Changes for page Loyola Wickham Aff
Summary
-
Objects (1 modified, 14 added, 0 removed)
- Caselist.RoundClass[6]
- Caselist.CitesClass[5]
- Caselist.CitesClass[6]
- Caselist.CitesClass[7]
- Caselist.CitesClass[8]
- Caselist.CitesClass[9]
- Caselist.CitesClass[10]
- Caselist.CitesClass[11]
- Caselist.RoundClass[7]
- Caselist.RoundClass[8]
- Caselist.RoundClass[9]
- Caselist.RoundClass[10]
- Caselist.RoundClass[11]
- Caselist.RoundClass[12]
- Caselist.RoundClass[13]
Details
- Caselist.RoundClass[6]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +5 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -2016-11-06 15:46:57. 8441 +2016-11-06 15:46:57.0
- Caselist.CitesClass[5]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,24 @@ 1 +Part 1 is the Overview 2 +WE begin the AC in 2016. Capitalism has left the world ravaged and destroyed. WE have witnessed the end of communism and proletariat revolution. WE witness the radical whose aim is ivory towered utopia. WE witness the brokenness of the current system. The radical ideology IS DEAD; we must REFORM to survive. 3 + 4 +Part 2 is Links 5 +Qualified immunity? That’s capitalist. The Internationalist 15 (Activist group formed in 1998 by Internationalist Group (IG) to combat capitalism. “Killer Cops, White Supremacists: Racist Terror Stalks Black America” http://www.internationalist.org/killercopswstalkblackamerica1507.html) 6 +The entire legal system is based on the recognition that the police are the first line of defense of capital. As shown by the refusal of a grand jury to indict the cops who killed Eric Garner, even in the face of irrefutable evidence, the process is rigged to ensure impunity for the police. In Rise of the Warrior Cop, Post reporter Balko points out that, “Under the qualified immunity from civil lawsuits currently afforded to police under federal law, a police officer can’t be sued for mere negligence – or even for gross negligence that results in a fatality.” But he admits that of his paltry list of reforms, modifying this immunity is the “least likely to be adopted.” This is not some peculiar American or modern invention. Engels in The Origins of the Family notes about even the earliest appearance of the state: “Representatives of a power which estranges them from society, they have to be given prestige by means of special decrees, which invest them with a peculiar sanctity and inviolability.” No amount of protest will convince the ruling class to muzzle their uniformed guard dogs, whom it requires to keep the poor and working people down. What’s needed is militant class struggle on a revolutionary program. The Internationalist Group has called for an end to all drug laws. We call for labor/black/immigrant mobilization against police terror. We have acted to carry this out, with the unprecedented port shutdown to “Stop Police Terror” by Local 10 of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union in Oakland this past May Day, and the “Labor Against Police Murder” contingent the same day, organized by Class Struggle Workers – Portland. Bringing to bear workers’ power to stop the wheels of commerce could stay the rulers’ hand for a time. At the height of struggle one can also mobilize to get the police and military occupation forces out, as the IG called for in Ferguson last August and again in Baltimore this spring.”10 But such actions can only have a temporary effect. Ultimately, there is no solution to racist police brutality under capitalist rule: it is inherent in the system. Racist vigilantes, from George Zimmerman to Dylann Roof, act as auxiliaries. Whether in the form of slave catchers, KKK nightriders and racist sheriffs under Jim Crow, or mass incarceration combined with paramilitary police forces today, supplemented by massacres, American capitalism has always devised a way to keep its black, Latino and now increasingly immigrant wage slaves in thrall. The killer cops aren’t running amok, in contradiction to their assigned task, they’re doing their job to enforce racist “law and order” which is essential to American capitalism and has been ever since African slaves were brought here in chains. The fact that year after year, from one end of the country to the other, virtually no police are indicted – much less convicted – for killing over 1,000 civilians a year is no accident. 7 +Immunity decreases police accountability – causes social injustice. Carter 15 (Tom, contributor and writer at World Socialist Website. “US Supreme Court expands immunity for killer cops”, https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/11/12/pers-n12.html) 8 +So far this year, more than 1,000 people have been killed by the police in America. Almost every day, there are new videos posted online showing police shootings, intrusions into homes and cars, asphyxiations, beatings and taserings. Last week, two police officers in Louisiana opened fire on Jeremy Mardis, a six-year-old autistic boy, and his father Chris Few. The boy’s father had his hands up during the shooting and is currently hospitalized with serious injuries. His son succumbed to the police bullets while still buckled into the front seat of the car. The Supreme Court’s decision reflects the fact that in the face of rising popular anger over police killings, the entire political apparatus—including all of the branches of government—is closing ranks behind the police. This includes the establishment media, which has largely remained silent about Monday’s pro-police Supreme Court decision. The police operate with almost total impunity, confident that no matter what they do, they will have the backing of the state. Two weeks ago, a South Carolina grand jury refused to return an indictment against the officer who was caught on video killing 19-year-old Zachary Hammond. This follows the exoneration of the police who killed Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, Eric Garner in New York City and Tamir Rice in Cleveland. The Obama administration’s position regarding the surge of police violence was most clearly and simply articulated by FBI director James Comey in a speech on October 23. “May God protect our cops,” Comey declared. He went on to accuse those who film the police of promoting violent crime. Meanwhile, in virtually every police brutality case that has come before the federal courts, the Obama administration has taken the side of the police. On Monday, the Supreme Court went out of its way to cite approvingly an amicus curiae (friend of court) brief filed by the National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO), which defended Mullenix. With this citation, notwithstanding its ostensible role as a neutral arbiter and guarantor of the Constitution, the Supreme Court sent a clear signal as to which side it is on. During the imposition of de facto martial law in Ferguson last year, NAPO issued statements vociferously defending Michael Brown’s killer, labeling demonstrators as “violent outsiders,” and denouncing “the violent idiots on the street chanting ‘time to kill a cop!’” “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. 9 +Part 3 is ImpactsPolice brutality is caused by capitalist institutions to protect capital. Peterson 14 (John, author, writer, and contributor to In Defense of Marxism. “To End Racism and Police Brutality, End Capitalism!”. http://www.marxist.com/to-end-racism-and-police-brutality-end-capitalism.htm) 10 +The racism of the police is therefore not merely an ideological construction, the result of “bad people,” “bad will,” or “bad ideas.” Rather, it reflects a deeper objective reality. Social being determines social consciousness. Scarcity leads to a struggle over limited resources. Those who have the bulk of the wealth are in a minority, and must therefore hire a force able and willing to unleash devastating viciousness against the majority in order to “keep them in line.” But sheer violence is not sufficient. Other, far more subtle means must also be employed. The development of a system of skin-color-based discrimination during the rise of capitalism and the revival of chattel slavery became an indispensable weapon in the “divide and rule” arsenal of the capitalists. By getting the exploited and oppressed to fight each other over scraps, attention can be drawn away from the real relations of wealth and power in society. It is the structural racism of the capitalist system that leads to a racist outlook and ideology—not the other way around. There's no question that there is a heavily racist component in the targeting, degree, and frequency of police brutality. Marxists do not reduce this or any other complex social phenomenon “only” and mechanically to class. But in the final analysis, if there were no classes, there would be no need for police, and without police, no police brutality. Only in a society of superabundance, in which there is no scarcity, and therefore nothing life and death to fight over, will people's prejudices begin to melt away. This is why Marxists continually explain that there is no lasting antidote to the venom of racism within the limits of capitalism, which has tailored and compartmentalized this society to benefit the rule of the bourgeoisie. 11 +Failing to interrogate capitalism causes an endless cycle of police brutality. Hedges 15(Chris, regular column for Truthdig.com. Hedges graduated from Harvard Divinity School and was for nearly two decades a foreign correspondent for The New York Times. He is the author of many books. “Corporate Capitalism Is the Foundation of Police Brutality and the Prison State”. http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/07/06/corporate-capitalism-foundation-police-brutality-and-prison-state) 12 +Our national conversation on race and crime is based on a fiction. It is the fiction that the organs of internal security, especially the judiciary and the police, can be adjusted, modernized or professionalized to make possible a post-racial America. We discuss issues of race while ignoring the economic, bureaucratic and political systems of exploitation—all of it legal and built into the ruling apparatus—that are the true engines of racism and white supremacy. No discussion of race is possible without a discussion of capitalism and class. And until that discussion takes place, despite all the proposed reforms to the criminal justice system, the state will continue to murder and imprison poor people of color with impunity. More training, body cameras, community policing, the hiring of more minorities as police officers, a better probation service and more equitable fines will not blunt the indiscriminate use of lethal force or reduce the mass incarceration that destroys the lives of the poor. Our capitalist system callously discards surplus labor, especially poor people of color, employing lethal force and the largest prison system in the world to keep them under control. This is by design. And until this predatory system of capitalism is destroyed, the poor, especially people of color, will continue to be gunned down by police in the streets, as they have for decades, and disproportionately locked in prison cages. “The strength of ‘The New Jim Crow’ by Michelle Alexander is that, by equating mass incarceration with Jim Crow, it makes it rhetorically impossible to defend it,” said Naomi Murakawa, author of “The First Civil Right: How Liberals Built Prison America,” when we met recently in Princeton, N.J. “But, on the other hand, there is no ‘new’ Jim Crow, there is just capitalist white supremacy in a state of constant self-preservation.” “We should talk about what we are empowering police to do, not how they are doing it, not whether they are being nice when they carry out arrests,” she said. “Reforms are oriented to making violence appear respectable and courteous. But being arrested once can devastate someone’s life. This is the violence we are not talking about. It does not matter if you are arrested politely. Combating racism is not about combating bad ideas in the head or hateful feelings. This idea is the perfect formula to preserve material distributions in their exact configuration.” 13 +Part 4 is Solvency 14 +Text: The United States ought to limit qualified immunity for police officers. I reserve the right to clarify.Engaging bureaucratic structures like the state through concrete demands is necessary for material change Frank, 12 PhD, History, University of Chicago and Political Analyst (Thomas, “To the Precinct Station,” Baffler, No. 21, http://www.thebaffler.com/articles/to-the-precinct-station)//SY 15 +Measured in terms of words published per political results, on the other hand, OWS may be the most over-described historical event of all time. Nearly every one of these books makes sweeping claims for the movement’s significance, its unprecedented and earth-shattering innovations. Just about everything it does is brilliantly, inventively, mind-blowingly people-empowering. And what do we have to show for it today in our “normal lives”? Not much. President Obama may talk about the “top 1 percent” now, but he is apparently as committed as ever to austerity, to striking a “grand bargain” with the Republicans. Occupy itself is pretty much gone. It was evicted from Zuccotti Park about two months after it began—an utterly predictable outcome for which the group seems to have made inadequate preparation. OWS couldn’t bring itself to come up with a real set of demands until after it got busted, when it finally agreed on a single item.*** With the exception of some residual groups here and there populated by the usual activist types, OWS has today pretty much fizzled out. The media storm that once surrounded it has blown off to other quarters. Pause for a moment and compare this record of accomplishment to that of Occupy’s evil twin, the Tea Party movement, and the larger right-wing revival of which it is a part. Well, under the urging of this trumped-up protest movement, the Republican Party proceeded to win a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives; in the state legislatures of the nation it took some six hundred seats from the Democrats; as of this writing it is still purging Republican senators and congressmen deemed insufficiently conservative and has even succeeded in having one of its own named as the GOP’s vice-presidential candidate. The question that the books under consideration here seek to answer is: What is the magic formula that made OWS so successful? But it’s exactly the wrong question. What we need to be asking about Occupy Wall Street is: Why did this effort fail? How did OWS blow all the promise of its early days? Why do even the most popular efforts of the Left come to be mired in a gluey swamp of academic talk and pointless antihierarchical posturing? The action certainly started with a bang. When the occupation of Zuccotti Park began, in September 2011, the OWS cause was overwhelmingly popular; indeed, as Todd Gitlin points out, hating Wall Street may well have been the most popular left-wing cause since the thirties. Inequality had reached obscene levels, and it was no longer the act of a radical to say so. The bank bailouts of the preceding years had made it obvious that government was captured by organized money. Just about everyone resented Wall Street in those days; just about everyone was happy to see someone finally put our fury in those crooks’ overpaid faces. People flocked to the OWS standard. Cash donations poured in; so did food and books. Celebrities made appearances in Zuccotti, and the media began covering the proceedings with an attentiveness it rarely gives to leftist actions. But these accounts, with a few exceptions here and there, misread that overwhelming approval of Occupy’s cause as an approval of the movement’s mechanics: the camping out in the park, the way food was procured for an army of protesters, the endless search for consensus, the showdowns with the cops, the twinkles. These things, almost every writer separately assumes, are what the Occupy phenomenon was really about. These are the details the public hungers to know. The building of a “community” in Zuccotti Park, for example, is a point of special emphasis. Noam Chomsky’s thoughts epitomize the genre when he tells us that “one of the main achievements” of the movement “has been to create communities, real functioning communities of mutual support, democratic interchange,” et cetera. The reason this is important, he continues, is because Americans “tend to be very isolated and neighborhoods are broken down, community structures have broken down, people are kind of alone.” How building such “communities” helps us to tackle the power of high finance is left unexplained, as is Chomsky’s implication that a city of eight million people, engaged in all the complexities of modern life, should learn how humans are supposed to live together by studying an encampment of college students. The actual sins of Wall Street, by contrast, are much less visible. For example, when you read Occupying Wall Street, the work of a team of writers who participated in the protests, you first hear about the subject of predatory lending when a sympathetic policeman mentions it in the course of a bust. The authors themselves never bring it up. And if you want to know how the people in Zuccotti intended to block the banks’ agenda—how they intended to stop predatory lending, for example—you have truly come to the wrong place. Not because it’s hard to figure out how to stop predatory lending, but because the way the Occupy campaign is depicted in these books, it seems to have had no intention of doing anything except building “communities” in public spaces and inspiring mankind with its noble refusal to have leaders. Unfortunately, though, that’s not enough. Building a democratic movement culture is essential for movements on the left, but it’s also just a starting point. Occupy never evolved beyond it. It did not call for a subtreasury system, like the Populists did. It didn’t lead a strike (a real one, that is), or a sit-in, or a blockade of a recruitment center, or a takeover of the dean’s office. The IWW free-speech fights of a century ago look positively Prussian by comparison. With Occupy, the horizontal culture was everything. “The process is the message,” as the protesters used to say and as most of the books considered here largely concur. The aforementioned camping, the cooking, the general-assembling, the filling of public places: that’s what Occupy was all about. Beyond that there seems to have been virtually no strategy to speak of, no agenda to transmit to the world. Whether or not to have demands, you might recall, was something that Occupy protesters debated hotly among themselves in the days when Occupy actually occupied something. Reading these books a year later, however, that debate seems to have been consensed out of existence. Virtually none of the authors reviewed here will say forthrightly that the failure to generate demands was a tactical mistake. On the contrary: the quasi-official account of the episode (Occupying Wall Street) laughs off demands as a fetish object of literal-minded media types who stupidly crave hierarchy and chains of command. Chris Hedges tells us that demands were something required only by “the elites, and their mouthpieces in the media.” Enlightened people, meanwhile, are supposed to know better; demands imply the legitimacy of the adversary, meaning the U.S. government and its friends, the banks. Launching a protest with no formal demands is thought to be a great accomplishment, a gesture of surpassing democratic virtue. And here we come to the basic contradiction of the campaign. To protest Wall Street in 2011 was to protest, obviously, the outrageous financial misbehavior that gave us the Great Recession; it was to protest the political power of money, which gave us the bailouts; it was to protest the runaway compensation practices that have turned our society’s productive labor into bonuses for the 1 percent. All three of these catastrophes, however, were brought on by deregulation and tax-cutting—by a philosophy of liberation as anarchic in its rhetoric as Occupy was in reality. Check your premises, Rand-fans: it was the bankers’ own uprising against the hated state that wrecked the American way of life. Nor does it require poststructuralism-leading-through-anarchism to understand how to reverse these developments. You do it by rebuilding a powerful and competent regulatory state. You do it by rebuilding the labor movement. You do it with bureaucracy. Occupiers often seemed aware of this. Recall what you heard so frequently from protesters’ lips back in the days of September 2011: Restore the old Glass-Steagall divide between investment and commercial banks, they insisted. Bring back big government! Bring back safety! Bring back boredom! But that’s no way to fire the imagination of the world. So, how do you maintain the carnival while secretly lusting for the CPAs? By indefinitely suspending the obvious next step. By having no demands. Demands would have signaled that humorless, doctrinaire adults were back in charge and that the fun was over. This was an inspired way to play the situation in the beginning, and for a time it was a great success. But it also put a clear expiration date on the protests. As long as demands and the rest of the logocentric requirements were postponed, Occupy could never graduate to the next level. It would remain captive to what Christopher Lasch criticized—way back in 1973—as the “cult of participation,” in which the experience of protesting is what protesting is all about. 16 +Engaging with the state is key to solve police brutality Starr 15(Terrell Jermaine, senior editor at AlterNet. “Why Police Brutality Is So Hard to End—And What It Will Take to Stop It”. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/why-police-brutality-so-hard-end-and-what-it-will-take-stop-it) 17 +If police brutality were just a matter of a few bad apples, it would be a lot easier to solve. But it isn’t. Protecting bad cops is built into the fabric of police culture, and is a structural issue that has to be corrected with structural solutions. So what, exactly, can reverse this trend of police officers killing unarmed black people and rarely facing the consequences? Marilyn J. Mosby, the Baltimore prosecutor handling the Gray case, is leading by example by bringing charges (including murder and manslaughter) against the officers who are involved in the Gray's arrest. And in New York, Brooklyn District Attorney Ken Thompson’s office charged Officer Peter Liang with manslaughter, police misconduct and other charges after he shot unarmed Akai Gurley in November. Certainly, more prosecutors across the country need to follow their leads. But being DA is often an elected office, and whether or not cops get indicted often seems to depend on who the voters are. But there is more that can be done. Activists and other reformers are demanding that state legislatures pass sweeping laws holding police officers accountable. At least 13 states are reviewing bills that will require officers to wear body cams. This is progress, but it's not nearly enough. An officer who is convicted of killing an innocent person or being abusive should lose his right to work in any law enforcement capacity, as well as his benefits. Jon Burge, an ex-Chicago cop who was imprisoned for lying about torture practices in the city’s jails, is allowed to keep his $54,000-per-year pension. Most reasonable people would agree that bad cops should not be able to keep the benefits of a uniform they violate. Police reform is possible, and in very slow ways, some are seeing a glimmer of hope that it might be coming. But protesters and activists know they have to keep up the pressure. Protests across the country are demanding local and state governments seriously tackle abusive police practices and punish officers who violate the public’s trust. Until that happens, it is likely that more cities beyond Baltimore will see uprisings of their own. 18 +The 1AC’s combination of radical pedagogy and legal pressure is the only way to ensure social change occurs – Civil Rights empirics Prove Reed 15Reed, PhD, 15(Adolph, professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania. Summer, https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/10/adolph-reed-black-liberation-django-lincoln-selma-glory/) 19 +After decades of frustration with what Selma filmmaker Ava DuVernay calls “white savior” narratives, antiracist progressives appear to have settled on an ideologically more appealing alternative — what we might call the James Brown Theory of Black Liberation. In 1969, after Brown had aligned himself politically with President Richard M. Nixon, he released the paean to black self-help, “I Don’t Want Nobody to Give Me Nothing (Open Up the Door, I’ll Get It Myself).” In the nearly half-century since, especially during the last two decades of neoliberal hegemony, that self-help perspective has become the righteous antiracists’ standard for cultural criticism and political judgment. Typically under the sign of acknowledging and respecting black people’s agency, it has become unacceptable to suggest that black Americans’ advances have depended significantly on anything other than, against all odds, the perseverance and will of black people themselves and a small cast of white allies. But this interpretive approach, which blends the several meanings of self-help, is totally consistent with neoliberal premises that eschew collective action in favor of individual voluntarism and deny the significance of social structures in shaping political opportunities.It masks the important fact that every advance black Americans have made toward equality, full citizenship, and racial justice has been enmeshed with broader struggles to advance egalitarian interests. And so, in the past quarter century of neoliberalism’s rise, the James Brown Theory has entrenched itself as the normative foundation of antiracist cultural criticism. Nowhere is this clearer than in some of the discussions around the 150th anniversary of Emancipation and the crushing of the slave owners’ rebellion. Such ruminations are, after all, typically guided by presentist concerns. For example, the fiftieth and seventy-fifth anniversaries of the 1863 Battle of Gettysburg centered on pageantry of surviving veterans of both armies in service to an overarching message of sectional reconciliation. D. W. Griffith’s scurrilous Birth of a Nation, released fifty years after the Confederate defeat, also carried the message of sectional reconciliation but on explicitly and savagely white supremacist terms. In recent decades those anniversary ruminations have become more likely to consider what the struggle meant for black people, both slave and free, and more likely to center on the relation between successful defeat of the insurrection and the abolition of slavery in the United States, and the larger significance of Emancipation for black Americans. The commentary around two very different 2012 films: Quentin Tarantino’s Django Unchained and Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln provide a striking example. It concerned the relative merits of each movie’s characterization of the source of Emancipation. Django Unchained was a live-action cartoon in which the entirely fictional story of a rebellious slave is the prop of Tarantino’s homage to the spaghetti westerns of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Whereas the Spielberg production aspires to historically faithful, or at least respectful, examination of Lincoln’s desperate effort to pass the Thirteenth Amendment — which abolished slavery — through Congress before the hostilities ended. That so many critics and commentators nevertheless were inclined to compare these two films indicated that the question of how slavery’s abolition should be narrated had become disconnected from concern with the actual history and politics of the mid-nineteenth century. Rather, the controversy centered on the centrality of black people’s “agency” in the story of Emancipation. That is how juxtaposition of Tarantino’s cartoonish fantasy to a film with historical pretensions like Lincoln could ever seem reasonable. Exploring the story of Emancipation— or the nature of slavery for that matter — was subordinate to an ideological program of racial recognition, validation of the depths and pandemic extent of white racism and celebration of black overcoming. The controversy reduced to whether a film focusing on Lincoln’s role in pushing the Thirteenth Amendment through Congress objectionably overlooked — even denied — the contributions of black slaves to their own “self-emancipation.” In Spielberg’s film, according to the Nation’s Jon Wiener, “old white men make history, and black people thank them for giving them their freedom.” To polish off the comparison, Wiener observes, “In Tarantino’s film, a black gunslinger goes after the white slavemaster with homicidal vengeance.” As Wiener’s bumper sticker analysis makes clear, this debate wasn’t really about how slavery ended in the United