Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[20]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[20]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[20]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-01-14 23:30:13.314
	1	+2017-01-14 23:30:13.0

Caselist.CitesClass[20]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,45 @@
	1	+CP
	2	+
	3	+CP Text: Public colleges and universities will implement new hate speech codes following Byrne 90’s recommendations:
	4	+Byrne, J. Peter. Faculty Director; Georgetown Environmental Law and Policy Institute; Faculty Director, Georgetown State-Federal Climate Resource Center, John Hampton Baumgartner, Jr. Professor of Real Property Law B.A., Northwestern; M.A., J.D., University of Virginia "Racial Insults and Free Speech Within the University." Geo. LJ 79 (1990): 399. MC
	5	+A central argument of this article has been that the university can be trusted to administer rules prohibiting racial insults because it has the proper moral basis and adequate expertise to do so. It is not surprising, therefore, that I believe that vagueness concerns about such university rules are largely misplaced. This is not to deny that a university should adopt safeguards to protect accused students from the concerns that the courts have highlighted. First, the rules should state explicitly that no one may be disciplined for the good faith statement of any proposition susceptible to reasoned response, no matter how offensive. The possibility that punishment is precluded by this limitation should be addressed at every stage of the disciplinary process. Second, some response between punishment and acquittal should be available when the university concludes that the speaker was subjectively unaware of the offensive character of his speech; these cases seem to present mainly educational concerns. Third, all controversial issues of interpretation of the rules should be entrusted to a panel of faculty and students who are representative of the institution. Rules furthering primarily academic concerns about the quality of speech and the development of students should be given meaning by those most directly concerned with the academic enterprise rather than by administrators who may register more precisely external political pressures on the university. Given these safeguards and a comprehensible definition of an unacceptable insult, such as the one ventured in the introduction to this article,179 a court which accepts the underlying proposition that a university has the constitutional authority to regulate racial insults should not be troubled independently by vagueness.
	6	+
	7	+Competition
	8	+1. Mutual exclusivity: The aff can only protect constitutional free speech. Hate speech is constitutional. If the aff tries to perm the CP, it would be severance.
	9	+2. Net benefits: Any DAs read are net benefits to the CP and Disads to the aff.
	10	+DA
	11	+
	12	+Hate speech codes are becoming more prevalent on college campuses. Gould ‘01
	13	+Gould, Jon B. professor in the Department of Justice, Law and Society and at the Washington College of Law at American University, where he is also director of the Washington Institute for Public and International Affairs Research "The precedent that wasn't: College hate speech codes and the two faces of legal compliance." Law and Society Review (2001): 345-392. MC
	14	+But such coverage aside, college hate speech codes are far from dead. As this article demonstrates, hate speech policies not only persist, but they have actually increased in number following a series of court decisions that ostensibly found many to be un- constitutional. This apparent contradiction-between judicial precedent on one hand and collegiate action on the other-may not be surprising to those who study judicial impact, or even to those who understand collegiate policymaking. But such con- certed and widespread noncompliance provides an excellent op- portunity to examine the process by which institutions respond to a change in the legal environment. Much of the literature to date has focused on the overall impact of Supreme Court case law or on the decisions of individuals or government bodies in responding to new cases. Less is known about the process of or- ganizational compliance or about the connection between indi- vidual compliance decisions and aggregate judicial impact.
	15	+
	16	+Speech codes successfully challenge the words we use which are inexplicably linked to our thoughts. Therefore, they are able to target the deep rooted racism that usually goes unaddressed. Yun and Delgado ‘94
	17	+Yun, David H. Member of the Colorado bar. J.D., University of Colorado and Richard Delgado Charles Inglis Thomson Professor of Law, University of Colorado. J.D., U.C.- Berkeley. "The Neoconservative Case Against Hate-Speech Regulation—Lively, D'Souza, Gates, Carter, and the Toughlove Crowd." Vanderbilt Law Review 47 (1994). MC
