Changes for page North Crowley Reed Aff

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

From version < 118.1 >
edited by logan reed
on 2016/12/16 02:03
To version < 145.1 >
edited by logan reed
on 2017/02/04 15:24
< >
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

North Crowley-Reed-Aff-Strake Jesuit-Round2.docx
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.loganreed101@attnet
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +48.0 KB
Content
Caselist.CitesClass[23]
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -2016-12-16 02:03:54.193
1 +2016-12-16 02:03:54.0
Caselist.RoundClass[28]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +23
Caselist.CitesClass[24]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +See open source!
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-12-16 22:18:19.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Kris Wright
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Prosper ZE
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +29
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +North Crowley Reed Aff
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +4- Dress AC
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Strake Jesuit
Caselist.CitesClass[25]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,33 @@
1 +Part one is framework
2 +First- I value morallity derived from ought in the resolution- any other value is nonsense, since we can al
3 +
4 +Second, the meta ethic- the resolution asks us a question of public colleges and universities. To answer this question, we should first look to the constitutive nature of colleges and universities to determine what type of framing arguments matter. A few warrants-
5 +analytic
6 +
7 +Third- now, we must define the nature of a public institute of higher learning. It is useful to understand the university in terms of pedagogy, which is the broader educational environment given by these institutions. In an educational space, participants can never be neutral, there will always BE a pedagogy in education, rather, it is a question of what type of pedagogy we should form. Thus universities should operate as a space for critical pedagogy- this is key to accessing identity and agency. Thus the standard is consistency with creating a space of critical pedagogy
8 +Henry A. Giroux | The Curse of Totalitarianism and the Challenge of Critical Pedagogy Friday, 02 October 2015 00:00 By Henry A. Giroux, Truthout | News Analysis, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/33061-the-curse-of-totalitarianism-and-the-challenge-of-critical-pedagogy
9 +Pedagogy is a moral and political practice because it offers particular versions and visions of civic life, community, the future and how we might construct representations of ourselves, others, and our physical and social environment. But it does more; it also "represents a version of our own dreams for ourselves, our children, and our communities. But such dreams are never neutral; they are always someone's dreams and to the degree that they are implicated in organizing the future for others they always have a moral and political dimension." (13) It is in this respect that any discussion of pedagogy must begin with a discussion of educational practice as a particular way in which a sense of identity, place, worth and, above all, value is informed by practices that organize knowledge and meaning. (14) Central to my argument is the assumption that politics is not only about the exercise of economic and political power, but also, as Cornelius Castoriadis points out, "has to do with political judgements and value choices," (15) indicating that questions of civic education and critical pedagogy (learning how to become a skilled citizen) are central to the struggle over political agency and democracy. In this instance, critical pedagogy emphasizes critical reflection, bridging the gap between learning and everyday life, understanding the connection between power and difficult knowledge, and extending democratic rights and identities by using the resources of history and theory.
10 +Part two is the contention- I contend that affirming creates a space consistent with the pedagogical goals of the university
11 +First, restrictions on speech damage the purpose of universities
12 +Vince Herron, JD, University of Southern California, “Increasing the Speech: Diversity, Campus Speech Codes, and the Pursuit of Truth,” Southern California Law Review, 1993-1994.
13 +By reducing speech at the university by eliminating from the marketplace certain ideas which university administrators feel are unacceptable, speech codes also threaten the academic process. Speech codes which inhibit the free exchange of ideas trample on the very canons upon which universities are founded. Although the ideas that may be expressed when no speech code exists may be repugnant, the university is simply not a place where ideas and expression should be suppressed.73 When speech codes exist, “not only are the delicate, vital values of free speech seriously jeopardized, but suppression inevitably creates a climate of thought control, a habit of censorship and an atmosphere of reactionary conformity… .”I “The main purpose of a university is the search for knowledge …. For that reason, any coercive curtailment of unpopular viewpoints… is inconsistent with the very foundation of a university education.”7 5 The university especially is a marketplace of ideas and should be a bastion of unrestricted free speech.76 “Once you start telling people what they can’t say, you will end up telling them what they can’t think.”77 This obstruction of both academic freedom and the freedom to express all ideas threatens grave damage to the educational process and is a price which is far too high to pay for the modest, short-term gains garnered by speech codes.
14 +Second, Colleges and universities should be the last to censor free speech-there’s a constitutive duty of these institutions to create a maximumly educational environment.
15 +Thomas McAllister JD, Tennessee College of Law, “Rules and Rights Colliding: Speech Codes and the First Amendment on College Campuses,” Tennessee Law Review, Vol. 59, 1992.
16 +Would it not be preferable, though, for institutions to refrain from actions that might call into question their respect for First Amendment rights, regardless of those actions’ constitutionality? Colleges and universities should concern themselves with engendering a campus atmosphere in which speech of all kinds flourishes and the bounds of accepted norms and principles are always tested instead of concerning themselves with the nuances of First Amendment jurisprudence. University and college administrators should be the last to restrict speech. Rather they should be the first to protect it. Students have an interest in an unintimidating place of scholarship; however, part of scholarship is learning to cope with views that one finds abhorrent. Students’ verbal battles should not be fought for them by administrators with speech codes. As one writer put it, The same students who insist that they be treated as adults when it comes to their sexuality, drinking and school work, beg to be treated like children when it comes to politics, speech and controversy. They whine to . . . the president or provost of the university, to “protect” them from offensive speech, instead of themselves trying to combat it in the marketplace of ideas. 124 Students must learn tolerance for all ideas no matter how repugnant to their own beliefs. College and university administrators should not cast themselves in the role of censors.
17 +Third, Restrictions on speech only silence moderates, not extremists. This is inconsistent with a pedagogical space where we can critically examine the views of these moderates and in turn.
18 +Hentoff 91, Nat Hentoff. “ ‘Speech Codes’ On The Campus And Problems Of Free Speech.” Dissent v. 38 (Fall 1991) p. 546-9.
19 +At the University of Buffalo Law School, which has a code restricting speech, I could find just one faculty member who was against it. A liberal, he spoke only on condition that I not use his name. He did not want to be categorized as a racist. On another campus, a political science professor for whom I had great respect after meeting and talking with him years ago, has been silent-students told me—on what Justice William Brennan once called “the pall of orthodoxy” that has fallen on his campus. When I talked to him, the professor said, “It doesn’t happen in my class. There’s no ‘politically correct’ orthodoxy here. It may happen in other places at this university, but I don’t know about that.” He said no more. One of the myths about the rise of P. C. (politically correct) is that, coming from the left, it is primarily intimidating conservatives on campus. Quite the contrary. At almost every college I’ve been, conservative students have their own newspaper, usually quite lively and fired by a muckraking glee at exposing “politically correct” follies on campus. By and large, those most intimidated—not so much by the speech codes themselves but by the Madame Defarge-like spirit behind them—are liberal students and those who can be called politically moderate. I’ve talked to many of them, and they no longer get involved in class discussions where their views would go against the grain of P. C. righteousness.