States. It was about how it would seem most gratifying now to want slavery to have ended. That very presentist concern underlies the repeated insistence of Lincoln’s critics that Lincoln didn’t free the slaves and that they instead “freed themselves.” But, putting to one side for a moment the issue of historical accuracy, that is a questionable view even by the standard of honoring black Americans’ agency and autonomous action. In a way it’s like what Maoists called “using the red book to defeat the red book.”In the name of lauding black agency in the abstract, the “slaves freed themselves” perspective actually diminishes or disparages the concrete expressions of political agency among the legions of black people, slave and free, who enthusiastically supported and strove to participate in the collective project of dealing a deathblow to the institution. In that light it is interesting to consider Edward Zwick’s 1989 film Glory and how it throws this change into bold relief. Glory — which may be, from the standpoint of egalitarian sensibilities, the greatest film ever made on the “Civil War” — tells the story of the Fifty-Fourth Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry, the all-black regiment that famously led an unsuccessful assault on South Carolina’s heavily entrenched Fort Wagner. It was this same fort that defended Charleston, the birthplace of the master class’s insurrection, from seaborne attack. Although Glory depicts the regiment as made up largely of runaway slaves, the Fifty-Fourth was comprised only of free black volunteers and — by official stipulation — commanded by white officers. In addition to the story of the Fifty-Fourth in general, Glory also focuses on the story of Robert Gould Shaw, the young scion of a prominent family of Boston abolitionists who commanded the regiment and died in the attack on Fort Wagner. In fact, Shaw’s character is the central thread running through the film, and Zwick — and Matthew Broderick in the role of Shaw — affectingly show the young officer’s ambivalences, limitations, and growth into an effective regimental commander and resolute advocate for his troops as well as in his convictions of the equal humanity of black people. As he writes in a letter to his mother: “We fight for men and women whose poetry is not yet written but which will presently be as enviable and as renowned as any.” However, the story is not only — or even principally — about Shaw. Glory’s power as a film is that it captures that particular historical moment when the military action to suppress the slaveholders’ insurrection openly condensed as a war to destroy slavery and the crucially important role that black men played in creating that moment and seeing its promise through to fruition. Zwick also uses the war film’s convention of the brothers-in-the-foxhole narrative to good effect in giving the black soldiers individuality, depth, and breadth. All of that background makes even more powerful the James Island battle scene, where the Fifty-Fourth is able to engage the enemy for the first time. It doesn’t take much to imagine what an extraordinary experience that must have been for those men. Yet by the time of the Django–Lincoln controversy, Glory had become for some an instance of the unacceptable denial of full black agency. The director George Lucas quipped while hyping Red Tails — a travesty purporting to honor World War II’s black Tuskegee Airmen — that his abomination was a real hero film, unlike “Glory, where you have a lot of white officers running those guys into cannon fodder.” Over the years, I’ve encountered a number of versions of that sort of objection, generally from Gen-Xers with professional backgrounds. The desire to see the Black Hero — “black agency” — often seems to overwhelm considerations of historical plausibility. But how could a film about the Fifty-Fourth not have white officers? Roger Ebert, while generally praising the film highly in his 1990 review, “didn’t understand why it had to be told so often from the point of view of the Fifty-Fourth’s white commanding officer. Why did we see the black troops through his eyes — instead of seeing him through theirs?” Ebert’s question is reasonable, especially because two years earlier Richard Attenborough’s Cry Freedom determined to tell the story of Stephen Biko (played in the film by Denzel Washington), the Black Consciousness Movement activist killed by South African police while in custody in the aftermath of the Soweto uprising, almost exclusively through the saga of Biko’s white journalist friend (played by Kevin Kline) who was terrorized while attempting to investigate Biko’s murder. Attenborough defended his narrative choice by saying that he wanted to reach and educate a white audience. Then, in the year between Cry Freedom and Glory, Alan Parker’s Mississippi Burning depicted a case loosely based on the 1964 murder of three civil rights workers in Philadelphia, Mississippi. However, not only was Parker’s film told through the eyes of FBI agents — who were its heroes — but not a single black actor was considered important enough in the story to warrant being credited in the promotional materials. So it’s understandable that a hair-trigger skepticism might develop about any film about race in which the central characters were white. But it is revealing in this respect that Ebert also loved 1989’s other big release exploring race and “race relations” (a counterproductive, essentializing euphemism for hierarchy) Bruce Beresford’s Driving Miss Daisy. Ebert rhapsodized about that human-interest examination of the bonds of intimacy that could develop between mistress and servant in Jim Crow Atlanta and its transition to the post-segregation era. His enthusiasm for the film was unqualified. Glory, however, is a very different sort of film, and the contrast of Ebert’s concern about representation of black agency in it and his lack of concern with that issue in Miss Daisy may help to illuminate the difference in a way that is especially important for the current moment. When Driving Miss Daisy came out, I was shocked, as I assumed there was only one thing a movie like that could be, but I found it a little difficult to imagine that that film could be so highly touted at the end of the 1980s. So I polled people I knew who had seen it — including several whose views I had trusted up until that point and several who had lived through the Jim Crow era as adults — concerning my skepticism, only to be reassured that it wasn’t that film at all. So I went to see it in the theater, and within the first ten minutes I realized that of course it was that film. There was nothing else it possibly could have been. The master trope of Driving Miss Daisy is the development of a personal relationship between mistress and servant that screens out — though I’m sure the film’s director and advocates would prefer “transcends” — the mundane realities of class and racial hierarchy within which that intimacy was structured. Driving Miss Daisy left such a lingering bad taste in my mouth that I took what was for me the unusual step of going back to the theater within a week or so to see Glory, hoping that the vicarious experience of black men taking up arms against slavery would cleanse my palate. It did that and much more. The punch line of this personal account is not simply that I appreciated Glory as an antidote to Driving Miss Daisy. More than that, it’s something of a cautionary tale about perspectives that reduce political concerns to whether or not the oppressed or the “marginalized” are able to express their agency. Driving Miss Daisy is all about the agency of the two central characters. And that agency is enacted up close and personal, in a world in which there are only personal transactions between individuals and their mutual regard. But we can envisage such a world only to the extent that concern with individual action and relationships blocks from view or overrides the structures of inequality rooted in political economy— whether expressed through racial hierarchies or not — that constrain the sphere of personal interaction. We have no sense whatsoever of driver Hoke’s life outside of his employment in Miss Daisy’s service or of what would have to have been the stark differences in their material circumstances. Even The Help makes a gesture at depicting that contrast. Yet it does so in a way that illustrates the ideological impact of an additional twenty-five years of neoliberal hegemony. Now it is no longer necessary to shy away from displaying the class contradictions. Instead, class becomes just another “identity” to be celebrated as part of a progressive commitment to “diversity.” In The Help the maids live where they live and are poor as a matter of fact. The arc of the narrative bends toward their empowering themselves by finding their individual voices, not improving their material conditions. And at no point does the white ingénue Skeeter — as she forms bonds of friendship, learns the maids’ perspectives and advocates for their voices — ever connect their poverty with her own class’s wealth and power. Thus the film’s happy ending resolves to an equivalence posited between Skeeter’s departing Jackson for New York and the uncertain challenge of seeking her fortune in the publishing industry and the maid Aibileen’s walking off equally cheerfully toward the exciting challenges of an uncertain future given to her by the opportunity of unemployment. The Help is thus an expression of its historical moment. It is no longer necessary to obscure the asymmetries of social and economic power that separate masters and servants, like what was done in Driving Miss Daisy, in order to have a feel-good story. A multiculturalist lameness trivializes recognition of class hierarchy as respect for “difference,” yet another way in which fetishizing agency is at bottom a Thatcherite project. And that takes us back to the political sensibility that underlay the Lincoln versus Django Unchained debates. First of all, the claim that slaves abolished the institution through their self-emancipation — soothing as it may be to those who want history to be like spaghetti westerns — is simply incorrect. In fact, the best predictor of slaves’ efforts to escape from their plantations during the conflict was the proximity of federal troops. Moreover, slaves and free black people alike were emboldened by Lincoln’s election and the national government’s commitment to suppressing the slaveholders’ insurrection. And why wouldn’t they have been? They, like Southern elites, understood that the Republican Party was fundamentally committed to the destruction of slavery. Republicans, largely, did not call for slavery’s immediate abolition, to be sure. But that fact does not undermine the seriousness of the party’s antislavery commitment. While antislavery Whigs and Republicans were convinced that the national government had the authority to prohibit slavery’s expansion, they did not believe that it had constitutional authority to attack slavery where the institution was protected by state law. The one exception to that limitation was military emancipation, and the slaveholders’ insurrection put that option on the table. It is also true that antislavery forces overestimated the ease with which the Border States could be weaned from the institution. None of those limitations, though, justifies the contention that their opposition to slavery was impure and therefore bogus. Finally, we must ask, what is the appeal of this moralistic denunciation of Republican hypocrisies about slavery, and of the assertion that black people single-handedly freed themselves? And to whom does it appeal? How does one see Glory not as a powerful story of black men — slave and free — joining in a much larger collective military project aimed at destroying the institution of slavery and see instead only the travesty of white officers leading them to their death? What approach to political action can follow from the contention that the Thirteenth Amendment was empty window dressing and that black slaves’ emancipation was like James Brown’s backward, Nixonian ideal of self-help? The perspective that shrivels the scope of black political concern to expressing racial “agency” similarly diminishes the significance of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments,the US Supreme Court’s 1944 Smith v. Allwright decision that outlawed the infamous “white primary” (and exponentially increased black voting in the South), the 1954 Brown decision, 1964 Civil Rights law, and 1965 Voting Rights Actas if all were in some twisted way racially inauthentic because acknowledging their significance as moments in the struggle for social justice detracts from the James Brown Theory of Black Liberation. That ideological commitment is what impelled Ava DuVernay to make the seemingly gratuitous move of falsifying Martin Luther King Jr’s relationship with the Johnson administration around the Selma campaign: “I wasn’t interested in making a white savior movie,” she replied to critics, “I was interested in making a movie centered on the people of Selma.” Of course, she doesn’t do the latter either, but her commitment to not “making a white savior movie” also led her to misconstrue the tension between the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in Selma, which stemmed precisely from the SNCC activists’ objection that King and his organization maintained secret, backdoor dealings with the Johnson administration. The psychobabbling bromides that elevate recognition and celebration of black agency rest on an ideological perspective that in practical terms rejects effective black political action in favor of expressive display. It is the worldview of an element of the contemporary black professional stratum anchored in the academy, blogosphere, and the world of mass media chat whose standing in public life is bound up with establishing a professional authority in speaking for the race. This is the occupational niche of the so-called black public intellectuals. The torrent of faddish chattering-class blather and trivial debate sparked by Michael Eric Dyson’s recent attack on Cornel West in the New Republic illustrates the utter fatuity of this domain, as if there were any reason to care about a squabble between two freelance Racial Voices with no constituency or links to radical institutions between them. In an illustration of what this game is all about, the Nation, sensing space for competing brands, projected some Alternative Black Voices into this circus of spurious racial representation in a piece entitled “6 Scholars Who Are ‘Reimagining Black Politics.’ ” Twenty years practically to the week before publication of Dyson’s essay, I took stock of what was then the newly confected category of the Black Public Intellectual and noted that the notion’s definitive irony was that its avatars were quite specifically not organically rooted in any dynamic political activity and in fact emerged only after opportunities for real connection to political movements had disappeared. Nor were the “public intellectuals” connected to any particular strain of scholarship or criticism. Rather, their status was no more than a posture and a brand. By the early 2000s, it was possible to see young people entering doctoral programs with their sights on the academy as a venue for pursuing careers as public intellectuals — i.e. among the free-floating racial commentariat. And that was before the explosion of the blogosphere and Twitterverse, which have exponentially increased both avenues for realizing such aspirations and the numbers of people pursuing them. But the politics enacted in those venues is by and large an ersatz politics, and the controversies that sustain them are by and large ephemeral, vacant bullshit — the “feud” between Iggy Azalea and Azealia Banks, whether black people were dissed because Selma wasn’t nominated for/didn’t win enough Oscars, and so on. In the context of this sort of non-stop idiotic bread and circuses — and this may be an apt moment to remind that the blogosphere is open to any fool with a computer and Internet access — it is good to reflect on one of the crucial moments in American history when the linking of social and political forces presented a clear choice between egalitarian and inegalitarian interests, and masses of black people joined with others to strike a consequential blow for social justice and to wipe the scourge of slavery from the United States. No, it wasn’t a final victory over inequality — it didn’t usher in a utopian order, and the greatest promises opened by the triumph were unfulfilled or largely undone. But it was one of the most important victories that egalitarian forces have won, along with those of the twentieth-century labor, civil rights, and women’s movements, and it is worth reflecting on it and the ways it changed the country for the better. That struggle against the slaveholders’ insurrection, along with those latter movements, also underscores the fact that the path to winning the kind of just world to which a left should aspire requires building a politics that seeks, as the old saying goes, to unite the many to defeat the few. Any other focus is either unserious or retrograde. 20 + 21 + 22 + 23 +Part 5 is ROBThe ROB is to vote for the debater that best solves for capitalism – only then can we give voices to those deemed anonymized. Zizek and Daly 04Glyn. Lecturer in International Studies at the University College Northampton; Slavoj Zizek, world famous philosophy on psychoanalysis and capitalism; Conversations with Žižek. 14-19 24 +For Žižek it is imperative that we cut through this Gordian knot of postmodern protocol and recognize that our ethico-political responsibility is to confront the constitutive violence of today's global capitalism and its obscene naturalization/anonymization of the millions who are subjugated by it throughout the world. Against the standardized positions of postmodern culture - with all its pieties concerning 'multiculturalist' etiquette - Žižek is arguing for a politics that might be called 'radically incorrect' in the sense that it breaks with these types of positions and focuses instead on the very organizing principles of today's social reality: the principles of global liberal capitalism. This requires some care and subtlety. For too long, Marxism has been bedevilled by an almost fetishistic economism that has tended towards political morbidity. With the likes of Hilferding and Gramsci, and more recently Laclau and Mouffe, crucial theoretical advances have been made that enable the trascendence of all forms of economism. In this new context, however, Žižek argues that the problem that now presents itself is almost that of the opposite fetish. That is to say, the prohibitive anxieties surrounding the taboo of economism can function as a way of not engaging with the economic reality and as a way of implicitly accepting the latter as a basic horizon of existence. In an ironic Freudian-Lacanian twist, the fear of economism can end up reinforcing a de facto economic necessity in respect of contemporary capitalism (i.e. the initial prohibition conjures up the very thing it fears). This is not to endorse any retrograde return to economism. Žižek's point is rather that in rejecting economism we should not lose sight of the systemic power of capital in shaping the lives and destinies of humanity and our very sense of the possible. In particular, we should not overlook Marx's central insight that in order to create a universal global system the forces of capitalism seek to conceal the politico-discursive violence of its construction through a kind of gentrification of that system. What is persistently denied by neo-liberals such as Rorty (1989) and Fukuyama (1992) is that the gentrification of global liberal capitalism is one whose 'universalism' fundamentally reproduces and depends upon a disavowed violence that excludes vast sectors of the world's population. In this way, neo-liberal ideology attempts to naturalize capitalism by presenting its outcomes of winning and losing as if they were simply a matter of chance and sound judgement in a neutral marketplace. Capitalism does indeed create a space for a certain diversity, at least for the central capitalist regions, but it is neither neutral nor ideal and its price in terms of social exclusion is exorbitant. That is to say, the human cost in terms of inherent global poverty and degraded 'life-chances' cannot be calculated within the existing economic rationale and, in consequence, social exclusion remains mystified and nameless (viz. the patronizing reference to the developing world). And Žižek's point is that this mystification is magnified through capitalism's profound capacity to ingest its own excesses and negativity; to redirect (or misdirect) social antagonisms and to absorb them within a culture of differential affirmation. Instead of Bolshevism, the tendency of today is towards a kind of political boutiquism that is readily sustained by postmodern forms of consumerism and lifestyle. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-11-06 15:46:59.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Somewhere - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Someone - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +6 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +3 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Loyola Wickham Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Classic Util ND16 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Damus
- Caselist.CitesClass[6]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,59 @@ 1 +Part 1 is Framing 2 +Structural violence excludes people from our decision calculus, causing separatism based on arbitrary differences that is not chosen by the victim. Winter and Leighton 99 3 +Winter, Deborah Winter and Leighton, Dana. |Winter is a Psychologist that specializes in Social Psych, Counseling Psych, Historical and Contemporary Issues, Peace Psychology. Leighton is a PhD graduate student in the Psychology Department at the University of Arkansas. Knowledgable in the fields of social psychology, peace psychology, and justice and intergroup responses to transgressions of justice “Peace, conflict, and violence: Peace psychology in the 21st century.” Pg 4-5 4 +Finally, to recognize the operation of structural violence forces us to ask questions about how and why we tolerate it, questions which often have painful answers for the privileged elite who unconsciously support it. A final question of this section is how and why we allow ourselves to be so oblivious to structural violence. Susan Opotow offers an intriguing set of answers, in her article Social Injustice. She argues that our normal perceptual cognitive processes divide people into in-groups and out-groups. Those outside our group lie outside our scope of justice. Injustice that would be instantaneously confronted if it occurred to someone we love or know is barely noticed if it occurs to strangers or those who are invisible or irrelevant. We do not seem to be able to open our minds and our hearts to everyone, so we draw conceptual lines between those who are in and out of our moral circle. Those who fall outside are morally excluded, and become either invisible, or demeaned in some way so that we do not have to acknowledge the injustice they suffer. Moral exclusion is a human failing, but Opotow argues convincingly that it is an outcome of everyday social cognition. To reduce its nefarious effects, we must be vigilant in noticing and listening to oppressed, invisible, outsiders. Inclusionary thinking can be fostered by relationships, communication, and appreciation of diversity. Like Opotow, all the authors in this section point out that structural violence is not inevitable if we become aware of its operation, and build systematic ways to mitigate its effects. Learning about structural violence may be discouraging, overwhelming, or maddening, but these papers encourage us to step beyond guilt and anger, and begin to think about how to reduce structural violence. All the authors in this section note that the same structures (such as global communication and normal social cognition) which feed structural violence, can also be used to empower citizens to reduce it. In the long run, reducing structural violence by reclaiming neighborhoods, demanding social justice and living wages, providing prenatal care, alleviating sexism, and celebrating local cultures, will be our most surefooted path to building lasting peace. 5 +The 1AC critiques the normalcy that is the starting point for other forms of oppression 6 +Shlasko 05 G. D. Shlasko, University of. Massachusetts Amherst, Social Justice Education Program, Hills South, "Queer (v.) pedagogy." Equity and Excellence in Education 38.2 (2005): 123-134. 7 +Finally, Greene (1996) suggests reading “queer the-ory’’ with queer as a verb that acts on theory. Hence the phrase is an imperative to queer one’s theory, to look at it from a different perspective such that its shortcomings, underlying assumptions, and possibilities become visi- ble. Morris’s (1998) concept of a queer aesthetic is useful here. A queer theorist might take a theory that does not explicitly define itself as queer or politically radical, and interrogate it through the lens of queer sensibility, ask- ing, “How might this theory have radical implications?’’ Davis and Sumara’s (2000) queer reading of the complex- ity theory in physics, which I discuss later, is an excellent example. Given permission to view any theory in terms of its queerness, we can again use queer as an adjective to describe theories in which we discover queer character- istics or implications. For example, a theory that centers a usually marginal subject position or that challenges normalcy could be described as queer.¶ Queer theory emerges from a study of and from the viewpoint of people who are outsiders in terms of gender and sexuality—those against whom the word “queer’’ first became a violent epithet. Yet it does not limit itself to theorizing about gender and sexuality. Queer theory problematizes gender and sexual identities, and also the very concept of identity (Britzman, 1998; Green, 1996; Morris, 2000). It critiques the enforced norms of gender and sexuality, and also all claims of normalcy, and the processes by which the borders of the normal are de- fined and policed (Britzman, 1998; Green, 1996; Morris, 2000). By interrogating the implicit assumptions of het- eronormativity, queer theory it “offers a critique of reigning ideologies of subjectivity, power, and meaning’’ (Greene, 1996, p. 326) that can be extended to shed light on many forms of difference, categorization, and inequality.¶ Sullivan’s (2003) chapter, “Queer Race,’’ reviews litera- ture on intersections and conflicts between academic and political discourses centered on race and those centered on sexuality, and presents several examples of how queer theoretical inquiries can help to shed light on manifesta- tions of racism. Sullivan demonstrates that heteronormativity is not premised on homophobia alone, but rather on a vast “coincidence’’ between racism, sexism, and homophobia. An extreme example is the case of laws that prohibit interracial marriage. The overt purpose of such laws was to define and maintain boundaries between racial groups (so as to justify unequal and inhumane treatment of people of color), and to maintain racial “pu- rity’’ for Whites (Sullivan, 2003). By implication, the laws also served to define white womanhood very narrowly in terms of marriage and procreation. White women who were sexually active outside of marriage, and white peo- ple of whatever gender and sexual orientation who did not marry, were defined as practically criminal in their refusal to participate in the racist/sexist/homophobic project of reproducing the normal white family (Sullivan, 2003). Racism, sexism, and homophobia together seek to¶ regulate people’s sexuality in specific ways that make meaning not only for sexuality as such but also for gender and race. Given this entanglement, Sullivan argues that queer theory not only allows for a queer critique of sexism and racism (and I would add class-, ability-, and age-based oppressions as well), but actually requires it. 8 +We should use the academic setting to challenge the heteronormative structures that pervade society – judge as an educator should disrupt heteronormativity. 