Changes for page Marlborough Kim Neg

Last modified by Administrator on 2017/08/29 03:38

From version < 40.1 >
edited by Mia Coates
on 2016/11/19 21:56
To version < 87.1
edited by Administrator
on 2017/08/29 03:38
<
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -XWiki.mybluepiano15@yahoocom
1 +xwiki:XWiki.Admin
Marlborough-Kim-Neg-Glenbrooks-Round3.docx
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.mybluepiano15@yahoocom
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +32.8 KB
Content
Marlborough-Kim-Neg-Golden Desert-Doubles.docx
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.mybluepiano15@yahoocom
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +35.0 KB
Content
Marlborough-Kim-Neg-Golden Desert-Round5.docx
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.mybluepiano15@yahoocom
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +29.6 KB
Content
Marlborough-Kim-Neg-Harvard Westlake RR-Round5.docx
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.mybluepiano15@yahoocom
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +28.8 KB
Content
Marlborough-Kim-Neg-Harvard Westlake Round Robin-Round1.docx
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.mybluepiano15@yahoocom
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +31.0 KB
Content
Marlborough-Kim-Neg-NDCA-Round6.docx
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.mybluepiano15@yahoocom
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +31.7 KB
Content
Caselist.CitesClass[13]
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -2016-11-19 21:56:39.663
1 +2016-11-19 21:56:39.0
Caselist.RoundClass[13]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +12,13
OpenSource
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +https://hsld16.debatecoaches.org/download/Marlborough/Kim+Neg/Marlborough-Kim-Neg-Glenbrooks-Round3.docx
Caselist.CitesClass[14]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,8 @@
1 +Text: The United States Federal Government ought to mandate that all police officers wear body cameras and regulate police usage of those cameras.
2 +Body cameras are key to increase transparency, performance, and accountability of police officers.
3 +Miller, Lindsay JD. Senior Research Associate at the Police Executive Research Forum, Jessica Toliver PERF's Director of Technical Assistance, and Police Executive Research Forum. Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 2014.
4 +Police leaders who have deployed body-worn cameras say there are many benefits associated with the devices. They note that body-worn cameras are useful for documenting evidence; officer training; preventing and resolving complaints brought by members of the public; and strengthening police transparency, performance, and accountability. In addition, given that police now operate in a world in which anyone with a cell phone camera can record video footage of a police encounter, body-worn cameras help police departments ensure events are also captured from an officer’s perspective. Scott Greenwood of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said at the September 2013 conference: ¶ The average interaction between an officer and a citizen in an urban area is already recorded in multiple ways. The citizen may record it on his phone. If there is some conflict happening, one or more witnesses may record it. Often there are fixed security cameras nearby that capture the interaction. So the thing that makes the most sense—if you really want accountability both for your officers and for the people they interact with—is to also have video from the officer’s perspective
5 +
6 +Empirics from California prove that the usage of body cameras significantly decreases excessive force.
7 +Friedman, Andrew Co-Executive Director for the Center for Popular Democracy, JD NYU . "Building Momentum From the Ground Up: A Toolkit for Promoting Justice in Policing." Building Momentum From The Ground: n. pag. Popular Democracy. The Center for Popular Democracy, Apr. 2015. Web. 10 Nov. 2016.
8 +A 2012 study evaluating the use of body-worn cameras by the Rialto police department in California over a period of 12 months suggests more than a 50 reduction in the total number of incidents of use-of-force. Force was twice as likely to have been used by officers who were not wearing cameras. Complaints about police officers fell 88 compared to the previous 12-month period.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-12-03 03:25:01.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Nicholas Rogers
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +San Marino
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +14
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +4
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Marlborough Kim Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +NOV DEC Body Cameras CP
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Alta
Caselist.CitesClass[15]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,26 @@
1 +Link
2 +Hate speech codes are becoming more prevalent on college campuses. Gould ‘01
3 +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
4 +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.
5 +Impacts
6 +A. Racism
7 +Hate speech reinforces stereotypes and harms victims physically and emotionally. Weberman ‘10
8 +Weberman, Melissa Associate at Arnold and Porter, Associate at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom LLP and Affiliates Associates, Law clerk in court of appeals, Emory University School of Law, University of Virginia. "University Hate Speech Policies and the Captive Audience Doctrine." Ohio NUL Rev. 36 (2010): 553.
9 +Hate speech harms groups that are the target of the speech. Under the tradition of group libel and the Supreme Court's decision in Beauharnais v. Illinois, speech that is likely to direct contempt or scorn on identifiable groups should be regulated to prevent injury to the status of the members of those groups. A more modern understanding of hate speech derives from the understanding of racism as "the structural subordination of a group based on an idea of racial inferiority."38 Such expression is particularly unacceptable because it locks in the oppression of already marginalized groups; it is "a mechanism of subordination, reinforcing a historical vertical relationship."3 9 Hate speech reinforces stereotypes in the public mind that subsequently guide action.40 Beyond causing harm to the target groups, hate speech causes harms to the individual.41 Racist speech, as one scholar asserted, is a form of "spiritmurder," 42 with injuries to the individual including feelings of fear, humiliation, isolation, vulnerability, resentment, and self-hatred.43 Racist expression is a "dignitary affront,"" particularly powerful because "racial insults . . . conjure up the entire history of racial discrimination in this country."4 5 Bigoted insults may almost amount to physical violence to the target. 6 Specific physiological and emotional harms to the victims include "fear in the gut, rapid pulse rate and difficulty in breathing, nightmares, posttraumatic stress disorder, hypertension, psychosis, and suicide."A7 Exposure to hate speech interferes with the targets' access to and enjoyment of educational opportunities in the university context.48 In addition, hate speech alienates the student from the school.49 When hate speech goes unpunished, the victim of the speech and members of the targeted group may feel disenfranchised from their university.50 Lack of discipline from university officials may be perceived as approval of the racist messages. The cumulative effect of the individual harms and the alienation of the student may result in a hostile environment to the minority groups and a denial of an equal opportunity for education. Thus, hate speech not only leads to stress, but it leads to a detrimental effect on academic opportunity and performance.s3 Implicit in this Article is a belief that university hate speech policies should thus be drafted to ensure equal access to education and prevent interference with the educational process.
10 +
11 +Hate speech is harmful because it perpetuates stereotypes of groups from which people cannot withdraw. Hartman ‘93
12 +Hartman, Rhonda G University of Pittsburgh Professor of Law, University of Cambridge, University of Pittsburgh. "Hateful Expression and First Amendment Values: Toward a Theory of Constitutional Constraint on Hate Speech at Colleges and Universities after RAV v. St. Paul." JC and UL 19 (1992): 343. CL
13 +
14 +Indeed, several studies confirm the widespread presence of minority, religious, and gender stereotypes and the concomitant stigmatizing effect on individual members of group stereotypes.' 69 These studies emphasize the important role of defamatory stereotypes in maintaining prejudicial attitudes that lead to racial, cultural and social discrimination. 170 Defamation directed at a group may defame no less than if directed at an individual. 1 71 It is precisely because defamation can sweep with a broad brush that it is more difficult to avoid; there are some groups from which an individual cannot disengage. 172 As the Court stated in Beauharnais: A man's job and his educational opportunities and the dignity accorded him may depend as much on the reputation of the racial and religious group to which he willy-nilly belongs, as on his own merits. This being so, we are precluded from saying that speech concededly punishable when immediately directed at individuals cannot be outlawed if directed at groups with whose position and esteem in society the affiliated individual may be inextricably involved.173 Certainly, students cannot withdraw from their race or sex as they can from voluntary groups like political parties or campus social organizations. Consequently, it is far more difficult to avoid the injurious effect of hate speech directed toward minorities or women. Even disputed empirical evidence of harm should not undercut a college's or university's authority to choose which set of conclusions to adopt, so long as some arguable correlation links the expression and harm. The causal link between an injury and a specific publication that helped sustain or create a climate of prejudice in which injuries arise may not be obvious. Indeed, many of the harms that result from defamation may not manifest themselves until sometime after the publication. 174 Although causation may be impossible to chart empirically, reasonable persons perceive the correlation. Moreover, society, as well as a college or university, has an interest in eradicating discrimination and preventing harm to the education of minorities and women. In Healy v. James' 75 the Court expressly acknowledged the university's interest "in an environment free from disruptive interference with the education process.' 176 No one can deny that a disruption of an equal learning environment occurs when, for example, black students hear that they "don't belong in classrooms, they belong hanging from trees," when an Asian student is told, "die, Chink. Hostile Americans want your yellow hide," or when female students are described as "fat housewives."'177 Such demeaning expressions injure self-image, undermine self-confidence, and alienate the victimized student from the college or university . 17 Hate speech hinders learning and participation in and out of class. It also may frustrate a college's or university's efforts to attract minority and female faculty members and students.
15 +
16 +Racist speech, set aside from its impacts, creates deontic harm in that it causes psychological injury and we cannot accept it and continue to follow our principle of equality actively. Post ‘90
17 +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
18 +A recurring theme in the contemporary literature is that racist expression ought to be regulated because it creates what has been termed "deontic" harm.18 The basic point is that there is an "elemental wrongness"' 9 to racist expression, regardless of the presence or absence of particular empirical consequences such as "grievous, severe psychological injury. ' 20 It is argued that toleration for racist expression is inconsistent with respect for "the principle of equality" 2' that is at the heart of the fourteenth amendment. 22 ¶ The thrust of this argument is that a society committed to ideals of social and political equality cannot remain passive: it must issue unequivocal expressions of solidarity with vulnerable minority groups and make positive statements affirming its commitment to those ideals. Laws prohibiting racist speech must be regarded as important components of such expressions and statements.3 ¶ If the basic harm of racist expression lies in its intrinsic and symbolic incompatibility with egalitarian ideals, then the distinct class of communications subject to legal regulation will be defined by reference to those ideals. If the fourteenth amendment is thought to enshrine an antidiscrimination principle, then "any speech (in its widest sense) which supports racial prejudice or discrimination" 24 ought to be subject to regulation. If the relevant ideals are thought to embody substantive racial equality, then the relevant class of communications should be defined as speech containing a "message . ..of racial inferiority."25
19 +
20 +Racist speech in itself is a form of spirit murder. Post ‘90
21 +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
22 +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
23 +B. Dignity
24 +Hate speech harms human dignity. Fish describes Waldron’s argument.