20 +Fourth, free speech is needed to for civic engagement, which is a primary goal of critical pedagogy. This is true for both intrinsic and extrinsic reasons- when you leave school speech codes go away, we have to use the university as a space to learn how to fight the systems that then appear. Additionally, any censorship is bad because it internalizes power structures and domination
21 +Giroux,
22 +Rethinking Education as the Practice of Freedom: Paulo Freire and the Promise of Critical Pedagogy Friday, 01 January 2010 12:50 By Henry A. Giroux, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed |, http://www.truth-out.org/archive/item/87456:rethinking-education-as-the-practice-of-freedom-paulo-freire-and-the-promise-of-critical-pedagogy
23 +As the market-driven logic of neoliberal capitalism continues to devalue all aspects of the public good, one consequence has been that the educational concern with excellence has been removed from matters of equity, while the notion of schooling as a public good has largely been reduced to a private good. Both public and higher education are largely defined through the corporate demand that they provide the skills, knowledge and credentials that will provide the workforce necessary for the United States to compete and maintain its role as the major global economic and military power. Consequently, there is little interest in both public and higher education, and most importantly in many schools of education, for understanding pedagogy as a deeply civic, political and moral practice - that is, pedagogy as a practice for freedom. As schooling is increasingly subordinated to a corporate order, any vestige of critical education is replaced by training and the promise of economic security. Similarly, pedagogy is now subordinated to the narrow regime of teaching to the test coupled with an often harsh system of disciplinary control, both of which mutually reinforce each other. In addition, teachers are increasingly reduced to the status of technicians and deskilled as they are removed from having any control over their classrooms or school governance structures. Teaching to the test and the corporatization of education becomes a way of "taming" students and invoking modes of corporate governance in which public school teachers become deskilled and an increasing number of higher education faculty are reduced to part-time positions, constituting the new subaltern class of academic labor.
24 +Fifth, our Pedagogy is a prerequisite- a project of freedom not as a goal but as a process is needed.
25 +Giroux,
26 +Rethinking Education as the Practice of Freedom: Paulo Freire and the Promise of Critical Pedagogy Friday, 01 January 2010 12:50 By Henry A. Giroux, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed |, http://www.truth-out.org/archive/item/87456:rethinking-education-as-the-practice-of-freedom-paulo-freire-and-the-promise-of-critical-pedagogy
27 +But there is more at stake here than a crisis of authority and the repression of critical thought. Too many classrooms at all levels of schooling now resemble a "dead zone," where any vestige of critical thinking, self-reflection and imagination quickly migrate to sites outside of the school only to be mediated and corrupted by a corporate-driven media culture. The major issue now driving public schooling is how to teach for the test, while disciplining those students who because of their class and race undermine a school district's ranking in the ethically sterile and bloodless world of high stakes testing and empirical score cards.2 Higher education mimics this logic by reducing its public vision to the interests of capital and redefining itself largely as a credentializing factory for students and a Petri dish for downsizing academic labor. Under such circumstances, rarely do educators ask questions about how schools can prepare students to be informed citizens, nurture a civic imagination or teach them to be self-reflective about public issues and the world in which they live. As Stanley Aronowitz puts it: "Few of even the so-called educators ask the question: What matters beyond the reading, writing, and numeracy that are presumably taught in the elementary and secondary grades? The old question of what a kid needs to become an informed 'citizen' capable of participating in making the large and small public decisions that affect the larger world as well as everyday life receives honorable mention but not serious consideration. These unasked questions are symptoms of a new regime of educational expectations that privileges job readiness above any other educational values."3 Against this regime of "scientific" idiocy and "bare pedagogy" stripped of all critical elements of teaching and learning, Freire believed that all education in the broadest sense was part of a project of freedom, and eminently political because it offered students the conditions for self-reflection, a self-managed life and particular notions of critical agency. As Aronowitz puts it in his analysis of Freire's work on literacy and critical pedagogy: Thus, for Freire literacy was not a means to prepare students for the world of subordinated labor or "careers," but a preparation for a self-managed life. And self-management could only occur when people have fulfilled three goals of education: self-reflection, that is, realizing the famous poetic phrase, "know thyself," which is an understanding of the world in which they live, in its economic, political and, equally important, its psychological dimensions. Specifically "critical" pedagogy helps the learner become aware of the forces that have hitherto ruled their lives and especially shaped their consciousness. The third goal is to help set the conditions for producing a new life, a new set of arrangements where power has been, at least in tendency, transferred to those who literally make the social world by transforming nature and themselves.4 What Paulo made clear in "Pedagogy of the Oppressed," his most influential work, is that pedagogy at its best is about neither training, teaching methods nor political indoctrination. For Freire, pedagogy is not a method or an a priori technique to be imposed on all students, but a political and moral practice that provides the knowledge, skills and social relations that enable students to expand the possibilities of what it means to be critical citizens, while expanding and deepening their participation in the promise of a substantive democracy. Critical thinking for Freire was not an object lesson in test taking, but a tool for self-determination and civic engagement.
28 +And- we have to avoid indoctrination- we are a pre-requisite to actualizing agency in the context of power relations
29 +Giroux,
30 +Rethinking Education as the Practice of Freedom: Paulo Freire and the Promise of Critical Pedagogy Friday, 01 January 2010 12:50 By Henry A. Giroux, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed |, http://www.truth-out.org/archive/item/87456:rethinking-education-as-the-practice-of-freedom-paulo-freire-and-the-promise-of-critical-pedagogy
31 +And as a political and moral practice, way of knowing and literate engagement, pedagogy attempts to "make evident the multiplicity and complexity of history."6 History in this sense is engaged as a narrative open to critical dialogue rather than predefined text to be memorized and accepted unquestioningly. Pedagogy in this instance provides the conditions to cultivate in students a healthy skepticism about power, a "willingness to temper any reverence for authority with a sense of critical awareness."7 As a performative practice, pedagogy takes as one of its goals the opportunity for students to be able to reflectively frame their own relationship to the ongoing project of an unfinished democracy. It is precisely this relationship between democracy and pedagogy that is so threatening to so many of our educational leaders and spokespersons today and it is also the reason why Freire's work on critical pedagogy and literacy are more relevant today than when they were first published. According to Freire, all forms of pedagogy represent a particular way of understanding society and a specific commitment to the future. Critical pedagogy, unlike dominant modes of teaching, insists that one of the fundamental tasks of educators is to make sure that the future points the way to a more socially just world, a world in which the discourses of critique and possibility in conjunction with the values of reason, freedom and equality function to alter, as part of a broader democratic project, the grounds upon which life is lived. This is hardly a prescription for political indoctrination, but it is a project that gives critical education its most valued purpose and meaning, which, in part, is "to encourage human agency, not mold it in the manner of Pygmalion."8 It is also a position, that threatens right-wing private advocacy groups, neoconservative politicians and conservative extremists.
