensating victims. 229 If an official could be expected to know that an act would violate statutory or constitutional rights, the officer should not perform the act, and if a person was injured by the act, that person should have a cause of action. 230 However, if the official's duties require action be taken in which clearly established rights are not involved, "the public interest may be better served by action taken 'with independence and without fear of consequences.' 231 The objective reasonableness standard was also used in Anderson v. Creighton.232 In Anderson, FBI agent Russell Anderson was working with other law enforcement officers involved in a warrantless search of Robert Creighton's home.233 The search was performed because the FBI agent believed that a bank robbery suspect might be in the house.2 34 Creighton brought an action in state court against Anderson, asserting a Fourth Amendment violation.235 Anderson removed the suit to federal court and then filed a motion for summary judgment, contending the claim was barred by his qualified immunity.236 However, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied Anderson's motion, finding that Creighton demonstrated that Anderson violated Creighton's right to be protected from warrantless searches of his home. An exception from this constitutional right, the court noted, was if officers have probable cause or in situations where there are exigent circumstances.237 The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, stating that it was concerned about the test of "clearly established law"238 because if the test were applied to cases at this level of generality, it would not have any relationship to the "objective legal reasonableness., 239 The Court also stated that plaintiffs would be able to change the rule of qualified immunity "into a rule of virtually unqualified liability of government agents by alleging a violation of extremely abstract rights." 240 The right must be clear enough that a reasonable governmental official would know that his conduct violates that right. 241 The question that must be asked is an objective, albeit fact specific one, whether a reasonable officer would violate others rights or could find that Anderson's search was lawful, "in light of clearly established law and the information the searching officers possessed.' '242 The court found that Anderson's "subjective belief about the search were irrelevant." 243 Furthermore,. in Owens v. City of Independence,244 the Court held that a municipality cannot allege a qualified immunity defense. The Court stated that "many victims of municipal malfeasance would be left remediless if the city were also allowed to assert a good-faith defense." 245 Therefore, a municipality can only escape liability if it claims that a constitutional violation did not occur or that the police officer was not acting in good faith "pursuant to a policy, practice, or custom of the municipality. 246 Thus, if a police brutality victim brings an action against the police officer and municipality under section 1983, the Court will examine the claim under the Fourth Amendment and its reasonable standard to determine whether the police officer's conduct was excessive or unreasonable. Although police officers may assert a qualified immunity defense to the claim, municipalities are not afforded this defense. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-05-10 01:44:44.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Abi Wernsman - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Klein Oak AG - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +29 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lake Travis Ehresman Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +NOVDEC - Stocks on Stocks on Stocks 1AC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +UT
- Caselist.CitesClass[24]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,83 @@ 1 +====(narrative)==== 2 +Welcome to the TOC! Congrats on making it to Kentucky, it’s been a long year! If you are female in the activity, then you already beat back last year’s 19/92 odds of even making it this far. 3 +Justice in debate is one-sided. Women are told that they are bitchy, aggressive, and shrill, while men from big teams earn 30s and the W with the same exact behavior. No matter what, we do what men do, but somehow wrongly. 4 +When we LARP, we’re too arrogant 5 +When we debate framework, we’re too tricky 6 +And when we run K’s, we’re too whiney. 7 +We are just too much 8 +All the while we are trying to balance being the nice, sweet, appropriate debaters that you expect us to be. 9 +So, thank you for giving me your attention for 13 minutes to talk, to teach, and to, for at least a moment, have a voice because any time we protest in tab for biased ballots and RFDs, challenge coaches and their debaters’ sexist behavior, or post on Facebook about our experiences, we are chastised, lectured, mocked, and told to quiet down about our ‘needless complaining’ or our slander against someone ‘reputable’ or our ‘oversensitivity’. Or as Sara Ahmed says: 10 +"When we speak about what we come up against, we come up against what we speak about"* 11 +But, don’t worry theory hacks, Debate is about education and I only have 6 minutes to teach, so hear me. 12 +*(Sara Ahmed is formerly the director of a new Centre for Feminist Research (CFR) at Goldsmiths, Professor of Race and Cultural Studies at Goldsmiths, and a scholar that writes on the intersection of queer theory, feminist theory, critical race theory, and post-colonialism, Living a Feminist Life, "Chapter 44: Trying to Transform", 2017, Duke University Press, pp 148 //Accessed 3/22/2017 GKKE) 13 + 14 +====Performance of narratives is a teaching tool. Stories allow us to analyze modes of power and understand how poisonous pedagogy is used to justify the killing of willful, loud, and rule-ignoring individuals ==== 15 +**Ahmed 1** (Sara Ahmed is formerly the director of a new Centre for Feminist Research (CFR) at Goldsmiths, Professor of Race and Cultural Studies at Goldsmiths, and a scholar that writes on the intersection of queer theory, feminist theory, critical race theory, and post-colonialism, Living a Feminist Life, "Chapter 3: Willfulness and Feminist Subjectivity", 2017, Duke University Press, pp 66-67 //Accessed 2/9/2017 GKKE) 16 + 17 +Once upon a time there was a child who was willful, and would not do as her mother wished. For this reason God had no pleasure in her, and let her become ill, and no doctor could go her any good, and in a short time she lay on her death-bed. When she had been lowered into her grave, and the earth was spread over her, all at once her arm came out again, and stretched upwards, and when they had put it in and spread fresh earth over it, it was all to no purpose, for the arm always came out again. Then the mother herself was obliged to go to the grave, and strike the arm with a rod, and when she had done that, it was drawn in, and then at last the child had rest beneath the ground.1 What a story. The willful child: she has a story to tell. This story can be treated as a teaching tool, as well as a way of teaching us about tools (the rods, the machinery of power). We learn how willfulness is used as an explanation of disobedience: a child disobeys because she is willful, when she is not willing to do what her mother wills her to do. We do not know in the story what it is that the child was not willing to do. Disobedience is not given content because disobedience as such becomes a fault: the child must do whatever her mother wishes. She is not willing, whatever. What is striking about the story is how willfulness persists even after death: displaced onto an arm, from a body onto a part. The arm inherits the willfulness of the child insofar as it will not be kept down, insofar as it keeps coming up, acquiring a life of its own, even after the death of the body of which it is a part. Note that the rod, as that which embodies the will of the parent, of the sovereign, is not deemed willful. The rod becomes the means to eliminate willfulness from the child. One form of will judges the other wills as willful wills. One form of will assumes the right to eliminate the others. We might note here how the very judgement of willfulness is a crucial part of the disciplinary apparatus. It is this judgement that allows violence (even murder) to be understood as care as well as discipline. The rod becomes a technique for straightening out the willful child with her wayward arm. I return to this wayward arm in due course. She too has a feminist history. She too is a feminist history. 18 + 19 +====Debate doesn’t end when your 2AR timer goes off; your flow reflects real conversations had between people. Our performances in this space reflect the way we act when we exit the round and our ballot is turned in. Our educational praxis has an obligation to be focused on using our discourse as a performance to access debate’s liberatory potential. ==== 20 +**Vincent 13** (Christopher Debate Coach, former college NDT debater "Re-Conceptualizing Our Performances: Accountability In Lincoln Douglas Debate"http://victorybriefs.com/vbd/2013/10/re-conceptualizing-our-performances-accountability-in-lincoln-douglas-debate)KAE 21 + 22 +Charles Mills argues that "the moral concerns of African Americans have centered on the assertion of their personhood, a personhood that could generally be taken for granted by whites, so that blacks have had to see these theories from a location outside their purview." For example, I witnessed a round at a tournament this season where a debater ran a utilitarianism disadvantage. His opponent argued that this discourse was racist because it ignores the way in which a utilitarian calculus has distorted communities of color by ignoring the wars and violence already occurring in those communities. In the next speech, the debater stood up, conceded it was racist, and argued that it was the reason he was not going for it and moved on, and still won the debate. This is problematic because it demonstrates exactly what Mill’s argument is. For the black debater this argument is a question of his or her personhood within the debate space and the white debater was not held accountable for the words that are said. Again for debaters of color, their performance is always attached to their body which is why it is important that the performance be viewed in relation to the speech act. Whites ~~Some~~ are allowed to take for granted the impact their words have on the bodies in the space. They take for granted this notion of personhood and ignore the concerns of those who do not matter divorced from the flow. It is never a question of "should we make arguments divorced from our ideologies," it is a question of is it even possible. It is my argument that our performances, regardless of what justification we provide, are always a reflection of the ideologies we hold. Why should a