25 +Fish ’12 - Stanley Fish, “The Harm in Free Speech, “ New York Times. June 4, 2012. Accessed January 9, 2017. (Stanley Waldron is a Prof. of Law, NYU.) AT
26 +Jeremy Waldron’s new book, “The Harm in Hate Speech,” might well be called “The Harm in Free Speech”; for Waldron, a professor of law and political theory at New York University and Oxford, argues that the expansive First Amendment we now possess allows the flourishing of harms a well-ordered society ought not permit. ¶ Waldron is especially concerned with the harm done by hate speech to the dignity of those who are its object. He is careful to distinguish “dignity harms” from the hurt feelings one might experience in the face of speech that offends. Offense can be given by almost any speech act — in particular circumstances one might offend by saying “hello” — and Waldron agrees with those who say that regulating offensive speech is a bad and unworkable idea. ¶ But harms to dignity, he contends, involve more than the giving of offense. They involve undermining a public good, which he identifies as the “implicit assurance” extended to every citizen that while his beliefs and allegiance may be criticized and rejected by some of his fellow citizens, he will nevertheless be viewed, even by his polemical opponents, as someone who has an equal right to membership in the society. It is the assurance — not given explicitly at the beginning of each day but built into the community’s mode of self-presentation — that he belongs, that he is the undoubted bearer of a dignity he doesn’t have to struggle for. ¶ Waldron’s thesis is that hate speech assaults that dignity by taking away that assurance. The very point of hate speech, he says, “is to negate the implicit assurance that a society offers to the members of vulnerable groups — that they are accepted … as a matter of course, along with everyone else.” Purveyors of hate “aim to undermine this assurance, call it in question, and taint it with visible expressions of hatred, exclusion and contempt.” ¶ “Visible” is the key word. It is the visibility of leaflets, signs and pamphlets asserting that the group you belong to is un-American, unworthy of respect, and should go back where it came from that does the damage, even if you, as an individual, are not a specific target. “In its published, posted or pasted-up form, hate speech can become a world-defining activity, and those who promulgate it know very well — this is part of their intention — that the visible world they create is a much harder world for the targets of their hatred to live in.” (Appearances count.) ¶ Even though hate speech is characterized by First Amendment absolutists as a private act of expression that should be protected from government controls and sanctions, Waldron insists that “hate speech and defamation are actions performed in public, with a public orientation, aimed at undermining public goods.” That undermining is not accomplished by any particular instance of hate speech. ¶ But just as innumerable individual automobile emissions can pollute the air, so can innumerable expressions of supposedly private hate combine to “produce a large-scale toxic effect” that operates as a “slow-acting poison.” And since what is being poisoned is the well of public life, “it is natural,” says Waldron, “to think that the law should be involved — both in its ability to underpin the provision of public goods and in its ability to express and communicate common commitments.” After all, he reminds us, “Societies do not become well ordered by magic.” ¶ Waldron observes that legal attention to large-scale structural, as opposed to individual, harms is a feature of most other Western societies, which, unlike the United States, have hate speech regulations on their books. He finds it “odd and disturbing that older and cruder models remain dominant in the First Amendment arena.” But as he well knows, it is not so odd within the perspective of current First Amendment rhetoric, which is militantly libertarian, protective of the individual’s right of self-assertion no matter what is being asserted, and indifferent (relatively) to the effects speech freely uttered might have on the fabric of society. ¶ It was not always thus. At one time, both the content and effects of speech were taken into account when the issue of regulation was raised. Is this the kind of speech we want our children to see and hear? Are the effects of certain forms of speech so distressing and potentially dangerous that we should take steps to curtail them? Is this form of speech a contribution to the search for truth? Does it have a redeeming social value? Since New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) these questions, which assess speech in terms of the impact it has in the world, have been replaced by a simpler question — is it speech? — that reflects a commitment to speech as an almost sacrosanct activity. If the answer to that question is “yes,” the presumption is that it should be protected, even though the harms it produces have been documented. ¶ Waldron wants to bring back the focus on those harms and restore the reputation of Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952), in which the Supreme Court upheld a group libel law. The case turned on the conviction of a man who had distributed leaflets warning Chicagoans to be alert to the dangers of mongrelization and rape that will surely materialize, he claimed, if white people do not unite against the Negro. Speaking for the majority, Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote that “a man’s job and his educational opportunities and the dignity accorded him may depend as much on the reputation of the racial group to which he willy-nilly belongs as on his own merit.” ¶ With the phrase “on his own merit,” Frankfurter gestures toward the view of dignity he is rejecting, the view in which dignity wells up from the inside of a man (or woman) and depends on an inner strength that asserts itself no matter how adverse or hostile external circumstances may be, including the circumstance in which the individual is confronted with signs, posters and pamphlets demeaning his race or ethnic origin or religion or sexual preference. In this picture, the responsibility for maintaining dignity rests with the individual and not with any state duty to devise rules and regulations to protect it. ¶ Some who take this position argue that if the individual feels victimized by expressions of hate directed at the group to which he “willy-nilly” belongs, that is his or her own choice. Waldron’s example is C. Edwin Baker (“Harm, Liberty and Free Speech,” Southern California Law Review, 1997), who writes: “A speaker’s racial epithet … harms the hearer only through her understanding of the message … and harm occurs only to the extent that the hearer (mentally) responds one way rather than another, for example, as a victim rather than as a critic of the speaker.” ¶ In this classic instance of blaming the victim, the fault lies with a failure of resolve; self-respect was just not strong enough to rise to the occasion in a positive way. Waldron calls this position “silly” (it is the majority’s position in Plessy v. Ferguson) and points out that it mandates and celebrates a harm by requiring victims of hate speech to grin and bear it: “It should not be necessary,” he declares, “for hate speech victims to laboriously conjure up the courage to go out and try to flourish in what is now presented to them as a … hostile environment.” The damage, Waldron explains, is already done by the speech “in requiring its targets to resort to the sort of mental mediation that Baker recommends.” To the extent that those targets are put on the defensive, “racist speech has already succeeded in one of its destructive aims.” ¶ Notice that here (and elsewhere in the book), Waldron refuses to distinguish sharply between harm and representation. In the tradition he opposes, harm or hurt is physically defined; one can be discomforted and offended by speech; but something more than speech or image is required for there to be genuine (and legally relevant) damage. After all, “sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” ¶ No, says Waldron (and here he follows Catharine MacKinnon’s argument about pornography), the speech is the damage: “The harms emphasized in this book are often harms constituted by speech rather than merely caused by speech.” If the claim were that the harm is caused by speech, there would be room to challenge the finding by pointing to the many intervening variables that break or complicate the chain of causality. But there is no chain to break if harm is done the moment hate speech is produced. “The harm is the dispelling of assurance, and the dispelling of assurance is the speech act.” ¶ Waldron knows that the underlying strategy of those he writes against is to elevate the status of expression to an ultimate good and at the same time either deny the harm – the statistics are inconclusive; the claims cannot be proved — or minimize it in relation to the threat regulation poses to free expression. If “free speech trumps any consideration of social harm … almost any showing of harm resulting from hate speech … will be insufficient to justify restrictions on free speech of the kind that we are talking about.” ¶ In short, the game is over before it begins if your opponent can be counted on to say that either there is no demonstrated harm or, no matter how much harm there may be, it will not be enough to justify restrictions on speech. If that’s what you’re up against, there is not much you can do except point out the categorical intransigence of the position and offer an (unflattering) explanation of it. ¶ Waldron’s explanation is that the position is formulated and presented as an admirable act of unflinching moral heroism by white liberal law professors who say loudly and often that we must tolerate speech we find hateful. Easy to say from the protected perch of a faculty study, where the harm being talked about is theoretical and not experienced. ¶ But what about the harm done “to the groups who are denounced or bestialized in pamphlets, billboards, talk radio and blogs? … Can their lives be led, can their children be brought up, can their hopes be maintained and their worst fears dispelled in a social environment polluted by those materials”? ¶ Waldron answers “no,” and he challenges society and its legal system to do something about it. But the likelihood that something will be done is slim if Waldron is right about the state of First Amendment discourse: “In the American debate, the philosophical arguments about hate speech are knee-jerk, impulsive and thoughtless.” Not the arguments of this book, however; they hit the mark every time.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-12 19:07:11.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Castillo, Paramo
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harbard Westlake IP
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +15
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Marlborough Kim Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +JAN FEB Hate Speech Dignity DA
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard Westlake Round Robin
Caselist.CitesClass[16]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,26 @@
1 +Hate speech codes are becoming more prevalent on college campuses. Gould ‘01
2 +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
3 +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.
4 +
5 +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
6 +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
7 +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 institu- tions as well as individuals. A forthright focus on speech and lan- guage 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 uncon- scious. 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.
8 +Especially turns the AC because it proves that the state isn’t the sole causation of hate speech it proves that it lies within a speaker’s own power play
9 +Hate speech restrictions on college campuses have been used to punish those that perpetrate hate speech. Wisconsin’s codes proves.
10 +Hodulik, Patricia UW JD. "Racist Speech on Campus." Wayne Law Review 37.3 (1991): 1433-1450. GK
11 +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.
12 +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
13 +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.
14 +
15 +Impact 1: Hate Crimes
16 +Racist speech and actions escalate. Permission normalizes racist speech and makes racists more likely to lash out at minorities. Delgado and Yun ’94:
17 +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
18 +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.
19 +
20 +Impact 2: Psychological Violence
21 +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
22 +Matsuda, Mari J. "Public response to racist speech: Considering the victim's story." Michigan Law Review 87.8 (1989): 2320-2381.ZW
23 +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.
24 +Turns and outweighs case. The aff assumes that freedom means the absence of government constraints, but human subjectivity cannot be conceptualized outside of our basic connections to others and the social conditions that enable autonomy. Human identity is dependent on recognition by the other.