32 +Part three is the underview
33 +analytic
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-07 03:37:48.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Courtney DeVore
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Elkens MP
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +30
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +North Crowley Reed Aff
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +4- Giroux AC
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Winston Churchill
Caselist.CitesClass[26]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,49 @@
1 +First, definitions
2 + ‘public colleges and universities’ is defined by
3 +Every Kind of College and University Defined, Published by Jessica Velasco, https://www.collegeraptor.com/college-guide/college-search/every-kind-of-college-and-university-defined/
4 +Public colleges and universities are funded by local and state governments. They typically offer lower tuition rates to residents of the states in which they are located. Out-of-state students can also attend public institutions, but rates are usually higher than the resident tuition rate. There are two-year colleges, also know as community colleges, and four-year public universities. Every state in the U.S. has at least one public college or university within their borders. Private colleges and universities are funded by tuition, fees, and other private sources. Most private institutions have higher “sticker” prices than public institutions, although they also often offer significant discounts for almost all students. Student populations at private colleges and universities vary from a few hundred students to over 30,000.
5 +College is defined by-
6 +Merriam Webster https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/college,
7 +college noun, often attributive col·lege \ˈkä-lij\. Definition of college 1 : a body of clergy living together and supported by a foundation 2 : a building used for an educational or religious purpose 3 a : a self-governing constituent body of a university offering living quarters and sometimes instruction but not granting degrees Balliol and Magdalen Colleges at Oxford —called also residential college b : a preparatory or high school c : an independent institution of higher learning offering a course of general studies leading to a bachelor's degree; also : a university division offering this d : a part of a university offering a specialized group of courses e : an institution offering instruction usually in a professional, vocational, or technical field business college 4 : company, group; specifically : an organized body of persons engaged in a common pursuit or having common interests or duties 5 a : a group of persons considered by law to be a unit b : a body of electors — compare electoral college 6 : the faculty, students, or administration of a college
8 +
9 +second, Framework
10 +First, I value morality, derived of ought in the resolution, which is defined to mean a moral obligation. Any other value is nonsensical, as we could always ask why that value is important, causing infinite regress until we arrive at morality.
11 +Second, Attempting to understand beings, communities, and ethics universal and free of difference will inevitably fail:
12 +There is no possibility of understanding people in and of themselves. All identities are understood through the differentiation of social relations, which are by necessity constantly changing. Your political opponent’s identity is necessary to construct your own.
13 +Butler 1, Judith, badass MoFo and mother of modern feminism in her text “Beside Oneself: On the Limits of Sexual Autonomy”
14 +, on a broader sociality, and this dependency is the basis of our endurance and survivability. When we assert our “right,” as we do and we must, we are not carving out a place for our autonomy—if by autonomy we mean a state of individuation, taken as self-persisting prior to and apart from any relations of dependency on the world of others. We do not negotiate with norms or with Others subsequent to our coming into the world. We come into the world on the condition that the social world is already there, laying the groundwork for us. This implies that I cannot persist without norms of recognition that support my persistence: the sense of possibility pertaining to me must first be imagined from somewhere else before I can begin to imagine myself. My reflexivity is not only socially mediated, but socially constituted. I cannot be who I am without drawing upon the sociality of norms that precede and exceed me. In this sense, I am outside myself from the outset, and must be, in order to survive, and in order to enter into the realm of the possible. To assert sexual rights, then, takes on a specific meaning against this background. It means, for instance, that when we struggle for rights, we are not simply struggling for rights that attach to my person, but we are struggling to be conceived as persons. And there is a difference between the former and the latter. If we are struggling for rights that attach, or should attach, to my personhood, then we assume that personhood as already constituted. But if we are struggling not only to be conceived as persons, but to create a social transformation of 32 Undoing Gender RT9239_C01.qxd 6/25/04 12:51 PM Page 32 the very meaning of personhood, then the assertion of rights becomes a way of intervening into the social and political process by which the human is articulated. International human rights is always in the process of subjecting the human to redefinition and renegotiation. It mobilizes the human in the service of rights, but also rewrites the human and rearticulates the human when it comes up against the cultural limits of its working conception of the human, as it does and must. Lesbian and gay human rights takes sexuality, in some sense, to be its issue. Sexuality is not simply an attribute one has or a disposition or patterned set of inclinations. It is a mode of being disposed toward others, including in the mode of fantasy, and sometimes only in the mode of fantasy. If we are outside of ourselves as sexual beings, given over from the start, crafted in part through primary relations of dependency and attachment, then it would seem that our being beside ourselves, outside ourselves, is there as a function of sexuality itself, where sexuality is not this or that dimension of our existence, not the key or bedrock of our existence, but, rather, as coextensive with existence, as Merleau-Ponty once aptly suggested.6 I have tried here to argue that our very sense of personhood is linked to the desire for recognition, and that desire places us outside ourselves, in a realm of social norms that we do not fully choose, but that provides the horizon and the resource for any sense of choice that we have. This means that the ec-static character of our existence is essential to the possibility of persisting as human. In this sense, we can see how sexual rights brings together two related domains of ec-stasy, two connected ways of being outside of ourselves. As sexual, we are dependent on a world of others, vulnerable to need, violence, betrayal, compulsion, fantasy; we project desire, and we have it projected onto us. To be part of a sexual minority means, most emphatically, that we are also dependent on the protection of public and private spaces, on legal sanctions that protect us from violence, on safeguards of various institutional kinds against unwanted aggression imposed upon us, and the violent actions they sometimes instigate. In this sense, our very lives, and the persistence of our desire, depend on there being norms of recognition that produce and sustain our viability as human. Thus, when we speak about sexual rights, we are not merely talking about rights that pertain to our individual desires but to the norms on which our very individuality depends. That means that the discourse of rights Beside Oneself: On the Limits of Sexual Autonomy 33 RT9239_C01.qxd 6/25/04 12:51 PM Page 33 avows our dependency, the mode of our being in the hands of others, a mode of being with and for others without which we cannot be
15 +2. Second, discrimination is constitutive of any moral theory because they all require a distinction between the ethical and anti-ethical. Differentiation becomes a condition for any decision, so justice is found in difference.
16 +3. The only way to resolve the inevitable conflict that comes with pluralism in our agency and ethics is to embrace that it is in fact inevitable. The question of ethics is to deal with this inevitability. The most productive way to do this is with an agonistic commitment, which recognizes that conflict is inevitable, but frames the other as a legitimate opponent instead of an enemy. All that agonism means is a free relationship- we must embrace every viewpoint and conflict, and not attempt to eliminate democratic clash
17 +MOUFFE:
18 +“The Democratic Paradox” by Chantal Mouffe 2000 DD
19 +"A well-functioning democracy calls for a vibrant clash of democratic political positions. If this is missing there is the danger that this democratic confrontation will be replaced by a confrontation among other forms of collective identification, as is the case with identity politics. Too much emphasis on consensus and the refusal of confrontation lead to apathy and disaffection with political participation. Worse still, the result can be the crystallization of collective passions around issues which cannot be managed by the democratic process and an explosion of antagonisms that can tear up the very basis of civility." (104)
20 +And, Aiming toward consensus is a false goal because consensus is impossible, difference in inevitable. Contestation is key. Dividing people up and treating them as enemies is also a false goal because it denies that the existence of their opposing identity is what constructs yours.