9 +Elias 3 John Elias, Professor at San Francisco University, Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 45, no. 2/3/4, p. 64, 2003 10 +Akin to organized religion and the biomedical field, the educational system has been a major offender. Wedded to disseminating the idea that heterosexuality is the ultimate and best form of sexuality, “Schools have maintained, by social custom and with reinforcement from the law, the promotion of the heterosexual family as predominant, and therefore the essence of normal. From having been presumed to be ‘normal,’ heterosexual behavior has gained status as the right, good, and ideal lifestyle” (Leck, 1999, p. 259). School culture in general is fraught with heteronormativity. Our society has long viewed queer sexualities as “. . . deviant, sinful, or both, and our schools are populated by adolescent peers and adult educators who share these heterosexual values” (Ginsberg, 1999, p. 55). Simply put, heteronormativity and sexual prejudice pervade the curriculum at the elementary, secondary, and post-secondary levels (for examples of this and ways of intervening, see: Adams, Bell, and Griffin, 1997; Letts and Sears, 1999; Lovaas, Baroudi, and Collins, 2002; Yep, 2002). Besides the hegemonic hold schools have had regarding a heterosexual bias, school culture continues to devote much energy to maintaining “. . . the status quo of our dominant social institutions, which are hierarchical, authoritarian, and unequal, competitive, racist, sexist, and homophobic” (Arnstine, 1995, p. 183). While there has been modest success in addressing various forms of prejudice in schools (Kumashiro, 2001), what is sorely lacking is serious attention to how the intersections of race, class, sexuality and gender are interwoven and dialectically create prejudice (e.g., racism, classism, and heterosexism). Schools would be an ideal site to interrogate, and begin to erode, the kind of hegemony upon which heterosexism rests and is supported. To date, not much is being done in a systematic fashion to disrupt the ways in which U.S. schooling has perpetuated such hierarchies. It seems to me that sexuality education is ripe for the opportunity to challenge heterosexism in school culture; however, public school-based sexuality education is presently in serious crisis, as it has turned mostly to the business of pushing for abstinence- only sexuality education. According to federal legislation, states that accept funding for this form of sexuality education require that young people are taught to abstain from sexual activity until they get married. This has numerous implications for relationship construction; a more in-depth description and analysis of this form of sexuality education will follow later in this essay. 11 +Ethical theories that create moral rules without having referents in the current social context fail to analyze asymmetries in treatment. Mills 09: 12 +Charles Mills explains using the example of discrimination against blacks: 13 +Mills, C. W. (2009), Rawls on Race/Race in Rawls. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 47: 161–184 “Now how can…ever did arrive.” 14 +Now how can this ideal ideal—a society not merely without a past history of racism but without races themselves—serve to adjudicate the merits of competing policies aimed at correcting for a long history of white supremacy manifest in Native American expropriation, African slavery, residential and educational segregation, large differentials in income and huge differentials in wealth, nonwhite underrepresentation in high-prestige occupations and overrepresentation in the prison system, contested national narratives and cultural representations, widespread white evasion and bad faith on issues of their racial privilege, and a corresponding hostile white backlash against (what remains of) those mild corrective measures already implemented? Obviously, it cannot. As Thomas Nagel concedes: “Ideal theory enables you to say when a society is unjust, because it falls short of the ideal. But it does not tell you what to do. if, as is almost always the case, you find yourself in an unjust society, and want to correct that injustice” (2003a, 82). Ideal theory represents an unattainable target that would require us to roll back the clock and start over. So in a sense it is an ideal with little or no practical worth. What is required is the nonideal (rectificatory) ideal that starts from the reality of these injustices and then seeks some fair means of correctsing for them, recognizing that in most cases the original prediscrimination situation (even if it can be intelligibly characterized and stipulated) cannot be restored. Trying to rectify systemic black disadvantage through affirmative action is not the equivalent of not discriminating against blacks, especially when there are no blacks to be discriminated against. Far from being indispensable to the elaboration of non- ideal theory, ideal theory would have been revealed to be largely useless for it. But the situation is worse than that. As the example just given illustrates, it is not merely a matter of an ideal with problems of operationalization and relevance, but of an ideal likely to lend itself more readily to retrograde political agendas. If the ideal ideal rather than the rectificatory ideal is to guide us, then a world without races and any kind of distinction- drawing by race may seem to be an attractive. goal. One takes the ideal to be colorblind nondiscrimination, as appropriate for a society beginning from the state of nature, and then—completely ignoresing the nonideal history that has given whites a systemic illicit advantage and so over people of color—conflates together as “discrimination” all attempts to draw racial distinctions for public policy goals, no matter what their motivation, on the grounds that this perpetuates race and invidious differential treatment by race. In the magisterial judgment of Chief Justice John Roberts in the June 2007 Supreme Court decision on the Seattle and Louisville cases where schools were using race as a factor to maintain diversity, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,”6 a statement achieving the remarkable feat of depicting not merely as true, but as tautologically true, the equating of Jim Crow segregation and the attempt to remedy Jim Crow segregation! So what is ideally called for under ideal circumstances is not, or at least is not necessarily, what is ideally called for under nonideal circumstances. Claiming that all we need to do is to cease (what is here characterized as) discrimination ignores the differential advantages and privileges that have accumulated in the white population because of the past history of discrimination. 15 +Thus the standard is rejecting heteronormativity 16 +Part 2: The Topic 17 + 18 +Advocacy: The Supreme Court of the United States should hold the United States federal government's domestic strip searches are unconstitutional, thereby limiting qualified immunity for police officers in cases of the Fourth Amendment. 19 + 20 +Qualified Immunity protects police officers who out and kill queer teens Knight 14’ Natalie Knight, 2014, “Keeping Closets in our Classrooms: How the Qualified Immunity Test is failing LGBT Students” Natalie Knight is a Joint J.D and M.P.P candidate at UCLA Law School 21 +Sadly, Wyatt is not the first case of its kind. Three years before the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas the Third Circuit held in Sterling v. Minersville that a police officer violated an eighteen-year-old’ Constitutional right to privacy by threatening to disclose his sexual orientation to the teen's family. The officer had first questioned the teen and his friend who were parked in a lot at night near a business that had recently been burglarized. Though the officer did not find any indication that the teens were planning a burglary, he continued to question them since they appeared to be drinking. The officer searched the car, found two condoms, and arrested the two teens. At the police station, the officer lectured them about the immorality of homosexuality and threatened to tell the eighteen-year-old's grandfather that the young man was gay. The teen committed suicide shortly after he was released from the police station. Wyatt is factually similar to Nguon, but it is the first case in which a court granted qualified immunity to the defendant. This means that the student-plaintiff could not even proceed to trial to show that her privacy had been violated.20 Qualified immunity protects government employees like teachers and coaches from liability even when they violate a plaintiff’s constitutional rights.21 A plaintiff can only overcome this protection by proving that the right the government official violated is “clearly established.”22 This initial hurdle deprives LGBT students of their rights by giving them the impossible task of providing a precedent which does not exist. There is no precedent specifically stating that LGBT students have a right to not be outed by school officials. There might also never be such a precedent because qualified immunity can be used to preclude a case from proceeding to trial to establish such a precedent. Thus, qualified immunity puts LGBT students in a catch-22, a paradoxical set of rules that precludes students from constitutional protection. This Comment will demonstrate that the qualified immunity test can be used to deprive LGBT students of their privacy by its paradox of requirements. Part I will discuss the importance of privacy in one’s sexual orientation, especially between an adolescent and her parent(s), and provide background on cases illuminating the right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment. Part II will provide background on the qualified immunity doctrine as it relates to privacy interests, and discuss the extent to which existing precedents may or may not protect LGBT students. Part III will show that existing precedents do not explicitly protect: 1) privacy of sexual orientation, 2) privacy in the school environment, 3) privacy of minors, and 4) privacy in the parent-child relationship. Part IV will use Wyatt to demonstrate how courts can exploit the qualified immunity doctrine to avoid recognizing LGBT student privacy.23 Part V will discuss possible interventions and also address counterarguments from those who would defend the continued use of qualified immunity in this context. This Comment concludes that while LGBT students’ privacy rights are jeopardized and perhaps non- existent under some judges’ applications of the qualified immunity doctrine, advocates for LGBT student privacy should pursue state legislation and keep a watchful eye out for claims that may serve as test cases in more favorable circuits. 22 + 23 + 24 +Judges fail to protect gay rights in applying QI Wagner 14 Robin B. Wagner, (J.D. Candidate 2014, DePaul University College of Law.) Are Gay Rights Clearly Established?: The Problems with the Qualified Immunity Doctrine, 63 DePaul L. Rev. 869 (2014) Available at: http://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol63/iss3/7 Premier 25 +Therefore, when three cases on facts that easily sufficed for allegations¶ of equal protection violations came before three courts in three¶ different circuits in the same year and resulted in three different outcomes,¶ it is clear that there is a problem with the qualified immunity¶ doctrine. Under the Roberts Court, the qualified immunity doctrine¶ has become more generous to defendants with an increasing requirement¶ for circuit unanimity and an emerging approach to rational-basis¶ review that protects decision makers’ discretion. The problems arising¶ in qualified immunity doctrine are particularly apparent when evaluating¶ constitutional rights related to sexual orientation, because the key Supreme Court cases did not rely wholly on the established methodologies¶ for equal protection and due process analysis.¶ In the hands of judges who unconscientiously apply precedent or¶ wish to avoid hot-button social policy topics, the qualified immunity¶ doctrine can prevent plaintiffs from vindicating their rights and further¶ weaken the “private attorney general” approach to rights claims.¶ During the civil rights era, the courts played a leading role in recognizing¶ and expanding civil rights for people of color. In this era of gay¶ civil rights, the courts should not be the slower and less reliable vehicle¶ for recognizing implicit rights. If courts were to more regularly¶ apply the prong-one analysis of qualified immunity and faithfully adhere¶ to the actual holdings of Supreme Court precedent, the law related¶ to civil rights violations under § 1983 could provide both parties¶ with the predictability they need and deserve from the law. In Nguon v. Wolf, a teen sued for violations of her First Amendment rights and privacy rights after a principal outed her to her mother.15 The district court held that the student had a reasonable expectation that she would not be outed to her mother, but that the principal had not violated the student’s privacy rights under the First Amendment because the principal had made the disclosure in the context of reasonable disciplinary actions.16 The court also ruled in favor of school officials on the freedom of expression claim.17 It reasoned that the officials disciplined disruptive conduct but allowed non-disruptive conduct that expressed the students’ sexuality, such as holding hands with her girlfriend.18 Thus, the student had not been singled-out for discipline on the basis of her sexuality.19 26 +Policing structures perpetuate and re-enforce heteronormative values that oppress and destroy the queer body Dwyer 08’ Angela Dwyer, Associate Professor in Police Studies and Emergency Management, Senior Researcher at the University of Tasmania, Occupier of Room 534 on the Sandy Bay Campus, “Policing Queer Bodies: Focusing on Queer Embodiment in Policing Research as an ethical question” 2008 27 +In contrast to ‘queering’ heteronormative subjectivity, policing is a social practice constituted around heteronormative ways of doing sexuality and gender. This is unmistakable in research by Herbert who argues that policing processes are rigidly constructed around heterosexual masculinity, with officers ignoring community-oriented modes of policing space as ‘effeminate’: The desire to become a hard charger, to enact the masculinist form of policing, motivates officers to define and approach the spaces of patrol with the aim of ensuring tactical control. The hard charger ideal denigrates such activities as public meetings or idle chatter with neighborhood residents, and discourages officers from reconciling their view of the spaces of patrol with the views of the people who inhabit them. The spatial strategies of community policing are simply too effeminate to win broad support from those officers who seek cultural refuge in images of the triumphant warrior. Many officers therefore use their discretionary authority to ignore the mandates of community policing. 34 Producing proper policing subjectivity involves reifying and embodying discursive ideas about gender and sexuality that are masculine and heterosexual. For example, being a gay or lesbian police officer has been identified in international research as fraught with difficulties, 35 particularly if you are a gay male in the police force. 36 In addition to this, very rigid forms of heterosexual masculinity are reified in police culture, with feminised identities and bodily practices marginalised as counterproductive to and unsuitable for policing work. Prokos and Padavic found a ‘hidden curriculum’ being instructed to police recruits in the United States. The training centre taught recruits that dominant masculinity is necessary to performing their duties as cops… male students learned that it is acceptable to exclude women, that women are naturally very different from men and thus can be treated differently, that denigrating and objectifying women is commonplace and expected, and that they can disregard women in authority. 37 This demonstrates that to be a proper police officer means doing embodiment in thoroughly masculine and heterosexual ways, and marginalising those bodies that fail to align with these norms. Part of reinforcing these forms of ‘macho’ masculinities involves the denigration of bodies that ‘queer’ heteronormative ways of doing masculinity and sexuality. Myers, Forest and Miller notes that ‘people who are seen as outsiders in the heterosexual hypermasculine context of policing (including straight women, lesbians, and gay men)may feel pressure to conceptualize gender in such a way that conforms to the ideal’. 38 The denigration of these ‘outsiders’ is made evident in recent research conducted in the United States and the United Kingdom that has found that police practice homophobic ways of thinking about gay, lesbian, and transgender people. 39 For example, Phillip Lyons et al found that their sample of 152 Texan police officers overwhelmingly endorsed homophobic attitudes. 40 In fact, 32 of officers agreed and strongly agreed with the statement that ‘I think male homosexuals are disgusting’. In a further articlereporting about the same study, Lyons, DeValve and Garner noted that among the 747 police chiefs in Texas, 62 believed that homosexuality is akin to ‘moral turpitude’ and56 identify homosexuality as a form of perversion. 41 Recent qualitative research conducted by Amnesty International also highlights some of these attitudes: ‘I know we are supposed to be tolerant but that’s a bunch of bull, they should all be killed’ (SanAntonio police officer responding to a same sex domestic violence call). 42 Some researchers have even investigated the attitudes of criminal justice undergraduate and law enforcement undergraduate students in the United States and have found that they too are homophobic, 43 more so even than other disciplines within university settings. 44 28 +The AC ‘s instance of ‘queering’ heteronormative discourses opens room for further critique and development Dwyer 08’ Angela Dwyer, Associate Professor in Police Studies and Emergency Management, Senior Researcher at the University of Tasmania, Occupier of Room 534 on the Sandy Bay Campus, “Policing Queer Bodies: Focusing on Queer Embodiment in Policing Research as an ethical question” 2008 29 +This paper argues that overlooking the role of embodiment and ‘queering’ properly gendered, heterosexual embodiment in criminological and social research into policing practices is unethical and unhelpful. Working through Foucault’s idea of an ethics of discomfort, 3 this paper takes up a precarious position by posing the importance of exploring how embodying diverse sexual subjectivities lead to certain types of policing practices. This position is ‘uncomfortable’ because it challenges the idea that policing is impartial and argues that more could be done for queer communities. While existing literature suggests that the police have improved their relationship with marginalized communities, 4 this paper insists that more work needs to be done. It attempts to demonstrate how a highly complex, competing range of issues and ‘categories of difference’ intersect 5 in ways that make this an issue warranting further attention: ‘queering’ heteronormativity, sexuality, gender, visibility, embodiment, victimisation, subcultural spectacle, homelessness. These issues are examined below by firstly addressing what the paper means by ‘queering’ heteronormative expectations about sexuality and gender. It then draws on literature about how policing is itself a practice defined by heteronormative expectations about sexuality and gender. Following this is a discussion of literature demonstrating how ‘reading’ bodies as ‘queering’ heteronormative embodiment is fundamental to hate crime and some forms of policing work, and how this is an issue that requires further examination in relation to young people specifically. The paper concludes with a call for embodied research about policing queer communities that elucidates how the ‘queering’ body matters 6 in policing processes in contemporary Western culture. 30 + 31 +Discussion of legal issues is the only way to give concrete change to the queer body, all other focuses obfuscate solutions and lead to more oppression 32 +Davies 03(Margaret Davies teaches law at Flinders University 2003 "Legal theory and law reform SOME MAINSTREAM AND CRITICAL APPROACHES" http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AltLawJl/2003/61.pdf, RLA) 33 + 34 +A third strategy involves a pragmatic extension, in a¶ sense, of the second, and has been endorsed by a number of¶ feminist writers. It is essentially the view that it is not¶ possible simply to reject or accept engagement with law: we¶ cannot have a single position, but must both engage and¶ critique. Although we know that law is not separate from¶ prevailing moral standards and political divisions in society,¶ it is structured around a powerful discourse that naturalises¶ this separation. We cannot pretend that the separation does¶ not exist because it has extremely powerful effects -¶ therefore we should work with it, but continue to critique it.¶ This approach was expressed a number of years ago by Mari¶ Matsuda:¶ There are times to stand outside the courtroom door and say 'this¶ procedure is a farce, the legal system is corrupt, justice will¶ never prevail in this land as long as privilege rules in the¶ courtroom'. There are times to stand inside the courtroom and¶ say 'this is a nation of laws, laws recognising fundamental¶ values of rights, equality, and personhood'.I8¶ The argument is essentially that we can and should be¶ working to achieve change along at least two fronts, one¶ 'internal' to law and accepting (however conditionally) its¶ power to define and redefine; the second from a position of¶ scepticism and critique of law. Taken in a context of¶ acknowledging the limitations of law - that is, that we¶ should not expect mere legal reform to effect significant¶ social change - such an argument provides a practical path¶ for theorists who remain critical of law's role in enhancing¶ and legitimising social division.¶ The radical feminism of Catharine MacKinnon provides¶ one example of a seemingly contradictory, and in all¶ probability highly strategic and localised, approach to¶ characterising law and its ability to intervene in distributions¶ of power. As Mary Heath explains, MacKinnon characterises¶ law as masculine in its totality, yet appears to place faith inlaw as a site for social change: MacKinnon's view of the¶ state as 'always . . . the willing servant of the male power¶ which it institutionalises' is at odds with her involvement in¶ major law reform initiatives, such as the Pornography¶ Ordinance and the Violence Against Women Act.19 Put 'd¶ bluntly, how can MacKinnon argue that the state and its law¶ represents a totalistic institutionalisation of male power over¶ women which holds no promise for fundamental change,¶ while at the same time t¶ urning - to that law as an avenue for¶ improvement in the situation of women? How can law¶ promote feminist change, when it is so universal and total in¶ its expression ofpatriarchy? Thert: are various ways in which¶ this apparent contradiction can be: reconciledZ0 (for instance¶ by reference to the two-pronged strategy of Matsuda). What¶ it does illustrate very powerfully is the tension between¶ theories critical of law's institutionalised power, and the¶ demand for practical legal solutions to social problems. 35 + 36 +Part 3: The World 37 + 38 +Discourse and pedagogy must engage the existing institution – wishing away policy discussion fails because oppression is institutionally entrenched 39 +Jones and Spicer ‘9 40 +(Campbell, Senior Lecturer in the School of Management at U of Leicester, Andre, Associate Professor in the Dept of Industrial Relations @ Warwick Business School U of Warwick, Unmasking the Entrepreneur, pgs. 22-23) 41 + 42 +The third strand in our proposed critical theory of entrepreneurship involves questions of the 'extra-discursive' factors that structure the context in which these discourses appear. The result of privileging language often results in losing sight of political and economic relations, and for this reason, a turn to language and a concomitant disavowal of things extra-discursive have been roundly criticised (Ackroyd and Fleetwood, 2000; Armstrong, 2001; Reed, 1998,2000,2009). An analysis of discourse cannot alone account for the enduring social structures such as the state or capitalism. Mike Reed has argued that a discursive approach to power relations effectively blinds critical theorists to issues of social structures: Foucauldian discourse analysis is largely restricted to a tactical and localised view of power, as constituted and expressed through situational-specific 'negotiated orders', which seriously underestimates the structural reality of more permanent and hierarchal power relations. It finds it difficult, if not impossible, to deal with institutionalised stabilities and continuities in power relations because it cannot get at the higher levels of social organisation in which micro-level processes and practices are embedded. (Reed, 2000: 526-7) These institutional stabilities may include market relations, the power of the state, relations like colonialism, kinship and patriarchy. These are the 'generative properties' that Reed (1998: 210) understands as 'mak(ing) social practices and forms - such as discursive formations - what they are and equip(ing) them with what they do'. Equally Thompson and Ackroyd also argue that in discourse analysis 'workers are not disciplined by the market, or sanctions actually or potentially invoked by capital, but their own subjectivities' (1995: 627). The inability to examine structures such as capitalism means that some basic forms of power are thus uninvestigated. Focusing solely on entrepreneurship discourse within organisations and the workplace would lead to a situation where pertinent relations that do not enter into discourse are taken to not exist. Such oversights in discursive analyses are that often structural relations such as class and the state have become so reified in social and mental worlds that they disappear. An ironic outcome indeed. Even when this structural context is considered, it is often examined in broad, oversimplified, and underspecified manners. This attention to social structure can be an important part of developing a critical theory of entrepreneurship, as we remember that the existing structural arrangements at any point are not inevitable, but can be subjected to criticism and change. In order to deal with these problems, we need to revive the concept of social structure. Thus we are arguing that 'there exist in the social world itself and not only within symbolic systems (language, myths, etc.) objective structures independent of the consciousness and will of agents, which are capable of guiding and constraining their practices or their representations' (Bourdieu, 1990: 122). Objective still means socially constructed, but social constructions that have become solidified as structures external to individual subjects. Examples of these structures may include basic 'organising principals' which are relatively stable and spatially and historically situated such as capitalism, kinship, patriarchy and the state. Some entrepreneurship researchers, particularly those drawing on sociology and political science, have shown the importance of social structure for understanding entrepreneurship (see for example Swedberg, 2000). 43 + 44 + 45 +Ideal theory obfuscates us from focusing on material change for queers in society 46 +Moore 11, visiting scholar in the Center for the Study of Gender and Sexuality @ NYU 47 +Darnell-active in the queer of color organizing community in Newark, NJ; paper presented at the Feminism for the Planet: 5th Annual Rutgers Newark, Women’s Studies Symposium in March 2009; “An Interrogation of the Black Presence in the Queer Project;” TRANS-SCRIPTS 1 (2011); accessed online; pp. 160-163. http://www.humanities.uci.edu/collective/hctr/trans-scripts/2011_01_11.pdf 48 +Finally, Johnson has noted that queer theorists tend to ground critiques in the realm of discourse (7). As stated previously, queer studies is influenced by the work of Foucault; therefore it is governed by the imperative to counter the power relations that seek to construct discourses. The discursive realm, then, takes center stage in queer studies/theory for it is within the realm of discourse where power is transmitted, produced, and reinforced (Foucault 101). As such, it seems that this Foucauldian notion drives the queer studies project. Gunther has argued that the goal to defy the “social and historical construction of categories of sexuality and gender” is central to the project of American queers specifically (23). Thus, the ethos of queer studies is one that is characterized by its attention to discourse, theorizing, and intellectualizing, and not to the material, on-the-ground activism that once propelled the queer movement. Historian Allan Berube made a similar charge when he stated that some queer scholarship is “so abstract, text-based, career-oriented, concerned with developing insider jargon that it just doesn’t hold my attention.” As a result, Berube goes on to assert that he feels like an “outsider” because of this seeming disconnect between theory and practice (qtd. In Maynard 58). Johnson also questions the effectiveness of queer theory if, in fact, it is limited to the realm of discourse. He asks: What, for example, are the ethical and material implications of queer theory if its project is to dismantle all notions of identity and agency? The deconstructive turn in queer theory highlights the ways in which ideology functions to oppress and to proscribe ways of knowing, but what is the utility of queer theory on the front lines, in the trenches, on the street, or any place where the racialized and sexualized body is beaten, starved, fired, cursed-indeed, where the body is the site of trauma? (5) John’s query illuminates an aspect of the queer project that is problematic within; namely, its tendency to focus on the dismantling of power through discourse. Simply, what is dismissed is the attentiveness to materiality and the body, as well as, the radical modes of resistance that formally characterized the queer movement in the past. If the present ethos of queer studies/theory is that which is characterized by intellectualizing and theorizing alone as opposed to the propagation of an “in-your-face” praxis, then it will limit the potentiality of liberation for those SGL women and men engaged in “Black Struggle.” 