black debater have to use a utilitarian calculus just to win a round, when that same discourse justifies violence in the community they go back home to? Our performances and our decisions in the round, reflect the beliefs that we hold when we go back to our communities. As a community we must re-conceptualize this distinction the performance by the body and of the body by re-evaluating the role of the speech and the speech act. It is no longer enough for judges to vote off of the flow anymore. Students of color are being held to a higher threshold to better articulate why racism is bad, which is the problem in a space that we deem to be educational. It is here where I shift my focus to a solution. Debaters must be held accountable for the words they say in the round. We should no longer evaluate the speech. Instead we must begin to evaluate the speech act itself. Debaters must be held accountable for more than winning the debate. They must be held accountable for the implications of that speech. As educators and adjudicators in the debate space we also have an ethical obligation to foster an atmosphere of education. It is not enough for judges to offer predispositions suggesting that they do not endorse racist, sexist, homophobic discourse, or justify why they do not hold that belief, and still offer a rational reason why they voted for it. Judges have become complacent in voting on the discourse, if the other debater does not provide a clear enough role of the ballot framing, or does not articulate well enough why the racist discourse should be rejected. Judges must be willing to foster a learning atmosphere by holding debaters accountable for what they say in the round. They must be willing to vote against a debater if they endorse racist discourse. They must be willing to disrupt the process of the flow for the purpose of embracing that teachable moment. The speech must be connected to the speech act. We must view the entire debate as a performance of the body, instead of the argument solely on the flow. Likewise, judges must be held accountable for what they vote for in the debate space. If a judge is comfortable enough to vote for discourse that is racist, sexist, or homophobic, they must also be prepared to defend their actions. We as a community do not live in a vacuum and do not live isolated from the larger society. That means that judges must defend their actions to the debaters, their coaches, and to the other judges in the room if it is a panel. Students of color should not have the burden of articulating why racist discourse must be rejected, but should have the assurance that the educator with the ballot will protect them in those moments. Until we re-conceptualize the speech and the speech act, and until judges are comfortable enough to vote down debaters for a performance that perpetuates violence in the debate space, debaters and coaches alike will remain complacent in their privilege. As educators we must begin to shift the paradigm and be comfortable doing this. As a community we should stop looking at ourselves as isolated in a vacuum and recognize that the discourse and knowledge we produce in debate has real implications for how we think when we leave this space. Our performances must be viewed as of the body instead of just by it. As long as we continue to operate in a world where our performances are merely by bodies, we will continue to foster a climate of hostility and violence towards students of color, and in turn destroy the transformative potential this community could have. 23 + 24 +====Interpretations about the "best form of education" emulate systems of poisonous pedagogy. These systems of discourse are actions used to imply moral correction and deplete the will of those marginalized in the institution. ==== 25 +**Ahmed 2** (Sara Ahmed is formerly the director of a new Centre for Feminist Research (CFR) at Goldsmiths, Professor of Race and Cultural Studies at Goldsmiths, and a scholar that writes on the intersection of queer theory, feminist theory, critical race theory, and post-colonialism, Willful Subjects, Duke University Press, pp 63-67.//Accessed 2/2/17) KAE 26 + 27 +The story gives us a portrait of obedience as virtue. We could thus consider how the project of eliminating willfulness relates to obedience. Aquinas in his reflection on the virtue of obedience refers to the work of Gregory who argues that obedience has "more merit" the "less it has of its own will" (Summa Theologiae, 2a.2ae.104.60). For Gregory obedience becomes a virtue when persons obey commands that do not go in the direction of their own will. There is no virtue in obeying a command that is agreeable to one’s own will: "obedience requires little or no effort when it has as its own will in agreeable things." Rather "the effort is greater in disagreeable or difficult things." Obedience occurs when one’s "own will tends to nothing apart from the command" (63). This is how Gregory can conclude that "by obedience we slay our own will" (64). To obey is to go where your will would not take you. Willfulness might refer to willing in agreement with one’s own will. Another way of putting this would be to say that a willful will is one that wills what it wants, and that has yet to eliminate want from will.6 As I noted in my introduction to this book, the Grimm story can be considered as part of the educational tradition described by Alice Miller (1987) as "poisonous pedagogy." Miller draws on the earlier work of Katharina Rutschky who describes this tradition (problematically) as "Black pedagogy," which has as its primary aim "the domination and control of the child for the child’s own good" (Zornado 2001, 79).7 As Joseph L. Zornado points out, following both Rutschky and Miller, this pedagogy rests on willfulness: "Because the child is willful, stained by original sin and destructive, the adult must enact decisive and punitive measures so that the child will not grow up ‘full of weeds’ " (2001, 79). The violence toward the child is thus presented as being for the child. One of the examples of poisonous pedagogy quoted at length by Alice Miller is J. Sulzer’s An Essay on the Education and Instruction of Children (1784).8 I will follow Miller in quoting this essay at length as it gives us a fuller and affective picture of what is at stake in the history of willfulness. In Sulzer’s essay willfulness is described as that which must be "driven out" before children can receive a good education. Willfulness is an obstacle to the educable will: As far as willfulness is concerned, this expresses itself as a natural recourse in tenderest childhood as soon as children are able to make their desire for something known by means of gestures. They see something they want but cannot have; they become angry, cry, and flail about. Or they are given something that does not please them; they fling it aside and begin to cry. Th ese are dangerous faults that hinder their entire education and encourage undesirable qualities in children. If willfulness and wickedness are not driven out, it is impossible to give a child a good education. Th e moment these flaws appear in a child, it is high time to resist this evil so that it does not become ingrained through habit and the children do not become thoroughly depraved. (cited in Miller 1987, 10– 11) Indeed driving out willfulness, Sulzer suggests, should be the "main occupation" of those concerned with the education of children. He argues that driving out willfulness must be done "in a methodical manner"; other wise children "will finally become the masters of their parents and of their nursemaids and will have a bad, willful, and unbearable disposition with which they will trouble and torment their parents ever after as the well- earned reward for the ‘good’ upbringing they were given" (11). The rod makes an appearance as the proper instrument for moral correction: "If parents are fortunate enough to drive out willfulness from the very beginning by means of scolding and the rod, they will have obedient, docile, and good children whom they can later provide with a good education" (11). The rod and scolding are techniques of parental will that aim to create a docile child. Note here that docility appears an end of will, as what will, transformed into a disciplinary technique, is intended to actualize. As such the will seeks to eliminate the child’s will, understood as willful insofar as it is his own: "A child who is used to obeying his parents will also willingly submit to the laws and rules of reason once he is on his own and his own master, since he is already accustomed not to act in accordance with his own will. Obedience is so important that all education is actually nothing other than learning how to obey" (12, emphasis added). Becoming obedient is learning to act without accordance to one’s own will. If children are to act without self- accordance, their own will must be broken: It is not very easy, however, to implant obedience in children. It is quite natural for the child’s soul to want to have a will of its own, and things that are not done correctly in the first two years will be diffi cult to rectify thereafter. One of the advantages of these early years is that then force and compulsion can be used. Over the years, children forget everything that happened to them in early childhood. If their wills can be broken at this time, they will never remember afterwards that they had a will, and for this very reason the severity that is required will not have any serious consequences. Just as soon as children develop awareness, it is essential to demonstrate to them by word and deed that they must submit to the will of their parents. Obedience requires children to (1) willingly do as they are told, (2) willingly refrain from doing what is forbidden, and (3) accept the rules made for their sake. (13) To eliminate willfulness is thus to eliminate not only the will defined as independence from what is willed by others, but to eliminate the very memory of this will or at least to aim for this elimination. The child’s identification with parental will would become so complete that identification is experienced as willingness, as not only willingly doing what they are commanded to do, but as being this doing, as having always been this doing. Once the child is willing, any memory of having a will that was willing other wise is eradicated. Or at least that is the idea. A subject that is willing to obey is a subject without will: a willing subject becomes a will- less subject. What is this subject required to do? Katharina Rutschky explores how the genre of poisonous pedagogy provided the psychic conditions for the emergence of Fascism within Germany in the twentieth century (creating subjects whose obedience rested on the acceptance and perpetration of cruelty and punishment). As Alice Miller shows in For Your Own Good, we can track the emergence of poisonous pedagogy across Europe and America