21 +
22 +Thus, the standard is promoting agonistic democracy. To clarify, the standard is concerned with the procedures of agonistic pluralism, not ends. Prefer additionally:
23 +, educational spaces must embrace contestation as a condition for resistance. Any attempt to exclude challenges reaffirms pedagogical imperialism because the teacher is telling the student what to think rather than how to think. Agonistic democracy is uniquely key for the debate space because it allows for contestation
24 + double bind – to act morally one must first know what is the right thing to do, which means any moral system has to be derivative of the procedures intrinsic to agonistic conflict:
25 +A. If our moral belief changes after an agonistic conflict, then it shows that preserving the relationship based off of openness and disagreement is necessary to identity moral errors.
26 +B. If my moral belief remains the same, I have practiced commitment to my belief because defending it assumes values in the belief.
27 +Advocacy
28 +Thus, I affirm the the resolution as an agonistic commitment to free speech.
29 +The AC doesn’t defend hate speech, as defined by individual colleges, as constitutionally protected-
30 +Hate speech isn’t constitutionally protected anyway- multiple warrents
31 +KENT GREENFIELD MAR 13, 2015 , The Limits of Free Speech, The Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/the-limits-of-free-speech/387718/
32 +No one with a frontal lobe would mistake this drunken anthem for part of an uninhibited and robust debate about race relations. The chant was a spew of hatred, a promise to discriminate, a celebration of privilege, and an assertion of the right to violence–all wrapped up in a catchy ditty. If the First Amendment has become so bloated, so ham-fisted, that it cannot distinguish between such filth and earnest public debate about race, then it is time we rethink what it means. The way we interpret the First Amendment need not be simplistic and empty of nuance, and was not always so. The Supreme Court unanimously held over eighty years ago that “those words which by their very utterance inflict injury … are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.” And in 1952 the Court upheld an Illinois statute punishing “false or malicious defamation of racial and religious groups.” These rulings, while never officially reversed, have shrunk to historical trinkets. But they mark a range of the possible, where one can be a staunch defender of full-throated discourse but still recognize the difference between dialogue and vomitus.
33 +Topicality is a constraint on my advocacy
34 +Next, the offence-
35 +
36 +Contention 3- Democratic Agonsism mandates a free space of discussion- this is key to accessing multiple perspectives on the good life.
37 +Taylor, Charles. Multiculturalism. Princeton University Press, 1994.
38 +Dignity is associated less with any particular understanding of the good life, such that someone’s departure from this would detract from his or her own dignity, than with the power to consider and espouse for oneself some view or other. We are not respecting this power equally in all subjects, it is claimed, if we raise the outcome of some people’s deliberations officially over that of others. A liberal society must remain neutral on the good life, and restrict itself to ensuring that however they see things, citizens deal fairly with each other and the state deals equally with all. The popularity of this view of the human agent as primarily a subject of self-determining or self-expressive choice helps to explain why this model of liberalism is so strong. But we must also consider that it has been urged with great force and intelligence by liberal thinkers in the United States, 57 C H A R L E S T A Y L O R and precisely in the context of constitutional doctrines of judicial review.33 Thus it is not surprising that the idea has become widespread, well beyond those who might subscribe to a specific Kantian philosophy, that a liberal society cannot accommodate publicly espoused notions of the good. This is the conception, as Michael Sandel has noted, of the “procedural republic,” which has a very strong hold on the political agenda in the United States, and which has helped to place increasing emphasis on judicial review on the basis of constitutional texts at the expense of the ordinary political process of building majorities with a view to legislative action.34 But a society with collective goals like Quebec’s violates this model. It is axiomatic for Quebec governments that the survival and flourishing of French culture in Quebec is a good. Political society is not neutral between those who value remaining true to the culture of our ancestors and those who might want to cut loose in the name of some individual goal of self-development. It might be argued that one could after all capture a goal like survivance for a proceduralist liberal society. One could consider the French language, for instance, as a collective resource that individuals might want to make use of, and act for its preservation, just as one does for clean air or green spaces. But this can’t capture the full thrust of policies designed for cultural survival. It is not just a matter of having the French language available for those who might choose it.
39 +
40 +Contention 2-And, if some objective good did exist- it would still be founded in democratic decision making (that’s Mouffee), and most students want free speech, so this affirms
41 +Gallup, 2016 data gathered feb 29- march 15 with the Knight foundation, Free Expression on Campus: A Survey of U.S. College Students and U.S. Adults, http://www.knightfoundation.org/media/uploads/publication_pdfs/FreeSpeech_campus.pdf
42 +Methodology This study includes a sample of U.S. college students, a sample of U.S. adults and a sample of U.S. Muslims. Results for the college student sample are based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 3,072 U.S. college students, aged 18 to 24, who are currently enrolled as full-time students at four-year colleges. Gallup selected a random sample of 240 U.S. four-year colleges, drawn from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), that were stratified by college enrollment size, public or private affiliation, and region of the country. Gallup then contacted each sampled college in an attempt to obtain a sample of their students. Thirty-two colleges agreed to participate. The participating colleges were University of California, Merced; Culver-Stockton College; Duke University; East Georgia State College; Georgia Institute of Technology; Green River College; Harrisburg University of Science and Technology; James Madison University; Keuka College; Kentucky State University; LaGrange College; University of Louisiana at Monroe; Lourdes University; Martin Luther College; Morehouse College; Minnesota State University Moorhead; University of North Alabama; University of North Carolina at Pembroke; Northwestern University; University of Oregon; University of the Ozarks; Pace University; Rocky Mountain College; Saint Francis University; The University of Scranton; Southeastern Baptist College; Southwest Minnesota State University; Spalding University; Tabor College; Texas Christian University; Trinity Baptist College; and Troy University. Gallup used random samples of 40 of each college’s student body, with one school providing a 32 sample, for its sample frame. The sample frame consisted of 54,806 college students from the 32 colleges. Gallup then emailed each sampled student to complete an Internet survey to confirm his or her eligibility for the study and to request a phone number where the student could be reached for a telephone interview. A total of 6,928 college students completed the Web survey, for a response rate of 13. Of these, 6,814 students were eligible and provided a working phone number. Telephone interviews were conducted Feb. 29-March 15, 2016. The response rate for the phone survey was 49 using the American Association for Public Opinion Research’s RR-III calculation. The combined response rate for the Web recruit and telephone surveys was 6. The college student sample was weighted to correct for unequal selection probability and nonresponse. It was also weighted to match the demographics of U.S. colleges on enrollment, public or private affiliation, and region of the country, based on statistics from the IPEDS database, to ensure the sample is nationally representative of U.S. college students. For results based on this sample of college students, the margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points at the 95 confidence level. Copyright © 2016 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. 32 FREE EXPRESSION ON CAMPUS Results for the U.S. adult sample are based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 2,031 U.S. adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. Interviews were conducted March 5-8, 2016, as part of the Gallup Daily tracking survey, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. The sample of U.S. adults included a minimum quota of 60 cellphone respondents and 40 landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by region. Landline and cellular telephone numbers were selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents were chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member has the next birthday. The response rate for the Gallup Daily tracking survey was 9. Samples were weighted to correct for unequal selection probability, nonresponse and double coverage of landline and cell users in the two sample frames. They were also weighted to match the national demographics of gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, population density and phone status (cellphone only, landline only, both, and cellphone mostly). Demographic weighting targets were based on the March 2015 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older U.S. population. Phone status targets were based on the January-June 2015 National Health Interview Survey. Population density targets were based on the 2010 census. For results based on this sample of U.S. adults, the margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points at the 95 confidence level. Results for the U.S. Muslim sample are based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 250 U.S. adults, aged 18 and older, who identified their religion as Muslim. All respondents had previously been interviewed for the Gallup Daily tracking survey in 2014 and 2015. Re-contact interviews were conducted March 4-10, 2016. The sample was weighted on region, gender and education to ensure it is representative of U.S. Muslims, based on Gallup Daily tracking estimates of the U.S. Muslim population. For results based on this sample of U.S. Muslims, the margin of sampling error is ±8 percentage points at the 95 confidence level. The response rate for the Muslim sample was 22. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls. The full questionnaire, topline results, detailed crosstabulations and raw data may be obtained upon request.