49 + 50 +Solutions to critical issues must be discussed through pragmatic approaches within hegemonic power structures. Kapoor ‘08 51 +Kapoor, 2008 (Ilan, Associate Professor at the Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, “The Postcolonial Politics of Development,” p. 138-139) 52 +There are perhaps several other social movement campaigns that could be cited as examples of a ‘hybridizing strategy’.5 But what emerges as important from the Chipko and NBA campaigns is the way in which they treat laws and policies, institutional practices, and ideological apparatuses as deconstructible. That is, they refuse to take dominant authority at face value, and proceed to reveal its contingencies. Sometimes, they expose what the hegemon is trying to disavow or hide (exclusion of affected communities in project design and implementation, faulty information gathering and dissemination). Sometimes, they problematize dominant or naturalized truths (‘development = unlimited economic growth = capitalism’, ‘big is better’, ‘technology can save the environment’). In either case, by contesting, publicizing, and politicizing accepted or hidden truths, they hybridize power, challenging its smugness and triumphalism, revealing its impurities. They show power to be, literally and figuratively, a bastard. While speaking truth to power, a hybridizing strategy also exploits the instabilities of power. In part, this involves showing up and taking advantage of the equivocations of power — conflicting laws, contradictory policies, unfulfilled promises. A lot has to do here with publicly shaming the hegemon, forcing it to remedy injustices and live up to stated commitments in a more accountable and transparent manner. And, in part, this involves nurturing or manipulating the splits and strains within institutions. Such maneuvering can take the form of cultivating allies, forging alliances, or throwing doubt on prevailing orthodoxy. Note, lastly, the way in which a hybridizing strategy works with the dominant discourse. This reflects the negotiative aspect of Bhabha’s performativity. The strategy may outwit the hegemon, but it does so from the interstices of the hegemony. The master may be paralyzed, but his paralysis is induced using his own poison/medicine. It is for this reason that cultivating allies in the adversarial camp is possible: when you speak their language and appeal to their own ethical horizons, you are building a modicum of common ground. It is for this reason also that the master cannot easily dismiss or crush you. Observing his rules and playing his game makes it difficult for him not to take you seriously or grant you a certain legitimacy. The use of non-violent tactics may be crucial in this regard: state repression is easily justified against violent adversaries, but it is vulnerable to public criticism when used against non-violence. Thus, the fact that Chipko and the NBA deployed civil disobedience — pioneered, it must be pointed out, by the ‘father of the nation’ (i.e. Gandhi) — made it difficult for the state to quash them or deflect their claims. 53 +Theory Underview 54 + 55 +And 14th Amendment violations are core of the topic lit, Knight and Wagner prove, discount T violations because they would only be used to try and silence the discourse the 1AC is talking about 56 + 57 +Aff RVIs: 1) Time skew: they can read an NC and theory, but I can’t generate offense on theory until the 1AR theory, which means 6 minutes less to develop. 2) Brute force: they can brute force any issue in the NR with 6 to my 3, which is especially pronounced on theory which is heavy line-by-lining. 3) speech time allocation heavily favors neg on tech issues like theory, since you have longer speech times, aff RVIs balance the skew 58 + 59 +Severance perms good: 1) Real-world. We constantly amend plans when a small change occurs. 2) Reciprocity – checks back against abusive PICs that co-opt 99 of the AC offense, 3) My aff’s whole-res open-source on the wiki, He should be able to prep a good strat – this also nullifies any abuse claims from the NC. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-11-06 18:17:54.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Somewhere - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Someone - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +7 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Triples - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Loyola Wickham Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Queerness AC ND16 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Damus
- Caselist.CitesClass[7]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,37 @@ 1 +US Border Patrol is out of control. Border agents abuse their power and refuse to follow legal procedures. Turck ’15. Mary Turck “US Border Patrol is out of control” April 1, 2015 2:00AM ET. http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/4/us-border-patrol-is-out-of-control.html 2 +On March 20, the Michigan Attorney General's Public Integrity Unit charged two U.S. Border Patrol agents with theft and misconduct while on duty. The two agents allegedly stole from a home while executing an agency-authorized search warrant. The case exemplifies the type of unchecked abuse and corruption that has become so rampant within the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP). From 2010 to 2014 CBP agents 28 people. Other charges against CBP agents included drug trafficking, theft, assaults, kidnapping and rape. Investigative reports from multiple sources paint a picture of a law enforcement agency that is out of control. Even worse, most of its victims are people who cannot fight back — undocumented immigrants and refugees with limited or no access to U.S. courts. Report after report recounts tales of unchecked abuse of power. Agents frequently respond to cross-border rock throwing with deadly force. Sometimes CBP officers step into the path of moving cars to justify shooting the drivers as a “response to deadly force.” The agency has refused to ban either practice, disregarding recommendations from a report that it commissioned. Other kinds of corruption also plague the agency. A 2011 internal study by the CBP found that the agency’s disciplinary system “does not foster timely discipline or exoneration.” The story of failure traces back to 2001. After 9/11, any legislation to protect U.S. borders sailed through Congress. Need more agents? Done. More money? Done. Lawmakers were eager to support border enforcement. In 2003, they merged the previously understaffed Border Patrol with Customs enforcement and Department of Agriculture inspectors to create the CBP. The new agency now has more than 60,000 employees, a $12.4 billion annual budget and a reputation for corruption and abuse. On average, at least one agent is arrested daily for misconduct, according to Politico Magazine’s Garrett M. Graff. What happened was predictable. But no one bothered to consult law enforcement experts. Effective law enforcement requires high standards, careful screening of candidates for criminal backgrounds and for psychological fitness, and intensive training by experienced officers. The rush to fill a lot of vacant positions meant inadequate screening and skimping on training. “Illegal entry is now less than a third of what it was in the year 2000, and it’s at its lowest level since the 1970s,” said in October. The estimated number of undocumented immigrants in the United States has dropped by more than a million since 2006. Yet throwing money at CBP remains a way for Congress to boast of protecting borders and getting tough on immigration. The agency continues to grow, with 2,000 new jobs listed in 2014. “From an integrity issue, you can’t grow a law enforcement agency that quickly,” Robert Bonner, the former federal judge who headed up CBP’s reorganization, told Politico last year. Not only did the old Border Patrol more than double in size, it also merged employees from customs, immigration and agricultural inspectors. CBP’s record on corruption and abuse is appalling. The Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR) has documented cases of excessive force, drug smuggling, theft and numerous other abuses. “Between 5 and 10 percent of border agents and officers are actively corrupt or were at some point in their career,” James F. Tomscheck, the former CBP chief of internal affairs, told CIR in August. A 2011 CBP internal study of employee integrity questioned whether the problems could be attributed to the surge in hiring, but acknowledged the severity of the problem. The report attributed the spike in cases of abuse to lack of psychological assessments and ethical training for officers. CBP’s problems start at the top. While Congress was happy to appropriate money for enforcement and more officers, it balked at confirming CBP commissioners, leaving the agency without a confirmed commissioner for five years. The current commissioner, R. Gil Kerlikowske, was confirmed in March 2014. But his authority was undercut from the very beginning. Graff’s article tells the story of a CBP agent who arrested, kidnapped and raped three women from Honduras, and tried to kill two of them. This happened in March 2014, just days after Kerlikowske’s confirmation. The commissioner’s statement condemning the kidnapping and rape was stalled for two days while he argued with senior CBP officials. An agent under his command committed a heinous act. When FBI agents approached the suspect’s apartment, where one of the victims was naked and tied to a chair, the CBP agent shot and killed himself. Yet Kerlikowske’s subordinates prevented him from immediately denouncing the crime. CBP’s defensiveness and disregard for the law appear pervasive. While only a small number of its agents commit violent or criminal acts, indifference to immigrants' legal rights seems to be standard practice across the agency. Border Patrol agents are required by law to ask whether a person they detain is afraid to return home. If migrants express fear of return, the law requires agents to refer them for a “credible fear” screening by an asylum officer, who can assess eligibility. The law requires referral precisely because CBP agents are not qualified to make eligibility determinations. In case after case, migrants report that CBP agents refused to allow them to tell their stories to an asylum officer. Instead, they tell people fleeing gang violence, rape and persecution that they have no rights. From excessive force and shootings to peremptory denial of access to asylum, the CBP violates the laws it is charged with upholding. Reform is imperative. It should begin with implementation of the recommendations of the 2013 study conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum, ranging from training to prohibition of use of deadly force unless officers’ lives are actually threatened. 3 +Death and suffering on the border is increasing with each passing day. Johnson 07 Dean and Mabie-Apallas, Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies, “Opening the Floodgates”, New York University Publication) 4 +As of March 2006, the CRLAF California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation attributed more than 3,000 deaths to a single southern California border operation known as Operation Gatekeeper.97 Numerous other operations have been put into place in the U.S.-Mexico border region. All have had similar deadly impacts. Despite the death toll, the U.S. government continues to pursue enforcement operations with great vigor. Indeed, Congress consistently enacts proposals designed to bolster border enforcement, with such proposals often representing the only items of political consensus when it comes to immigration reform. Operation Gatekeeper demonstrates the U.S. government’s callous indifference to the human suffering caused by its aggressive border enforcement policy. In the words of one informed commentator, “the real tragedy of Operation Gatekeeper . . . is the direct link . . . to the staggering rise in the number of deaths among border crossers. The U.S. government has forced these crossers to attempt entry in areas plagued by extreme weather conditions and rugged terrain that the U.S. government knows to present mortal danger.”98 In planning Operation Gatekeeper, the U.S. government knew that its strategy would risk many lives but proceeded nonetheless. As another observer concludes, “Operation Gatekeeper, as an enforcement immigration policy financed and politically supported by the U.S. government, flagrantly violates international human rights because this policy was deliberately formulated to maximize the physical risks of Mexican migrant workers, thereby ensuring that hundreds of them would die.”99 Apparently, the government and rationalized the deaths of migrants as collateral damage in the “war” on illegal immigration. Even before the 1990s, the Border Patrol had a reputation for committing human rights abuses against immigrants and U.S. citizens of Mexican ancestry.100 Created to police the U.S.-Mexican border, the Border Patrol has historically been plagued by reports of brutality, shootings, beatings, and killings.101 Amnesty International, American Friends Service Committee, and Human Rights Watch have all issued reports documenting recent human rights abuses by the 5 +Plan text: The Supreme Court of the United States will overturn the Fifth Circuit Court's decision on Hernandez v. MesaKrent and Revesz 15Krent, Stephanie and Revesz, Joshua as Counsel for Pelinttitioner. (Both are J.D. candidates for Yale Law School) “Morris Tyler Moot Court of Appeals at Yale JESUS C. HERNANDEZ, ET AL. Petitioners, v. JESUS MESA, JR. Respondent” ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS.November 2015, https://www.law.yale.edu/system/files/brief_3.pdf BS 6 +Considering the Fourth Amendment’s extraterritoriality in light of Boumediene reveals¶ that Mesa’s use of excessive force across the Paso Del Norte border is subject to the Fourth¶ Amendment’s reasonableness requirement. Hernández seeks the protection of a fundamental¶right, the freedom from unlawful restraint. His status as a civilian and his connection to the El¶ Paso-Juárez community similarly weigh in favor of extraterritoriality. The United States has¶exertedcontinuous, substantial control both overthe locationin El Paso where Mesa firedhis¶ weapon, and in the Rio Grande culvert where Hernández died. This case involves no national¶security concerns, and foreign relations with Mexico would be improved, not hurt, by application¶ of the Fourth Amendment to Mesa’s actions. For these reasons, the Court should reverse the¶Fifth Circuit and apply the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard to Mesa’sactions. 7 +Qualified immunity protects corrupt, murderous border patrol agents. Eslinger15 Eslinger, Bonnie. "Family Of Mexican Teen Slain By US Border Agent Seeks Cert." Law360. 24 Jul 2015. Web. 1 Nov 2016. DMK 8 +Law360, Los Angeles (July 24, 2015, 4:54 PM EDT) ~-~- The family of a Mexican teenager fatally shot in Mexico by an American border patrol agent standing across the U.S. border is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Fifth Circuit decision holding that the agent had qualified immunity and couldn’t be sued. The family of Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca filed the cert petition Thursday, asking the court to overturn the Fifth Circuit’s April rulingthat it couldn’t sue under the Fourth Amendment because Hernandez was a Mexican citizen, on Mexican soil and had no “significant voluntary connection” to the U.S. The court found that the border patrol agent’s actions did not violate Hernandez’s Fifth Amendment due process rights but agreed with Hernandez’ family that any right he had as a foreign national would not have been clear to the federal agent at the time of the shooting. Robert C. Hilliard, an attorney for the Hernandez family, told Law360 on Friday that the time was right for the high court to weigh in on the issue because rulings in federal courts on border patrol shootings in various states have differed. If Hernandez had been an American teen, the border patrol agent, Jesus Mesa Jr., would not be immune from civil suit, Hilliard said. “The Supreme Court has got to put this to rest,” Hilliard said. “Anywhere a law enforcement officer wrongly shoots an individual, that individual should have a constitutionally protected right to pursue civil remedies.” A functionalist rather than formalist approach should govern the extraterritorial application of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unjustified deadly force, the lawyers argued in the July 23 petition. “May qualified immunity be granted or denied based on facts — such as the victim’s legal status — unknown to the officer at the time of the incident?” the petition states. While standing in Texas, Mesa shot the unarmed Hernandez twice in June 2010 after detaining one of Hernandez’s friends near the border fence. Mesa had claimed someone from the Mexican side of the border threw rocks at him. In a series of cases, the family filed suits against Mesa, his supervisors and the U.S. government, claiming assault, negligence and use of excessive force. According to the petition, the Supreme Court’s Boumediene v. Bush decision, which found detainees at Guantanamo Bay have a constitutional right to habeas corpus, applied to Hernandez’s situation and showed the teen’s rights were violated, the first part of a test to determine qualified immunity. The Fifth Circuit held that the Boumediene case was limited to its specific factual circumstances. “If left standing, the Fifth Circuit’s decision will create a unique no-man’s land — a law-free zone in which U.S. agents can kill innocent civilians with impunity,” the petition states. Representatives for the government and Mesa could not be reached Friday for comment. Hernandez’s family is represented by Steve D. Shadowen of Hilliard andShadowen LLP, Robert C. Hilliard of Hilliard Munoz Gonzales LLP and Cristobal M. Galindo PC. The government is represented by Acting Assistant Attorney General Joyce R. Branda, Acting U.S. Attorney Richard L. Durbin Jr. and Civil Division attorneys Mark B. Stern and Henry C. Whitaker. Mesa is represented by Randolph J. Ortega and Louis E. Lopez Jr. of Ortega McGlashan Perez and Hicks PLLC. The cases are Jesus C. Hernandez et al. v. United States of America, case number 11-50792, Jesus C. Hernandez et al. v. Jesus Mesa Jr., case number 12-50217, and Jesus C. Hernandez et al. v. Ramiro Cordero et al., case number 12-50301, in the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit. 9 +Overturning Mesa v. Hernandez is key to holding border patrol agents accountable.Wells 15Wells, Marc. (Wells is contributor for WSWB)"World Socialist Web Site." US Appeals Court Grants Immunity to Border Patrol Agent Who Killed Mexican Teenager -.N.p., 1 May 2015. Web. 03 Nov. 2016. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/05/01/immi-m01.html. DMK 10 +The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit unanimously granted“qualifiedimmunity” last Friday to a border patrol agent standing on US territory who shot an unarmed 15-year-old boy in the face near the Mexican border. The ruling further erodes basic constitutional rights and strengthens the arbitrary powers of the police, especially at the border.¶ The lawsuit arose from the shooting of a 15-year-old Mexican boy, Sergio Adrián Hernández Güereca, on June 7, 2010, near the Paso del Norte Bridge in Texas. According to Sergio’s parents, the boy was playing with his friends running up and down a cement culvert standing between the US and Mexico when agent Jesus Mesa Jr. arrived on the scene and detained one of Sergio’s friends.¶ As the boy retreated beneath the pillars of the Paso del Norte Bridge to observe, agent Mesa fired two shots, one of which struck Sergio in the face. Agent Mesa alleged that he responded to the boy throwing rocks.¶ The officer was not charged with murder or any other crime. Instead, as is common practice in American law enforcement agencies, the officer received paid administrative leave (i.e., a paid vacation) before he resumed his normal duties.¶ Last Friday’s ruling affirms most of a previous decision last June by a three-judge panel of the court. The plaintiffs had filed the lawsuit alleging, among other things, that the shooting violated Sergio’s Fourth Amendment right not to be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, including excessive force, as well as his and Fifth Amendment right not to bedeprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Both amendments are part of the Bill of Rights.¶ The Obama administration vigorously defended the border patrol agent, asserting that he was entitled to “qualified immunity.” The government’s position exposes the true content of its immigration policy. While Obama postures as sympathetic to the plight of immigrants, his government treats them with contempt—as “aliens” with absolutely no rights, not even the right to live.¶ The unanimous decision by the Fifth Circuit was the culmination of five years of litigation by the victim’s parents. The Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiffs “fail to allege a violation of the Fourth Amendment.” According to the ruling, Sergio “had no ‘significant voluntary connection’ to the United States.” Moreover, he “was on Mexican soil at the time he was shot,” and therefore “cannot assert a claim under the Fourth Amendment.”¶ The Fifth Circuit also held that the plaintiffs could not sue under the Alien Tort Statute, a section of US Code that has traditionally allowed foreign citizens to seek remedy in US courts in cases of human rights violations occurring outside the US, because the US did not “consent” to be sued.¶ Finally, although the court was split on whether agent Mesa’s conduct might violate the Fifth Amendment, it ruled that “the Fifth Amendment right asserted by the plaintiffs was not clearly established at the time of the complained-of incident,” since “the person injured by a US official standing on US soil is an alien who had no significant voluntary connection to, and was not in, the United States when the incident occurred.”¶Since the right was allegedly not “clearly established,” the Fifth Circuit ruled that the agent was entitled to “qualified immunity.” Qualified immunity is a reactionary and pseudo-legal doctrine that has no basis in the Constitution. However, it is increasingly being used throughout the judiciary to shield killer cops from legal accountability.¶ In this case, the invocation of “qualified immunity” is absurd on its face. The Fifth Amendment, which has been the supreme law of the United States since 1791, is perfectly clear. It provides that no person “shall be deprived of life … without due process of law.”¶ The deadly implication of the Fifth Circuit’s ruling is that it is no longer “clearly established” that US border patrol agents cannot open fire on unarmed children on the Mexican side of the border. Instead, with respect to shootings at the border, the decision practically proclaims that it is “open season.”¶A year ago, the American Civil Liberties Union reported that since 2010, at least 28 civilians “died following an encounter with US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) personnel.” All but one died as the result of the use of force. Around a third of the victims were children.¶ In 2012, 16-year-old Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez met his brother for a snack in Nogales, Sonora, Mexico, near the border when he was killed by CBP agents. Ten bullets entered the back of his head, eight bullets struck him as he was already on the ground and two of the agents were alleged to have shot at least 14 times.¶ No charges were filed and no explanation was given for such a horrific and barbaric event, except a perfunctory explanation that children were throwing rocks behind a 60-foot tall fence.¶In the context of an intensified persecution and criminalization of undocumented immigrants, the Fifth Circuit’s ruling marks a further step in the escalation of authoritarian measures aimed at dismantling democratic rule. 11 +Aff would eliminate qualified immunity for border patrol agents and allow people a way to seek compensation through civil suits Kennis 16 Kennis, Andrew. (Assistant Professor of Journalism at The University of Texas at El Paso) "Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Case That Challenges Cross-Border Killings by US Agents | VICE News." VICE News RSS.N.p., 30 Mar. 2016. Web. 06 Nov. 2016. https://news.vice.com/article/supreme-court-cross-border-killing-patrol-agent-usa-mexico. BS 12 +One of the cases, the shooting of the 15-year-old boy, led to a lawsuit— Hernández v. Mesa — that is now before the US Supreme Court, which is due to decide by April 1 whether to postpone the case, fully consider it, or throw it out altogether. At the same time, several other cases are moving through the courts, including another civil suit that is similar to the one being considered by the Supreme Court and the first criminal case ever to be prosecuted for a cross-border shooting.¶ If the Supreme Court either rejects the case, or if it upholds the last appellate court ruling in the government's favor, Mexican families will not have the right to sue the government for civil rights violations of deceased relatives who have been victims of cross-border killings at the hands of Border Patrol agents.¶ However, if Mexican families win either or both of the civil cases, they will gain Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, including the chance to sue Border Patrol agents who kill or seriously injure their family members. Thiscould result incompensatory damages via the constitutional and civil rights they will have gained.¶ The Hernández v. Mesa case got to the Supreme Court after the notoriously conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over all of Texas and many border areas, ruled against the families. The government argues that this is a case where "qualified immunity" applies to the agent responsible for the shooting. This means that in order to successfully sue a government official, you have to show a violation of clearly established law. The Fifth Circuit agreed, reasoning that it is not clearly established by law that the US Constitution applies to a Mexican national killed in Mexico.¶ ¶ Lawyers representing the families argue that this argument circumvents the obvious.¶ "You don't need a court decision to say that it is wrong to kill an unarmed 15-year-old boy," says Steve Shadowen, one of the lawyers representing the Hernández family.¶ "It's common sense and decency that you get judicial review when it comes to police killings of unarmed children," he added.¶Shadowen also stressed that at the time Hernández was shot, the officer didn't know whether the boy was a US or a Mexican national. 13 +QI reinforces territorial notions of sovereign control that cause nativism. Moore and Moore 14 14 + 15 +Moore, Guinevere E., and Robert T. Moore. "Extraterritorial Application of the Fifth Amendment: A Need for Expanded Constitutional Protections, The." . Mary's LJ 46 (2014): 1. 16 +There exists an almost universal acceptance that when there is a deprivation of life, even by state actors who were acting within their official capacity, there must be an effective remedy.179 Here, the only effective remedy is the ability to bring suit before a U.S. federal court, as that is the only court that would have jurisdiction over all of the parties.180 If the United States will not allow for such an action to be brought, then it denies the check on governmental power that the Constitution provides, and the United States violates its duty at international law.181 Furthermore, if the United States refuses extradition, then the United States is also in violation of the principle of aut dedere, aut iudicare, which is a state’s duty under international law to either give the individual up for extradition or try the individual itself.182 Guilt or innocence of the agent is irrelevant at this point as that is for a jury to decide.183 First, however, the parties have to be able to bring the matter before a competent domestic court. That right to have adequate due process is enshrined in the Constitution and is now accepted widely at international law.184 If the United States denies that right to due process in this instance, it will pave the way for the U.S.