25 +Honneth ’92 - Axel Honneth University of Frankfurt, “Integrity and Disrespect: Principles of a Conception of Morality Based on the Theory of Recognition,” Political Theory, Vol. 20, No. 2 (May, 1992), pp. 187-201. Sage Publications, inc. http://www.jstor.org/stable/192001 AT
26 +According to this theory, human individuation is a process in which the individual can unfold a practical identity to the extent that he is capable of reassuring himself of recognition by a growing circle of partners to communication.2 Subjects capable of language and action are constituted as individuals solely by learning, from the perspective of others who offer approval, to relate to themselves as beings who possess certain positive qualities and abilities. Thus as their consciousness of their individuality grows, they come to depend to an ever increasing extent on the conditions of recognition they are afforded by the life-world of their social environment. That particular human vulner­ ability signified by the concept of "disrespect" arises from this interlocking of individuation and recognition on which both Hegel and Mead based their inquiries.Since, in his normative image of self-something Mead would call his "Me"-every individual is dependent on the possibility of constant reassurance by the Other; the experience of disrespect poses the risk of an injury that can cause the identity of the entire person to collapse.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-13 19:08:41.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Rebecca Kuang, Byron Arthur
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Rowland Hall KO
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +16
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +5
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Marlborough Kim Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +JAN FEB Hate Speech DA
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard Westlake RR
Caselist.CitesClass[17]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,7 @@
1 +Text: Public colleges and universities will implement new hate speech codes following Byrne 90’s recommendations:
2 +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
3 +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.
4 +
5 +Competition
6 +1. Mutual exclusivity: The aff prohibits the restriction of all constitutional speech, hate speech is deemed constitutional in the status quo so you cannot do the aff and the CP without severing out of a part of the AC.
7 +2. Net benefits: the DA
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-14 18:28:40.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Eli Smith
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Brentwood JD
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +17
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Marlborough Kim Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +JAN FEB Hate Speech CP
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard Westlake
Caselist.CitesClass[18]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,4 @@
1 +The standard is respecting human dignity.
2 +A. Because human dignity is rooted in one’s relationship to society, the state must protect people from policies that humiliate or degrade.
3 +Rao ’11 - Neomi Rao Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Center for the Study of the Administrative State; B.A., Yale University; J.D., University of Chicago Law School. ”Three concepts of dignity in constitutional law.” 86 Notre Dame Law Review 183 (2011). MO.
4 +Finally, constitutional courts often associate dignity with recognition and respect. (14) This dignity is rooted in a conception of the self as constituted by the broader community~-~-a person's identity and worth depend on his relationship to society. Accordingly, respect for a person's dignity requires recognizing and validating individuals in their particularity. This recognition requires individuals to demonstrate respect and concern for each other. What matters here is not just having a space of non-interference for one's inherent individual dignity or of living life with a particular dignity, but rather the attitude possessed by others and the state. Such dignity requires interpersonal respect, the respect of one's fellow citizens, as can be seen in laws against defamation and hate speech. The idea is that individuals need protection from insults and hateful speech in order to preserve their self-image as well as their standing in the community. Furthermore, this dignity requires the state adopt policies that express the equal worth of all individuals and their life choices, such as requiring gay marriage, not just legally equivalent civil unions, because of the expressive and symbolic importance of marriage. (15) Recognition dignity focuses on the unique and subjective feelings of self-worth possessed by each individual and group. ¶ It is perhaps in this last category where the modern concept of dignity does the most work. Dignity as recognition reflects a new political demand, not for freedom or liberty or a minimum standard of living, but rather for respect, sometimes referred to as third-generation "solidarity rights." Such rights are protected by modern human rights documents and some national constitutions. The demand for recognition, for the dignity of recognition, requires protection against the symbolic, expressive harms of policies that fail to respect the worth of each individual and group. In the first two concepts, dignity often overlaps with familiar political rights and ideals, but the dignity of recognition as a constitutional right is a new value for a new time.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-02-04 21:40:10.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Ashan
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Layton
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +18
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Marlborough Kim Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +JAN FEB Dignity NC
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Golden Desert
Caselist.CitesClass[19]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,11 @@
1 +Counterplan text: The United States Federal government should abolish the entire military. That means abolishing all 5 branches of the military. Edmonds ‘04
2 +Edmonds, Brad MS in Industrial Psychology, is a banker in Alabama.. "Four Reasons We Should Abolish the Military." Four Reasons We Should Abolish the Military. N.p., 10 Feb. 2004. Web. 05 Feb. 2017.
3 +To address the common claim by neoconservatives that we owe our freedom to the men and women of the US military, I've written recently that we don't owe the military anything of the sort. While many soldiers, airmen, etc. died in combat believing they were defending our freedom, they were misguided in this belief. The "for our freedom" claim is false because our freedoms were won by the founders and written into law by them, hence a military created afterward could have had nothing to do with that; the freedoms then created have only eroded over time, and the military did not prevent this (and could not, not being part of the legislative process); the military has never been necessary to prevent our freedoms being taken by other countries, as historians available all over the web are now making clear; and the military over the last century has only executed the adventurous whims of individual congressmen and presidents, and in so doing has been the muscle behind needlessly making the rest of the world hate us.
4 +Aside from looking at the past, there are compelling reasons we should abolish all government military forces now.
5 +1. Any standing military force aside from the Navy is unconstitutional. The Constitution provides for funding of armies only two years at a time – even the typical four-year commitment for ROTC cadets and new enlistees is thus illegal, as presumably it could not be known four years in advance that there would still be a standing Army or Air Force. Many things the federal government does today are unconstitutional, but this is no reason not to continue to consider the Constitution an authoritative document.
6 +2. The private sector could provide heavy-weapons regional defense better than the government. I neglected to mention in recent articles, but included in my "abolishing government" series, that insurers would most likely take up this task. Insurers have the resources and incentive already, and unlike the government's military, if an insurer caused "collateral damage," the insurer would be held responsible, with no protection from lawsuits. Additionally, an insurer would be required to succeed in protecting its customers, which our military isn't; and do at least as good a job of that for the dollar as the next insurer. By contrast, in today's government military, drill instructors are required to be "sensitive" rather than effective; gays and women share close quarters with men, even in combat, to the detriment of combat effectiveness; materiel is often purchased from the lowest bidder (unless the bidder represents a token minority contractor the Pentagon needs, in which case a toilet seat can cost hundreds of dollars); and in general our government military is a playground for the social-engineering initiatives of leftists in Congress, and is not dedicated primarily to its mission. The private sector, were it allowed to provide regional defense without government interference, would be more efficient, more effective, safer, and would never have incentive to engage in social engineering, nor in murderous foreign-policy adventurism and the consequent creation of bitter enemies around the world.
7 +3. Even if the military were both efficient and constitutional, a standing military is a threat to our liberty, as has been proven in US history. The ultimate test of liberty is secession. Even Lincoln himself agreed before he became president that secession is a natural right. What made a slave a slave was that he could not secede from his owner's governance and go into business for himself. What makes the states and all their citizens slaves to the union today is that we are not allowed to secede and govern ourselves. The US military, in the only action it ever took that directly affected American liberty, prevented it – prevented the secession of several states by killing 300,000 of their citizens, then over several years enforcing draconian martial law over the survivors.
8 +4. As the military is a government outfit, it can never be efficient. Indeed, as Ludwig von Mises showed, the US military, being a purely socialist government monopoly, can never know how much money it should have or spend, can never have a good idea how much its operations should cost. Right now, the US defense budget is over $1,400 for each man, woman, and child in the US. The private sector could provide a deterrent, enough to prevent any threat of foreign invasion, for probably 1/10 of that – which, remember, would still amount to $40 billion. No government agency can ever know what its costs should be; it is a forcible monopoly, and never can face bankruptcy, competition, or loss of customers.
9 +For the most part, the military as we have it is unconstitutional, as have been most of its actions since 1812 (in which war most of the work was done by privateers anyway). The private sector would do a far better job for far less money, as the individual Ross Perot proved in practical terms. The only impact the standing military has on our freedom is to take it away. And the military will eternally waste money because it cannot be governed by market forces, cannot ever know what its costs should be, cannot know what value it should return to stakeholders, and will never have an incentive to do a good job efficiently. In short, just as with any government service such as education or welfare services, it can never work well. This military must be abolished.
10 +Competitive through net benefits: the DA or turns to the AC
11 +Also Solves 100 of the AC advantages by getting rid of the very institution that the AC is criticizing and, thus, best takes back the university from militarism by just getting rid of the military itself.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-02-05 23:04:54.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Patrick
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Kris Kaya
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +19
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +5
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Marlborough Kim Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +JAN FEB ABOLISH THE MILITARY CP
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Golden Desert
Caselist.CitesClass[20]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,6 @@
1 +Interpretation: Any is defined as every
2 +Your Dictionary NO DATE (Your Dictionary, online reference, “any,” http://www.yourdictionary.com/any///LADI)
3 +every: any child can do it
4 +Any is an indefinite pronoun that refers to things generally
5 +Language NO DATE (Online English grammar textbook, Unit 42: - Indefinite Pronouns,” http://www.1-language.com/englishcoursenew/unit42_grammar.htm///LADI)
6 +Indefinite pronouns replace specific things with general, non-specific concepts. For example: - I want to live abroad in Italy. - I want to live abroad somewhere. This unit covers indefinite pronouns made with some, any, no, and every. Some / any Some and any can be combined with "-thing" to refer to an undefined object. For example: - There's someone outside the door. - There isn't anyone in the office. Some and any can be combined with "-where" to refer to an undefined location. For example: - I'm looking for somewhere to live. - We don't want to live anywhere near here. Some and any can be combined with "-body" or "-one" to refer to an undefined person. There is very little difference in meaning between "-body" and "-one". For example: - If you have a problem, someone/somebody will help you. - Do you know anyone/anybody who can help? These compound nouns follow the same rules as some and any, that is some is used in affirmative statements, and any is used in negative statements and questions. For example: - I need something from the supermarket. - I don't need anything from the supermarket. - Do you need anything from the supermarket?