43 +A key aspect of recent debate has been a perceived conflict between encouraging free expression and fostering a learning environment where students feel safe, respected and included. College students strongly believe that creating an open learning environment should take precedence over creating a positive learning environment that attempts to protect students from hearing offensive or biased speech. When asked to choose, 78 of college students believe colleges should strive to create an open learning environment that exposes students to all types of speech and viewpoints, even some that are biased or offensive toward certain groups of people. Just 22 believe colleges should create a positive learning environment for all students that would be achieved in part by prohibiting certain speech or the expression of views that are offensive or biased against certain groups of people. Large majorities of all college student subgroups say openness should take precedence, but certain student segments are more inclined to hold that view, including men, whites, Republicans and independents. Students at private (80) and public institutions (77) differ little in their preference for an open college environment.
44 +Contention 3- Censorship is inherently exclusionary
45 +Rosenberg 91, David Rosenberg, Racist Speech the First Amendment and Public Universities: Taking a Stand on Neutrality , 76 Cornell L. Rev. 549. (1991).
46 +http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol76/iss2/6
47 +Certainly, the presence of one-sided racist speech harms the goal of inclusion. But the underlying philosophy that compels the university to allow racist speech is one whose primary values are tolerance and inclusion. While the immediate message the outsider student receives is one of hate, the overall message is one in which he should take comfort: that he too has the opportunity to think and to say whatever he wants with absolutely no fear of official condemnation. The university’s value of inclusion is truly all-encompassing. Matsuda’s proposal, although it means to protect racism’s victims, is actually one of exclusion. Contrary to Matsuda’s assertion, allowing racist speech does not ultimately hinder the development of ethics. Even if we argue that racist speech has no discernible content, we cannot deny that it exists and that it will not disappear in the near future.212 When the Supreme Court in Sweezy argued that free speech must reign at universities in order to allow students to “gain new maturity and understanding,” 213 it had difficult questions of ethics in mind. To ignore the ethical problem of the existence of racism by suppressing its expression hides from the real problem.
48 +
49 +underview- it existed, util is bad, counterspeech good, presume aff, all analytic
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-13 22:47:32.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +uh idk shes a FW judge
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +American Heritage KK
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +31
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +North Crowley Reed Aff
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +4-Agonism AC
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Sunvite
Caselist.CitesClass[27]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,65 @@
1 +RULE UTIL AC
2 +I value morality, derived of ought in the resolution
3 +
4 +1st- The reductionist view is empirically true and mandates util. SHOEMAKER
5 +summarizes Parfit: The Journal of Value Inquiry 33: 183–199, 1999. UTILITARIANISM AND PERSONAL IDENTITY © 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. 183 Utilitarianism and Personal Identity DAVID W. SHOEMAKER Department of Philosophy, University of Memphis, 327 Clement Hall, Memphis, TN 38152, USA Doing so has a number of significant implications for rationality and morality. For one thing, the unity of our lives is no longer guaranteed. Our lives may be more or less unified, given the degree to which psychological connectedness holds. For instance, I am presently strongly connected to that stage of myself that existed yesterday, but I am fairly weakly connected to that long-ago existing ten-year-old stage of myself. Parfit suggests the language of successive selves to illuminate the different degrees to which this relation might hold. We might use the word “self,” then, to refer to a collection of person-stages united by strong psychological connectedness, such that my ten-year-old self could be viewed as a past self, while my eighty- year-old self would presumably be a future self. The parts of my life with which I am strongly psychologically connected are united as my present self.7 In this way, different selves occasionally resemble different persons, and Parfit indicates that, at certain times and places, selves might be thought of as the appropriate objects of moral concern.8 But this notion also implies that our lives may not be unified in certain important respects. Psychological connectedness is certainly not guaranteed to unify our entire lives, and so the reductionist view itself implies at least the partial disintegration of persons.9 3. Utilitarianism and Reductionism Utilitarianism is an ethical theory for ranking various outcomes from an impersonal standpoint. Utilitarians hold that the best state of affairs among relevant alternatives contains the greatest net balance of aggregate individual welfare. Utilitarianism is impersonal insofar as it involves a focus solely on the total amounts of utility at stake in various outcomes, and “it makes no moral difference not how these amounts are distributed as between different people.”10 Many utilitarians claim that the impersonality of the theory is entailed by a close analogy that obtains between cases of intrapersonal and interpersonal maximization. As Parfit remarks: “Since their attitude to sets of lives is like ours to single lives, utilitarians ignore the boundaries between lives.”11 Parfit further believes that utilitarians accept this analogy because they accept a reductionismt view about personal identity. If a person’s life is less deeply integrated than it would be on a non-reductionist view, then while principles of distributive justice central to non-utilitarian views ought to be given greater scope, targeting past, present, and future selves, they nevertheless ought to be given less weight. After all, if a person’s life is less unified than we normally think, and this undermines the hard and fast boundaries between lives as well, then distributive principles relying on the separateness of persons and the individual unity of a person’s life as deep facts will have far less moral importance than they would on a non-reductionist view. Some critics have claimed that utilitarians ignore the boundaries between lives because they think of all people as together constituting a collective super-person, but this charge is false, according to Parfit. Because of the partial disintegration of persons suggested by reductionism, utilitarians “may be treating benefits and burdens, not as if they all came within the same life, but as if it made no moral difference where they came.”12 Thus, Parfit suggests that reductionism may lend significant support to utilitarianism, simply because utilitarians can claim to be treating sets of lives like single lives, given that single lives are not deeply unified and are, in fact, metaphysically like sets of lives.