	18	+A second reason why even neoconservatives ought to pause before throwing their weight against hate-speech rules has to do with the nature of latter-day racism. Most neoconservatives, like many white people, think that acts of out-and-out discrimination are rare today. The racism that remains is subtle, "institutional," or "latter- day."4 It lies in the arena of unarticulated feelings, practices, and patterns of behavior (like promotions policy) on the part of institutions as well as individuals. A forthright focus on speech and language may be one of the few means of addressing and curing this kind of racism. Thought and language are inextricably connected. A speaker who is asked to reconsider his or her use of language may begin to reflect on the way he or she thinks about a subject. Words, external manifestations of thought, supply a window into the unconscious. Our choice of word, metaphor, or image gives signs of the attitudes we have about a person or subject. No readier or more effective tool than a focus on language exists to deal with subtle or latter-day racism. Since neoconservatives are among the prime pro- ponents of the notion that this form of racism is the only (or the main) one that remains, they should think carefully before taking a stand in opposition to measures that might make inroads into it. Of course, speech codes would not reach every form of demeaning speech or depiction. But a tool's unsuitability to redress every aspect of a prob- lem is surely no reason for refusing to employ it where it is effective.
	19	+
	20	+Hate speech restrictions on college campuses have been used to punish those that perpetrate hate speech. Wisconsin’s codes proves.
	21	+Hodulik, Patricia UW JD. "Racist Speech on Campus." Wayne Law Review 37.3 (1991): 1433-1450. GK
	22	+The most serious concerns about adopting a rule restricting discriminatory harassment or hate speech were those involving legal questions as to whether any sort of restriction on expressive behavior could be accepted in a university setting. The Wisconsin cases, however, provide little evidence to suggest that free expression has been deterred or suppressed as a result of enforcement of the university's antiharassment regulation.
	23	+In the eighteen months in which it has been in force, a total of thirty-two complaints have been filed alleging violations of the Wisconsin rule.14 Of these, thirteen were dismissed because they were found not to violate the rule;35 two were dismissed following a hearing; and in ten cases, discipline was imposed. 36 The disciplinary sanctions imposed included one written apology, one warning letter, seven disciplinary probations and one suspension. 37 All cases resulting in probation or suspension also involved conduct which violated some other provision of the student conduct codean assault, a threat, or disorderly conduct, for example.38 In no case was discipline imposed in connection with a classroom discussion or expression of opinion.3 9 In most of the cases leading to discipline, the rule violation involved the use of a discriminatory epithet rather than "other expressive behavior." 4
	24	+As the controversy over speech rules has continued in the press and other media, they have been cited as evidence of a trend toward thought control, "politically correct" thinking, and other repressive evils. 41 There is, however, little in these cases to suggest that the Wisconsin regulation has had the effect of cutting off debate within the university community, or that a narrow restriction on discriminatory, harassing speech creates a threat to free expression. Rather, the practical experiences with the Wisconsin rule indicate that the risk of a "chilling effect" on speech from a narrowly applicable rule is minimal or nonexistent.
	25	+
	26	+Impact 1: Hate Crimes
	27	+Racist speech and actions escalate. Permission normalizes racist speech and makes racists more likely to lash out at minorities. Delgado and Yun ’94:
	28	+Delgado, Richard, Charles Inglis Thomson Professor of Law, University of Colorado. J.D., U.C.- Berkeley and David H. Yun Member of the Colorado bar. J.D., University of Colorado. "Pressure Valves and Bloodied Chickens: An Analysis of Paternalistic Objections to Hate Speech Regulation." California Law Review 82 (1994): 871. MC
	29	+The pressure valve argument holds that rules prohibiting hate speech are unwise because they increase the danger racism poses to minorities. FN50 Forcing racists to bottle up their dislike of minority group members means that they will be more likely to say or do something hurtful later. Free speech thus functions as a pressure valve, allowing tension to dissipate before it reaches a dangerous level. FN5l Pressure valve proponents argue that if minorities understood this, they would oppose antiracism rules. ¶ The argument is paternalistic; it says we are denying you what you say you want, and we are doing it for your own good. The rules, which you think will help you, will really make matters worse. If you knew this, you would join us in opposing them. ¶ Hate speech may make the speaker feel better, at least temporarily, but it does not make the victim safer. Quite the contrary. the psychological evidence suggests that permitting one person to say or do hateful things to another increases, rather than decreases, the chance that he or she will do so again in the future. FN52 Moreover, others may believe it is permissible to follow suit. FNS3 Human beings are not mechanical objects. Our behavior is more complex than the laws of physics that describe pressure valves, tanks, and the behavior of a gas or liquid in a tube. In particular, we use symbols to construct our social world, a world that contains categories and expectations for "black," "woman," "child," "criminal," 'wartime enemy," and so on. FN54 Once