during the eighteenth century. Take, for example, the work of John Wesley who was influenced by Arminian doctrines. Wesley writes of children: "Break their wills betimes. Begin this work before they can run alone, before they can speak plain, before they can speak at all. Whatever pains it costs, break the will, if you would not damn the child. Let the child from a year old be taught to fear the rod; and to cry softly; from that age, make him do as he is bid, if you whip him ten times running to effect it. If you do spare the rod, you spoil the child; if you do not conquer you ruin him" (1811, 71). If breaking the will is painful it is understood as necessary pain. This pain must be prior even to speech. The child must be conquered to avoid damnation. Reading these literatures is difficult given how violence against children is rationalized and enacted in the works themselves. The works are implicated in the histories they enact; they are conduits of violence. In the brutish maxim "Spare the rod, spoil the child," history is summarized as instruction. When reading about Wesley, I came across another text by the twentieth- century Baptist evangelical John Rice. He asks how John Wesley and his brother Christopher as leaders of the Evangelical movement and founders of Methodism were themselves taught. Rice notes: "Their mother Susannah Wesley taught them to fear the rod when they were a year old" (1946, 213). Rice himself then follows Wesley in arguing that "when the will of a child is totally subdued, and it is brought to revere and stand in awe of the parents, then a great many childhood follies and inadvertencies may be passed by. . . . No willful transgression should ever be forgiven children. . . . as self- will is the root of all sin and misery, so what ever cherishes this in children insures their after- wretchedness and irreligion" (213). After- wretchedness: this history is indeed a wretched history. To follow the figure of the willful child is to stay proximate to scenes of violence. And we learn too how those beaten by the rod become rods that beat. This becoming is not inevitable, but it is part of a history we cannot afford to forget. It is a history still with us.9 Assembling a willfulness archive is a way of attending to histories that are kept alive by forgetting 28 + 29 +====University policies for equality substitute action for a good view of the organization. The institutions marking that issues are "fixed" halt the need and ability for outside advocates to create change and mask inequality==== 30 +**Ahmed 3 **(Sara Ahmed is formerly the director of a new Centre for Feminist Research (CFR) at Goldsmiths, Professor of Race and Cultural Studies at Goldsmiths, and a scholar that writes on the intersection of queer theory, feminist theory, critical race theory, and post-colonialism, Living a Feminist Life, "Chapter 44: Trying to Transform", 2017, Duke University Press, pp 104-107 //Accessed 3/22/2017 GKKE) 31 + 32 +Many practitioners and academics have expressed concerns that writing documents or policies becomes a substitute for action: as one of my interviewees puts it, "You need up doing the document rather than doing the doing." Documents become all diversity workers have time to do. Documents then circulate within organizations, often referring to each other, creating a family of documents. They create a paper trail, a trace of where they have been. In some sense the point of the document is to leave a trail. Diversity work: a paper trail. The very orientation toward writing good documents can block action, insofar as the document then gets taken up as evidence that we have "done it." As another practitioner describes, "Well I think in terms of the policies, people’s views are, ‘Well we’ve got them now so that’s done. It’s finished.’ I think actually, I’m not sure if that’s even worse than having nothing, that idea in people’s heads that we’ve done race, when we very clearly haven’t done race." The idea that the document is doing something is what could allow the institution to block recognition of the work that there is to do. The idea that the document does race means that people can think that race has been done when it has not. The idea that we are doing race is thus how we are not doing race. One of the consequences of equality becoming embedded in audit culture is that equality itself becomes a good performance of the organization, or a way the organization can perform well. When an equality policy is ranked as good, this rank is taken up as a sign of equality, which is how signs of inequality disappear from view. Equality and diversity are used as performance indicators to present the best view of the organization. Diversity is thus increasingly exercised as a form of public relations: "The planned and sustained effort to establish and maintain good will and understanding between an organization and its publics."2 In an interview I had with staff from a human resources department, we discussed a research project that was collecting what is called in the qualities sector "perception data," that is, data about how external publics perceive an organization. This project was funded as part of the university’s equality policy. What did they find? Okay, yes. It was about uncovering perceptions about the ~~university~~ as an employer…. ~~The university~~ was considered to be an old boys’ network, as they called it, and white male dominated, and they didn’t have the right perceptions of the ~~university~~ in terms of what it offers and what it brings to the academia. I think most of the external people had the wrong perceptions about the ~~university~~. This is another way that diversity involves image management: diversity work becomes about generating the right image for the organization by correcting the wrong one. Here the perception of the institution as white is treated as wrong; to make the perception right you change the image. Diversity becomes about changing perceptions of whiteness rather than changing the whiteness of organizations. And we can see a key difficulty here: even if diversity is an attempt to transform the institution, it too can be a technique for keeping things in place. The very appearance of a transformation (a new, more colorful face for the organization) is what stops something from happening. A new policy can be agreed upon without anything changing. A new policy can be agreed upon as a way of not changing anything. Another practitioner spoke to me about what appeared to be an institutional success story: a decision was made and agreed upon by the university’s equality and diversity committee that all internal members of appointment panels for academics should have had diversity training. This decision could be described as good practice. IT was made properly but the committee that was authorized to make the decision (the equality and diversity committee), which included members of the Senior Management Team (SMT). The minutes were then sent for approval to council, which alone had authority to make the recommendation into policy: When I was first here, there was a policy that you had to have three people on every panel who had been trained. But then there was a decision early on where I was here that it should be everybody, all panel members, at least internal people. They took that decision at the equality and diversity committee, which several members of SMT were present at. But then the director of human resources found out about it and decided we didn’t have enough resources to support it, and it went to council with that taken out and council were told that they were happy to have just three members, only a person on council who was an external member of the diversity committee went ballistic - and I am not kidding, went ballistic - and said the minutes didn’t reflect what had happened (and I didn’t take the minutes, by the way). And so they had to take it through and reverse it. And the council decision was that all people should be trained. And despite that, I have then sat in meetings where they just continued saying that it has to be just three people on the panel. And I said, but no, council changed their view and I can give you the minutes, and they just look at me as if I am saying something really stupid. This went on for ages, even though the council minutes definitely said all panel members should be trained. And to be honest, sometimes you just give up. It seems as if there is an institutional decision. Individuals within the institution must act as if the decision has been made for it to be made. If they do not, it has not. A decision made in the present about the future (under the promissory sign "we will") can be overridden by the momentum of the past. The past becomes like the crowd discussed in part 1: a momentum becomes not only a direction, but a directive. A command does not have to be given to ensure things go that way, and indeed a command would not stop things from going that way. Perhaps a yes can be said because the weight of the past will not allow that yes to acquire the force needed to bring something into effect. I have called this mechanism non-performativity: when naming something does not bring something into effect or (more strongly) when something is named in order not to bring something into effect. When yes does not bring something into effect, that yes conceals this not bringing under the appearance of having brought. A yes might even be more utterable when it has less force; or a yes might be uttered by being emptied of force. In other words, it might be easier for an institution within an institution to say yes because there is nothing behind that yes. I return to this example in chapter 6 because it has so much to teach us about institutional walls. 33 + 34 + 35 +====The hegemonic order of supremacy in the university thrives on what bodies can articulate. Marginalized bodies lose their vocational power as the complicit nature of universities’ discourse uphold systems of arbitrary exclusion.