6 +
7 +2nd There are no unified subjects of experience we have means-based obligations to. Means are not possessions of a person, so I can’t own anything. Only experiences exist, so any theory distinguishing between lives is wrong – we should aggregate experiences across time.
8 +
9 +3rd is epistemology. The mind cannot create its own perceptions without experience; it must know a feeling to be able to perceive it. The natural world imposes limits upon epistemology. This implies maximizing utility since desire to seek out experiences and avoid others collapses into maximizing good experiences.
10 +
11 +4th, no intention-foresight distinction - mental states have no bearing on action. ENOCH summarizes Thomson:
12 + Enoch, David (Professor of the Hebrew University at Jerusalem). Intending, Foreseeing, and the State. Legal Theory, Vol. 13, No. 2. 2007. Pgs. 16-17. Think about a hard medical decision – say, whether to give a suffering patient a deadly dose of morphine in order to relieve his pain (at the price of his likely death). And let’s assume that in the circumstances the (medically, and also morally) right thing to do is to give the morphine. Now add the following piece of information: The physician making the decision and administering the procedure enjoys perverted pleasures from killing patients. If he gives the patient the morphine, he will do it intending to enjoy these perverted pleasures. He foresees that the patient’s pain will be relieved by the morphine, but this is not why she acts as he does. Of course, now that we know these disturbing facts about the doctor and his relevant mental states, we will morally judge him accordingly, and will no doubt try to let someone else decide about the appropriate procedures. But – and this is the crucial point in our context – should this information make us change our mind regarding the permissibility of the relevant action? Could facts about these mental states of the doctor giving the morphine make us take back our judgments that this is the appropriate action in the circumstances, even when all other factors are held equal? The answer, it seems, is “no”. Thomson suggests that we learn from such examples that the agent’s mental states are simply irrelevant for the moral permissibility of the relevant action. They are very relevant, of course, for the evaluation of the agent, but this is an entirely different story. And because mental states are irrelevant for the moral status of the action, the intending-foreseeing distinction, understood as a distinction between two mental states, and applied to the moral evaluation of actions, is without moral weight22. Of course, as it stands this line of thought is too quick. Strictly speaking, what the example at most shows is that sometimes the agent's mental states are irrelevant to the permissibility of the relevant action, not that they never are. But the strength of the intuitive judgment Thomson uses, together with the distinction between the evaluation of the action and that of the agent, and given the absence of an obvious rationale for why it is that the mental states should be relevant to permissibility in some circumstances but not others – all these factors together strongly suggest, I think, the more general conclusion.
13 +
14 +If present action causes an effect in the future and there’s no distinction between the two, all harm must be taken into consideration, devolving into util.
15 +
16 +Independently- Rightness depends on whether acts accords with rules chosen for good consequences. Rules we accept must be subject to util consideration. RAWLS:
17 +Professor at Harvard University. “Two Concepts of Rules” The Philosophical Review, 1955. The other conception of rules I will call the practice conception. On this view rules are pictured as defining a practice. Practices are set up for various reasons, but one of them is that in many areas of conduct each person's deciding what to do on utilitarian grounds case-by-case leads to confusion, and that the attempt to coordinate behavior by trying to foresee how others will act will is bound to fail. As an alternative one realizes that what is required is the establishment of a practice, the specification of a new form of activity; and from this one sees that a practice necessarily involves the abdication of full liberty to act on utilitarian and prudential grounds. It is the mark of a practice that being taught how to engage in it involves being instructed in the rules, which define it, and that appeal is made to those rules to correct the behavior of those engaged in it. Those engaged in a practice recognize the rules as defining it. The rules cannot be taken as simply describing how those engaged in the practice in fact behave: it is not simply that they act as if they were obeying the rules. Thus it is essential to the notion of a practice that the rules are publicly known and understood as definitive; and it is essential also that the rules of a practice can be taught and can be acted upon to yield a coherent practice. On this conception, then, rules are not generalizations from the decisions of individuals applying the utilitarian principle directly and independently to recurrent particular cases. On the contrary, rules define a practice and are themselves the subject of the utilitarian principle.
18 +
19 +THUS the standard is rule consequentialism:
20 +Prefer it
21 +We won’t achieve good consequences due to coordination problems. If we punished to deter crime, we could punish the innocent since that would have the same effect, but false convictions would cripple the system. We need rules whose adoption WOULD lead to good results. People could break promises and kill people on util grounds. But with consistent principles we could coordinate given an expectation of how people would act and this benefit is more than individual util benefits. Coordination is allowed if we act on simpler rules that could be learned or internalized easily that usually lead to the greatest good.
22 +
23 +Act util leads to tragedies of the commons, where individual acts maximize utility but taken together decrease overall utility of a society
24 +
25 + It’s hard to calculate results. By calculating I lose time to do util acts, so I must calculate the expected value of calculating, which leads to regress. Different people should do different calculations, but we must calculate who is better for calculative roles. Rule util solves since a rule wouldn’t be beneficial if we couldn’t use it. We adopt principles that are accessible, and usability allows us to act for good without calculative problems.
26 +
27 +Act util can be counterintuitive. We should use more plausible principles. HOOKER: Brad Hooker, “Ideal Code Real World.” Oxford: Clarendon Press 2000 Does rule-consequentialism accord with the convictions we share about moral permissibility and requirement? Rule-consequentialism selects rules on the basis of expected value, impartially calculated. Thus the theory is clearly impartial at the level of rule selection. As I shall argue later, the impartial assessment of rules But this will favor rules that (a) allow partiality within limits, towards self and (b) require partiality, within limits, towards family, friends, etc. This partiality towards self and loved ones will then be allowed to guide a great number of people’s day to day decisions (not all, of course). Therefore, while rule-consequentialism is purely impartial at the foundational level where a code is selected, the code thus selected makes demands on action that are moderate and intuitively plausible. Rule-consequentialis is fundamentally impartial, but not implausibly demanding. // Rule-consequentialism It also and accord with common moral beliefs about what we are prohibited from doing to others. As I observed, most of us believe morality prohibits physically attacking innocent people, taking or harming the possessions of others, breaking promises, telling lies, whichand so on. Rule-consequentialism endorses prohibitions on these kinds of act, since on the whole the consequences, considered impartially, will be better if such prohibitions are widely accepted. (In Chapter 6, I argue that rule-consequentialism’s implications concerning prohibitions and special duties are plausible
28 +
29 +
30 + public policy decisions, even those of non-governmental institutions, must be consequentialist since collective action results in conflicts that only util can resolve. Side constraints paralyze state action – it's impossible to compare tradeoffs involving opportunity costs. Collectives lack intentionality or internal motivation since they're composed of multiple individuals – there is no act-omission distinction for them since they create permissions and prohibitions in terms of policies so authorizing action could never be considered an omission since the state assumes culpability in regulating the public domain.