–Mexico border to become a place where the government acts without legal constraint—the very thing that Justice Kennedy warned of in Boumediene. 185 It will also set a dangerous precedent at international law, where states may act as they choose and potentially violate fundamental human rights with impunity so long as the violation occurs in a territory that is not under sovereign control of the state.186 17 +The difference between police officers and border patrol is tied to the idea of borders. MyPursuit ’16. MyPursuit. "The Differences Between a Border Patrol and a Police Officer Career." MyPursuit.n.d. Web. 1 Nov 2016. 18 +Since quite some time, when humans started living in bordered communities, the need to safeguard the territories has been recognized and practiced by many people. Various forms of land safety and guard have been opted for and some of them have been very successful. These days, most countries rely on Border Security Force to protect their boundaries and Border Patrol to monitor these boundaries. Border Patrol is the uniformed common law enforcement arm of the security forces, responsible for patrolling the international land borders and coastal waters. They resist illegal entries and smuggling across the border. Members of this force work 24 hours in all conditions of land and weather. The primary requirement to be a member of the Border Force is to be a recognized citizen of the country. The person involved in any criminal act is not eligible to join this force. He also ought to have a driver’s license at the time of appointment and be less than 40 years of age. Along with written examination and interview, the candidate also undergoes medical examination, drug testing and physical fitness tests. His background is also thoroughly investigated. On selection, new member is hired at various levels depending upon his academic qualification and experience. His salary is equal to any other Federal Law Enforcement Personnel, ranging from $36,000 to $47,000. There is also an opportunity to earn overtime pay. A uniform allowance of up to $1500 is also permissible under the law. Other constituents of the package accorded to him include life insurance, health insurance, liberal retirement benefits and a thrift savings plan. Border Patrol is responsible for the safety of the borders, but within borders, Police Officers safeguard the citizens. In contrast to border patrol officers, the police officers may be employed by the Federal, state or municipal government and is responsible for enforcing federal and state laws along with municipal ordinances. They also help maintain peace in the community by keeping a check on anti-social elements. A uniformed pro-active patrolling within the jurisdiction helps them control criminal activity and attend public calls for service. They keep a documented record of their activities. The duties of a police officer are not limited to those mentioned above. 19 +Geography is socially constructed, and reinforces nativism. Tuathail 1998 -Department of Geography,Virginia Polytechnic Institute Gearóid Ó Re-Thinking Geopolitics: Towards a Critical Geopolitics. Introductory chapter co-authored with Simon Dalby to Rethinking Geopolitics, Routledge, 1-15. 20 + 21 +Critical geopolitics bears witness to the irredeemable plurality of space and the multiplicity of possible political constructions of space. Thus, and this is the second argument characterizing critical geopolitics, it pays particular attention to the boundary-drawing practices and performances that characterize the everyday life of states. In contrast to conventional geography and geopolitics, both the material borders at the edge of the state and the conceptual borders designating this as a boundarybetween a secure inside and an anarchic outside are objects of investigation. Critical geopolitics is not about 'the outside' of the state but about the very construction of boundaries of 'inside' and 'outside,' 'here' and 'there,' the 'domestic' and the 'foreign' (Walker 1993). As Campbell (1992) has argued, the study of foreign policy involves more than the study of conventional inter-state relations. States are not prior to the inter-state system but perpetually constituted by their performances in relationship to an outside against which they define themselves. Foreign policy involves the making of the 'foreign' as an identity and space against which a domestic self is evoked and realized. "The construction of the 'foreign' is made possible by practices that also constitute the 'domestic.' In other words, foreign policy is a 'specific sort of boundary-producing political performance'" (Campbell 1992, 69 quoting Ashley; original emphasis). In describing the struggle between the Soviet Union and the United States as "not simply geopolitical" Campbell (1992, 26) himself does not radicalize the notion of geopolitics but his argument implicitly suggests how territorial geopolitics is contextualized and sustained by a more pervasive cultural geo-politics, in other words (following Campbell's 1992, 76 capitalized distinction between "foreign policy" and "Foreign Policy") that a primary and pervasive foreign policy geo-politics makes the secondary, specialist and conventionally understood Foreign Policy Geopolitics of elites possible. 22 +Nativism drives racism. Alcoff Alcoff, Linda Martin. (a philosopher at the City University of New York who specializes in epistemology, feminism, race theory and existentialism.) "LATINOS BEYOND THE BINARY." Alcoff.com. n.d. Web. 2 Nov 2016. 23 +The discrimination against Latinos (among others, especially Asian Americans and now Arab and Muslim Americans) has also operated very strongly on the basis of nativism. We might think of nativism as a fourth axis of racism that targets immigrants. Nativism is distinct, though often related to, a general xenophobia, ethnic chauvinism or dislike of foreigners because it adds a racialized construction of the group in question as inassimilabledue to inherent characteristics. Thus, in the U.S. today there is ethnic chauvinism against numerous groups, but not all of these experience racialization. Consider the French, who have been the target of a publicly sanctioned derogation that is not based on attributions of innate inferiority. All immigrant groups are not racialized in the sense of universalizing negative values onto a group that is demarcated on the basis of visible features, nor subject to the essentializing of their cultural characteristics as static. Russian and Eastern European immigrants are not the targets of random identity-based violence or national scapegoating to "explain" economic downturns. European immigrants are not tagged as inassimilable cultural inferiors nor is their difference racialized in the way that some Latinos, Arabs, and Asian Americans experience. Thus nativism today takes a decidedly racialized form, different from earlier periods in U.S. history when, for example, German immigrants were shunned, German street names were changed, and frankfurters were renamed hot dogs. The target of nativism today is a racialized other who threatens the imaginary identity of the U.S. nation to an extent no European culture probably can, given that that imaginary identity is centrally European based. A cultural amalgamation of European and Latin elements that might occur naturally as Latino numbers in the U.S. rise strikes many people with horror.8 Nativism's racialized attributions encourages people to turn a blind eye to the injustices that happen to "non-Native" peoples, such as those profiled as terrorists or those standing on the corner day-labor meat markets or those trying to cross borders. It puts non-native groups outside the pale of peer group conventions of tolerance, respect and civil rights. On this view, the problem with Latinosis not just that they are seen as foreign but that their cultural background makes them ineluctably foreign, both incapable of and unmotivated toward assimilation to the superior, mainstream, white Anglo culture. Debates over bilingualism thus invoke the specter of a concerted resistance to assimilation rather than language rights, and the public celebration of nationally specific holidays, such as "Puerto Rican Day" or Mexican Independence Day, and even the presence of ethnic-specific cuisines can come to signify a threat to the imagined community of Anglo nationalism. Despite the fact that Mexican-Americans have been living within the current U.S. borders for longer than most Anglo-Americans, they are all too often seen as squatters on U.S. soil, interlopers who "belong" elsewhere. This has nothing to do with claims to native inclusion and everything to do with cultural racism.9 Anti-Latino racism mobilizes very specific narratives involving history and culture as well as accounts of racial hierarchies and the effects of race-mixing to portray all Latinos negatively. Thus, the color axis is only one of the axes that need to be understood as pivotal in racist ideologies. Racism can and has operated through a variety of physical features, cultural characteristics and origins, and status as "native" or "non-native" to exclude groups from engendering empathic identification, or from deserving social inclusion and political representation. These multiple axes produce a mechanism for the classification and delimitation of subsets of people that then justifies discrimination and exclusion. Numerous groups experience more than one axis of racism, including African Americans who are derided for a variety of physical features as well as geographical origin. But my argument in this section as been that to understand anti-Latino racism we especially need an attentiveness to these multiple axes, since all four come into play against Latinos. Thus, we need an expanded analysis of racism and an attentiveness to the specific forms it can take in regard to different groups, rather than continuing to accept the idea that it operates in basically one way, with one axis, that is differentially distributed among various groups. In its over-simplification of racisms, the black-white binary inhibits our ability to accurately describe and understand current social realities, in some cases eclipsing the severity as well as the complexity of the problem. And any foreshortened understanding of the problems reduces the possibility of effective solutions as well as the possibility of making common cause. 24 +You have an apriori obligation to resist racism. It comes precludes and outweighs all other impacts.Memmi 2k Albert (Profesor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of Paris) RACISM translated by Steve Martinot pp. 163-165 25 +The struggle against racism will be long, difficult, without intermission, without remission, probably never achieved, yet for this very reason, it is a struggle to be undertaken without surcease and without concessions. One cannot be indulgent toward racism. One cannot even let the monster in the house, especially not in a mask. To give it merely a foothold means to augment the bestial part in us and in other people which is to diminish what is human. To accept the racist universe to the slightest degree is to endorse fear, injustice, and violence. It is to accept the persistence of the dark history in which we still largely live. It is to agree that the outsider will always be a possible victim (and which person man is not themself himself an outsider relative to someone else?). Racism illustrates in sum, the inevitable negativity of the condition of the dominated; that is it illuminates in a certain sense the entire human condition. The anti-racist struggle, difficult though it is, and always in question, is nevertheless one of the prologues to the ultimate passage from animality to humanity. In that sense, we cannot fail to rise to the racist challenge. However, it remains true that one’s moral conduct only emerges from a choice: one has to want it. It is a choice among other choices, and always debatable in its foundations and its consequences. Let us say, broadly speaking, that the choice to conduct oneself morally is the condition for the establishment of a human order for which racism is the very negation. This is almost a redundancy. One cannot found a moral order, let alone a legislative order, on racism because racism signifies the exclusion of the other and his or her subjection to violence and domination. From an ethical point of view, if one can deploy a little religious language, racism is “the truly capital sin.”fn22 It is not an accident that almost all of humanity’s spiritual traditions counsel respect for the weak, for orphans, widows, or strangers. It is not just a question of theoretical counsel respect for the weak, for orphans, widows or strangers. It is not just a question of theoretical morality and disinterested commandments. Such unanimity in the safeguarding of the other suggests the real utility of such sentiments. All things considered, we have an interest in banishing injustice, because injustice engenders violence and death. Of course, this is debatable. There are those who think that if one is strong enough, the assault on and oppression of others is permissible. But no one is ever sure of remaining the strongest. One day, perhaps, the roles will be reversed. All unjust society contains within itself the seeds of its own death. It is probably smarter to treat others with respect so that they treat you with respect. “Recall,” says the bible, “that you were once a stranger in Egypt,” which means both that you ought to respect the stranger because you were a stranger yourself and that you risk becoming once again someday. It is an ethical and a practical appeal – indeed, it is a contract, however implicit it might be. In short, the refusal of racism is the condition for all theoretical and practical morality. Because, in the end, the ethical choice commands the political choice. A just society must be a society accepted by all. If this contractual principle is not accepted, then only conflict, violence, and destruction will be our lot. If it is accepted, we can hope someday to live in peace. True, it is a wager, but the stakes are irresistible. 26 +Aff would strengthen relations with Mexico Krent and Revesz 15 Krent, Stephanie and Revesz, Joshua as Counsel for Pelinttitioner. (Both are J.D. candidates for Yale Law School) “Morris Tyler Moot Court of Appeals at Yale JESUS C. HERNANDEZ, ET AL. Petitioners, v. JESUS MESA, JR. Respondent” ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS. November 2015, https://www.law.yale.edu/system/files/brief_3.pdf BS 27 +b. The diplomatic relationship between the United States andMexico further supports¶extraterritorialapplication. In determining the extraterritorial reach of constitutional provisions,¶ this Court has taken caution to avoid upsetting diplomatic relationships. See United States v.¶ Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 278 (1990) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (noting the need to¶ cooperate with Mexican officials). Mesa remained in the United States while he used excessive¶force across the Paso del Norte border, killing Hernández. He remains outside the jurisdiction of¶Mexico; thus his actions, as in Boumediene, “are answerable to no othersovereign.” Hernandez,¶ 757 F.3d at 271 (citing Boumediene, 553 U.S. at 770). Likely for these reasons, Mexico has¶indicated its supportof the extension of the Fourth Amendmentstotheborder zone in this case.¶ See Hernandez, 785 F.3d at 133 (Dennis, J., concurring); see also Swartz, 4:14-CV-02251-RCC,¶ slip op. at 15 (noting same in an excessive force case on the Nogales border zone). To decline application of the Fourth Amendments for practical reasons would undermine the U.S.-Mexico relationship so crucial to maintaining security at the border.¶ Hernández’s status and his connection to the U.S.-controlled Paso del Norte border zone,¶ the importance of the right he seeks to vindicate, and the importance of ensuring strong¶ diplomatic relationships between Mexico and the United States all weigh in favor ofapplication.¶ In short, there is nothing that suggests the Fourth Amendment should not apply to the actions of¶ an American federal officer, standing in the United States, and using unprovoked, excessive¶ force against a foreign national standing in a U.S.-controlled border zone. To the contrary, every ¶ 24¶factorthat this Court has emphasized in determining the reach of fundamental constitutional¶ rights points toward its application. The opinion of the Fifth Circuit should be reversed. 28 +US-Mexico relations are the backbone of the Mexican economy - key to the US and global economies. Diplomatic Courier 2/24/13 “U.S.-Mexico Relations: Love Thy Neighbor” Global Affairs, http://www.diplomaticourier.com/news/regions/latin-america/1331-us-mexico-relations-love-thy-neighbor 29 +It is not common knowledge that Mexico is the United States’ third largest trading partner, behind Canada and China. Every day, at least a billion dollars of goods flows across the border. Yet, Mexico is frequently negatively caricaturized, primarily with images of migrants illegally crossing the border into the U.S. and stealing U.S. jobs. Instead of viewing Mexico as a valuable partner that can benefit the U.S. in many facets, it is perceived as a liability, a region that cultivates corruption and violence and is the root of the current U.S. immigration ‘problem’ that has spurred controversial rogue measures like Arizona’s SB 1070. In matters of foreign policy, Mexico is an afterthought—our attention and resources are diverted to the Middle East or to grand strategies based on ‘pivoting’ our geopolitical and economical capacity towards Asia. With the U.S. economy performing at a snail-like pace, an emphasis on exports has re-emerged, but the bulk of the exporting narrative revolves around Asia. This is unfortunate, because our neighbor to the south has quietly positioned itself to be the next jewel in the emerging markets portfolio. For example, Market Watch (a Wall Street Journal subsidiary) recently published a bullish article on Mexico with the following headline: “Mexico: Investor’s New China”. The Economist published an opinion piece titled “The Global Mexican: Mexico is open for business”, highlighting Mexican companies that are investing locally and in the U.S. and arguing that Mexico is fertile ground for more investment, especially in the manufacturing sector. And according to The Financial Times, BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) are no longer the flavor of the month; Mexico is now taking over that distinction. In essence, immigration and the drug trade will no longer anchor the relationship between the U.S. and Mexico; instead, economics, finance, trade, and commerce will dictate the terms between the neighboring countries. However, in order to move forward, undoubtedly the elephant in the room must be addressed promptly. Immigration—although the topic is polarizing, it is imperative that President Obama tackles this issue steadfastly and in the most bi-partisan manner possible. It can be seen as one-sided that the onus is on the U.S., while Mexico gets carte blanche in its contradictory policy with their border patrol methods towards Central American migrants entering through Guatemala. True, but when you are world’s super power, not all is fair in love and war. Fortifying borders, beefing up security, creating walls that divide the two countries that mimic uncomfortable parallels between Israel and Palestine should not be the main focus. With the world becoming more flat, the emphasis in tackling the immigration quagmire should be trade and commerce. Engagement, interaction, and the exchange of ideas should be the picture we want to paint. We should not foster the argument that an open border policy and a global business paradigm will compromise American jobs and bite into our distinctive American competitiveness. The reason Mexicans cross the border illegally into the U.S. is because of one desire: opportunity. If Mexico develops a lasting robust economy, Mexicans will no longer desire to come to the U.S. in such droves. According to Nelson Balido, President of the Border Trade Alliance, this already occurring: “Mexico’s economy has, for the most part, weathered the worst of the economic downturn, meaning that more young Mexicans can reasonably seek and find work in their patria rather than heading north.” A strong American economy is extremely favorable for Mexico. Turn the tables a bit, and ponder what it means for the U.S. when a Mexican economy is robust and stable—more export possibilities for the U.S.; more investment from the U.S. to Mexico, and vice versa, creating a win-win situation. Less need for Mexicans to leave their homeland and look for jobs in the U.S. Sounds familiar? The characteristics of many vibrant emerging markets such as China, Indonesia, Brazil, and India, are occurring right next door. Why go East when we can venture South? Or perhaps, approach both simultaneously. According to a Nomura Equity Research report, Mexico in the next decade will surpass Brazil in being Latin America’s largest economy. When comparing Mexico on a GDP per capita basis, Mexico happens to be less developed than Argentina, Chile, and Brazil. This might sound negative, but in actuality it should be music to investors’ ears: more catching up for Mexico, meaning more investment and business activity. Moreover, Mexico’s economy is highly interconnected with the U.S. economy. Currently, Mexico sends almost 80 percent of its exports to the U.S., and roughly 50 percent of its imports are from the U.S. Manufacturing costs in Mexico are once again competitive compared to China. Ten years ago, China’s labor costs were four times cheaper than Mexico, but with labor wages in China inflating, Mexico now has a comparative advantage because its proximity to the U.S. Shipping cargo across the Pacific can be more expensive and arduous, versus trucking cargo from northern Mexico and delivering to Wisconsin in a matter of days. However if the U.S. administration continues to close the borders, the exchange of commerce between Mexico and the U.S. will suffer due to setbacks of just getting goods to cross the border. Luckily, NAFTA is already in place, but both parties (and Canada) can do more to cut red tape and streamline the movement of trade and commerce. Currently, Mexico is entering a perfect demographic storm. It has a young and growing population, which is expected to last for several decades. Mexico is no longer only looking north for economic advancement, as many of their multinational companies, such as Bimbo and Cemex, are currently doing business in Latin America and Spain. Mexico’s stock market is currently in talks to integrate their stock exchange with the MILA group—the established stock exchanges between Colombia, Peru, and Chile. The U.S. must act soon before it arrives at the party too late. It is in the U.S.’s interests to have Mexico think northward first, and then the other regions second, but the opposite is developing. The interconnectedness between both countries strongly conveys why the dialogue should revolve around bilateral trade and commerce agendas. For Mexico, 30 percent of GDP is dependent on exports, and 80 percent of exports are tagged to the U.S. Most importantly, one of ten Mexicans lives in the U.S., accounting for nearly 12 million Mexicans that consider the U.S. their current residence. Add in their descendants, and approximately 33 million Mexicans and Mexican-Americans reside in the U.S. Let’s put this figure in perspective: Venezuela has a population of 29 million; Greece, 11 million; and Canada, 34 million. Essentially we have a ‘country’ within a country—the beauty of America—but it must be embraced instead of shunned or ignored. Economically, it is a plus for Mexico, because there is a market for Mexican products; it is also a plus for the U.S. in many areas, including soft power, diversity, direct linkages to Mexico and Latin America. A cadre of American-born and educated human capital are able to cross cultures into Mexico and Latin America to conduct business and politics. The presidential election emphasized that Latinos in the U.S. are now a vital demographic when concerning local, Congressional, and Presidential elections. It makes practical sense for the U.S. (regardless of political party) to consider Mexico the front door to Central and South America. The most recent U.S. Census discovered that the Latino population in the United States: 1) now tops 50 million; 2) has accounted for more than half of America’s 23.7 million population increase in the last decade; 3) grew by 43 percent in the last decade; and 4) now accounts for about 1 out of 6 Americans. Latinos are now the largest minority group in the United States. These are extraordinary figures that should be leveraged into something positive. President Obama cannot respond by merely paying lip service to the Latino community. Latino voters have overwhelmingly backed President Obama for two elections now, but no favor is done with complete altruism. Surprisingly, during President Obama’s first term, there were 30 percent more deportations than during George W. Bush’s second term. Yet there is hope that President Obama will fix the broken system with a more humane approach, contrary to laws that are being pushed and backed by the Republican Party in Arizona, Georgia, and Alabama. Some may ask—what does this have to do with Mexico, or even Latin America? It is all about messages, and in the next four years the President must use the available tools to solidify relationships with its partners, paving the road for more trade and commerce, which ultimately will further strengthen the U.S. economy. What happens in the U.S. means a lot to many countries, and immigration is perhaps one of the most important matters in Mexico, Central, and South America. The U.S. must first focus on re-branding its relationship with Mexico. President Obama and Mexican President Peña Nieto need to formulate a new agenda between the two countries—one that resonates with the 21st century, linking the two countries economically; where the U.S. can envision Mexico as a vibrant emerging market in its own backyard. Obstacles do exist, like the current Mexican drug war and political corruption. But don’t India and China have corruption problems as well? 30 +Economic decline causes extinction Kemp 10 Geoffrey, Director of Regional Strategic Programs at The Nixon Center, served in the White House under Ronald Reagan, special assistant to the president for national security affairs and senior director for Near East and South Asian affairs on the National Security Council Staff, Former Director, Middle East Arms Control Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2010, The East Moves West: India, China, and Asia’s Growing Presence in the Middle East, pgs. 233-4 31 +The second scenario, called Mayhem and Chaos, is the opposite of the first scenario; everything that can go wrong does go wrong. Theworld economic situation weakensrather than strengthens, and India, China, and Japan suffer a major reduction in their growth rates, further weakening the global economy. As a result, energy demand falls and the price of fossil fuels plummets, leading to a financial crisis for the energy-producing states, which are forced to cut back dramatically on expansion programs and social welfare. That in turn leads to political unrest: and nurtures different radical groups, including, but not limited to, Islamic extremists. The internal stability of some countries is challenged, and there are more “failed states.” Most serious is the collapse of the democratic government in Pakistan and its takeover by Muslim extremists, who then take possession of a large number of nuclear weapons. The danger of war between India and Pakistan increases significantly. Iran, always worried about an extremist Pakistan, expands and weaponizes its nuclear program. That further enhances nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt joining Israel and Iran as nuclear states. Under these circumstances, the potential for nuclear terrorism increases, and the possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack in either the Western world or in the oil-producing states may lead to a further devastating collapse of the world economic market, with a tsunami-like impact on stability. In this scenario, major disruptions can be expected, with dire consequences for two-thirds of the planet’s population. 