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-02-05 23:06:10.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Kris Kaya
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Patrick
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +20
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +6
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Marlborough Kim Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +JAN FEB ANY T
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Desert
Caselist.CitesClass[21]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,17 @@
1 +Text
2 +The United States federal government should abolish all military academies including universities like West Point and the Navel Academy. Fleming ’17, a professor at the Naval Academy explains:
3 +Fleming, Bruce Ph.D Vanderbilt Comparative Literature, Prof. of Literature at the Naval Academy. "Let’s Abolish West Point: Military Academies Serve No One, Squander Millions of Tax Dollars." Salon. Salon, 5 Jan. 2015. Web. 05 Feb. 2017.
4 +In the spirit of hands across the aisle, I’d like to suggest that the first thing the new Republican majority devote itself to is not, say, the repeal of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), but to converting the four hugely expensive and underproductive U.S. service academies (Navy, Army, Air Force and Coast Guard) — taxpayer-funded undergraduate institutions whose products all become officers in the military — to more modest and functional schools for short-term military training programs, as the British have repurposed Sandhurst.
5 +Competition
6 +Competitive through net benefits. Either the DA or the turns to the Aff
7 +the cp is mutually exclusive because military academies can't repeal their speech codes if they don't exist ie. I abolish the actor of the AC
8 +Net Benefit
9 +Military academies are pointless. They do not meet their own principles of leadership, character, and excellence. Instead, they fail to teach students self-reliance, and they create students that engage in misconduct. Fleming 2.
10 +Fleming, Bruce Ph.D Vanderbilt Comparative Literature, Prof. of Literature at the Naval Academy. "Let’s Abolish West Point: Military Academies Serve No One, Squander Millions of Tax Dollars." Salon. Salon, 5 Jan. 2015. Web. 05 Feb. 2017.
11 +But they’re fiercely hard to get through, right? Wrong. The students are in the military, so we own them. We mother hen them: we teach not self-reliance but getting by. They get two sets of interim grades every semester, and if they are lagging, they are sent for mandatory tutoring (with me, among other people), are given help by a plethora of support staff and removed from teams if necessary—and if despite all this, they manage to fail a class, we own them in the summer too, so no problem, they repeat class for a higher grade. No wonder we graduate about 80 percent within five years (not counting the prep school). And when they graduate they get among the highest salaries for any college graduates, because it’s guaranteed by the military. If all the graduates of one mediocre state university were guaranteed well paid employment by taxpayers, that college would be ranked high too.
12 +The relentless nature of the hype, and its hollowness, prove the pointlessness of these places. “Leaders to serve the Nation,” say the flags on posts at Annapolis. Nobody defines what a leader is, or asks whether somebody like a Silicon Valley innovator might not be serving her nation as much as, if not more than, a desk jockey officer in a fruitless military endeavor in Iraq. Or a first-grade teacher. Or a doctor, or a violinist, or a scientist: we graduate almost none of these. Leaders? Really? Officers, sure, because we have the congressional power to make our graduates officers. That’s a bit circular. And about half leave the military after their obligation of five to seven years as a junior officer, and some are let go before as the military downsizes. At your expense.
13 +Do we teach them “character” as we claim we do? Apparently not. In fact about a third of the commanding officers removed in 2012 for malfeasance—record numbers for Navy—were Academy graduates. Read the newspapers for ongoing scandals (sexual assault, cheating) involving current service academy students, all of which the brass (whose prestige depends on all good news all the time) try to squash: these were merely a few bad apples, we hear, indicative of nothing. Keep the tax dollars for the football team flowing.
14 +The service academies are trying to be both archaic and up to date. The result is that they’re deeply contradictory. We decided to make them colleges with a bachelor’s degree in the 1960s. We introduced majors including English and History rather than the lockstep engineering curriculum of the 1950s, but discourage them from taking one of the few non-technical majors (including my subject, English) if they show strengths in technical subjects. We even reserve the right to re-assign their major based on the “needs of the Navy.” Everybody gets a B.S. and our curriculum is heavy in engineering, a questionable choice nowadays that wars are changing in nature so quickly, and with the military really in need of creative thinkers. T-shirts in the midshipmen store proudly sport the logo “Not College.” How right they are.
15 +They pretend to be colleges, but exercise military control. They forbid students (military subordinates) from contradicting in public the sunny hype of military brass eager for taxpayer dollars and to spit-shine their own careers. They make students go to football games to cheer. Intellectual development? That’s left for the top students, who succeed despite the institutions, not because of them. We’re proud of our Rhodes scholars, but we don’t talk about the taxpayer-supported remedial classes or the lack of enthusiasm of the middle of the pack.
16 +Of course you’ll send your child to one if given the chance: college tuition with guaranteed employment, not to mention spiffy uniforms. How can you say no? How the neighbors will envy you! But the hardest charging of the students are the most disappointed (I talk yearly to disillusioned Marine and SEAL selectees), and all count the days until graduation. The service academies are all Potemkin villages, facades with nothing behind them: they don’t teach morals, they don’t make better officers, and they cost you a bundle. Most fundamentally, they combine two incompatible goals: military obedience and the freedom to question offered by knowledge. This is a combustible mixture as students ask why things are as they are and are told sharply that this is the way things are, and are punished if they insist. One day the lid is going to blow.
17 +PROVES SOLVENCY UNDER THE ASTORE CARDS THE ROOT CAUSE IS THE UNIVERSITIES NOT THE PEOPLE AND THE SPEECH
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-02-10 00:46:23.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Panel
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Lynbrook
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +21
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Doubles
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Marlborough Kim Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +JAN FEB Abolish Military Academies CP
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Golden Desert
Caselist.CitesClass[22]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,53 @@
1 +T-Any
2 +Interpretation
3 +Interpretation: Cambridge Dictionary ’17 defines “Any”
4 +Cambridge Dictionary ‘17 - English Grammar Today, “Any,” Cambridge Dictionary (Web). Eds: Ronald Carter, Michael McCarthy, Geraldine Mark, and Anne O’Keeffe. Cambridge University Press. 2017. Accessed February 19, 2017.
5 +(used in negative statements and questions) some, or even the smallest amount(of):
6 +To clarify, if we replace the word any in the resolution with this definition, it reads “Public colleges and universities ought not to restrict (some, or even the smallest amount of) constitutionally protected speech.” This interpretation means that the aff plan may not specify a type of speech, but it may specify a subset of colleges. Prefer this definition because it contextualized by what any means in a negative statement like the resolution whereas the AC’s google definition in the underview does not define “any” in a NEGATIVE statement.
7 +Also, his Von Eintel card has two issues
8 +1. It just says that when interpreting a statute, the meaning of any is limited by the objects that the legislature intended any to apply to. You need to go a step further and define an object that the meaning of any would apply to.
9 +2. Also this card talks about any being restricted in a statute. The resolution is not a statute.
10 +Violation
11 +The aff only removes restrictions on constitutionally protected speech in gag orders which is one subset in the entirety of what speech is. It does not claim to categorically prevent unconstitutional censorship because things like disinviting controversial speakers, hate speech codes, and restrictions on professors’ research could still occur.
12 +Standards:
13 +
14 +1. Grammar
15 +A. Prefer my interpretation because it correctly contextualizes the definition of “any” to its use in negative sentences, which the resolution is because it uses the word “not.”
16 +Cambridge Dictionary 2 - Cambridge Dictionary. “Any,” Def. 1. Cambridge Academic Content. Dictionary (Web). Cambridge University Press. 2017. Accessed March 3, 2017.
17 +We use any for indefinite quantities in questions and negative sentences. We use some in affirmative sentences:¶ Have you got any eggs?¶ I haven’t got any eggs.¶ I’ve got some eggs.
18 +
19 +B. Their interpretation is semantically wrong; if someone says “I don’t need anything from the supermarket” and then you bring them a carton of milk, you have misinterpreted their statement. If you say, “I interpreted that as meaning that you don’t need bananas from the supermarket,” they’re just going to give you a weird look. Gut check this argument – as a competent speaker of English you know that nobody would say “Public college and universities ought not to restrict ANY constitutionally protected speech,” to mean they should unrestrict one form of speech but regulating all the others is completely fine.
20 +
21 +C. Here is another definition that agrees
22 +Language.com NO DATE (Online English grammar textbook, Unit 42: - Indefinite Pronouns,” http://www.1-language.com/englishcoursenew/unit42_grammar.htm///LADI)
23 +Indefinite pronouns replace specific things with general, non-specific concepts. For example: - I want to live abroad in Italy. - I want to live abroad somewhere. This unit covers indefinite pronouns made with some, any, no, and every. Some / any Some and any can be combined with "-thing" to refer to an undefined object. For example: - There's someone outside the door. - There isn't anyone in the office. Some and any can be combined with "-where" to refer to an undefined location. For example: - I'm looking for somewhere to live. - We don't want to live anywhere near here. Some and any can be combined with "-body" or "-one" to refer to an undefined person. There is very little difference in meaning between "-body" and "-one". For example: - If you have a problem, someone/somebody will help you. - Do you know anyone/anybody who can help? These compound nouns follow the same rules as some and any, that is some is used in affirmative statements, and any is used in negative statements and questions. For example: - I need something from the supermarket. - I don't need anything from the supermarket. - Do you need anything from the supermarket?
24 +And, semantics outweigh pragmatics:
25 +A. Case-by-case determinations of what interpretations are most fair and educational will be manipulated in debaters’ favor if not tied to the semantics of the resolution.