==== 36 +**Patton 04** (Dr. Tracey Owens Patton is the director of African American and Diaspora Studies and a professor in the Department of Communication and Journalism at the University of Wyoming. Dr. Patton's area of expertise is critical cultural communication and rhetorical studies.2004 Reflections of a Black Woman Professor: Racism and Sexism in Academia, Howard Journal of Communications, 15:3, 186-187, Accessed 6/27/16, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10646170490483629)KAE 37 + 38 +The theory of articulation provides us with the means of critiquing language, discourse, and power. The theory of articulation is inextricably linked with and wedded to hegemony. As Asante (1998) noted, Speech is itself a political act... Whenever one categorizes society in an effort to make concepts functional, one makes a choice among possibilities. Making a choice among possibilities creates cleavages that benefit some to the disadvantage of others. Through a choice in language and action, maintenance of the current white supremacist hegemonic order becomes "intertwined in the most intricate patterns of our conversation and language." (p.87788) The enactment of agency with regard to language choice and action becomes a subjective choice to maintain the status quo or use language that produces actions that challenge the current hegemonic order. The reproduction of hegemony is itself not solely a problem of color, but also a historical conceptual framework based on values granted to particular racial categories (Asante, 1998) and values granted to particular language and action choices. Therefore, while White supremacy may be a function of the institutional structure, it maintains its naturalization because individuals through their articulation and enactment of hegemony perpetuate marginalization. This enactment of hegemony can take the form of "the dissemination of symbols and acts of speech itself" (p.89). In other words, a conception of so-called reality takes place within the institution whether it is through action, language, or thought. Therefore, an institutionalized social framework becomes naturalized, reified, and unquestioned. As Slack (1997) explained, Epistemologically, articulation is a way of thinking the structures of what we know as a play of correspondences, non-correspondences and contradictions, as fragments in the constitution of what we take to be unities. Politically, articulation is a way of foregrounding the structure and play of power that entail in relations of dominance and subordination. Strategically, articulation provides a mechanism for shaping intervention within a particular social formation, conjuncture or context. (p.112) The theory of articulation requires an examination of the configuration of power in any social condition and through which people or institutions "advance or defend their interests and devise tactics and strategies appropriate to their aims" (Fiske,1996, p. 67). In other words, people must examine the complicitousness through which they defend their action and language choices. Language is intertwined with articulation because socially constructed knowledge, language, and action shape the present situation and the status quo, which, in turn, have the power to shape the individual and the institution and to reinforce the hegemonic order (Hall, 1997). In higher education, as W. R. Allen (1992) argued, there are numerous barriers that, collectively, ensure that "a status quo rooted in an unfair system of racial stratification is reproduced within the university" (p.42). Among these barriers are culturally and economically biased standardized tests, administration and faculty that is largely White men, high tuition costs and low financial aid programs, an emphasis on competition, and little cultural pluralism and diversity. W. R. Allen stated that the "nation’s colleges and universities seem to be not only content with, but committed to, the current system of structured inequality, a system in which African Americans ~~and other ethnic minorities~~ suffer grievously" (p. 42). Change in higher education and in pedagogy, W.R. Allen noted, will only come when universities feel more responsibility to change and challenge the current status quo: If we fail to respond creatively and effectively to this challenge, not only will history judge us harshly, but this country will also continue to suffer the negative consequences, such as the loss of its competitive edge in the world market, that have resulted from its failure to develop fully and utilize the talents of all its people, without regard to race, gender, or class.(p.43) Whether intentionally or not, universities can signal their collusion with maintaining the White supremacist hegemonic order even as it articulates itself as "open" and is often polemically known as "liberal" because of complicitous language and actions that on the surface appear to address hegemony, however, on closer inspection, they ultimately maintain it (Patton, 2004). Dziech and Hawkins (1998) believed that "whether it is an extension of or a reaction against its history, an institution’s present always reflects its past, and that past influences~~marginalized bodies~~ profoundly" (p.560).To challenge hegemonic concerns, academia must be ever-evolving. Discourses are ways of constituting knowledge or "truth." Through discourse people make meaning and make sense of their everyday world. As people communicate about their social world they create and construct "truths." According to Deetz and Mumby (1990), this process of communicating necessarily takes place in the context of power relations. As these scholars showed, communication and how it is structured can reify and restructure hegemony. In their view, "communication can be said to function ideologically in that it produces and reproduces (i.e., legitimates) a particular structure of power relations (i.e., systems of interests) to the arbitrary exclusion of other possible configurations of interests" (p.42).Thus a constant power struggle ensues because communication occurs in the context of hegemonic relations. 39 + 40 +====These actions maintain hegemony and become a depletion of will for the Other. White patriarchy relies on this promise of happiness. Oppression becomes happiness with circulated images of the happy woman in the kitchen, the thankful woman with lower pay and the happy slave. Happiness requires that the Other renounce desire and will to become complacent with death.==== 41 +**Ahmed 4 **(Sara Ahmed is formerly the director of a new Centre for Feminist Research (CFR) at Goldsmiths, Professor of Race and Cultural Studies at Goldsmiths, and a scholar that writes on the intersection of queer theory, feminist theory, critical race theory, and post-colonialism. Ahmed, Sara. The Promise of Happiness. Durham: Duke U Press, 2010. Pg. 63-64 //DOA 1/29/17) KAE 42 + 43 +It is Sophy’s imagination that threatens to get in the way of her happiness, and thus of the happiness of all. Imagination is what allows girls to question the wisdom they have received and to ask whether what is good for all is necessarily good for them. We could describe one episode of The MiU on the Fhss¶ as Maggie becoming Sophy (or becoming the Sophy that Sophy must be in¶ order to fulfil her narrative function). Maggie has an epiphany: the answer¶ to her troubles is to become happy and good: " it flashed through her like the¶ suddenly apprehended solution of a problem, that all the miseries of her young¶ life had come from fixing her heart on her own pleasure as if that were the¶ central necessity of the universe" (306). From the point of view of the parents,¶ their daughter has become good because she has submitted to their will:¶ "Her mother felt the change in her with a sort of puzzled wonder that Maggie¶ should be ‘growing up so good'; it was amazing that this once ‘contrairy’ child¶ was becoming so submissive, so backward to assert her own will" (309). To be good as a girl is to give up having a will of one’s own. The mother can thus love the daughter who is becoming like furniture, who can support the family by staying in the background: "The mother was getting fond of her tall, brown¶ girl, the only bit of furniture now in which she could bestow her anxiety and¶ pride" (309). It is as if Maggie has chosen between happiness and life, by giving up life for¶ happiness: ‘"I’ve been a great deal happier,’ she said at last timidly, ‘since I have¶ given up thinking about what is easy and pleasant, and being discontented because¶ I couldn’t have my own will. Our life is determined for us — and it makes the mind very free when we give up wishing and only think of bearing what is laid upon us and doing what is given us to do’" (317). Happiness is associated here with the renunciation of desire.~^ It is her friend Philip whom Maggie is¶ addressing at this point. It is Philip who loves Maggie for her aliveness, who gives her books that rekindle her sense of interest and curiosity about the world. He gives her one book that she cannot finish as she reads in this book the injustice of happiness, which is given to some and not others, those deemed worthy of love. "‘I didn’t finish the book,’ said Maggie. ‘As soon as I came to the blond-haired young girl reading in the park, I shut it up and determined to read no further, I foresaw that that light-complexioned girl would win away all the love from Corinne and make her miserable. I’m determined to read no more books where the blondhaired women carry away all the happiness. I should begin to have a prejudice against them. If you could give me some story, now, where the dark woman triumphs, it would restore the balance. I want to avenge Rebecca, and Flora Maclvor, and Minna, and all the rest of the dark unhappy ones’" (348-45). Exercising a racialized vocabulary, Maggie exposes how darkness becomes a form of unhappiness, as lacking the qualities deemed necessary for being given a happy ending.*~^ Maggie gives up on giving up her life for happiness by speaking out against the injustice of happiness and how it is given to some and not others. The novel relies on contrasting the cousins Lucy and Maggie in terms of their capacity to be happy and dutiful. Maggie admits her unhappiness to Lucy: "One gets a bad habit of being unhappy" (389). For Lucy, being happy is a way of not being trouble; she cannot live with the reality of getting into trouble: as she says, "I’ve always been happy, I don’t know whether I could bear much trouble" (389). Happiness involves a way of avoiding what one cannot bear. The climactic moment of the novel comes when Stephen, who is betrothed to Lucy, announces his desire for Maggie, who is swept away by it. She almost goes along with him but realizes that she cannot: "Many things are difficult and dark to me, but I see one thing quite clearly: that I must not, cannot, seek my own happiness by sacrificing others" (471). Maggie chooses duty as if without duty there would be only the inclination of the moment. As a good Kantian subject, she says: "If the past is not to bind us, where can duty he? We should have no law but the inclination of the moment" (499), to which Stephen replies, "But it weighs nothing with you that you are robbing me of my happiness" (500-501).