32 +The Role of the Ballot is to Resist a Politics of Fear as constructed through Immigration As “Americans,” we conceal ourselves from global conflict, war, genocide, and violence behind our television screens – we look through one lens to develop a scholarship and “Truth” of what is actually occurring. In this process we subjugate what we are told – we integrate and process this information into our perspectives of the world. Specifically, the U.S.-Mexican border serves to constitute Mexicans as the, “dirty, foreign Other” through a politics of fear – political gestures based on this understanding are the event horizon for politics to come. Žižek, 07 - Slavoj Žižek is a Slovene philosopher and cultural critic. He is a senior researcher at the Institute for Sociology and Philosophy, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, and a professor of philosophy and psychoanalysis at the European Graduate School (“Censorship Today: Violence, or ........ Ecology as a New Opium for the Masses”, Nov. 26, 2007, http://www.lacan.com/zizecology1.htm) 33 +Last but not least, new forms of apartheid, new Walls and slums. On September 11th, 2001, the Twin Towers were hit; twelve years earlier, on November 9th, 1989, the Berlin Wall fell. November 9th announced the "happy '90s," the Francis Fukuyama dream of the "end of history," the belief that liberal democracy had, in principle, won, that the search is over, that the advent of a global, liberal world community lurks just around the corner, that the obstacles to this ultra-Hollywood happy ending are merely empirical and contingent (local pockets of resistance where the leaders did not yet grasp that their time is over). In contrast to it, 9/11 is the main symbol of the forthcoming era in which new walls are emerging everywhere, between Israel and the West Bank, around the European Union, on the U.S.-Mexico border. So what if the new proletarian position is that of the inhabitants of slums in the new megalopolises? The explosive growth of slums in the last decades, especially in the Third World megalopolises from Mexico City and other Latin American capitals through Africa (Lagos, Chad) to India, China, Philippines and Indonesia, is perhaps the crucial geopolitical event of our times. It is effectively surprising how many features of slum dwellers fit the good old Marxist determination of the proletarian revolutionary subject: they are "free" in the double meaning of the word even more than the classic proletariat ("freed" from all substantial ties; dwelling in a free space, outside the police regulations of the state); they are a large collective, forcibly thrown together, "thrown" into a situation where they have to invent some mode of being-together, and simultaneously deprived of any support in traditional ways of life, in inherited religious or ethnic life-forms. While today's society is often characterized as the society of total control, slums are the territories within a state boundaries from which the state (partially, at least) withdrew its control, territories which function as white spots, blanks, in the official map of a state territory. Although they are de facto included into a state by the links of black economy, organized crime, religious groups, etc., the state control is nonetheless suspended there, they are domains outside the rule of law. In the map of Berlin from the times of the now defunct GDR, the are of West Berlin was left blank, a weird hole in the detailed structure of the big city; when Christa Wolf, the well-known East German half-dissident writer, took her small daughter to the East Berlin's high TV tower, from which one had a nice view over the prohibited West Berlin, the small girl shouted gladly: "Look, mother, it is not white over there, there are houses with people like here!" - as if discovering a prohibited slum Zone... This is why the "de-structured" masses, poor and deprived of everything, situated in a non-proletarized urban environment, constitute one of the principal horizons of the politics to come. If the principal task of the emancipatory politics of the XIXth century was to break the monopoly of the bourgeois liberals by way of politicizing the working class, and if the task of the XXth century was to politically awaken the immense rural population of Asia and Africa, the principal task of the XXIth century is to politicize - organize and discipline - the "de-structured masses" of slum-dwellers. Hugo Chavez's biggest achievement is the politicization (inclusion into the political life, social mobilization) of slum dwellers; in other countries, they mostly persist in apolitical inertia. It was this political mobilization of the slum dwellers which saved him against the US-sponsored coup: to the surprise of everyone, Chavez included, slum dwellers massively descended to the affluent city center, tipping the balance of power to his advantage. How do these four antagonisms relate to each other? There is a qualitative difference between the gap that separates the Excluded from the Included and the other three antagonisms, which designate three domains of what Hardt and Negri call "commons," the shared substance of our social being whose privatization is a violent act which should also be resisted with violent means, if necessary: the commons of culture, the immediately socialized forms of "cognitive" capital, primarily language, our means of communication and education (if Bill Gates were to be allowed monopoly, we would have reached the absurd situation in which a private individual would have literally owned the software texture our basic network of communication), but also the shared infrastructure of public transport, electricity, post, etc.; the commons of external nature threatened by pollution and exploitation (from oil to forests and natural habitat itself); the commons of internal nature (the biogenetic inheritance of humanity). What all these struggles share is the awareness of the destructive potentials, up to the self-annihilation of humanity itself, if the capitalist logic of enclosing these commons is allowed a free run. It is this reference to "commons" which justifies the resuscitation of the notion of Communism - or, to quote Alain Badiou: The communist hypothesis remains the good one, I do not see any other. If we have to abandon this hypothesis, then it is no longer worth doing anything at all in the field of collective action. Without the horizon of communism, without this Idea, there is nothing in the historical and political becoming of any interest to a philosopher. Let everyone bother about his own affairs, and let us stop talking about it. In this case, the rat-man is right, as is, by the way, the case with some ex-communists who are either avid of their rents or who lost courage. However, to hold on to the Idea, to the existence of this hypothesis, does not mean that we should retain its first form of presentation which was centered on property and State. In fact, what is imposed on us as a task, even as a philosophical obligation, is to help a new mode of existence of the hypothesis to deploy itself. So where do we stand today with regard to communism? The first step is to admit that the solution is not to limit the market and private property by direct interventions of the State and state ownership. The domain of State itself is also in its own way "private": private in the precise Kantian sense of the "private use of Reason" in State administrative and ideological apparatuses: The public use of one's reason must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among men. The private use of one's reason, on the other hand, may often be very narrowly restricted without particularly hindering the progress of enlightenment. By public use of one's reason I understand the use which a person makes of it as a scholar before the reading public. Private use I call that which one may make of it in a particular civil post or office which is entrusted to him. What one should add here, moving beyond Kant, is that there is a privileged social group which, on account of its lacking a determinate place in the "private" order of social hierarchy, directly stands for universality: it is only the reference to those Excluded, to those who dwell in the blanks of the State space, that enables true universality. There is nothing more "private" than a State community which perceives the Excluded as a threat and worries how to keep the Excluded at a proper distance. In other words, in the series of the four antagonisms, the one between the Included and the Excluded is the crucial one, the point of reference for the others; without it, all others lose their subversive edge: ecology turns into a "problem of sustainable development," intellectual property into a "complex legal challenge," biogenetics into an "ethical" issue. One can sincerely fight for ecology, defend a broader notion of intellectual property, oppose the copyrighting of genes, while not questioning the antagonism between the Included and the Excluded - even more, one can even formulate some of these struggles in the terms of the Included threatened by the polluting Excluded. In this way, we get no true universality, only "private" concerns in the Kantian sense of the term. Corporations like Whole Foods and Starbucks continue to enjoy favor among liberals even though they both engage in anti-union activities; the trick is that they sell products that contain the claim of being politically progressive acts in and of themselves. One buys coffee made with beans bought at above fair-market value, one drives a hybrid vehicle, one buys from companies that provide good benefits for their customers (according to the corporation's own standards), etc. Political action and consumption become fully merged. In short, without the antagonism between the Included and the Excluded, we may well find ourselves in a world in which Bill Gates is the greatest humanitarian fighting against poverty and diseases, and Rupert Murdoch the greatest environmentalist mobilizing hundreds of millions through his media empire. When politics is reduced to the "private" domain, it takes the form of the politics of FEAR - fear of losing one's particular identity, of being overwhelmed. Today's predominant mode of politics is post-political bio-politics - an awesome example of theoretical jargon which, however, can easily be unpacked: "post-political" is a politics which claims to leave behind old ideological struggles and, instead, focus on expert management and administration, while "bio-politics" designates the regulation of the security and welfare of human lives as its primal goal. It is clear how these two dimensions overlap: once one renounces big ideological causes, what remains is only the efficient administration of life... almost only that. That is to say, with the depoliticized, socially objective, expert administration and coordination of interests as the zero-level of politics, the only way to introduce passion into this field, to actively mobilize people, is through fear, a basic constituent of today's subjectivity. 34 +America is at a turning point. Trump’s election is an endorsement of politics of fear against the borderlands. This fear has no basis in reality and must be resisted. Parker ’16 Parker, Jennifer. Trump's immigration plan preys on fear, divides Americans, http://www.mcall.com/opinion/yourview/mc-trump-immigration-parker-yv-0909-20160908-story.html. September 8, 2016. 35 +Donald Trump's iron-fisted immigration plan of last week makes clear that he thinks immigrants, especially the unauthorized, are a major source of America's problems. Like all of Trump's divisive rhetoric in the past year, this plan stirs up fear, not confidence. It scapegoats rather than brings people together. And it blatantly disavows facts. It should give anyone living in the Lehigh Valley pause as immigrants and the diversity they bring have long been a source of our region's strength, not a drain on it. Trump's plan starts out with a horrible picture of unauthorized immigrants, one that does not compute with reality. Many of us know someone living in the shadows — a neighbor, a co-worker, a classmate, a family member. Most unauthorized immigrants are model residents, not murderers, terrorists or rapists, as Trump would have us believe. Nearly every study that has examined the hard data shows the same two facts: When unauthorized immigration goes up, violent crime goes down, and immigrants have lower rates of crime and incarceration than the native born. Trump also ignores the fact that unauthorized immigration is a declining problem in the U.S., not a rising one. According to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, more Mexicans are returning home rather than coming, and our border is more secure than it ever has been. The central feature of Trump's plan (besides the border wall) is a $300 billion mass deportation operation. It would triple Immigration and Customs Enforcement and round up millions in a hyped-up law enforcement climate that seems eerily close to Operation Wetback of the 1950s. The effects could be devastating for children and families. According to the Pew Research Center, in 2012, 7 percent of school students had at least one unauthorized parent. Most of these students (about 80 percent) are citizens (they were born in the U.S.). Breaking up families is inhumane and could have a cascading effect on communities at large. Perhaps more disturbing is Trump's proposal to do away with amnesty, even for our country's 1.8 million Dreamers, some of whom live in the Lehigh Valley. Dreamers are young undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children, through no fault of their own. They know no other home besides the U.S. They attend U.S. schools, speak English, identify as American, and often serve in the U.S. military. Yet they struggle through life without full legal status. The term Dreamers came from the DREAM Act (Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act), a bill first introduced in Congress in 2001 to provide undocumented youth with a path to resident status and eventual citizenship. It did not pass but Dreamers continue to hope for a better future. Until four years ago, Dreamers lived under constant fear of deportation and were unable to legally work. A program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, was enacted in 2012 to provide temporary relief by protecting these children from deportation and granting them permission to work for two-year renewable periods. Trump threatens to end DACA and turn Dreamers' lives into nightmares. This is insidious. Trump's plan, in general, shows ignorance of immigration law, stoking crisis where it doesn't exist. "Extreme vetting" is a fancy term Trump made up for policies that are already in place. The U.S. has the most rigorous and lengthiest vetting process in the world and is equipped to do its part in providing relief to families ravaged by war and terror in Syria. Lehigh Valley officials have already successfully resettled Syrian refugee families, who join an established Syrian population that has been a vital part of the area's rich social and economic tapestry for over a century. But Trump aims to scare us to death, literally. He tells us to "lock your doors" when Syrian refugees come to town. In so doing, he turns terror victims into perpetrators and calls for suspicion rather than empathy. We know from history that when fear sets in, suspicion spreads to whole ethnic and religious groups — to anyone who looks like, seems like or identifies with that target group. This is not the foundation we need for making America great. Debate is unique forum where debaters practice becoming policy makers. 36 +Resisting oppression in debate is key to legal advocacy in the real world and later in life. Joyner 99 (Christopher Professor of International Law in the Government Department at Georgetown University, Spring, 5 ILSA J Int'l and Comp L 377 37 +Use of the debate can be an effective pedagogical tool for education in the social sciences. Debates, like other role-playing simulations, help students understand different perspectives on a policy issue by adopting a perspective as their own. But, unlike other simulation games, debates do not require that a student participate directly in order to realize the benefit of the game. Instead of developing policy alternatives and experiencing the consequences of different choices in a traditional role-playing game, debates present the alternatives and consequences in a formal, rhetorical fashion before a judgmental audience. Having the class audience serve as jury helps each student develop a well-thought-out opinion on the issue by providing contrasting facts and views and enabling audience members to pose challenges to each debating team. These debates ask undergraduate students to examine the international legal implications of various United States foreign policy actions. Their chief tasks are to assess the aims of the policy in question, determine their relevance to United States national interests, ascertain what legal principles are involved, and conclude how the United States policy in question squares with relevant principles of international law. Debate questions are formulated as resolutions, along the lines of: "Resolved: The United States should deny most-favored-nation status to China on human rights grounds;" or "Resolved: The United States should resort to military force to ensure inspection of Iraq's possible nuclear, chemical and biological weapons facilities;" or "Resolved: The United States' invasion of Grenada in 1983 was a lawful use of force;" or "Resolved: The United States should kill Saddam Hussein." In addressing both sides of these legal propositions, the student debaters must consult the vast literature of international law, especially the nearly 100 professional law-school-sponsored international law journals now being published in the United States. This literature furnishes an incredibly rich body of legal analysis that often treats topics affecting United States foreign policy, as well as other more esoteric international legal subjects. Although most of these journals are accessible in good law schools, they are largely unknown to the political science community specializing in international relations, much less to the average undergraduate. By assessing the role of international law in United States foreign policy- making, students realize that United States actions do not always measure up to international legal expectations; that at times, international legal strictures get compromised for the sake of perceived national interests, and that concepts and principles of international law, like domestic law, can be interpreted and twisted in order to justify United States policy in various international circumstances. In this way, the debate format gives students the benefits ascribed to simulations and other action learning techniques, in that it makes them become actively engaged with their subjects, and not be mere passive consumers. Rather than spectators, students become legal advocates, observing, reacting to, and structuring political and legal perceptions to fit the merits of their case. The debate exercises carry several specific educational objectives. First, students on each team must work together to refine a cogent argument that compellingly asserts their legal position on a foreign policy issue confronting the United States. In this way, they gain greater insight into the real-world legal dilemmas faced by policy makers. Second, as they work with other members of their team, they realize the complexities of applying and implementing international law, and the difficulty of bridging the gaps between United States policy and international legal principles, either by reworking the former or creatively reinterpreting the latter. Finally, research for the debatesforces students to become familiarized with contemporary issues on the United States foreign policy agenda and the role that international law plays in formulating and executing these policies. The debate thus becomes an excellent vehicle for pushing students beyond stale arguments over principles into the real world of policy analysis, political critique, and legal defense. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-11-19 19:09:27.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Somewhere - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Someone - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +8 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Loyola Wickham Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Borderlands ND16 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Glenbrooks
- Caselist.CitesClass[8]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,45 @@ 1 +====The admins and lawmakers of the UC system have instituted bans on criticisms of Israel and have been threatening students ==== 2 +**Greenwald 15** Greenwald, Glenn. (Greenwald is one of three co-founding editors of The Intercept. He is a journalist, constitutional lawyer, and author of four New York Times best-selling books on politics and law) "The Greatest Threat to Campus Free Speech Is Coming From Dianne Feinstein and Her Military-Contractor Husband." The Intercept. N.p., 25 Sept. 2015. Web. 10 Dec. 2016. https://theintercept.com/2015/09/25/dianne-feinstein-husband-threaten-univ-calif-demanding-ban-excessive-israel-criticism/. 3 +There is no shortage of American pundits who love to denounce "PC" speech 4 +AND 5 +and her husband think college students should be expelled for protected free speech." 6 +====The UC's adoption of the State Department's definition is overreaching, it makes violations easy and denies nearly any constructive criticism ==== 7 +**Greenwald 2** Greenwald, Glenn. (Greenwald is one of three co-founding editors of The Intercept. He is a journalist, constitutional lawyer, and author of four New York Times best-selling books on politics and law) "The Greatest Threat to Campus Free Speech Is Coming From Dianne Feinstein and Her Military-Contractor Husband." The Intercept. N.p., 25 Sept. 2015. Web. 10 Dec. 2016. https://theintercept.com/2015/09/25/dianne-feinstein-husband-threaten-univ-calif-demanding-ban-excessive-israel-criticism/. 8 +The specific UC controversy is two-fold: whether, in combating "anti 9 +AND 10 +off limits in academic classrooms or outlaw them as part of campus activism? 11 +The Board of Regents for the University of California ought to remove speech codes for anti-semitism that use the California's state legislature 2010 definition. 12 +====Palestinians are subject to Israeli oppression. Lendman 12: ==== 13 +Lendman, Stephen. (Editor and contributor of "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.) "Israel's Genocidal War on Palestine." Global Research. Global Research.ca, 30 Nov. 2012. Web. 06 Aug. 2015. http://www.globalresearch.ca/israels-genocidal-war-on-palestine/5313587. BS 14 + Longstanding Israeli policy reflects slow-motion genocide. Non-Jews aren't wanted 15 +AND 16 +79 Palestinians. Eleven were in the West Bank. Others were Gazans. 17 +====The university is the ideal site of social movement, the aff changes the playing field and allows more movements to grow Anarchist news 10' Anarchistnews.org, "The university, social death, and the inside joke", published 18 February 2010, http://anarchistnews.org/content/university-social-death-and-inside-joke==== 18 +"We are convinced . . . by their university: 19 +====Resistance to Israeli oppression occurs through counter discourse of nationalism and creation of a nation state. Gabr 14: ==== 20 +GABR, IBRAHIM. "Orientalism, Palestinian Nationalism, and Israeli Repression." EInternational Relations. McGill University, Apr. 2014. Web. 07 Aug. 2015. http://www.e-ir.info/2014/06/20/orientalism-palestinian-nationalism-and-israeli-repression/. Undergraduate student in Honours Political Science and Economics at McGill University BS 21 + With regards to the nature of these nationalist movements, Anderson (2006: 22 +AND 23 +-ideology – be understood as discursive rivals to the Palestinian emancipatory project. 24 +====Allowing criticism are key, the form the inception of resistance that becomes material and fights back against normalization. ==== 25 +**Azzam 16 ** Azzam, Zeina. (Azzam is executive director of The Jerusalem Fund) "Israel as Oppressor, Palestine as Oppressed: The 'normalization' of What Is Not Normal." Mondoweiss. N.p., 14 June 2016. Web. 05 Jan. 2017. http://mondoweiss.net/2016/06/palestine-oppressed-normalization/. BS 26 +Indeed, objectivity often seems to be absent in situations in which people have been 27 +AND 28 +efforts to resist and dismantle the accepted paradigm of military occupation and settlements. 29 +====The same invisibility and ignorance towards Israeli violence is what set America's foundation for colonialist butchery with Native Americans==== 30 +**Street 04 **(Paul Street, 04/11/04, taught various aspects of U.S. history at a large number of Chicago-area colleges and universities and was the Director of Research at The Chicago Urban League (from 2000 through 2005), where he published two major grant-funded studies, "Those who deny Crimes of the Past", https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/those-who-deny-the-crimes-of-the-past-by-paul-street) 31 +Seen against, and as part of, the vast historical canvass of U. 32 +AND 33 +roamed by an immeasurably more civilized people than those who came to destroy. 34 +====The role of this debate should be about the development of movements to challenge institutional racism==== 35 +**Alexander 10, Associate Professor of Law** 36 +~~2010, Michelle Alexander, is an associate professor of law at Ohio State University, a civil rights advocate and a writer. "New Jim Crow : Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness" ProQuest ebrary, pp. 221-224~~ 37 +The list could go on, of course, but the point has been made 38 +AND 39 +We run the risk of winning isolated battles but losing the larger war. 40 +====View the impact debate from the lens of the dispossessed—conventional moral theory operates on a false assumption of equal opportunity, demands for justice precedes other discussion of competing moral theories==== 41 +**Mills 97 – Associate Prof of Philosophy @ U Illinois, Chicago ** 42 +(Charles-; The Racial Contract) 43 +The Racial Contract has always been recognized by nonwhites as the real determinant of ( 44 +AND 45 +, part of the population covered by the moral operator, or not. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-12 21:39:39.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Somewhere - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Someone - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +9 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Loyola Wickham Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Antisemitism AC JF17 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Debate LA RR