26 +Nebel ’15 - Jake Nebel, “The Priority of Resolutional Semantics,” VBriefly (Web). February 20, 2015. Accessed March 2, 2017. AT
27 +There is an obvious objection to my argument above. If the topicality rule is justified for reasons that have to do with fairness and education, then shouldn’t we just directly appeal to such considerations when determining what proposition we ought to debate? There are at least three ways I see of responding to this objection.¶ One way admits that such pragmatic considerations are relevant—i.e., they are reasons to change the topic—but holds that they are outweighed by the reasons for the topicality rule. It would be better if everyone debated the resolution as worded, whatever it is, than if everyone debated whatever subtle variation on the resolution they favored. Affirmatives would unfairly abuse (and have already abused) the entitlement to choose their own unpredictable adventure, and negatives would respond (and have already responded) with strategies that are designed to avoid clash—including an essentially vigilantist approach to topicality in which debaters enforce their own pet resolutions on an arbitrary, round-by-round basis. Think here of the utilitarian case for internalizing rules against lying, murder, and other intuitively wrong acts. As the great utilitarian Henry Sidgwick argued, wellbeing is maximized not by everyone doing what they think maximizes wellbeing, but rather (in general) by people sticking to the rules of common sense morality. Otherwise, people are more likely to act on mistaken utility calculations and engage in self-serving violations of useful rules, thereby undermining social practices that promote wellbeing in the long run. That is exactly what happens if we reject the topicality rule in favor of direct appeals to pragmatic considerations. Sticking to a rule that applies regardless of the topic, of the debaters’ preferred variations on the topic, and of debaters’ familiarity with the national circuit’s flavor of the week, avoids these problems.
28 +B. If we decided what resolution to debate on the basis of pragmatics, there would be no limit on what advocacy the affirmative could defend.
29 +Nebel ’15 - Jake Nebel, “The Priority of Resolutional Semantics,” VBriefly (Web). February 20, 2015. Accessed March 2, 2017. AT
30 +Here is a third kind of response to the view that we should directly appeal to pragmatic considerations when evaluating topicality. This view justifies debating propositions that are completely irrelevant to the resolution but are much better to debate. Once you say that pragmatic benefits can justify debating a proposition that isn’t really what the resolution means, or that the resolution means whatever it would be best for it to mean, there is no principled way of requiring any particular threshold of similarity in order to be an eligible interpretation of the resolution. This means that the pragmatic approach justifies affirmatives that have nothing to do with the resolution. Of course some see no problem with nontopical affirmatives whose impacts outweigh the reasons to debate the resolution. But suppose you want a principled response to such strategies. You have one if you take seriously the idea that the debate should be about the resolution, and the idea that the proposition expressed by the resolution is independent of what proposition would be best to debate. Without a commitment to debating the proposition that the resolution actually means, I don’t think there is a principled response to such strategies, as I discuss below.
31 +E. Dialogue - Topicality is a norm of basic fairness, which reflects the underlying value that all voices should have an equal chance to participate in the dialogue. This controls the internal link to inclusion.
32 +Galloway 2007 - Ryan Galloway Samford U., “Dinner and Conversation at the Argumentative Table: Reconceptualizing Debate as an Argumentative Dialogue,” Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28 (2007) AT
33 +Debate as a dialogue sets an argumentative table, where all parties receive a relatively fair opportunity to voice their position. Anything that fails to allow participants to have their position articulated denies one side of the argumentative table a fair hearing. The affirmative side is set by the topic and fairness requirements. While affirmative teams have recently resisted affirming the topic, in fact, the topic selection process is rigorous, taking the relative ground of each topic as its central point of departure.¶ Setting the affirmative reciprocally sets the negative. The negative crafts approaches to the topic consistent with affirmative demands. The negative crafts disadvantages, counter-plans, and critical arguments premised on the arguments that the topic allows for the affirmative team. According to fairness norms, each side sits at a relatively balanced argumentative table.¶ When one side takes more than its share, competitive equity suffers. However, it also undermines the respect due to the other involved in the dialogue. When one side excludes the other, it fundamentally denies the personhood of the other participant (Ehninger, 1970, p. 110). A pedagogy of debate as dialogue takes this respect as a fundamental component. A desire to be fair is a fundamental condition of a dialogue that takes the form of a demand for equality of voice. Far from being a banal request for links to a disadvantage, fairness is a demand for respect, a demand to be heard, a demand that a voice backed by literally months upon months of preparation, research, and critical thinking not be silenced.¶ Affirmative cases that suspend basic fairness norms operate to exclude particular negative strategies. Unprepared, one side comes to the argumentative table unable to meaningfully participate in a dialogue. They are unable to “understand what ‘went on…’” and are left to the whims of time and power (Farrell, 1985, p. 114). Hugh Duncan furthers this line of reasoning:¶ Opponents not only tolerate but honor and respect each other because in doing so they enhance their own chances of thinking better and reaching sound decisions. Opposition is necessary because it sharpens thought in action. We assume that argument, discussion, and talk, among free an informed people who subordinate themselves to rules of discussion, are the best ways to decisions of any kind, because it is only through such discussion that we reach agreement which binds us to a common cause…If we are to be equal…relationships among equals must find expression in many formal and informal institutions (Duncan, 1993, p. 196-197).¶ Debate compensates for the exigencies of the world by offering a framework that maintains equality for the sake of the conversation (Farrell, 1985, p. 114).¶ For example, an affirmative case on the 2007-2008 college topic might defend neither state nor international action in the Middle East, and yet claim to be germane to the topic in some way. The case essentially denies the arguments that state action is oppressive or that actions in the international arena are philosophically or pragmatically suspect. Instead of allowing for the dialogue to be modified by the interchange of the affirmative case and the negative response, the affirmative subverts any meaningful role to the negative team, preventing them from offering effective “counter-word” and undermining the value of a meaningful exchange of speech acts. Germaneness and other substitutes for topical action do not accrue the dialogical benefits of topical advocacy.
34 +I. Evaluate I-meets in the context of common usage – if they fabricate an I-meet on an unfair and nonsensical interpretation of English, you should neglect it for those reasons.
35 +
36 +2. Limits
37 +A. Allowing plan affs around specified kinds of speech justifies a limitless number of affs that ban types of speech i.e. hate speech, specific words, and speech in specified time and places, the list goes on and on. Two impacts—
38 +A. Fairness—means that the neg has an unlimited number of affs to prepare for which results in shallow engagement and the same generics you’ve heard every day like the politics DA and a process CP.
39 +B. Education—shallow engagement means we never actually learn about the aff topic lit in depth—it results in generic debates
40 +B. Topical Version of the Aff Solves - Remove restrictions surrounding all forms of constitutionally protected speech – solves 100 of your offense because it ensures we can still discuss the aff advantages but allows for the neg to access links to our generics.
41 +Voters
42 +Fairness
43 +Fairness is axiomatic in debate – nobody would play a rigged game, and allowing unfair strategies would make outcomes a result of luck rather than skill.
44 +Education
45 +Education is the constitutive purpose of debate – schools wouldn’t fund it and teachers wouldn’t teach it were it not an important vehicle for building portable skills and teaching important information.
46 +
47 +Theory Framework
48 +No RVIs
49 +1. Chills legitimate theory - Debaters won’t be as likely to run theory because their fear of loss from an RVI discourages theory to check back abuse.
50 +
51 +2. Illogical - You don’t win just for being fair or just for being topical. These are prima facie burdens of the AC. Especially important on T because the burden of the AC going into the round is to be topical.
52 +
53 +3. Substantive engagement – RVIs allow every round to be decided on theory and therefore create a strategic incentive for debaters to channel their development into theory skills rather than discussion of topic-relevant issues. It also encourages them to run abusive positions to bait theory, which results in even less substantive engagement and more abuse.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-04-08 21:23:31.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +panel
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +poly
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +22
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Doubles
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Marlborough Kim Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +JanFeb - T Any Updated
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +USC
Caselist.CitesClass[23]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,19 @@
1 +CP Text: Public colleges and universities ought not restrict any constitutionally protected journalist speech except in the instance of hate speech and will construct new hate speech codes according to Byrne 90’s recommendations
2 +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
3 +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.
4 +Hate speech is precalent in newspapers so there is always a link. Also he made the debate small already so any impact is important.
5 +Competition
6 +A. Mutual exclusivity: The aff must reject all restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. If the aff tries to perm the CP, it would be severance. The First Amendment protects hate speech.
7 +Eko ‘06 - Lyombe Eko Associate Professor, School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Iowa, “New Medium, Old Free Speech Regimes: The Historical and Ideological Foundations of French and American Regulation of Bias-Motivated Speech and Symbolic Expression on the Internet,” 28 Loy. L.A. Int’l and Comp. L. Rev. 69 (2006). AT
8 +Under American jurisprudence, speech and communicative acts-including symbolic speech and expressive conduct-cannot be regulated on the basis of the content of the message.264 The American First Amendment regime is based on what Don Pember and Clay Calvert call "a preferred position balancing theory" whereby courts give freedom of expression a preferred position and "presume that the limitation on freedom of speech or freedom of the press is illegal., 265 This makes the United States unique in matters of freedom of speech and expression.¶ In contrast to French law, which bans the display of swastikas and other insignia of groups found guilty of crimes against S266 humanity, the First Amendment protects the public or private display of flags, emblems, insignia, and other indicia of unpopular, discredited, or even genocidal groups such as the Nazi party. Indeed, over the years the U.S. Supreme Court has invalidated several attempts to ban emblems and other indicia of political affiliation.267 As early as 1931, the Supreme Court struck down a California statute which criminalized the display of flags, badges, banners, or other devices that symbolized opposition to organized government.268¶ Furthermore, on appeal after remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of Illinois upheld displaying the swastika (the symbol of Hitler's National Socialist (Nazi) Party and its American progeny, the National Socialist (Nazi) Party of America) as protected symbolic political speech intended to convey to the public the political beliefs of those who displayed it in a controversial march.269 This decision followed after the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Nazi Party of America had a right to due process as well as a right to be free from government-imposed prior restraints.2 As Rodney Smolla aptly put it, "the Supreme Court did not say that the Nazis had a constitutional right to march in Skokie, but only that they had a constitutional right to be free of "prior restraints" against such a march., 271¶ These decisions are rooted in the fundamental principle under the First Amendment that the U.S. is a marketplace of ideas in which more speech and less regulation is favored.272 This free speech jurisprudence permits all speech except obscenity, 273 fighting words,274 and deceptive and misleading advertisements.275 In thes eUat.Str.la dt ho ef conc2e7p1t of hate crime has recently become a more settled area of law. Many American courts have noted that the motive for criminal behavior is often relevant in the sentencing of criminal conduct.2 77 Fighting words are not considered to be speech, and thus not within First Amendment protection.278 In contrast, restrictions on bias-motivated utterances must still satisfy the requirements of First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech.279 Bias-motivated utterances can be criminalized, however, if they are associated with acts of violence or hate crimes.280¶ A number of American court cases show that even vile, repugnant and hateful speech, absent violence or threatening behavior, is protected. In Near v. Minnesota, the U.S. Supreme Court held that pre-publication censorship of repugnant anti- Semitic material defies First Amendment guarantees.281 In Rockwell v. Morris, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that refusing to issue a permit to a "self-styled American Nazi and... a rabid racist" constituted a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.282 The court explained, "The unpopularity of his views, their shocking quality, their obnoxiousness, and even their alarming impact was not enough" to warrant prior restraint. 281¶ In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press do not permit states to forbid or ban mere advocacy of the use of force or violation of the law unless such advocacy is designed to incite or produce imminent lawless action'8 In his concurring opinion, Justice Douglas suggested that racial animus and bias could be considered a type of belief system that the government had no business regulating.285¶ In R.A.V. v. The City of St. Paul, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the First Amendment bars the government from silencing speech "because of disapproval of the ideas expressed. Content-based regulations are presumptively invalid. '' 286 In Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the KKK had a constitutional right to place a cross in a public square.287 The Court found that even speakers or writers S 288 motivated by hatred, and ill-will are protected. Thus, when it comes to bias-motivated or hate speech and expressive conduct, the posture of the U.S. Supreme Court is that: "under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas." 9 Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court's posture contrasts sharply with France's content-based regulatory regime.