*'* By choosing duty, Maggie does not avoid causing unhappiness. She must pay for her moment of transgression. Having deviated from the path of happiness, she has fulfilled her destiny as trouble. As she says in one letter: "Oh God, is there any happiness in love that could make me forget their pain" (528). Death as a result of a natural disaster (a flood) thus liberates Maggie from the unhappy consequences of causing trouble, of deviating from the paths of happiness. The injustice of her loss of life is how the novel speaks against happiness, which itself is narrated as the renunciation of life, imagination, and desire. Even if books like The Mill on the Floss seem to punish their heroines for their transgressions, they also evoke the injustice of happiness, showing what and whom happiness gives up. In giving up on those who seem to give up on happiness, happiness acquires its coherence. We could describe happiness quite simply as a convention, such that to deviate from the paths of happiness is to challenge convention. What is a convention? The word convention comes from the verb "to convene." To convene is to gather, to assemble, or to meet up, A convention is a point around which we gather. To follow a convention is to gather in the right way, to be assembled. Feminism gives time and space to women’s desires that are not assembled around the reproduction of the family form. Feminists must thus be willing to cause disturbance. Feminists might even have to be willful. A subject would be described as willful at the point that her will does not coincide with that of others, those whose will is reified as the general or social will.* 44 + 45 +====Violence against the Other is upheld with questions "Why do you want so much? Why aren’t you just happy?" Thus, the project of feminism is to acquire the voice and will that uses speech to mark and make violence visible==== 46 +**Ahmed 5 **(Sara Ahmed is formerly the director of a new Centre for Feminist Research (CFR) at Goldsmiths, Professor of Race and Cultural Studies at Goldsmiths, and a scholar that writes on the intersection of queer theory, feminist theory, critical race theory, and post-colonialism, Living a Feminist Life, "Chapter 3: Willfulness and Feminist Subjectivity", 2017, Duke University Press, pp 72-73 //Accessed 2/9/2017 GKKE) 47 + 48 +I think of this embodied history as my own history of willfulness. And that too is a challenge to the discourse of stranger danger, which assumes that violence originates outside of home. Stranger danger could be used to retell this story as the story of the violence of the Muslim father. Here the story becomes complicated: it is a feminist of color kind of complication. When we speak of violence directed against us, we know how quickly that violence can be racialized; how racism will explain that violence as an expression of culture, which is how racism and religion become entangled. Violence would the again be assumed to originate with outsiders. Some forms of violence become cultural, and other forms of violence remain individual and idiosyncratic: the some of this distinction is racism. I return to the racism at stake in the potential reframing of my own story in chapter 7. We must still tell these stories of violence because of how quickly that violence is concealed and reproduced. We must always tell them with care. But it is risky: when they are taken out of hands they can become another form of beating. Willfulness comes up in part as a mechanism for justifying violence by those who are violent. And why I mention this here, this very ordinary experience of violence directed against girls and women by fathers or husbands within the supposed safety of home (that this is ordinary is why we must mention it) is that my own father’s blows were always accompanied by words. He would ask insistently punishing questions: why do you want so much? Why are you never satisfied? Why do you not do better at school? In other words, being judged as willful was a technique for justifying violence in the midst of violence. You are being punished for your subjectivity, for being the being you are. You can be beaten by a judgement. And then: you become the cause of the violence directed against you. I did work out what to do, and found my own ways of stopping it. I began to scream really loudly when he went for me. He would stop very quickly after I screamed. Why did this work? So often people do not recognize their actions as violent; we know this. Hitting a willful girl, after all, has been justified as discipline and moral instruction: for her own good. By screaming, I announced my father’s violence. I made it audible. And I learned from this too: becoming a feminist was about becoming audible, feminism as screaming in order to be heard; screaming as making violence visible; feminism as acquiring a voice. 49 + 50 +====~~advo text~~ Thus I affirm the resolution. The 1AC is a standing resistance against institutionalized happiness in university settings through the figure of the killjoy. ==== 51 + 52 +====The 1AC is a personal killjoy manifesto against the oppressive structures of happiness in academic spaces. Sharing of experiences is an assertion of our will against violence. Joy is found in our killing of happiness. To be a killjoy is to be a political activist, a nonconforming queer, or the angry black woman. ==== 53 +**Ahmed 6** (Sara Ahmed is formerly the director of a new Centre for Feminist Research (CFR) at Goldsmiths, Professor of Race and Cultural Studies at Goldsmiths, and a scholar that writes on the intersection of queer theory, feminist theory, critical race theory, and post-colonialism, Living a Feminist Life, "Conclusion II", 2017, Duke University Press, pp 254-257 //Accessed 2/9/2017 GKKE) 54 + 55 +We must stay unhappy with this world. The figure of the feminist killjoy makes sense if we place her in the context of feminist critiques of happiness, some of which 1 discusses in chapter I (see also Ahmed 2010). Happiness is used to justify social norms as social goods. As Simone de Beauvoir described so astutely, "It is always easy to describe a, happy a situation in which one wishes to place ~~others~~ (1949~~ 1997, 28). Not to agree to stay in the place of this wish might be to refuse the happiness that is wished for. To be involved in political activism is thus to be involved in a struggle against happiness. The struggle over happiness provides the horizon in which political claims are made. We inherit this horizon. A killjoy becomes a manifesto when we are willing to take up this figure, to assemble a life not as her (I discussed the risks of assuming we are her in chapter 7) but around her, in her company. We are willing to killjoy because the world that assigns this or that person or group of people as the killjoys is not to world a want to be part of. To be willing to killjoy is to transform a judgement into a project. A manifesto: how a judgment becomes a project. To think of killjoys as manifestos is to say that a politics of transformation, a politics that intends to cause the end of a system, is not a program of action that can be separates from how we are in the worlds we are in. Feminism is praxis. We enact the world we are aiming for; nothing Iess will do. Lesbian feminism, as I noted in chapter 9, is how we organize our lives in such a way that our relations to each other as women are not mediated through our relations to men. A life becomes an archive of rebellion, this is why a killjoy manifesto will be personal. Each of us killjoys will have our own. My manifesto does not suspend my personal story it is how that story unfolds into action. It is from difficult experiences, or being bruised by structures that are not even revealed to others, that we gain the energy to rebel It is from what we conic up against that we gain new angles on what we are against. Our bodies become our tools; our rage becomes sickness. We vomit; we vomit out what we have been asked to take in. Our guts become our feminist friends the more we are sickened. We begin to feel the weight of histories more and more; the more we expose the weight of history, the heavier it becomes. We snap. We snap under the weight; things break. A manifesto is written out of feminist snap. A manifesto is feminist snap. And: we witness as feminists the trouble feminism causes. I would hazard a guess; feminist trouble is an extension of gender trouble (Butler 1990). To be more specific: feminist trouble is the trouble with women. When we refuse to be women, in the heteropatriarchal sense as beings for men, we become trouble, we get into trouble. A killjoy is willing to get into trouble. And this I think is what is specific about a killjoy manifesto: that we bring into our statements of intent or purpose the experience of what we come up against. It is this experience that allows us to articulate a for, a for that carries with it an experience of what we come up against. A for can be how we turn Something about a manifesto is about what it aims to bring about. There is no doubt in my mind that a feminist killjoy is for something; although as killjoys we are not necessarily for the same things. But you would only be willing to live with the consequences of being against what you come up against if you are for something, A life can be a manifesto. When I read some of the books in my survival kit, I hear them as manifestos, as calls to action; as calls to arms. They are books that tremble with life because they show how a life can be rewritten; how we can rewrite a life, letter by letter. A manifesto has a life, a life of its own; a manifesto is an outstretched hand. And if a manifesto is a political action, it depends on how it is received by others. And perhaps a hand can do more when it is not simply received by another hand, when a gesture exceeds the firmness of a handshake. Perhaps more than a hand needs to shake, If a killjoy manifesto is a handle, it flies out of hand. A manifesto thus repeats something that has already happened' as we know the killjoy has flown off. Perhaps a killjoy manifesto is unhandy; a feminist flight. When we refuse to be the master’s tool, we expose the violence of rods, the violences that built the master's dwelling, brick by brick. When we make violence manifest, a violence that is reproduced by not being made a manifesto, we will be assigned as killjoys. It is because of what she reveals that a killjoy he - comes a killjoy in the first place. A manifesto is in some sense behind her. This is not to say that writing a killjoy manifesto is not also a commitment; that it is not also an idea if how to move forward. A killjoy has her principles. A killjoy manifesto shows how we create principles from an experience of what we come up against, from how we live a feminist life. When I say principles here, I do not mean rules of conduct that we must agree to in order to proceed in a common direction. I might say that a feminist life is principled but feminism often becomes an announcement at the very moment of the refusal to be bound by principle. When I think of feminist principles, I think of principles in the original sense: principle as a first step, as a commencement, a start of something. A principle can also be what is elemental to a craft. Feminist killjoys and other willful subjects are crafty; we are becoming crafty. There are principles in what we craft. How we begin does not determine where we end up„ but principles do give shape or direction. Feminist principles are articulated in unfeminist worlds. Living a life with