the roles we create for these categories are in place, they govern "879 the way we speak of and act toward members of those categories in the future. FN55 ¶ Even simple barnyard animals act on the basis of categories. Poultry farmers know that a chicken with a single speck of blood will be peeked to death by the others. FN56 With chickens, of course, the categories are neural and innate, functioning at a level more basic than language. But social science experiments demonstrate that the way we categorize others affects our treatment of them. An Iowa teacher's famous "blue eyeslbrown eyes" experiment showed that even a one-day assignment of stigma can change behavior and school performance. FN57 At Stanford University, Phillip Zimbardo assigned students to play the roles of prisoner and prison guard, but was forced to discontinue the experiment when some of the participants began taking their roles too seriously. FN58 And Diane Sculley's interviews with male sexual offenders showed that many did not see themselves as offenders at all. In fact, research suggests that exposure to sexually violent pornography increases men's antagonism toward women and intensifies rapists' belief that their victims really welcomed their attentions. FNS9 At Yale University. Stanley Milgram showed that many members of a university *880 community could be made to violate their conscience if an authority figure invited them to do so and assured them this was the evidence. then, suggests that allowing persons to stigmatize or revile others makes them more aggressive, not less so. Once the speaker forms the category of deserved-victim, his or her behavior may well continue and escalate to bullying and physical violence. Further, the studies appear to demonstrate that stereotypical treatment tends to generalize ~-~- what we do teaches others that they may do likewise. Pressure valves may be safer after letting off steam; human beings are not.
	30	+
	31	+Impact 2: Psychological Violence
	32	+Racist speech causes immense psychological harm which spills-over into the victims’ personal lives, forces some to disassociate from their identity, and communities who continue to excuse these events as pranks ostracizes them even more. Matsuda ‘89
	33	+Matsuda, Mari J. "Public response to racist speech: Considering the victim's story." Michigan Law Review 87.8 (1989): 2320-2381.ZW
	34	+Racist hate messages are rapidly increasing and are widely distributed in this country using a variety of low and high technologies.82 The negative effects of hate messages are real and immediate for the victims.83 Victims of vicious hate propaganda have experienced physiological symptoms and emotional distress ranging from fear in the gut, rapid pulse rate and difficulty in breathing, nightmares, post-traumatic stress disorder, hypertension, psychosis, and suicide.84 Professor Patricia Williams has called the blow of racist messages "spirit murder" in recognition of the psychic destruction victims experience.85 ¶ Victims are restricted in their personal freedom. In order to avoid receiving hate messages, victims have had to quit jobs, forgo education, leave their homes, avoid certain public places, curtail their own exercise of speech rights, and otherwise modify their behavior and demeanor.86 The recipient of hate messages struggles with inner turmoil. One subconscious response is to reject one's own identity as a victim-group member.87 As writers portraying the African-American experience have noted, the price of disassociating from one's own race is often sanity itself.88 ¶ As much as one may try to resist a piece of hate propaganda, the effect on one's self-esteem and sense of personal security is devastating.89 To be hated, despised, and alone is the ultimate fear of all human beings. However irrational racist speech may be, it hits right at the emotional place where we feel the most pain. The aloneness comes not only from the hate message itself, but also from the government response of tolerance. When hundreds of police officers are called out to protect racist marchers,90 when the courts refuse redress for racial insult, and when racist attacks are officially dismissed as pranks, the victim becomes a stateless person. Target-group members can either identify with a community that promotes racist speech, or they can admit that the community does not include them.
	35	+
	36	+Outweighs on specificity. The formative experience of university life makes hate speech uniquely harmful as it debases education by impressing pernicious, lifelong lessons upon not only the persecuted but also their persecutors. Matsuda ‘89
	37	+Mari Matsuda, “Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim’s Story”, Michigan Law Review, August 1989. DM