- Caselist.CitesClass[9]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,22 @@ 1 +The Role of the Ballot goes to whoever best proposes an anti-capitalist pedagogy, re-evaluating education tactics is the only way to end the anonymization of workers the capitalist mindset engrains Zizek and Daly 04 Glyn. Lecturer in International Studies at the University College Northampton; Slavoj Zizek, world famous philosophy on psychoanalysis and capitalism; Conversations with Žižek. 14-19 2 +For Žižek it is imperative that we cut through this Gordian knot of postmodern protocol and recognize that our ethico-political responsibility is to confront the constitutive violence of today's global capitalism and its obscene naturalization/anonymization of the millions who are subjugated by it throughout the world. Against the standardized positions of postmodern culture - with all its pieties concerning 'multiculturalist' etiquette - Žižek is arguing for a politics that might be called 'radically incorrect' in the sense that it breaks with these types of positions and focuses instead on the very organizing principles of today's social reality: the principles of global liberal capitalism. This requires some care and subtlety. For too long, Marxism has been bedevilled by an almost fetishistic economism that has tended towards political morbidity. With the likes of Hilferding and Gramsci, and more recently Laclau and Mouffe, crucial theoretical advances have been made that enable the trascendence of all forms of economism. In this new context, however, Žižek argues that the problem that now presents itself is almost that of the opposite fetish. That is to say, the prohibitive anxieties surrounding the taboo of economism can function as a way of not engaging with the economic reality and as a way of implicitly accepting the latter as a basic horizon of existence. In an ironic Freudian-Lacanian twist, the fear of economism can end up reinforcing a de facto economic necessity in respect of contemporary capitalism (i.e. the initial prohibition conjures up the very thing it fears). This is not to endorse any retrograde return to economism. Žižek's point is rather that in rejecting economism we should not lose sight of the systemic power of capital in shaping the lives and destinies of humanity and our very sense of the possible. In particular, we should not overlook Marx's central insight that in order to create a universal global system the forces of capitalism seek to conceal the politico-discursive violence of its construction through a kind of gentrification of that system. What is persistently denied by neo-liberals such as Rorty (1989) and Fukuyama (1992) is that the gentrification of global liberal capitalism is one whose 'universalism' fundamentally reproduces and depends upon a disavowed violence that excludes vast sectors of the world's population. In this way, neo-liberal ideology attempts to naturalize capitalism by presenting its outcomes of winning and losing as if they were simply a matter of chance and sound judgement in a neutral marketplace. Capitalism does indeed create a space for a certain diversity, at least for the central capitalist regions, but it is neither neutral nor ideal and its price in terms of social exclusion is exorbitant. That is to say, the human cost in terms of inherent global poverty and degraded 'life-chances' cannot be calculated within the existing economic rationale and, in consequence, social exclusion remains mystified and nameless (viz. the patronizing reference to the developing world). And Žižek's point is that this mystification is magnified through capitalism's profound capacity to ingest its own excesses and negativity; to redirect (or misdirect) social antagonisms and to absorb them within a culture of differential affirmation. Instead of Bolshevism, the tendency of today is towards a kind of political boutiquism that is readily sustained by postmodern forms of consumerism and lifestyle. 3 +“Free Speech Zones” and larger laws on censorship allow University’s to challenge anti-state and general critical movements on College Campus’ Kruth 16’ Susan Kruth, Reprinted by the editors of “Cato Unbound”, January 21 2016, “Campus Free Speech Problems are more than meets the eye” https://www.cato-unbound.org/2016/01/21/editors/campus-free-speech-problems-are-more-meets-eye 4 +So requiring a permit for such activity or restricting it to a tiny area of campus—as Modesto Junior College and the University of Hawaii at Hilo did, and as many other institutions still do—is not a reasonable or justifiable restriction on expression at public colleges and universities. Nor is this an “unavoidable” error. Leafleting cases often involve “free speech zone” policies—policies that one presumes were deliberately implemented after consideration by administrators. This isn’t the case of an administrator making a split-second judgment call in exigent circumstances. Rather, these policies reflect an unacceptable failure to recognize well-settled law. The fact that colleges are quick to settle FIRE’s lawsuits challenging the constitutionality free speech zones in court suggests that at least someone working for these institutions knows that the law isn’t ambiguous. Those that don’t know it should. Take the University of Cincinnati, which for years maintained a flatly unconstitutional free speech zone policy that FIRE named a Speech Code of the Month back in 2007. The university refused to change this policy after a letter from FIRE sent in 2008, and a student group subsequently sued the school (with help from FIRE and the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law) in federal court for violating students’ First Amendment rights. In 2012, the students won their case; the policy was found unconstitutional. The University of Cincinnati’s free speech zone policy, and the resulting loss in court, cannot be called “unavoidable” with a straight face. To be sure, circumstances exist where an interest in safety clashes with an interest in free speech. For example, Posner cites a case involving “a student who made a bonfire of his books—apparently to express his sentiments about his education, but in a way that understandably caused concern to administrators.” But FIRE overwhelmingly handles cases that are not “borderline” and that do not implicate “campus order, safety, and security,” as Posner alleged. There’s nothing borderline about a public university attempting to censor professors’ criticism of the administration, a student being threatened with removal from campus for petitioning against NSA surveillance, a student newspaper that was investigated for nearly a year for two articles. Any FIRE staffer could go on and on with examples—as could Posner, if he had visited our website. 5 +The University reproduces meaning that goes hand in hand with the same oppressive politics activists criticize, only complete vacancy from the system denies the simulacrum of meaning power Anarchist news 10’ Anarchistnews.org, “The university, social death, and the inside joke”, published 18 February 2010, http://anarchistnews.org/content/university-social-death-and-inside-joke 6 +“The university is a machine” the Berkeley kids remind us from behind their fortifications. It “wants to grow, to accumulate, to expand, to absorb more and more of the living into its peculiar and perverse machinery: high-tech research centers, new stadiums and office complexes.”29 It is not limited by design to produce material goods (as a factory is), nor is it defined by those who inhabit it (as a city is). The function of the university was once to produce meaning, to explain and interpret the world. “Today, everything has changed,” Baudrillard writes; “no longer is meaning in short supply, it is produced everywhere, in ever increasing quantities – it is demand which is weakening.”30 Yet the University has accommodated its new function well; to provide a space for the dissemination and valorization of this purpose. “It is the production of the demand for meaning which has become crucial for the system,” the philosopher explains. “Without this demand for, without this susceptibility to, without this minimal participation in meaning, power is nothing but an empty simulacrum and an isolated effect of perspective.”31 One recalls the Anti-Capital Project’s assertion that students “spend money and energy trying to convince ourselves we’re brighter than everyone else.”32 In doing so, they reinforce the hegemony of objective knowledge and all that comes from it. From literature and the humanities, one derives mediated social relations. From mathematics and science, one gets destructive forms of economics and rationality. Most threatening are the social sciences, which reinforce the tyranny of politics; the study, creation and segregation, of ‘the other’. 7 +If the fake semiotics of knowledge and meaning were excised from the university true knowledge could take place and actual alternatives to capitalism could be made Anarchist news 10’ Anarchistnews.org, “The university, social death, and the inside joke”, published 18 February 2010, http://anarchistnews.org/content/university-social-death-and-inside-joke 8 +“We are convinced, owned and broken,” say the kids in Berkeley. “We know their values better than they do…”33 We are not just given meaning, we are taught to seek, even demand it. Existential crises once posed a threat to the system. Now, it could not live without them. Obsolescence provides the dynamo for fashion, for the rapid degradation of relationships, the jumps between jobs and homes. We consume more; what was cool five minutes ago now isn’t. We form loose relationships with friends and lovers, based not on any mutual desire but on shared enjoyment of mediated entertainment. We don’t communicate, but we like the same movies or clubs. We somehow ended up fighting for precarious existence, for the right to work a series of entry-level jobs with no benefits and sublet an equally banal series of apartments or homes. Maybe we’ll eventually meet one of our neighbors. Maybe we’ll someday receive a pension. Even as students, we begin to feel the pain of precarity: “the university steals and homogenizes our time yes, our bank accounts also, but it also steals and homogenizes meaning.”34 The University is becoming universalized, because “every moment of student life is the management of our consent to social death.”35 As Baudrillard writes, “it can no longer be said that the social is dying, since it is already the accumulation of death.”36 Elsewhere, he tells us that “the social exists to take care of the useless consumption of remainders so that individuals can be assigned to the useful management of their lives.”37 The University is the ideal social environment, a space for adolescents to encounter each other and develop a passion for knowledge. Yet it also serves as a space for the proliferation of values and meanings, for the facilitation of semiotic consumption that Baudrillard views as being so important to the perpetuation of postmodern capitalism. A city is relatively concentrated space, allowing for bombardment by advertising, culture, media and structured normalcy. Yet it pales in comparison to the intense concentration of bodies facilitated in a University setting. The intense consumption of media and literature, social interactions and entertainment that students undergo means that meaning can easily be diffused. The Berkeley radicals claim the values distributed by their university: 9 +Capitalism, through the concept of industry, has transformed humans into a resource of production. Deleuze and Guattari, 72 (Gilles Deleuze Professor of Philosophy at the University of Paris AND Felix Guattari Activist and Psychoanalyst, worked at La Borde. Anti-Oedipus 1972 p. 4) 10 +“Second, we make no distinction between man and nature: the human essence of nature and the natural essence of man become one within nature in the form of production or industry, just as they do within the life of man as a species. Industry is then no longer considered from the extrinsic point of view of utility, but rather from the point of view of its fundamental identity with nature as production of man and by man.4 Not man as the king of creation, but rather as the being who is in intimate contact with the profound life of all forms or all types of beings, who is responsible for even the stars and animal life, and who ceaselessly plugs an organ-machine into an energy-machine, a tree into his body, a breast into his mouth, the sun into his asshole: the eternal custodian of the machines of the universe. This is the second meaning of process as we use the term: man and nature are not like two opposite terms confronting each other—not even in the sense of bipolar opposites within a relationship of causation, ideation, or expression (cause and effect, subject and object, etc.); rather, they are one and the same essential reality, the producer-product. Production as process overtakes all idealistic categories and constitutes a cycle whose relationship to desire is that of an immanent principle. That is why desiring-production is the principal concern of a materialist psychiatry, which conceives of and deals with the schizo as Homo natura. This will be the case, however, only on one condition, which in fact constitutes the third meaning of process as we use the term: it must not be viewed as a goal or an end in itself, nor must it be confused with an infinite perpetuation of itself. Putting an end to the process or prolonging it indefinitely—which, strictly speaking, is tantamount to ending it abruptly and prematurely— is what creates the artificial schizophrenic found in mental institutions: a limp rag forced into autistic behavior, produced as an entirely separate and independent entity. D. H. Lawrence says of love: "We have pushed a process into a goal. The aim of any process is not the perpetuation of that process, but the completion thereof. . . . The process should work to a completion, not to some horror of intensification and extremity wherein the soul and body ultimately perish."5 Schizophrenia is like love: there is no specifically schizophrenic phenomenon or entity; schizophrenia is the universe of productive and reproductive desiring-machines, universal primary production as "the essential reality of man and nature." 11 +If we do not escape that ontological view that humans are a resource, by failing to rethink our capitalist ontology, we will reach a point of ontological damnation that is worse than extinction. Zimmerman, (Professor of Philosophy at Tulane), 94 (Michael, Contesting the Earth’s Future, p. 104). 12 +Heidegger asserted that human self-assertion, combined with the eclipse of being, threatens the relation between being and human Dasein. Loss of this relation would be even more dangerous than a nuclear war that might "bring about the complete annihilation of humanity and the destruction of the earth." This controversial claim is comparable to the Christian teaching that it is better to forfeit the world than to lose one's soul by losing one's relation to God. Heidegger apparently thought along these lines: it is possible that after a nuclear war, life might once again emerge, but it is far less likely that there will ever again occur an ontological clearing through which such life could manifest itself. Further, since modernity's one-dimensional disclosure of entities virtually denies them any "being" at all, the loss of humanity's openness for being is already occurring.55 Modernity's background mood is horror in the face of nihilism, which is consistent with the aim of providing material "happiness" for everyone by reducing nature to pure energy.56 The unleashing of vast quantities of energy in nuclear war would be equivalent to modernity's slow-motion destruction of nature: unbounded destruction would equal limitless consumption. If humanity avoided nuclear war only to survive as contented clever animals, Heidegger believed we would exist in a state of ontological damnation: hell on earth, masquerading as material paradise. Deep ecologists might agree that a world of material human comfort purchased at the price of everything wild would not be a world worth living in, for in killing wild nature, people would be as good as dead. But most of them could not agree that the loss of humanity's relation to being would be worse than nuclear omnicide, for it is wrong to suppose that the lives of millions of extinct and unknown species are somehow lessened because they were never "disclosed" by humanity. 13 +Thus I affirm, that public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech 14 +Student protests and free speech movements reframe political activism towards subtraction that is the only way to move towards a post-capitalist world Bifo 03’ “Disobediance and Cognitariat” An interview between Marco Scotini and Franco Berardi, world renowned Italian Marxist, http://www.disobediencearchive.com/texts/cognitariat.html 15 +MS: Several theories, such as yours, that have surfaced from the Italian operaismo - workerism - currently argue that civil disobedience, once stripped of its liberal tradition, represents “the basic form of political action of the multitude”. Premising by saying that you don’t like to define yourself using the term “multitude” but prefer “social subjectivity”, or “social chain”, what do you feel is the role of civil disobedience? Increasingly, “exodus” and “desertion” seem to have become key words in the post-Fordist lexicon. Bifo: I would propose fitting the concept of civil disobedience into the more general theme concerning the exodus, or “subtraction”. What does “subtraction” mean? In my opinion, it is a concept that is quite close to, or which determines more precisely, what we have always understood together with the question of the refusal of work. The refusal of work – which is probably the concept that most deeply marks the entire Italian autonomism and operaismo (workerism) experience – is the deep understanding and awareness of a separation between useful and felicitous activity and its obligatory productive destination. The refusal of work is not necessarily a sign of laziness, although can also be that, but it shouldn’t be attached such an oversimplified definition. On the contrary, it is “active life”: active life as the capability to capture what is most useful and happy for us and our community. When the historic process and political violence force performance to an escalating, inevitable degree – for reasons that are not only social but are also linked to the social psychic dimension and existential impoverishment – then subtraction becomes an action (that can only be a collective nature) through which we reconstruct the basic condition for active life. For example, I am amazed at how little we have thought (when the refusal of work was a commonly-used tool) about the fact that most people really want to work because the rest of life can be so unhappy. Deep down, the workplace is a sort of haven and a way to affirm one’s identity. “Subtraction” means building collective situations in which the sense lies in the pleasure and utility of building something together with others. Perhaps the historic defeat of the politics of movement is related to the fact that we have worked exhaustively toward pars destruens on the refusal of work and not enough on building situations of collective happiness. We have talked about it sporadically but over past few years, the issue has come up more and more frequently, but we haven’t been able – especially in the 1970s – to match destruction of its domination on work and construction of permanent spaces of collective existence in subtraction 16 +The Free Speech movement is the only revolutionary act left, preservation of free speech is the only way to ensure movements will not be subsumed and entirely destroyed by capital Bifo 14’ “Running along the disaster: A conversation with Franco “Bifo” Berardi” An interview between Laborin and Art with Franco Berardi, June 2014, published originally on e-flux, http://www.e-flux.com/journal/56/60328/running-along-the-disaster-a-conversation-with-franco-bifo-berardi/ 17 +Let’s look back at five decades of social movements, starting in 1964, when the Free Speech Movement in California launched the long history of worldwide uprisings that would occur in ’68. This student movement was the first uprising of cognitive labor. The ambiguity of technology in the relationship between knowledge and power was already emerging. Fifty years after the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley, we now see that the self-organization of the general intellect is the only prospect for the decades to come. The year 1968 inaugurated an age of conflict, decomposition, and fragmentation in the internal life of the general intellect. But it also inaugurated an age of autonomous cooperation. Aspects of the good life were created in the cultural underground, as well as in some spheres of the larger cultural landscape. Autonomous cooperation always has to be seen in light of its rich ambiguity. On the one hand, it offers the possibility of exiting the capitalist form. On the other hand, it experiments with new forms of production that capital will exploit tomorrow. Autonomy is not about achieving purity. It is absolute contamination; it is the motor of development and the critique of this development itself. We run on the dynamic of disaster in many ways: from the point of view of the environmental catastrophe, the point of view of the proliferation of wars, of the dramatic impoverishment of daily life, and so on. But autonomy is always running on the dynamic of disaster. And is always trying to create possibilities for escaping. 18 +The only way to move beyond capitalism is to found movements outside the idea of “work”, forming communities released from the myth of productivity Virno and Hardt 06’ Paulo Virno and Michael Hardt, “Radical thought in Italy: A potential Politics”, October 5 2006, Republished in “Southern Nights” on May 6 2013, https://socialecologies.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/paul-virno-exodus-quote-of-the-day/ 19 +The key to political action (or rather the only possibility of extracting it from its present state of paralysis) consists in developing the publicness of Intellect outside of Work, and in opposition to it. The issue here has two distinct profiles, which are, however, strictly complementary. On the one hand, general intellect can only affirm itself as an autonomous public sphere, thus avoiding the “transfer” of its own potential into the absolute power of Administration, if it cuts the linkage that binds it to the production of commodities and wage labor. On the other hand, the subversion of capitalist relations of production henceforth develops only with the institution of a non-State public sphere, a political community that has as its hinge general intellect. The salient characteristics of the post-Fordist experience (servile virtuosity, the valorization even of the faculty of language, the necessary relation with the “presence of others,” and so forth) postulate as a conflictual response nothing less than a radically new form of democracy. 20 + 21 +In a world filled with failed revolution one after the other, the option of flight rather than fight re-invigorates radically disobedient movements and can actually change the modern regime of control Virno Paulo Virno, “Virtuosity and Revolution: The Political Theory of Exodus” Translated by Ed Emery, http://www.generation-online.org/c/fcmultitude2.html 22 +Radical Disobedience breaks this circle within which public Intellect figures simultaneously as both premise and consequence of the State. It breaks it with the double movement to which I referred previously. Most particularly, it highlights and develops positively the aspects of general intellect that are at odds with the continued existence of waged labor. On this basis, it sets in motion the practical potentiality of Intellect against the decision-making faculty of Administration. Delinked from the production of surplus value, Intellect becomes no longer the "natural law" of late capitalism, but the matrix of a non-State Republic. The breeding ground of Disobedience consists of the social conflicts that manifest themselves not only and not so much as protest, but most particularly as defection - or, to put it in the terms used by Albert 0. Hirschman, not as voice but as exit.10 Nothing is less passive than flight. The "exit" modifies the conditions within which the conflict takes place, rather than presupposes it as an irremovable horizon; it changes the context within which a problem arises, rather than deals with the problem by choosing one or another of the alternative solutions already on offer. In short, the "exit" can be seen as a free-thinking inventiveness that changes the rules of the game and disorients the enemy. One has only to think of the mass flight from the factory regime set in motion by the workers of North America halfway through the nineteenth century as they headed off to the "frontier" in order to colonize low-cost land. They were seizing the truly extraordinary opportunity of making their own conditions of departure reversible.11 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-15 17:05:57.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Somewhere - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Someone - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +10 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Loyola Wickham Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Cap Aff JF17 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harvard Westlake
- Caselist.CitesClass[10]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,23 @@ 1 +The criterion is minimizing slow-violence Nixon 11 (Rob Nixon, a Professor of English at University of Wisconsin at Madison; has a PhD from Columbia University “Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor”, Published 2011, pages 65-67) 2 +Looking back at Chernobyl, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Bhopal, Petryna laments how "many persons who have survived these large-scale technological disasters have been caught in a long-term and vicious bureaucratic cycle in which they carry the burden of proof of their physical damage while experiencing the risk of being delegitimated in legal, welfare, and medical institutional contexts."59 Such people, the illiterate poor above all, are thrust into a labyrinth of self-fashioning as they seek to fit their bodily stories to the story lines that dangle hope of recognition (possibly, though elusively), even recompense. In so doing, the poor face the double challenge of invisibility and amnesia: numerically, they may constitute the majority, but they remain on the margins in terms of visibility and official memory. From an environmental perspective, this marginality is perpetuated, in part, by what Davis terms "the dialectic of ordinary disaster," whereby a calamity is incorporated into history and rendered forgettable and ordinary precisely because the burden of risk falls unequally on the unsheltered poor.60 Such disasters are readily dismissed from memory and policy planning by framing them as accidental, random, and unforeseeable acts of God, without regard for the precautionary measures that might have prevented these catastrophes or have mitigated their effects. At stake here is the role of neoliberal globalization in exacerbating both uneven economic development and the uneven development of official memory. What we witness is a kind of fatal bigotry that operates through the spatializing of time, by off-loading risk onto "backward" communities that are barely visible in the corporate media. Contemporary global politics, then, must be recognized "as a struggle for crude, material dominance, but also (threaded ever closer into that struggle) as a battle for the control over appearances."61 That battle over spectacle becomes especially decisive for public memory—and for the foresight with which public policy can motivate and execute precautionary measures—when it comes to the attritional casualties claimed, as at Bhopal, by the forces of slow violence. We have seen, in recent years, some excellent analytical books about the plight of the international urban underclass by Davis, Jeremy Seabrook, and Jan Breman, among others. However, the kind of visibility such books afford is very different from the visibility offered by a picaresque novel. For even the most eloquent social scientific accounts of the underclass, like social scientific accounts of environmental disaster, veer toward the anonymously collective and the statistical. Such accounts thus tend to be in the same gesture humanizing and dehumanizing, animating and silencing. The dilemma of how to represent the underclass, the infrahombres, stands at the heart of the picaresque tradition. Like GraceLand, Chris Abani's superb picaresque novel about ingenious desperation in a Lagos shanty-town, Animal's People stages a disaggregated irruption of a vivid individual life. Animal, speaking his life story into the Jarnalis's tape recorder, is all charismatic voice: his street-level testimony does not start from the generalized hungers of the wretched of the earth, but from the devouring hunger in an individual belly. If the novel gradually enfolds a wider community— Animal's people—it does so by maintaining at its emotional center Animal, the cracked voiced soloist, who breaks through the gilded imperial veneer of neoliberalism to announce himself in his disreputable vernacular.62 His is the antivoice to the new, ornate, chivalric discourse of neoliberal "free trade" and "development." Through Animal's immersed voice, Sinha is able to return to questions that have powered the picaresque from its beginnings. What does it mean to be reduced to living in subhuman, bestial conditions? What chasms divide and what ties bind the wealthy and the destitute, the human and the animal? What does it mean, in the fused imperial language of temporal and spatial dismissal, to be written off as "backward"?63 In Animal's day-to-day meanderings, the impulse for survival trumps the dream of collective justice. Yet through his somatized foreign burden— and through the intrepid, blighted lives around him—Sinha exhumes from the forces of amnesia not just the memory of a long-ago disaster but the present and future force of that disaster's embodied, ongoing percolations. The infrahombres—those who must eke out an existence amidst such percolations—are, the novel insists, also of this earth. Through his invention of the environmental picaresque, Sinha summons to the imaginative surface of the novel the underclass's underreported lives, redeeming their diverse quirks and hopes and quotidian terrors from what, almost half a millennium ago, Lazaro recognized as "the sepulcher of oblivion."64 3 +Speech codes empower white majorities to silence minorities ACLU 16: American Civil Liberties Union, “Hate Speech on Campus.” Accessed 3 December 2016. https://www.aclu.org/other/hate-speech-campus, WWLD 4 +Historically, defamation laws or codes have proven ineffective at best and counter-productive at worst. For one thing, depending on how they're interpreted and