feminist principles is thus not living smoothly; we bump into the world that does not live in accordance with the principles we try to live. For some reason, the principles I articulate here ended up being expressed as statements of will; of what a killjoy is willing (to do or to be) or not willing (to do or to be). I think we can understand the some of this reason. A killjoy manifesto is a willful subject; she wills wrongly by what she is willing or is not willing to do. No wonder a willful subject has principles; she can be principled. She can share them if you can bear them. 56 + 57 +====Thus the killjoy is the praxis point to resolve other violent power structures – our project of phenomenology expose the origin of violence and call to action rage against violent structures of happiness. ==== 58 + 59 +====The role of the ballot is vote for the debater that best opens up spaces for us oppressed bodies to assert our will. Every reading of the 1AC exposes a new moment of happiness in every rfd, decision, and refutation that must be sabotaged for liberation ==== 60 +**Ahmed 7 **(Sara Ahmed is formerly the director of a new Centre for Feminist Research (CFR) at Goldsmiths, Professor of Race and Cultural Studies at Goldsmiths, and a scholar that writes on the intersection of queer theory, feminist theory, critical race theory, and post-colonialism. Ahmed, Sara. The Promise of Happiness. Durham: Duke U Press, 2010. Pg. 19-20//DOA 1/29/17) KAE 61 + 62 +Every writer is first a reader, and what we read matters. I think of myself primarily as a reader of feminist, queer, and antiracist books — these books form the intellectual and political horizon of this book. I would describe these books as my philosophy books in the sense that they are the books that have helped me to think about how happiness participates in the creation of social form. But my archive does not just include books or films. If you follow the word happiness you end up everywhere! So my archive is also my world, my life-world, my past as well as present, where the word happiness has echoed so powerfully. One of the speech acts that always fascinated me is "I just want you to be happy," which I remember being said to me an awful lot when I was growing up. Writing this book has given me a chance to wonder more about what it means to express "just want" for the happiness of another. But this is just one kind of happiness speech act. There are many! Others you will encounter in this book include "I’m happy if you are happy," "I cannot bear you to be un happy," "I want to make you happy," "I want to see you being happy," and "I want to be the cause of the happiness that is inside you." How often we speak of happiness! If my task is to follow the words, then I aim to describe what kind of world takes shape when it is given that the happiness of which we speak is good. The question "what does happiness do?" is inseparable from the question of how happiness and unhappiness are distributed over time and in space. To track the history of happiness is to track the history of its distribution. Happiness gets distributed in all sorts of complicated ways. Certainly to be a good subject is to be perceived as a happiness-cause, as making others happy. To be bad is thus to be a killjoy. This book is an attempt to give the killjoy back her voice and to speak from recognition of how it feels to inhabit that place. I thus draw on my own experiences of being called a killjoy in describing the sociability of happiness. So many of the discussions I have had about this research have involved "swapping killjoy stories." I remember one time at a conference table when we were discussing being killjoys at the family table. The conference was organized by the Australian Critical Race and Whiteness Studies Association in 2007, and it was the first time I had been to a conference in Australia as a person of color from Australia where I felt at home. I now think of spaces created by such conferences as providing new kinds of tables, perhaps tables that give support to those who are unseated by the tables of happiness. I know that I risk overemphasizing the problems with happiness by presenting happiness as a problem. It is a risk I am willing to take. If this book kills joy, then it does what it says we should do. To kill joy, as many of the texts I cite in the following pages teach us, is to open a life, to make room for life, to make room for possibility, for chance. My aim in this book is to make room. 63 + 64 +====This means that only the aff is effective to create a survival mechanism for the Other in the institution; silence creates complacency under the guise of "safety" which become less safe for the marginalized in the institutions==== 65 +**Rodruiguez 11** (Dalia Rodriguez,2011, Qualitative Inquiry, "Silent rage and the politics of resitstance: countering seductions of whiteness and the road of politization and empowerment" https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/~~#inbox/155f2644f681f418?projector=1 ) pg. 594// KAE 66 + 67 +However, in addition to having critical dialogues with each other, what Whites need to understand is the need to create safe spaces for women of color to heal, and define themselves, and cope with racism. Historically, safe spaces have been "safe" because they have allowed a space for women of color to examine particular concerns that concern us (Collins, 2000). By definition, if such spaces are shared with those that are not of color, they become less safe. Recently, there were several female faculty of color who were recent hires and leaving the university. To support the initiatives supported by the administration to recruit faculty of color, I introduced the idea of creating affinity groups for female faculty of color. The reactions from White faculty members were not a surprise, but the comments were unexpected given the purpose of the committee, which was to collaboratively make social change across campus. One White faculty member said, "What you just said made me feel uncomfortable." The words, "comments you just said made me feel uncomfortable" made me think that certainly what I had expressed bothered some people in the room. She went on to say, "I just feel like there are many White faculty that could get so much out of it too." I understood this point, and said so in the meeting. To work toward solidarity, there certainly needs to be a dialogue between people of color and Whites. I appreciated her honesty, her willingness to disagree. This let me know that she was listening to my suggestion. It invited the "messiness" so central to making social change (Uttal, 1990). However, it was what was what said after the initial comment that reinforced how Whites can simultaneously work toward building coalitions and work to support White racism in the academy. Soon thereafter, another White faculty member said, "I’m so sick (emphasis) and tired of feeling left out. As an antiracist educator, I work and work and yet no one wants to include you." She began getting visibly upset, and other White faculty members joined in, looking over at her to demonstrate support; one White faculty member reached her hand over, patted the self-proclaimed anti- racist educator and shook her head in agreement, and said, "I know exactly what you mean." What most White faculty members failed to see is that by asking this question, women of color around that table were being denied the right to define self. Collins (2000) articulates it best when she says, Within this climate, African American women are increasingly asked why we want to "separate" ourselves from Black men and why feminism cannot speak for all women, including us. In essence, these queries challenge the need for distinctive Black women’s communities as political entities. (p. 110) Collins explains that one of the reasons that safe spaces are so threatening to those who feel excluded is because these spaces are free of surveillance by more powerful groups. These safe spaces offer the conditions for women of color to self-define, becoming the foundation for a politicized standpoint, affecting the organization of women of color and going beyond simply the expression of voice. It became very clear to me that I was simply done with my concern—not because I didn’t think the issue was critical for us to consider, but because most White faculty members had already made up their minds about the proposal on the table. Feeling dismissed and unheard, I sat in silence. It is often in these moments that women of color retreat to silence, as our spoken words remain unheard, and many times our words are rejected or deemed as "hopeless" and doing nothing to create social change. However, I also feel the need to question why else I chose to remain silent. Like Montoya eloquently explains, as women of color, we most often have been trained to remain silent, even during moments of intense emotion. As Montoya (2000) argues, In retrospect, I was silent because I had been well- trained, even in situations of intense emotions. I read the signals around me; I knew how to act—I knew to be silent. (p. 25) While women’s silences are often coerced (Houston and Kramarae, 1991), we have also been socialized to remain silent, (Montoya, 2000), especially in the academy. The implications of remaining silent for women of color can be detrimental for the survival of women of color in the academy. Remaining silent may lead to becoming invisible, and can be the death of us in many ways—spiritually, emotion- ally, and professionally. Voice and visibility go hand in hand in the demonstration of competence for women of color (Alfred, 2001), especially in the academy. For example, although women of color are rendered invisible by virtue of their femaleness and their race, successful female faculty of color who can get the dominant group to listen to her voice will increase her visibility among the group. In the educational context, visibility is critical for women of color during the graduate school and tenure-track process. Moreover, in the White academy, a place that often serves to silence women of color, voicing oneself may also serve as a form of comfort, if not inspiration to other women of color who have been similarly silenced (Williams, 2001). We can begin to convince ourselves that remaining silent is actually a good thing. hooks (1995) argues that part of the colonizing process has been teaching folks of color to repress our rage, to never make Whites the targets of any anger we feel about racism. She argues that most folks of color have internalized this message and it is this internalization of victimization that renders folks of color power- less. The repression of rage (if and when we feel it) and silencing the rage of other Black people (and other people of color) are the sacrificial offering we make to gain the ear of White listeners. Remaining silent can also make one complacent—perhaps even momentarily convincing our- selves that everything is ok, and even dismissing any signs of racism that may occur in front of us, to us, and to those around us. This is the result of the White supremacist world we live in and reflective of how people of color continue to be colonized in the White academy. 