9 +
10 +
11 +Solvency
12 +
13 +A. 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
14 +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
15 +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.
16 +Impact: Psychological Violence
17 +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
18 +Matsuda, Mari J. "Public response to racist speech: Considering the victim's story." Michigan Law Review 87.8 (1989): 2320-2381.ZW
19 +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.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-04-08 22:18:27.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Pranav Reddy
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +HW VC
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +23
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +3
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Marlborough Kim Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +JAN FEB Hate Speech PIC
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +NDCA
Caselist.CitesClass[24]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,37 @@
1 +Link
2 +The aff is a postmodern rejection of censorship. The problem is that postmodernism does not have a meaningful program that can adequately address the harms of the state and has no way of solving for the atrocities of the state. These politics of aesthetics in the AC is all just pomo stuff. Interrogate the AC. What does the aff do for the victim of violence. The K is a K of his method, we should not have the depoliticized form of agency, we should be radically political not radical apolitical.
3 +
4 +By adopting the pessimistic view that the government will always be an overzealous censoring body that harms minorities, the Aff assumes that running away from the government and trying to restrict it as much as possible is the only solution to combating oppression when really it provides the vehicle necessary to combat institutional problems. Nozick ’89
5 +Robert Nozick Prof., Harvard University, The Examined Life: Philosophical Mediations, New York: Simon and Schuster (1989), p. 286-287
6 +WE WANT our individual lives to express our conceptions of reality (and of responsiveness to that); so too we want the institutions demarcating our lives together to express and saliently symbolize our desired mutual relations. Democratic institutions and the liberties coordinate with them are not simply effective means toward controlling the powers of government and directing these toward matters of joint concern; they themselves express and symbolize, in a pointed and official way, our equal human dignity, our autonomy and powers of self-direction. We vote, although we are cognizant of the minuscule probability that our own actual vote will have some decisive effect on the outcome, in part as an expression and symbolic affirmation of our status as autonomous and self-governing beings whose considered judgments or even opinions have to be given weight equal to those of others. That symbolism is important to us. Within the operation of democratic institutions, too, we want expressions of the values that concern us and bind us together. The libertarian position I once propounded now seems to me seriously inadequate, in part because it did not fully knit the humane considerations and joint cooperative activities it left room for more closely into its fabric. It neglected the symbolic importance of an official political concern with issues or problems, as a way of marking their importance or urgency, and hence of expressing, intensifying, channeling, encouraging, and validating our private actions and concerns toward them. Joint goals that the government ignores completely – it is different with private or family goals – tend to appear unworthy of our joint attention and hence to receive little. There are some things we choose to do together through government in solemn marking of our human solidarity, served by the fact that we do them together in this official fashion and often also by the content of the action itself.
7 +Link turns resantemant: it takes away the notion that minorities are helpless or that they have no self efficacy because it affirms the power of minorities and denies the idea that the state will always coopt. The K allows for the minority groups to take control of the state and have power. Faith in your collective efficacy is what the K does
8 +
9 +Their strategy of negativity assumes the foundational premises of racism as its starting point for politics and teaches white people and the government to act as though they can’t help to stop this oppression and forces black Americans to internalize oppression. hooks ’95.
10 +hooks, bell (Distinguished Professor in Residence Berea College). “Killing Rage: Ending Racism”. New York: H. Holt and Co, 1995. http://books.google.com/booksid=3JlNFYKLheUCandq=unitary+representations#v=snippetandq=unitary20representationsandf=false, p.269 DM
11 +More than ever before in our history, black Americans are succumbing to and internalizing the racist assumption that there can be no meaningful bonds of intimacy between blacks and whites. It is fascinating to explore why it is that black people trapped in the worst situation of racial oppres sion—enslavement—had the foresight to see that it would be disempowering for them to lose sight of the capacity of white people to transform themselves and divest of white supremacy, even as many black folks today who in no way suffer such extreme racist oppression and exploitation are convinced that white people will not repudiate racism. Con temporary black folks, like their white counterparts, have passively accepted the internalization of white supremacist assumptions. Organized white supremacists have always taught that there can never be trust and intimacy between the superior white race and the inferior black race. When black people internalize these sentiments, no resistance to white supremacy is taking place; rather we become complicit in spreading racist notions. It does not matter that so many black people feel white people will never repudiate racism because of being daily assaulted by white denial and refusal of accountability. We must not allow the actions of white folks who blindly endorse racism to determine the direction of our resistance. Like our white allies in struggle we must consistently keep the faith, by always sharing the truth that 270white people can be anti-racist, that racism is not some immutable character flaw. ¶ Of course many white people are comfortable with a rhetoric of race that suggests racism cannot be changed, that all white people are “inherently racist” simply because they are born and raised in this society. Such misguided thinking socializes white people both to remain ignorant of the way in which white supremacist attitudes are learned and to assume a posture of learned helplessness as though they have no agency—no capacity to resist this thinking. Luckily we have many autobiographies by white folks committed to anti-racist struggle that provide documentary testimony that many of these individuals repudiated racism when they were children. Far from passively accepting It as inherent, they instinctively felt it was wrong. Many of them witnessed bizarre acts of white racist aggression towards black folks in everyday life and responded to the injustice of the situation. Sadly, in our times so many white folks are easily convinced by racist whites and black folks who have internalized racism that they can never be really free of racism. ¶ These feelings also then obscure the reality of white privilege. As long as white folks are taught to accept racism as “natural” then they do not have to see themselves as consciously creating a racist society by their actions, by their political choices. This means as well that they do not have to face the way in which acting in a racist manner ensures the maintenance of white privilege. Indeed, denying their agency allows them to believe white privilege does not exist even as they daily exercise it. If the young white woman who had been raped had chosen to hold all black males account able for what happened, she would have been exercising white privilege and reinforcing the structure of racist thought which teaches that all black people are alike. Unfortunately,¶ 271so many white people are eager to believe racism cannot be changed because internalizing that assumption downplays the issue of accountability. No responsibility need be taken for not changing something ¡fit is perceived as immutable. To accept racism as a system of domination that can be changed would demand that everyone who sees him- or herself as embracing a vision of radai social equality would be required to assert anti-racist habits of being. We know from histories both present and past that white people (and everyone else) who commit themselves to living in anti-racist ways need to make sacrifices, to courageously endure the uncomfortable to challenge and change.¶ Whites, people of color, and black folks are reluctant to commit themselves fully and deeply to an anti-racist struggle that is ongoing because there is such a pervasive feeling of hopelessness—a conviction that nothing will ever change. How any of us can continue to hold those feelings when we study the history of racism in this society and see how much has changed makes no logical sense. Clearly we have not gone far enough. In the late sixties, Martin Luther King posed the question “Where do we go from here.” To live in anti-racist society we must collectively renew our commitment to a democratic vision of racial justice and equality. Pursuing that vision we create a culture where beloved community flourishes and is sustained. Those of us who know the joy of being with folks from all walks of life, all races, who are fundamentalls’ anti-racist in their habits of being need to give public testimony. We need to share not only what we have experienced but the conditions of change that make such an experience possible. The interracial circle of love that I know can happen because each individual present in it has made his or her own commitment to living an anti- racist life and to furthering the struggle to end white supremacy 272 will become a reality for everyone only if those of us who have created these communities share how they emerge in our lives and the strategies we use to sustain them. Our devout commitment to building diverse communities is central. These commitments to anti-racist living are just one expression of who we are and what we share with one an other but they form the foundation of that sharing. Like all beloved communities we affirm our differences. It is this generous spirit of affirmation that gives us the courage to challenge one another, to work through misunderstandings, especially those that have to do with race and racism. In a beloved community solidarity and trust are grounded in profound commitment to a shared vision. Those of us who are always anti-racist long for a world in which everyone can form a beloved community where borders can be crossed and cultural hybridity celebrated. Anyone can begin to make such a community by truly seeking to live in an anti-racist world. If that longing guides our vision and our actions, the new culture will be born and anti-racist communities of resis tance will emerge everywhere. That is where we must go from here.
12 +He says that resantemant is individual hating themselves because of the state, but the K outweighs the AC because the AC makes it so that the individual is hated by the state AND society and makes it so that the hatred will never go away. K solves 100 of that.