	38	+University administrators at public institutions are bound by the first amendment under state action doctrine. At private institutions, the principle of free speech is often evoked as a matter of ethics, regardless of whether the Constitution applies directly. The university case raises unique concerns. Universities are special places, charged with pedagogy, and duty-bound to a constituency with special vulnerabilities. Many of the new adults who come to live and study at the major universities are away from home for the first time, and at a vulnerable stage of psychological development.249 Students are particularly dependent on the university for community, for intellectual development, and for self-definition. Official tolerance of racist speech in this setting is more harmful than generalized tolerance in the community-at-large. It is harmful to student perpetrators in that it is a lesson in getting-away-with-it that will have lifelong repercussions. It is harmful to targets, who perceive the university as taking sides through inaction, and who are left to their own resources in coping with the damage wrought.250 Finally, it is a harm to the goals of inclusion, education, development of knowledge, and ethics that universities exist and stand for.251 Lessons of cynicism and hate replace lessons in critical thought and inquiry.
	39	+Outweighs case. The formation of the moral subject is the primary ethical question because to think about ethics in the context of actual practice we must be concerned with who is and is not defined as human.
	40	+Butler ’05 - Judith Butler Professor of Rhetoric and Comparative Literature at University of California at Berkeley, Giving an Account of Oneself, New York: Fordham University Press (2005), p. 109-110 AT
	41	+Several propositions that Adorno has laid out for us converge in some interesting and important ways with the problematic of ethics as it emerges for the late Foucault. Foucault, like Adorno, maintains that ethics can only be understood in terms of a process of critique, where critique attends, among other things, to the regimes of intelligibility that order ontology and, specifically, the ontology of the subject. When Foucault asks the question “What, given the contemporary regime of being, can I be?” he locates the possibility of subject formation in a historically instituted order of ontology maintained through coercive effects. There is no possibility of a pure and unmediated relation of myself to my will, conceived as free or not, apart from the constitution of my self, and its modes of self-observation, within a given historical ontology.¶ Adorno makes a slightly different point, but I think the two positions resonate with one another. Adorno claims that it makes no sense to refer in an abstract way to principles that govern behavior without referring to the consequences of any given action authorized by those principles. Our responsibility is not just for the purity of our souls but for the shape of the collectively inhabited world. This means that action has to be understood as consequential. Ethics, we might say, gives rise to critique or, rather, cannot proceed without it, since we have to become knowing about the ways in which our actions are taken up by the already-constituted social world and what consequences will follow from our acting in certain ways. Deliberation takes place in relation to a concrete set of historical circumstances, but more importantly, in relation to an understanding of the patterned ways in which action is regulated within the contemporary social horizon.¶ Just as Foucault objects to forms of ethics that consign the subject to an endless and self-berating preoccupation with a psyche, considered to be internal and unique, so Adorno objects to the devolution of ethics into forms of moral narcissim. Both are trying, in different ways, to dislodge the subject as the ground of ethics in order to recast the subject as a problem for ethics. This is not the death of the subject, in either case, but an inquiry into the modes by which the subject is instituted and maintained, how it institutes and maintains itself, and how the norms that govern ethical principles must be understood as operating not only to guide conduct but to decide the question of who and what will be a human subject.
	42	+
	43	+Racist speech in itself is a form of spirit murder. Post ‘90
	44	+Post, Robert C. Professor of Law, School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California at Berkeley. B.A., Harvard College, 1969; J.D., Yale University, 1977; Ph.D., Harvard University "Racist speech, democracy, and the first amendment." Wm. and Mary L. Rev. 32 (1990): 267. MC
	45	+A third prominent theme in the contemporary literature is that racist expression harms individuals. This theme essentially analogizes racist expression to forms of communication that are regulated by the dignitary torts of defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The law compensates persons for dignitary and emotional injuries caused by such communication, and it is argued that racist expression ought to be subject to regulation because it causes similar injuries. These injuries include "feelings of humiliation, isolation, and self-hatred,"'3 2 as well as "dignitary affront."33 The injuries are particularly powerful because "racial insults . . . conjure up the entire history of racial discrimination in this country." In Patricia Williams' striking phrase, racist expression is a form of "spirit-murder." 35

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-01-14 23:30:15.322

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Varad Agarwala

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+San Marino KW

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+20

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Marlborough Coates Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Hate Crime DA and CP

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Harvard Westlake