68 + 69 +====Facilitating criticism of academic spaces is key to destroying their communicative hegemony. The aff is an action of opening a space for those marginalized in the institution to create friction against the academy become oppositional to oppressive spaces. ==== 70 +**Patton 04** (Dr. Tracey Owens Patton is the director of African American and Diaspora Studies and a professor in the Department of Communication and Journalism at the University of Wyoming. Dr. Patton's area of expertise is critical cultural communication and rhetorical studies.2004 Reflections of a Black Woman Professor: Racism and Sexism in Academia, Howard Journal of Communications, 15:3, 198-199, Accessed 6/27/16, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10646170490483629)KAE 71 + 72 +Is solidarity possible? Is a shift in the center possible? A shift within the center is a direct challenge to the current hegemonic order. This shift not only challenges the top-down hierarchical order and replaces it with a more horizontal order, but it also allows us to realize and recognize that culture is shared and the unquestioned center should be contested. With this in mind, then, a critical examination of power can ensue. It also raises an important question: Is a White supremacist patriarchal hegemonic institution interested in ‘‘re-articulating?’’ In light of the oppression against women and ethnic minorities, will the institution throw off the cloak of complicity in which the hegemonic order is invested? When struggle, perseverance, and enlightenment is no longer made on the backs of women and non-White bodies perhaps that will mean other standpoints have been or can be embraced. Just as an aspect of feminist standpoint theory ‘‘seeks to expose both acts of oppression and acts of resistance by asking disenfranchised persons to describe and discuss their experiences with hope that their knowledge will reveal otherwise unexposed aspects of the social order’’ (B. J. Allen et al.1999, p. 409), the theory of articulation can be used in the same manner. The theory of articulation links and examines issues of disenfranchisement, as they are interdependent with the hegemony, language, and action that articulated their subject positions. To establish a woman’s and ethnic minority woman’s standpoint is to prepare to challenge academic hegemony. However, as Flores and Moon (2002) correctly pointed out, ‘‘so long as desires are imbued with notions of superiority and domination, attempts to destabilize race ~~and other marginalizations~~ will fail’’ (p. 200). Articulation challenges hegemony through an oppositional gaze. Giroux (1993) noted that ‘‘oppositional paradigms provide new languages through which it becomes possible to deconstruct and challenge dominant relations of power and knowledge legitimated in traditional forms of discourse’’ (p. 167). Oppositional paradigms create the possibility for rearticulation to occur, thus shifting the current hegemonic order. The issue of racism and sexism in academe gains heightened importance particularly as positionality of the outsider-within not only remains entrenched, but also continues to produce and present numerous challenges and consequences. We need to recognize that alternative representations are necessary. Just as McLaren (1995) stated that pedagogical practice must be reimagined, so too must academe be reimaged in terms of racism and sexism lest we complicitly choose to remain adrift in the reproduction of dominant ideology. We must begin to produce new ways of thinking that involve deconstructing and dismantling the current hegemonic order and beginning to rebuild, reconstruct, and rearticulate the academy in inclusive and transformative ways. We are at a critical juncture in academe. The possibilities for re-imagining and re-articulating a radically different institution come both from the disenfranchised and from the centered. It is through their standpoints, language, action, and oppositional gaze that we can enable ourselves to challenge the current constructions of racism and sexism in academe in order to embrace a critical, transformative, and liberated vision. Academia can be both enlightening and oppressive. It is not enough to have the disenfranchised included in such way as to make their contributions, their voices, and their perspectives ineffective and silenced because of the maintenance of hegemony or allow them to border-cross when it benefits those in the center. Of all places, academia should be a profession that is a marketplace for the exchange of diverse ideas, diverse perspectives, and education in the value of difference 73 + 74 +====The 1AC is a refusal to have our words coopted and silenced inside of institutions. Only by calling attention to the violence inside of the institution can we ever recognize the walls we need to come up against and carve out our survival strategy. Disciplining us into silence only reinforces the ==== 75 +**Nguyen 14** Nicole Nguyen and R. Tina Catania The Feminist Wire August 5 2014 "On Feeling Depleted: Naming, Confronting, and Surviving Oppression in the Academy" thefeministwire.com/2014/08/feeling-depleted-naming-confronting-surviving-oppression-academy/KAE 76 + 77 +We write because we cannot remain silent. And the "we" that we envision is more than our own impulses. It is a collective we that cannot be and will not be silent in the face of oppression. As Audre Lorde writes, "Your silence will not protect you." The silence~~7~~ of individuals who are "waiting to get a job" or "waiting to get tenure" or "keeping their heads down and doing their own thing" does not protect them from microaggressions, from oppression, from depletion.~~8~~ What it does do is continue to reify and entrench the oppressive nature of the academy; it disciplines us to stay silent, to reinforce oppression, and to participate in its reproduction. Thus, we urge every-body, but especially those in positions of power (i.e., tenure-track and tenured faculty) to name oppression. To name sexism. To name ableism. To name racism. To be cognizant of how these -isms intersect to violently oppress and privilege particular bodies and identities. We must name instances, call attention to the ways that the academy’s daily practices are multiply oppressive. And we should do so whether we experience them through someone like Stuart, a prototypical, privileged, white male, or through anyone else whether white feminists, able-bodied people of color, or male "allies." These violences, from whomever they come and through whatever structures make such encounters possible, must be named. They must be resisted. And they must be transformed. We recognize that, as Sara Ahmed warns, "exposing a problem is to become a problem."~~9~~ Yet, we refuse to be disciplined. We refuse to have our words, actions, and experiences foreclosed for fear of being read as the "problem," always "stirring up trouble." Fuck the fear that the discipline, field, department, administration, university, society tries to instill in us so that we do not speak up, so that we do not name our oppressions. We recognize the academic institution and its practices for what they are: inherently oppressive. We recognize that many have no desire to critique the academy because they do not want to jeopardize their privilege within it. We recognize that critiques of academia are necessarily limited by those who make them when they are invested in maintaining its structure, a structure that works for them. We seek to radically reshape and remake the institution in more equitable ways. True solidarity cannot pay lip service to feminist, de-colonial, anti-racist projects while maintaining individual investments in a system that works for only the most privileged bodies. Marginalized individuals cannot but participate in the oppression of other marginalized people if they are invested in academia’s current structure. Increased "representation" merely reifies the system rather than expands the possibilities for solidarity, for change. We see our colleagues, our cohorts, our faculty, our peers, and even ourselves as colluding in these oppressions when they (we) ignore them, when they ignore us, when they remain silent at their occurrence, when they are oblivious to their daily repetition. When your colleague does not plan an accessible, inclusive event from the beginning, they actively reproduce ableism and create exclusionary spaces. And our naming that problem, and therefore your collusion in ableist oppression, makes us the problem, rather than you or the institution. When the violent actions of white, male students not only go unpunished, but undiscussed and unrecognized by faculty, you actively participate in our racialized and gendered oppression. Within a deeply inequitable institution, we strive to navigate a space for ourselves, for understanding. We understand that we are a part of the academy and that our actions can also work to sustain it. Yet we strive for a different academy. We seek to transform the institution. For us, this includes naming the violences of those like Stuart and rejecting the common call to discipline ourselves into not writing or voicing radical critiques of the academy. So we begin here, with a naming of sorts. We write to name what we should not name. Yet writing also serves as a way to carve out alternative spaces. Spaces that contribute to our survivability and to our resistance against these structural and everyday forms of oppression. These spaces are where we "recognize each other, find each other, create spaces of relief, spaces that might be breathing spaces, spaces in which we can be inventive."