13 +
14 +Also, the K IS NOT THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE STATE. IT’s a taking back of control against the state by understanding optimism
15 +
16 +Furthermore, their removal of hate speech codes in particular is a manifestation of the idea that governments cannot help minorities and must bow out of the fight against racism.
17 +Impacts
18 +Hate speech goes hand in hand with racism and not limiting it makes us a society that fosters racism and reinforces stereotypes. Yun and Delgado ‘94
19 +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
20 +But is it so clear that efforts to control hate speech are a waste of time and resources, at least compared to other problems that the campaigners could be addressing? What neoconservative writers may fail to realize is that eliminating hate speech goes hand in hand with reducing what they term "real racism." Certainly, being the victim of hate speech is a less serious affront than being denied a job, a house, or an education. It is, however, equally true that a society that speaks and thinks of minorities derisively is fostering an environment in which such discrimination will occur frequently. This is so for two reasons. First, hate speech, in combination with an entire panoply of media imagery, constructs and reinforces a picture of minorities in the public mind." This picture or stereotype varies from era to era, but is rarely positive: persons of color are happy and carefree, lascivious. criminal. devious- treacherous, untrustworthy, immoral, of lower intelligence than whites, and so on.
21 +1. The aff’s ideology excuses the government from standing up against structural problems and ensures that racism continues. This is especially important in our political climate when the president is endorsed by the KKK. We need to take the power of government and use it against structural problems.
22 +
23 +Counter speech does not solve on college campuses. There no effective way for minorities to answer racial insults, reason will seldom affect the speaker and often when minorities talk back they are physically assaulted. Delgado and Yun ‘94
24 +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
25 +Defenders of the First Amendment sometimes argue that minorities should talk back to the aggressor. .FN8S Nat Hentoff, for example, writes that antiracism rules teach black people to depend on whites for protection, while talking back clears the air, emphasizes self-reliance, and strengthens one's self-image as an active agent in charge of one's own destiny. FN86 The "talking back" solution to campus racism draws force from the First Amendment principle of "more speech,' according to which additional dialogue is always a preferred response to speech that some find troubling. FN87 *884 Proponents of this approach oppose hate speech rules, then, not so much because they limit speech, but because they believe that it is good for minorities to learn to speak out. A few go on to offer another reason: that a minority who speaks out will be able to educate the speaker who has uttered a racially hurtful remark. FN88 Racism, they hold, is the product of ignorance and fear. If a victim of racist hate speech takes the time to explain matters, he or she may succeed in altering the speaker's perception so that the speaker will no longer utter racist remarks. FN89 ¶ How valid is this argument? Like many paternalistic arguments, it is offered blandly, virtually as an article of faith. ln the nature of paternalism, those who make the argument are in a position of power, and therefore believe themselves able to make things so merely by asserting them as true. FN90 They rarely offer empirical proof of their claims, because none is needed. The social world is as they say because it is their world: they created it that way. FN9l¶ In reality, those who hurl racial epithets do so because they feel empowered to do so. FN92 Indeed, their principal objective is to reassert and reinscribe that power. One who talks back is perceived as issuing a direct challenge to that power. The action is seen as outrageous, as calling for a forceful response. Often racist remarks are delivered in several-on-one situations, in which responding in kind is foolhardy. FN93 Many highly publicized cases of racial homicide began in just this fashion. A group began badgering a black person. The black person talked back, and paid with his life. FN94 Other racist remarks are delivered in a cowardly fashion, by means of graffiti scrawled on a campus wall late at night or on a poster placed outside of a black student's dormitory door. FN95 In these situations, more speech is, of course, impossible. ¶ "'885 Racist speech is rarely a mistake, rarely something that could be corrected or countered by discussion. What would be the answer to 'Nigger, go back to Africa. You don't belong at the University"? "Sir, you misconceive the situation. Prevailing ethics and constitutional interpretation hold that I, an African American, am an individual of equal dignity and entitled to attend this university in the same manner as others. Now that I have informed you of this, I am sure you will modify your remarks in the future"? FN96 ¶ The idea that talking back is safe for the victim or potentially educative for the racist simply does not correspond with reality. It ignores the power dimension to racist remarks, forces minorities to run very real risks, and treats a hateful attempt to force the victim outside the human community as an invitation for discussion. Even when successful, talking back is a burden. Why should minority undergraduates, already charged with their own education, be responsible constantly for educating others?
26 +1. This means the aff does not solve for domination because counter-speech and speaking out against structural problems that are protected by those with power does not work.
27 +2. Turns case by showing for telling minorities to use their free speech will always end up leading to more death and aggression against minorities.
28 +
29 +Alt
30 +The ALT is to reject pessimism in the political sphere and embrace optimism.
31 +
32 +Optimism is the crucial ingredient in the political struggle for a more just, verdant, and peaceful world. Without an optimistic outlook, global capitalism and neocolonialism become inevitable. Rory ‘15
33 +Rowan, Rory, “Extinction as usual?: Geo-social futures and left optimism”, e-flux journal, May-August 2015.
34 +Optimism remains a crucial affective resource for galvanizing political struggles, particularly important in forging enduring alliances across plural collectives dispersed in space and diverse in ethos – exactly the type of articulations needed to ensure more socially just and ecologically sustainable geo-social futures. This is why it is crucial not to cede optimism to reactionary forces or dismiss it as utopian naïveté. Without some basic acceptance of the idea that through collective effort our relations with one another and the planet can be transformed for the better, why would we act at all? Rejecting this possibility would be to consent to an existence that is all stick and no carrot, a purely defensive life governed by ad hoc reactions, that would elevate the contingent ideology of neoliberal individualism into an inescapable anthropological fact and reduce each of us to a little Katechon securing the best worst option until shit really hits the fan. Adopting a worldview from which all optimism has been expunged would in effect naturalize the existing catastrophic trajectories of global capitalism and militarized colonialism as inevitable and accept that indeed “there is no other way,” not due to faith in the brilliance of the plan but because of a lack of recognition that collective capacities may challenge it.
35 +The only thing we must fear is fear itself ~-~- lack of a strong sense of collective self-efficacy is the biggest obstacle to mobilizing efforts and marshaling resources necessary to solve pressing global problems. Bandura ‘98
36 +Bandura, Albert, “Personal and collective efficacy in human adaptation and change”, Advances in Psychological Science: Social, personal, and cultural aspects, 1998.
37 +The psychological barriers created by beliefs of collective powerlessness are more demoralizing, and debilitating than are external impediments. The less people bring their influence to bear on conditions that affect their lives the more control they relinquish to others. People who have high collective efficacy will mobilize their efforts and resources to surmount the obstacles to the changes they seek. But those convinced of their collective powerlessness will cease trying, even though changes are attainable through perseverant collective effort. As a society, we enjoy the benefits left by those before us who collectively fought inhumanities and worked for social reforms that permit a better life. Our own collective efficacy will, in turn, shape how future generations will live their lives. The times call for social initiative that build people’s sense of collective efficacy to influence conditions that shape their lives and that of future generations.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-04-09 20:20:42.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Alston
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Sunset AB
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +24
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +6
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Marlborough Kim Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +JAN FEB Pessimism K
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +NDCA
Caselist.RoundClass[14]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +14
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-12-03 03:24:59.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Nicholas Rogers
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +San Marino
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +4
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Alta
Caselist.RoundClass[15]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +15
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-12 19:07:07.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Castillo, Paramo
OpenSource
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +https://hsld16.debatecoaches.org/download/Marlborough/Kim+Neg/Marlborough-Kim-Neg-Harvard%20Westlake%20Round%20Robin-Round1.docx
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harbard Westlake IP
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard Westlake Round Robin
Caselist.RoundClass[16]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +16