31 +
32 +Impact calc- Rule util requires a decision calculus based on the adoption of rules. This excludes specific considerations of individual cases as the point is to solve paradoxes when one must evaluate the specifics rather than general patterns. This means a) reject DA scenarios based on unstable conceptions of uniqueness, contingent on variable circumstances, that would require new rules based on each fluctuation or initial set of conditions to coordinate action and devolve to requiring infinitely complex rules and b) no extinction impacts – we would rely on very specific link chains with unstable uniqueness and we can’t compare rules that are more likely to lead to human extinction since it hasn’t happened yet.
33 + Thus, I affirm the resolution as a general rule for colleges and universities
34 +I’ll specify to meet your interp, within reason
35 +Contentions
36 +Status quo focus on discourse and representations kills the liberal movements you seek to promote- the liberal climate caused by the aff is key to accessing PR needed to create social change
37 +Chait 15 Jonathan Chait “How the language police are perverting liberalism.” NY Magazine January 275h 2015 http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/not-a-very-pc-thing-to-say.html JW
38 +Or maybe not. The p.c. style of politics has one serious, possibly fatal drawback: It is exhausting. Claims of victimhood that are useful within the left-wing subculture may alienate much of America. The movement’s dour puritanism can move people to outrage, but it may and prove ill suited to the hopeful mood required of mass politics. Nor does it bode well for the movement’s longevity that many of its allies are worn out. “It seems to me now that the public face of social liberalism has ceased to seem positive, joyful, human, and freeing,” confessed the progressive writer Freddie deBoer. “There are so many ways to step on a land mine now, so many terms that have become forbidden, so many attitudes that will get you cast out if you even appear to hold them. I’m far from alone in feeling that it’s typically not worth it to engage, given the risks.” Goldberg wrote recently about people “who feel emotionally savaged by their involvement in online feminism — not because of sexist trolls, but because of the slashing righteousness of other feminists.” Former Feministing editor Samhita Mukhopadhyay told her, “Everyone is so scared to speak right now.” That the new political correctness has bludgeoned even many of its own supporters into despondent silence is a triumph, but one of limited us Politics in a democracy is still based on getting people to agree with you, not making them afraid to disagree.
39 +
40 +Rule util mandates a free space of discussion- this is key to maintaining dignity by allowing multiple perspectives to be considered without favoritism.
41 +Taylor, Charles. Multiculturalism. Princeton University Press, 1994.
42 +Dignity is associated less with any particular understanding of the good life, such that someone’s departure from this would detract from his or her own dignity, than with the power to consider and espouse for oneself some view or other. We are not respecting this power equally in all subjects, it is claimed, if we raise the outcome of some people’s deliberations officially over that of others. A liberal society must remain neutral on the good life, and restrict itself to ensuring that however they see things, citizens deal fairly with each other and the state deals equally with all. The popularity of this view of the human agent as primarily a subject of self-determining or self-expressive choice helps to explain why this model of liberalism is so strong. But we must also consider that it has been urged with great force and intelligence by liberal thinkers in the United States, 57 C H A R L E S T A Y L O R and precisely in the context of constitutional doctrines of judicial review.33 Thus it is not surprising that the idea has become widespread, well beyond those who might subscribe to a specific Kantian philosophy, that a liberal society cannot accommodate publicly espoused notions of the good. This is the conception, as Michael Sandel has noted, of the “procedural republic,” which has a very strong hold on the political agenda in the United States, and which has helped to place increasing emphasis on judicial review on the basis of constitutional texts at the expense of the ordinary political process of building majorities with a view to legislative action.34 But a society with collective goals like Quebec’s violates this model. It is axiomatic for Quebec governments that the survival and flourishing of French culture in Quebec is a good. Political society is not neutral between those who value remaining true to the culture of our ancestors and those who might want to cut loose in the name of some individual goal of self-development. It might be argued that one could after all capture a goal like survivance for a proceduralist liberal society. One could consider the French language, for instance, as a collective resource that individuals might want to make use of, and act for its preservation, just as one does for clean air or green spaces. But this can’t capture the full thrust of policies designed for cultural survival. It is not just a matter of having the French language available for those who might choose it.
43 +
44 +Affirming endorses a rule that prevents authoritarianism
45 +Global Internet Liberty Campaign, What is Censorship? http://gilc.org/speech/osistudy/censorship/
46 +Censorship ~-~- the control of the information and ideas circulated within a society ~-~- has been a hallmark of dictatorships throughout history. In the 20th Century, censorship was achieved through the examination of books, plays, films, television and radio programs, news reports, and other forms of communication for the purpose of altering or suppressing ideas found to be objectionable or offensive. The rationales for censorship have varied, with some censors targeting material deemed to be indecent or obscene; heretical or blasphemous; or seditious or treasonous. Thus, ideas have been suppressed under the guise of protecting three basic social institutions: the family, the church, and the state. Not all censorship is equal, nor does all arise from government or external force. People self-censor all the time; such restraint can be part of the price of rational dialogue. The artist Ben Shahn's poster illustration reads: "You have not converted a man because you have silenced him." Silence can indicate a forced assent, or conversely, it can be contemplative, a necessary part of dialogue that rises above the din of quotidian life. To understand censorship, and the impulse to censor, it is necessary to strip away the shock epithet value that is attached to the word at first utterance. One must recognize that censorship and the ideology supporting it go back to ancient times, and that every society has had customs, taboos, or laws by which speech, dress, religious observance, and sexual expression were regulated. In Athens, where democracy first emerged, censorship was well known as a means of enforcing the prevailing orthodoxy. Indeed, Plato was the first recorded thinker to formulate a rationale for intellectual, religious, and artistic censorship. In his ideal state outlined in The Republic, official censors would prohibit mothers and nurses from relating tales deemed bad or evil. Plato also proposed that unorthodox notions about God or the hereafter be treated as crimes and that formal procedures be established to suppress heresy. Freedom of speech in Ancient Rome was reserved for those in positions of authority. The poets Ovid and Juvenal were both banished, and authors of seditious writings were punished severely. The emperor Nero deported his critics and burned their books. The organized church soon joined the state as an active censor. The Biblical injunction, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God, in vain" is clearly an early attempt to set limits on what would be acceptable theological discourse. Likewise, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" is an attempt to set limits on how the Divine may or may not be represented. (And no one, in any land, should think this is anachronistic. Across the world today, appeals to divinity are common reasons for banning the dissemination of a broad range of materials). Censorship is no more acceptable for being practiced in the name of religion than for national security (which is certainly an acceptable secular substitute for religious rationales in the 20th Century). It only indicates that confronting censorship must always involve confronting some part of ourselves and our common history that is both painful and deep-seated. Unique historical considerations can also spawn censorship. Perhaps the best example is the "Haßsprache" (hate speech) law in Germany. It is illegal, under German law, to depict any kind of glorification of the Nazis or even to display the emblem of the swastika. The law is enforced to the point where even historical battle simulations may not use the actual emblems that were used during World War II (by the Waffen SS, for instance). Significantly, almost all of Germany's close neighbors and allies have similar laws. The questions in Germany and elsewhere in the European Union (EU) form a particularly hard case because of the historical background and because the situation in the EU is fast-moving. That is why this series of snapshots of conditions in various countries and regions will first deal with other areas and levels of censorship and access problems, and then return to the situation in the EU. In a global context, governments have used a powerful array of techniques and arguments to marshal support for their censorship efforts. One of the earliest, as noted, is the religious argument. Certain things are deemed to be offensive in the eyes of the Deity. These things vary from country to country, religion to religion, even sect to sect. They are mostly, though not always, sexual in nature. The commentaries on the nature of the impulse to be censorious towards sexual expression are too numerous even for a wide ranging project like this. The curious reader is urged to read far and wide in the classic texts to see that the problem of governments and citizens reacting in this way is not a new one. What is new are the potential global consequences. National security and defense runs a very close second to the religious impulse as a rationale for suppression. While nowhere near as old as the religious impulse to censor, in its more modern form it has been even more pervasive. And while the influence of religion on secular affairs is muted in certain parts of the world, the influence of governments usually is not. It is difficult to think of any government that would forego the power, in perceived extreme circumstances, to censor all media, not simply those that appear online. The question, asked in a real world scenario, is what could be considered extreme enough circumstances to justify such action? There are also forms of censorship that are not so obtrusive, and that have to be examined very carefully to define. "Censorship through intimidation" can be anything from threats against individuals to a government proposing to monitor all activities online (as in one proposal current at the
47 +
48 +Absent the aff, the only principle remaining is repression. The international community is moving away from this rule- they have recognized the aff as good.