~~10~~ We write together to claim our intersectional identities and recognize that for us, the academy must include the stories of our bodies, our exclusions, our resistances, our politics, our activism. We write to document our exhaustion in surviving, resisting, and reshaping this deeply violent institution even as we, as graduate students, occupy particularly precarious positions. Given these oppressions in the academy, this is a call for different, transnational, cross-border, and accessible forms of solidarity. We write, ultimately, as an invitation to those other depleted-yet-vibrant bodies, bodies who imagine another kind of academy. An academy that is collaborative, feminist, and inclusive. It is an invitation to strategize, to survive, to heal. 78 + 79 + 80 +====Scenarios of nuclear war or extinction are deemed as the ‘good form of debate’ and help construct a space where violence against womxn is especially hidden and force female debaters to be complacent reading those positions. We are supposed to be nice debaters, more compelling, appropriate and sweet. Failure to do so creates more affect against the marginalized female body. Feminine participation and speech inside debate is constantly suppressed through justifications of conformity and acting "happy". Thus, the figure of the killjoy is uniquely good in debate. ==== 81 +Bjork 92 (Rebecca, debater and university coach, "Symposium: Women in Debate: Reflections on the Ongoing Struggle", Effluents and affluence: The Global Pollution Debate, 1992")KAE 82 + 83 +While reflecting on my experiences as a woman in academic debate in preparation for this essay, I realized that I have been involved in debate for more than half of my life. I debated for four years in high school, for four years in college, and I have been coaching intercollegiate debate for nine years. Not surprisingly, much of my identity as an individual has been shaped by these experiences in debate. I am a person who strongly believes that debate empowers people to be committed and involved individuals in the communities in which they live. I am a person who thrives on the intellectual stimulation involved in teaching and traveling with the brightest students on my campus. I am a person who looks forward to the opportunities for active engagement of ideas with debaters and coaches from around the country. I am also, however, a college professor, a "feminist," and a peace activist who is increasingly frustrated and disturbed by some of the practices I see being perpetuated and rewarded in academic debate. I find that I can no longer separate my involvement in debate from the rest of who I am as an individual.Northwestern I remember listening to a lecture a few years ago given by Tom Goodnight at the University summer debate camp. Goodnight lamented what he saw as the debate community's participation in, and unthinking perpetuation of what he termed the "death culture." He argued that the embracing of "big impact" arguments—nuclear war, environmental destruction, genocide, famine, and the like-by debaters and coaches signals a morbid and detached fascination with such events, one that views these real human tragedies as part of a "game" in which so-called "objective and neutral" advocates actively seek to find in their research the "impact to outweigh all other impacts"—the round-winning argument that will carry them to their goal of winning tournament X, Y, or Z. He concluded that our "use" of such events in this way is tantamount to a celebration of them; our detached, rational discussions reinforce a detached, rational viewpoint, when emotional and moral outrage may be a more appropriate response. In the last few years, my academic research has led me to be persuaded by Goodnight's unspoken assumption; language is not merely some transparent tool used to transmit information, but rather is an incredibly powerful medium, the use of which inevitably has real political and material consequences. Given this assumption, I believe that it is important for us to examine the "discourse of debate practice:" that is, the language, discourses, and meanings that we, as a community of debaters and coaches, unthinkingly employ in academic debate. If it is the case that the language we use has real implications for how we view the world, how we view others, and how we act in the world, then it is imperative that we critically examine our own discourse practices with an eye to how our language does violence to others. I am shocked and surprised when I hear myself saying things like, "we killed them," or "take no prisoners," or "let's blow them out of the water." I am tired of the "ideal" debater being defined as one who has mastered the art of verbal assault to the point where accusing opponents of lying, cheating, or being deliberately misleading is a sign of strength. But what I am most tired of is how women debaters are marginalized and rendered voiceless in such a discourse community. Women who verbally assault their opponents are labeled "bitches" because it is not socially acceptable for women to be verbally aggressive. Women who get angry and storm out of a room when a disappointing decision is rendered are labeled "hysterical" because, as we all know, women are more emotional then men. I am tired of hearing comments like, "those 'girls' from school X aren't really interested in debate; they just want to meet men." We can all point to examples (although only a few) of women who have succeeded at the top levels of debate. But I find myself wondering how many more women gave up because they were tired of negotiating the mine field of discrimination, sexual harassment, and isolation they found in the debate community. As members of this community, however, we have great freedom to define it in whatever ways we see fit. After all, what is debate except a collection of shared understandings and explicit or implicit rules for interaction? What I am calling for is a critical examination of how we, as individual members of this community, characterize our activity, ourselves, and our interactions with others through language. We must become aware of the ways in which our mostly hidden and unspoken assumptions about what "good" debate is function to exclude not only women, but ethnic minorities from the amazing intellectual opportunities that training in debate provides. Our nation and indeed, our planet, faces incredibly difficult challenges in the years ahead. I believe that it is not acceptable anymore for us to go along as we always have, assuming that things will straighten themselves out. If the rioting in Los Angeles taught us anything, it is that complacency breeds resentment and frustration. We may not be able to change the world, but we can change our own community, and if we fail to do so, we give up the only real power that we have. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-05-10 01:53:34.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +day - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +one - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +30 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Finals - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lake Travis Ehresman Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - The nag 1AC v3 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Maybe
- Caselist.RoundClass[21]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +15 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-05-10 01:13:10.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +all - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +all - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +only broken 1AC Round reports 1NC r2 - anthro k 1NC r3 - rotb spec coal DA 1NC r5 - espec consult natives PIC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Grapevine
- Caselist.RoundClass[22]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +16 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-05-10 01:13:13.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +all - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +all - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +only broken 1AC Round reports 1NC r2 - anthro k 1NC r3 - rotb spec coal DA 1NC r5 - espec consult natives PIC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Grapevine
- Caselist.RoundClass[23]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +17 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-05-10 01:14:45.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +any - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,3 @@ 1 +R2 1NC intersectionality k academic freedom NC case turns - 1nr collapse to k turns 2 +R4 1NC Asexuality K 1NR collapse to floating word pik 3 +R6 1NC Wynter k white speech PIC case turns - 1NR collapse to PIC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harvard
- Caselist.RoundClass[24]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +18 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-05-10 01:15:41.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Nik Patel, Lu Barazza, Zachary Zertuche - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Westwood AG - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Semis - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,2 @@ 1 +1NC - revenge porn PIC endowments DA chilling effect DA mills fw 2 +1NR - PIC Fw - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Churchill
- Caselist.RoundClass[25]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +19 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-05-10 01:16:05.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Any - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +This was for lay rounds oops - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Churchill
- Caselist.RoundClass[26]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +20 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-05-10 01:20:38.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Panel - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Westwood SM - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Quarters - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +disads that made me diSAD - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Hendrickson TFA
- Caselist.RoundClass[27]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +21 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-05-10 01:26:12.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Berdugo - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lawmag - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +5 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +St Marks
- Caselist.RoundClass[28]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +22 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-05-10 01:39:10.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Panel - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Anderson BM - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Semis - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +SMHS TFA
- Caselist.RoundClass[29]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +23 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-05-10 01:44:42.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Abi Wernsman - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Klein Oak AG - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +UT
- Caselist.RoundClass[30]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +24 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-05-10 01:53:31.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +day - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +one - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Finals - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +this round didn't happen but I would have liked it to I just really loved this version of the 1AC and thinks it needs to be shared - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Maybe