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-13 19:08:39.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Rebecca Kuang, Byron Arthur
OpenSource
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +https://hsld16.debatecoaches.org/download/Marlborough/Kim+Neg/Marlborough-Kim-Neg-Harvard%20Westlake%20RR-Round5.docx
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Rowland Hall KO
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +5
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard Westlake RR
Caselist.RoundClass[17]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +17
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-14 18:28:37.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Eli Smith
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Brentwood JD
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard Westlake
Caselist.RoundClass[18]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +18
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-02-04 21:40:08.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Ashan
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Layton
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Golden Desert
Caselist.RoundClass[19]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +19
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-02-05 23:04:52.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Patrick
OpenSource
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +https://hsld16.debatecoaches.org/download/Marlborough/Kim+Neg/Marlborough-Kim-Neg-Golden%20Desert-Round5.docx
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Kris Kaya
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +5
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Golden Desert
Caselist.RoundClass[20]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +20
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-02-05 23:06:08.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Kris Kaya
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Patrick
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +6
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Desert
Caselist.RoundClass[21]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +21
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-02-10 00:46:21.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Panel
OpenSource
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +https://hsld16.debatecoaches.org/download/Marlborough/Kim+Neg/Marlborough-Kim-Neg-Golden%20Desert-Doubles.docx
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Lynbrook
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Doubles
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Golden Desert
Caselist.RoundClass[22]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +22
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-04-08 21:23:29.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +panel
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +poly
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Doubles
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +USC
Caselist.RoundClass[23]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +23
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-04-08 22:18:25.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Pranav Reddy
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +HW VC
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +3
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +NDCA
Caselist.RoundClass[24]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +24
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-04-09 20:20:19.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Alston
OpenSource
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +https://hsld16.debatecoaches.org/download/Marlborough/Kim+Neg/Marlborough-Kim-Neg-NDCA-Round6.docx
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Sunset AB
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +6
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +NDCA

Schools

Aberdeen Central (SD)
Acton-Boxborough (MA)
Albany (CA)
Albuquerque Academy (NM)
Alief Taylor (TX)
American Heritage Boca Delray (FL)
American Heritage Plantation (FL)
Anderson (TX)
Annie Wright (WA)
Apple Valley (MN)
Appleton East (WI)
Arbor View (NV)
Arcadia (CA)
Archbishop Mitty (CA)
Ardrey Kell (NC)
Ashland (OR)
Athens (TX)
Bainbridge (WA)
Bakersfield (CA)
Barbers Hill (TX)
Barrington (IL)
BASIS Mesa (AZ)
BASIS Scottsdale (AZ)
BASIS Silicon (CA)
Beckman (CA)
Bellarmine (CA)
Benjamin Franklin (LA)
Benjamin N Cardozo (NY)
Bentonville (AR)
Bergen County (NJ)
Bettendorf (IA)
Bingham (UT)
Blue Valley Southwest (KS)
Brentwood (CA)
Brentwood Middle (CA)
Bridgewater-Raritan (NJ)
Bronx Science (NY)
Brophy College Prep (AZ)
Brown (KY)
Byram Hills (NY)
Byron Nelson (TX)
Cabot (AR)
Calhoun Homeschool (TX)
Cambridge Rindge (MA)
Canyon Crest (CA)
Canyon Springs (NV)
Cape Fear Academy (NC)
Carmel Valley Independent (CA)
Carpe Diem (NJ)
Cedar Park (TX)
Cedar Ridge (TX)
Centennial (ID)
Centennial (TX)
Center For Talented Youth (MD)
Cerritos (CA)
Chaminade (CA)
Chandler (AZ)
Chandler Prep (AZ)
Chaparral (AZ)
Charles E Smith (MD)
Cherokee (OK)
Christ Episcopal (LA)
Christopher Columbus (FL)
Cinco Ranch (TX)
Citrus Valley (CA)
Claremont (CA)
Clark (NV)
Clark (TX)
Clear Brook (TX)
Clements (TX)
Clovis North (CA)
College Prep (CA)
Collegiate (NY)
Colleyville Heritage (TX)
Concord Carlisle (MA)
Concordia Lutheran (TX)
Connally (TX)
Coral Glades (FL)
Coral Science (NV)
Coral Springs (FL)
Coppell (TX)
Copper Hills (UT)
Corona Del Sol (AZ)
Crandall (TX)
Crossroads (CA)
Cupertino (CA)
Cy-Fair (TX)
Cypress Bay (FL)
Cypress Falls (TX)
Cypress Lakes (TX)
Cypress Ridge (TX)
Cypress Springs (TX)
Cypress Woods (TX)
Dallastown (PA)
Davis (CA)
Delbarton (NJ)
Derby (KS)
Des Moines Roosevelt (IA)
Desert Vista (AZ)
Diamond Bar (CA)
Dobson (AZ)
Dougherty Valley (CA)
Dowling Catholic (IA)
Dripping Springs (TX)
Dulles (TX)
duPont Manual (KY)
Dwyer (FL)
Eagle (ID)
Eastside Catholic (WA)
Edgemont (NY)
Edina (MN)
Edmond North (OK)
Edmond Santa Fe (OK)
El Cerrito (CA)
Elkins (TX)
Enloe (NC)
Episcopal (TX)
Evanston (IL)
Evergreen Valley (CA)
Ferris (TX)
Flintridge Sacred Heart (CA)
Flower Mound (TX)
Fordham Prep (NY)
Fort Lauderdale (FL)
Fort Walton Beach (FL)
Freehold Township (NJ)
Fremont (NE)
Frontier (MO)
Gabrielino (CA)
Garland (TX)
George Ranch (TX)
Georgetown Day (DC)
Gig Harbor (WA)
Gilmour (OH)
Glenbrook South (IL)
Gonzaga Prep (WA)
Grand Junction (CO)
Grapevine (TX)
Green Valley (NV)
Greenhill (TX)
Guyer (TX)
Hamilton (AZ)
Hamilton (MT)
Harker (CA)
Harmony (TX)
Harrison (NY)
Harvard Westlake (CA)
Hawken (OH)
Head Royce (CA)
Hebron (TX)
Heights (MD)
Hendrick Hudson (NY)
Henry Grady (GA)
Highland (UT)
Highland (ID)
Hockaday (TX)
Holy Cross (LA)
Homewood Flossmoor (IL)
Hopkins (MN)
Houston Homeschool (TX)
Hunter College (NY)
Hutchinson (KS)
Immaculate Heart (CA)
Independent (All)
Interlake (WA)
Isidore Newman (LA)
Jack C Hays (TX)
James Bowie (TX)
Jefferson City (MO)
Jersey Village (TX)
John Marshall (CA)
Juan Diego (UT)
Jupiter (FL)
Kapaun Mount Carmel (KS)
Kamiak (WA)
Katy Taylor (TX)
Keller (TX)
Kempner (TX)
Kent Denver (CO)
King (FL)
Kingwood (TX)
Kinkaid (TX)
Klein (TX)
Klein Oak (TX)
Kudos College (CA)
La Canada (CA)
La Costa Canyon (CA)
La Jolla (CA)
La Reina (CA)
Lafayette (MO)
Lake Highland (FL)
Lake Travis (TX)
Lakeville North (MN)
Lakeville South (MN)
Lamar (TX)
LAMP (AL)
Law Magnet (TX)
Langham Creek (TX)
Lansing (KS)
LaSalle College (PA)
Lawrence Free State (KS)
Layton (UT)
Leland (CA)
Leucadia Independent (CA)
Lexington (MA)
Liberty Christian (TX)
Lincoln (OR)
Lincoln (NE)
Lincoln East (NE)
Lindale (TX)
Livingston (NJ)
Logan (UT)
Lone Peak (UT)
Los Altos (CA)
Los Osos (CA)
Lovejoy (TX)
Loyola (CA)
Loyola Blakefield (MA)
Lynbrook (CA)
Maeser Prep (UT)
Mannford (OK)
Marcus (TX)
Marlborough (CA)
McClintock (AZ)
McDowell (PA)
McNeil (TX)
Meadows (NV)
Memorial (TX)
Millard North (NE)
Millard South (NE)
Millard West (NE)
Millburn (NJ)
Milpitas (CA)
Miramonte (CA)
Mission San Jose (CA)
Monsignor Kelly (TX)
Monta Vista (CA)
Montclair Kimberley (NJ)
Montgomery (TX)
Monticello (NY)
Montville Township (NJ)
Morris Hills (NJ)
Mountain Brook (AL)
Mountain Pointe (AZ)
Mountain View (CA)
Mountain View (AZ)
Murphy Middle (TX)
NCSSM (NC)
New Orleans Jesuit (LA)
New Trier (IL)
Newark Science (NJ)
Newburgh Free Academy (NY)
Newport (WA)
North Allegheny (PA)
North Crowley (TX)
North Hollywood (CA)
Northland Christian (TX)
Northwood (CA)
Notre Dame (CA)
Nueva (CA)
Oak Hall (FL)
Oakwood (CA)
Okoboji (IA)
Oxbridge (FL)
Oxford (CA)
Pacific Ridge (CA)
Palm Beach Gardens (FL)
Palo Alto Independent (CA)
Palos Verdes Peninsula (CA)
Park Crossing (AL)
Peak to Peak (CO)
Pembroke Pines (FL)
Pennsbury (PA)
Phillips Academy Andover (MA)
Phoenix Country Day (AZ)
Pine Crest (FL)
Pingry (NJ)
Pittsburgh Central Catholic (PA)
Plano East (TX)
Polytechnic (CA)
Presentation (CA)
Princeton (NJ)
Prosper (TX)
Quarry Lane (CA)
Raisbeck-Aviation (WA)
Rancho Bernardo (CA)
Randolph (NJ)
Reagan (TX)
Richardson (TX)
Ridge (NJ)
Ridge Point (TX)
Riverside (SC)
Robert Vela (TX)
Rosemount (MN)
Roseville (MN)
Round Rock (TX)
Rowland Hall (UT)
Royse City (TX)
Ruston (LA)
Sacred Heart (MA)
Sacred Heart (MS)
Sage Hill (CA)
Sage Ridge (NV)
Salado (TX)
Salpointe Catholic (AZ)
Sammamish (WA)
San Dieguito (CA)
San Marino (CA)
SandHoke (NC)
Santa Monica (CA)
Sarasota (FL)
Saratoga (CA)
Scarsdale (NY)
Servite (CA)
Seven Lakes (TX)
Shawnee Mission East (KS)
Shawnee Mission Northwest (KS)
Shawnee Mission South (KS)
Shawnee Mission West (KS)
Sky View (UT)
Skyline (UT)
Smithson Valley (TX)
Southlake Carroll (TX)
Sprague (OR)
St Agnes (TX)
St Andrews (MS)
St Francis (CA)
St James (AL)
St Johns (TX)
St Louis Park (MN)
St Margarets (CA)
St Marys Hall (TX)
St Thomas (MN)
St Thomas (TX)
Stephen F Austin (TX)
Stoneman Douglas (FL)
Stony Point (TX)
Strake Jesuit (TX)
Stratford (TX)
Stratford Independent (CA)
Stuyvesant (NY)
Success Academy (NY)
Sunnyslope (AZ)
Sunset (OR)
Syosset (NY)
Tahoma (WA)
Talley (AZ)
Texas Academy of Math and Science (TX)
Thomas Jefferson (VA)
Thompkins (TX)
Timber Creek (FL)
Timothy Christian (NJ)
Tom C Clark (TX)
Tompkins (TX)
Torrey Pines (CA)
Travis (TX)
Trinity (KY)
Trinity Prep (FL)
Trinity Valley (TX)
Truman (PA)
Turlock (CA)
Union (OK)
Unionville (PA)
University High (CA)
University School (OH)
University (FL)
Upper Arlington (OH)
Upper Dublin (PA)
Valley (IA)
Valor Christian (CO)
Vashon (WA)
Ventura (CA)
Veritas Prep (AZ)
Vestavia Hills (AL)
Vincentian (PA)
Walla Walla (WA)
Walt Whitman (MD)
Warren (TX)
Wenatchee (WA)
West (UT)
West Ranch (CA)
Westford (MA)
Westlake (TX)
Westview (OR)
Westwood (TX)
Whitefish Bay (WI)
Whitney (CA)
Wilson (DC)
Winston Churchill (TX)
Winter Springs (FL)
Woodlands (TX)
Woodlands College Park (TX)
Wren (SC)
Yucca Valley (CA)