enforced, they can actually work against the interests of the people they were ostensibly created to protect. Why? Because the ultimate power to decide what speech is offensive and to whom rests with the authorities ~-~- the government or a college administration ~-~- not with those who are the alleged victims of hate speech. In Great Britain, for example, an Racial Relations Act was adopted in 1965 to outlaw racist defamation. But throughout its existence, the Act has largely been used to persecute activists of color, trade unionists and anti-nuclear protesters, while the racists ~-~- often white members of Parliament ~-~- have gone unpunished. Similarly, under a speech code in effect at the University of Michigan for 18 months, white students in 20 cases charged black students with offensive speech. One of the cases resulted in the punishment of a black student for using the term "white trash" in conversation with a white student. The code was struck down as unconstitutional in 1989 and, to date, the ACLU has brought successful legal challenges against speech codes at the Universities of Connecticut, Michigan and Wisconsin. These examples demonstrate that speech codes don't really serve the interests of persecuted groups. The First Amendment does. As one African American educator observed: "I have always felt as a minority person that we have to protect the rights of all because if we infringe on the rights of any persons, we'll be next.” 5 +Hate speech restrictions are used to abuse minorities who don’t agree with leftist ideology – they get called race traitors and it becomes permissible for white men to silence them Jacobson 16 Daniel, prof of philosophy @ Michigan, Freedom of Speech under Assault on Campus, CATO POLICY ANALYSIS NO. 796, 8-30-16, Premier 6 +The leading thought of this movement is that the expression of hateful ideas is literally an act of violence, which should be treated accordingly. In that view, words wound like weapons, and hate speech traumatizes its targets like the injuries caused by violent actions.21 But according to the multiculturalist argument, only specifically protected groups of people are vulnerable to the harms of hate speech. (No one considers punishing a department head who calls Republicans stupid and encourages hatred of them, for instance, on the grounds that she thereby commits violence against conservative students.) Moreover, those of us who reject the assimilation of speech with violence, without engaging in hate speech ourselves, are often claimed to be complicit in the assault on victims of institutional oppression. Our arguments are not disputed so much as denigrated as vestiges of privilege, even though they protect the speech rights of all students and faculty regardless of their politics or identity. One of the most blatant examples of persuasive definition can be found in the claim, now approaching a dogma in academia, that only the powerful can be racist. That definition is not the commonplace meaning of racism but a politically motivated redefinition, designed to obscure its subversion of the liberal commitment to equality under the law.22 Even if the racially motivated murder of a member of a nonprotected group cannot be racist, because the murderer lacks social or institutional power, that does not change anything about the action’s underlying nature. It just does not count as racist by stipulation, given the persuasively defined term.23 But moral arguments cannot rest on semantic fiat. If the racially motivated murder of a “privileged” victim cannot be racism, because of the persuasive definition, that does not change its character. We could call it racist* instead, though that approach would be to capitulate to subversive semantics. Perhaps the most objectionable aspect of such a rhetorical ploy is that it gets used to defend hateful and even racist (or racist*) speech against dissenters who are women or minorities—even when the objectionable speech is perpetrated by white men, so long as it supports the progressive orthodoxy. As a matter of sociological fact, the immunity to racism and hate speech ordinarily given to members of protected groups does not extend to those who fail to espouse progressive positions. On the contrary, they are attacked even more vehemently as race traitors, often in overtly racist or sexist terms. Women, minorities, or gays and lesbians who dare to stray from the opinions they are supposed to have—that is, those considered representative of their assigned identity—not only are subject to abuse by the supposedly oppressed campus activists but also and forfeit the special protections they would otherwise be granted.24 Thus, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Condoleezza Rice have been disinvited and heckled at academic events, and they have been attacked by the very groups that claim to defend women of color against assaultive speech. But white progressive allies who champion the correct ideology—who “check their privilege”—are allowed to speak, albeit as social inferiors who must defer to their more authentic superiors. 7 +Allowing majoritarian forces to define appropriate and acceptable speech will backfire in the long-term when different groups are in power Dalmia 16 Shikha Dalmia, Reason magazine, “Debating NYU's Jeremy Waldron on Free Speech vs. Hate Speech on College Campuses” http://reason.com/blog/2016/09/22/debating-nyus-jeremy-waldron-on-free-spe Premier 8 +Two: Hate speech bans breed self-defeating pathologies One of the more surreal things about the campus PC movement is that it claims to be acting in the name of minorities and yet considers the First Amendment's free speech protections as an impediment to its goal. But the reason behind the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech is precisely to create a space for intellectual minorities. So why has the First Amendment become so inconvenient for our campus warriors? It is because on campuses they are the dominant ideology and offering the courtesies required by the First Amendment to their ideological opponents has become too inconvenient. It is the classic pathology of power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. But here's the problem: They still operate in a democracy governed by majoritarian rule. Hence, to the extent that they are trying to get their way by silencing "majority" voices instead of winning them over, they are making themselves vulnerable. That's because these voices will generate counter-ideologies and vote into power those people who echo them. But when these scurrilous majoritarian ideologies emerge, with the guardrail of the First Amendment weakened, minorities will be less able to prevent majoritarian passions from pushing them overboard. Much as I hate Trump, his rise represents the revenge of the masses against political correctness. 9 +I defend the resolution as a general principle. I accept negative links and competition based on fair interpretations of the resolution. I will only de-link strategies if I prove they are based on unfair interps. Mitigates any DA to whole rez since it puts a burden on me in a time-pressed 1AR to prove you’re unfair first. Lastly, CX checks all neg advocacy questions and theory violations. I will make concessions given the stipulations above. 10 +Free speech brings hate out into the open where we can more effectively counter bad attitudes and forge solidarity against it ACLU 16 American Civil Liberties Union, “Hate Speech on Campus.” Accessed 3 December 2016. https://www.aclu.org/other/hate-speech-campus, WWLD 11 +Many universities, under pressure to respond to the concerns of those who are the objects of hate, have adopted codes or policies prohibiting speech that offends any group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. That's is the wrong response, well-meaning or not. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. peech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU believes that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles because academic freedom is a bedrock of education in a free society. How much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible: When one of us is denied this right, all of us are denied. Since its founding in 1920, the ACLU has fought for the free expression of all ideas, popular or unpopular. That's the constitutional mandate. Where racist, sexist and homophobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more speech ~-~- not less ~-~- is the best revenge. This is particularly true at universities, whose mission is to facilitate learning through open debate and study, and to enlighten. Speech codes are not the way to go on campuses, where all views are entitled to be heard, explored, supported or refuted. Besides, when hate is out in the open, people can see the problem. Then they can organize effectively to counter bad attitudes, possibly change them, and forge solidarity against the forces of intolerance. College administrators may find speech codes attractive as a quick fix, but as one critic put it: "Verbal purity is not social change." Codes that punish bigoted speech treat only the symptom: The problem itself is bigotry. The ACLU believes that instead of opting for gestures that only appear to cure the disease, universities have to do the hard work of recruitment to increase faculty and student diversity; counseling to raise awareness about bigotry and its history, and changing curricula to institutionalize more inclusive approaches to all subject matter. 12 +Banning speech drives the root cause underground and leads to more virulent bigotry ACLU 2 American Civil Liberties Union, “Hate Speech on Campus.” Accessed 3 December 2016. https://www.aclu.org/other/hate-speech-campus, WWLD 13 +Bigoted speech is symptomatic of a huge problem in our country; it is not the problem itself. Everybody, when they come to college, brings with them the values, biases and assumptions they learned while growing up in society, so it's unrealistic to think that punishing speech is going to rid campuses of the attitudes that gave rise to the speech in the first place. Banning bigoted speech won't end bigotry, even if it might chill some of the crudest expressions. The mindset that produced the speech lives on and may even reassert itself in more virulent forms. Speech codes, by simply deterring students from saying out loud what they will continue to think in private, merely drive biases underground where they can't be addressed. In 1990, when Brown University expelled a student for shouting racist epithets one night on the campus, the institution accomplished nothing in the way of exposing the bankruptcy of racist ideas. 14 +Over time, we learn to change our ideologies – that’s better than dogmatism that silences and shuts down the other side Dalmia 16 Shikha Dalmia, Reason magazine, “Debating NYU's Jeremy Waldron on Free Speech vs. Hate Speech on College Campuses” http://reason.com/blog/2016/09/22/debating-nyus-jeremy-waldron-on-free-spe Premier 15 +One: Hate speech bans make us impatient and dogmatic The main reason that libertarians like me are partisans of free speech is not because we believe that a moral laissez faire, anything goes attitude, is in itself a good thing for society. Rather, it stems from an epistemic humility that we can't always know what is good or bad a priori – through a feat of pure Kantian moral reasoning. Moral principles, as much as scientific ones, have to be discovered and developed and the way to do so is by letting competing notions of morality duke it out in what John Stuart Mill called the marketplace of ideas. Ideas that win do so by harmonizing people's overt moral beliefs with their deeper moral intuitions or, as Jonathan Rauch notes, by providing a "moral education." This is how Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Frank Kamney, the gay rights pioneer, managed to open society's eyes to its injustices even though what they were suggesting was so radical for their times. But this takes time. With free speech, societies have to play the long game. It takes time to change hearts and minds and one can't be certain that one's ideas will win out in the end. One has to be willing to lose. The fruits of censorship ~-~- winning by rigging the rules and silencing the other side ~-~- seem immediate and certain. But they unleash forces of thought control and dogmatism and repression and intolerance that are hard to contain, precisely what we are seeing right now on campuses. 16 +Counter-speech solves – Cal Poly protests prove Davidson ’16 Alexander(Cal Polytechnic Senior, paper in partial fulfillment of Bachelor of Science in Journalism) The Freedom of Speech in Public Forums on College Campuses: A single site case study on Pushing the Boundaries of Free Speech, June 2016, Accessed 12/4/16 http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1119andcontext=joursp Premier 17 +Back in 2008, there was an incident that took place at California Polytechnic State University’s on-campus crop science house that involved a noose, a confederate flag and allegations of a sign that contained racial and gay slurs. The sign and props were used as decorations for a Halloween party that took place on campus. Hundreds of students gathered to protest the incident to try to foster an environment of acceptance. The students hoped and to raise awareness about the happening that took place as well as showcase disapproval of the hate speech that took place. During the protest, a petition was also passed around that garnered 150 signatures for the expulsion of the students that were living in the crops house at the time. Much like the incident that took place on the free speech wall at California Polytechnic State University, the free marketplace of ideas allowed for good speech to conquer the bad speech. The censorship of negative speech will not destroy it, but instead drive it under the ground; however, having it out in the open allows both sides of an issue to be presented and it allows for the people to decide which side of the coin they want to land facing the surface. 18 +Free expression is key to civil rights movements for racial minorities, women, and LGBT folks – campuses are key Harris and Ray 14 Vincent T Harris has an M. Ed. degree and is a doctoral student @ LSU, Darrell C. Ray is a prof @ LSU, HATE SPEECH and THE COLLEGE CAMPUS: CONSIDERATIONS FOR ENTRY LEVEL STUDENT AFFAIRS PRACTITIONERS, Race, Gender and Class 21.1/2 (2014): 185-194. ProQuest. Premier 19 +Down and Cowan (2012) note that Americans who notice the importance of free expression believe, it benefits more than just the oppressor, but aids in the advancement of the minority group. For example, historical movements such as the civil rights movement, the women's movement, and the gay liberation movement were advanced due to freedom of speech, expression, and ideas (Down and Cowan, 2012). This advancement has granted many minority groups the ability to experience various prohibited privileges such as, the right to attain an equal education. As campuses strive to become more inclusive and respectful communities there is a critical need to identify the spaces and ways in which students feel free to express themselves and their views. 20 +Historically, First Amendment and its principles have helped secure civil rights, fight prejudice, and move to equality – the aff is oriented toward ending racism of all forms but with a different method than censorship Friedersdorf 15 Friedersdorf, Conor. (Friedersdorf is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he focuses on politics and national affairs) "Free Speech Is No Diversion." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 12 Nov. 2015. Web. 09 Jan. 2017. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/race-and-the-anti-free-speech-diversion/415254/. Premier 21 +Over the course of U.S. history, both the protections enshrined by the First Amendment and the larger ethos of free expression that pervades American culture have played a major role in every successful push that marginalized groups have made to secure civil rights, fight against prejudice, and move toward greater equality.¶ Despite that history, Jelani Cobb asserts in The New Yorker that to avoid discussions of racism, critical observers of student protests at Yale and the University of Missouri “invoke a separate principle, one with which few would disagree in the abstract—free speech, respectful participation in class—as the counterpoint to the violation of principles relating to civil rights.” The fact that race controversies “have now been subsumed in a debate over political correctness and free speech on campus—important but largely separate subjects—is proof of the self-serving deflection to which we should be accustomed at this point,” he declares.¶ Cobb calls these supposed diversions “victim-blaming with a software update,” and positing that they are somehow having the same effect as disparaging Trayvon Martin, he cites my article “The New Intolerance of Student Activism” as his prime example.¶ He writes as if unaware that millions of Americans believe the defense of free speech and the fight against racism to be complementary causes, and not at odds with each other. The false premises underpinning his analysis exacerbate a persistent, counterproductive gulf between the majority of those struggling against racism in the United States, who believe that First Amendment protections, rigorous public discourse, and efforts to educate empowered, resilient young people are the surest ways to a more just future, and a much smaller group that subscribes to a strain of thought most popular on college campuses.¶ Members of this latter group may be less opposed to speech restrictions; rely more heavily on stigma, call-outs, and norm-shaping in their efforts to combat racism; purport to target “institutional" and “systemic” racism, but often insist on the urgency of policing racism that is neither systemic nor institutional, like Halloween costume choices; focus to an unusual degree on getting validation from administrators and others in positions of authority; and often seem unaware or unconvinced that others can and do share their ends while objecting to some of their means, the less rigorous parts of their jargon, and campus status-signaling. For this reason, they spend a lot of time misrepresenting and stigmatizing allies. 22 +He continues 23 +Let me underscore how erroneous his assumptions are. His article is premised on the notion that my piece on Yale and others like one I wrote a day later on Missouri are part of a “diversion,” an attempt to avoid talking about racism through deflection. “The fault line here,” he posits, “is between those who find intolerance objectionable and those who oppose intolerance of the intolerant.” Of course, it’s far more consistent to find intolerance objectionable across the board, and to speak out against it especially when its targets have historically faced discrimination.¶ It’s why I have written not only about recent events at Yale and Missouri, but also about Ferguson’s conspiracy against black residents; racial disparities in police killings; dangers of constructed white identity; the Campaign Zero agenda; the importance of declaring the Charleston attack to be racial terrorism; the long history of thugs attacking black churches; how video is confirming very old claims about prejudice against blacks; the brutality of police culture in Baltimore; radical experiments in converting racists; the importance of grappling with race, even imperfectly; Islamophobia and its deleterious effects; the perils of standing while Hispanic in the Bronx; the harassment of a black man tazed by a white police officer; carnage caused by drone strikes; the horrifying effects of profiling innocent Muslims, etc.¶ Few outside a small part of the ideological left would mistake me for someone seeking to divert discourse away from racism. Moreover, my advocacy for free speech encompasses numerous articles about controversies having nothing to do with race, as well as advocacy for the First Amendment rights of people fighting racism (including high schoolers who sought to wear “I can’t breathe” t-shirts, Black Lives Matter protestors, and Muslims who sought to build a mosque near Ground Zero.) When a staunch defender of free speech in all realms, who writes about racism as often as I do in a national publication, is reflexively cast as using free speech to divert attention from racism, it suggests a charge rooted in ideological blindness, not careful observation.¶ I hope to bridge that gap, and help everyone understand that liberals, libertarians, conservatives, and individualists alike are just as engaged in the fight against racism as the campus left, but in very different ways.¶ We exist. Update the heuristics!¶ Our diverse critiques of the campus left are not a sign that we care too little about fighting racism, advocating for justice, opposing prejudice, or protecting civil rights, or that we’ve yet to be enlightened by the right theorists. They are, rather, a sign that these issues, and concerns that they touch on, free speech among them, are too important to be ceded to a narrow, ideologically insular subculture as prone to blind spots, mistakes, wrongdoing, and excesses as any other; and too fond of jargon that more readily facilitates evasiveness than analytic clarity. The activist left on campus no more benefits from blanket deference than any other political movement, and their defenders should stop conflating criticism of their means and contested assumptions with opposition to or a desire to distract from widely shared ends.¶ - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-15 17:10:15.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Somewhere - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Someone - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +11 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +4 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Loyola Wickham Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Util Aff JF17 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harvard Westlake
- Caselist.CitesClass[11]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,34 @@ 1 +====The university is dead and it is the jobs of the students to reject meaningless systems of control like public college AN 10' Anarchistnews.org, "The university, social death, and the inside joke", published 18 February 2010, http://anarchistnews.org/content/university-social-death-and-inside-joke==== 2 +An unfortunate slip . . . Dead objects rule."~~7~~ 3 +====The University education has destroyed any value to life through pedagogical training, strategic protests are key to escape the system AN 2 Anarchistnews.org, "The university, social death, and the inside joke", published 18 February 2010, http://anarchistnews.org/content/university-social-death-and-inside-joke==== 4 +The University is . . . of the semiotic economy. 5 +====Performance Protests are uniquely susceptible to being shut down and are being targeted for their aesthetics, constitutional protection is key Fisher 15 11 November 2015, Max Fisher writer for Vox, a famous online publication ranging around the gambit in terms of current events, "When the campus PC police are conservative: why media ignored the free speech meltdown at William and Mary" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSKpDwDhq24==== 6 +Things got much . . . fired for his politics. 7 +==Impacts== 8 +====If we do not escape that ontological view of our profitability to the capitalist system, by failing to rethink our capitalist ontology, we will reach a point of ontological damnation that is worse than extinction. Zimmerman, ==== 9 +(Professor of Philosophy at Tulane), 94 (Michael, Contesting the Earth's Future, p. 104). 10 +Heidegger asserted that, 11 +AND 12 +"disclosed" by humanity. 13 +==Framing== 14 +====The Role of the Ballot goes to whoever best proposes an anti-capitalist pedagogy, re-evaluating education tactics is the only way to end the anonymization of workers the capitalist mindset engrains==== 15 +**Zizek and Daly 04**~~Glyn. Lecturer in International Studies at the University College Northampton; Slavoj Zizek, world famous philosophy on psychoanalysis and capitalism; Conversations with Žižek. 14-19~~ 16 +For Žižek it AND 17 +consumerism and lifestyle. 18 +==Advocacy== 19 +Plan: Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict constitutionally protected speech. 20 +==Solvency== 21 +====By moving beyond language and productivity, performance protests allow us to move beyond the state and truly end capitalism Virno and Hardt 06' Paulo Virno and Michael Hardt, "Radical thought in Italy: A potential Politics", October 5 2006, Republished in "Southern Nights" on May 6 2013, https://socialecologies.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/paul-virno-exodus-quote-of-the-day/==== 22 +The key to . . . form of democracy. 23 + 24 + 25 +====In an age where language has been consumed by the capitalist university, strategic performance protests are the only way to fight the modern capitalist state Fuentes Marcela A. Fuentes, Masters Professor teaching in Northwestern University's School of Communication, "Performance, Politics, and Protest", No Date, http://scalar.usc.edu/nehvectors/wips/performance-politics-and-protest==== 26 +Contemporary activism in . . . neoliberalism and neoconservatism 27 +====Student protests and free speech movements reframe political activism towards subtraction that is the only way to move towards a post-capitalist world Bifo 03' "Disobediance and Cognitariat" An interview between Marco Scotini and Franco Berardi, world renowned Italian Marxist, http://www.disobediencearchive.com/texts/cognitariat.html==== 28 +MS: Several theories, such . . . existence in subtraction 29 +====He Continues . . . ==== 30 +Let's look back . . . possibilities for escaping. 31 +====Vote aff based on our speech act, only by extending the space of commons into debate can we form alternatives to capitalism==== 32 +De Angelis 3 (Massimo, Dept of Economics at East London, The commoner, http://www.ainfos.ca/03/jan/ainfos00479.html) 33 +Once we acknowledge AND 34 +through the social fields. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-05 00:30:14.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Somewhere - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Someone - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +12 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Loyola Wickham Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Cap Aff V 20 JF17 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Golden Desert
- Caselist.RoundClass[7]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +6 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-11-06 18:17:52.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Somewhere - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Someone - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Triples - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Damus
- Caselist.RoundClass[8]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +7 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-11-19 19:09:26.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Somewhere - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Someone - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Glenbrooks
- Caselist.RoundClass[9]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +8 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-12 21:39:37.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Somewhere - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Someone - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Debate LA RR
- Caselist.RoundClass[10]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +9 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-15 17:05:55.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Somewhere - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Someone - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harvard Westlake
- Caselist.RoundClass[11]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +10 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-15 17:10:12.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Somewhere - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Someone - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +4 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harvard Westlake
- Caselist.RoundClass[12]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +11 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-05 00:30:11.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Somewhere - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Someone - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Golden Desert
- Caselist.RoundClass[13]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-02-12 23:55:39.850 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Somewhere - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Someone - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Stanford