49 +Global Internet Liberty Campaign, What is Censorship? http://gilc.org/speech/osistudy/censorship/
50 +The potential for expansion, or opening economic and political opportunities where there had been none before, is vast on a scale beyond imagination. So, too, is the potential for calamitous misuse, both by governments and by corporations. These essays and reports from the cyberfronts show that freedom from censorship is the exception in the world. The rule historically has been, and continues to be, repression and suppression of disfavored ideas. The one redeeming fact is that, in most parts of the world, the ideal of liberty is embraced at least theoretically, and no state openly claims a commitment to religious, intellectual, artistic, or political censorship. The universal philosophical embrace of free expression is reflected in the many covenants and declarations that have been passed in support of freedom and human rights; these include the UN Charter (1945), the UN Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the UN Covenants on Civil and Political Rights (1966) and on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1966), the European Convention on Human Rights (1953), the Helsinki Final Act (1975), and the American (Western Hemisphere) Convention on Human Rights (1978). These documents form the basis of the hope that the Internet might yet succeed in realizing its promise of providing a free and unencumbered flow of information throughout the world.
51 +
52 +The aff is a rule that is key to fighting oppression.
53 +Koteskey Protecting Free Speech and Fighting Oppression Go Hand in Hand by Tyler Koteskey Nov 15 2015
54 +ng free speech, our constitution for much of our national history promoted a culture more respectful than much of the rest of the world of a free society’s principles. Rather than leaving them behind, the First Amendment has been marginalized communities’ most important tool in making their voices heard in America. The bedrock of the civil rights movement rests on it. Thanks to the First Amendment, the Supreme Court protected protest marches, sit-ins, even NAACP meetings and court participation from unlawful disruption. The First Amendment was so important during this period because anti-racist speech was viscerally offensive to authorities who would otherwise have quashed it. Today, our commitment to free speech still protects marginalized groups from overzealous authorities as they work for change. That trend holds true whether we’re talking about black people in 2015, Muslim-Americans, the transgender community, or countless other groups. No matter how frustratingly some people exercise their speech, suggesting that it’s less important than we think to oppose selective censorship for “enlightened” purposes puts all of these groups at risk.
55 +
56 +As a rule, its good for public institutions to follow their constitutional constraints
57 +Constitutionality is key to constrain states- if they are bound to their agreements with the people they cannot perpetrate atrocities
58 +Constitutionality is perceived positively by the people- a few implications
59 +Increases civic engagement- political efficacy increases when people think they can trust their government, which leads to the ability to unify for social change movements.
60 +Prevents disorganized violence from the far right- they gain increased legitimacy from viewing the left as non-compliant with the constitution, allowing violence and things like Trump
61 +Constitutional higher edu is good because it discourages the current culture war where the right feels like the left isn’t receptive- this gets the right involved in education, legitimizing intelligence and fighting back against the alt right
62 +As a general rule, its good for democracies to fulfill their function, otherwise all governments collapse into tyranny and violence, and they fail to furfill their constitutive duty as a democrocy. Polls affirm the aff as a general principle
63 +Gallup, 2016 data gathered feb 29- march 15 with the Knight foundation, Free Expression on Campus: A Survey of U.S. College Students and U.S. Adults, http://www.knightfoundation.org/media/uploads/publication_pdfs/FreeSpeech_campus.pdf
64 +Methodology This study includes a sample of U.S. college students, a sample of U.S. adults and a sample of U.S. Muslims. Results for the college student sample are based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 3,072 U.S. college students, aged 18 to 24, who are currently enrolled as full-time students at four-year colleges. Gallup selected a random sample of 240 U.S. four-year colleges, drawn from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), that were stratified by college enrollment size, public or private affiliation, and region of the country. Gallup then contacted each sampled college in an attempt to obtain a sample of their students. Thirty-two colleges agreed to participate. The participating colleges were University of California, Merced; Culver-Stockton College; Duke University; East Georgia State College; Georgia Institute of Technology; Green River College; Harrisburg University of Science and Technology; James Madison University; Keuka College; Kentucky State University; LaGrange College; University of Louisiana at Monroe; Lourdes University; Martin Luther College; Morehouse College; Minnesota State University Moorhead; University of North Alabama; University of North Carolina at Pembroke; Northwestern University; University of Oregon; University of the Ozarks; Pace University; Rocky Mountain College; Saint Francis University; The University of Scranton; Southeastern Baptist College; Southwest Minnesota State University; Spalding University; Tabor College; Texas Christian University; Trinity Baptist College; and Troy University. Gallup used random samples of 40 of each college’s student body, with one school providing a 32 sample, for its sample frame. The sample frame consisted of 54,806 college students from the 32 colleges. Gallup then emailed each sampled student to complete an Internet survey to confirm his or her eligibility for the study and to request a phone number where the student could be reached for a telephone interview. A total of 6,928 college students completed the Web survey, for a response rate of 13. Of these, 6,814 students were eligible and provided a working phone number. Telephone interviews were conducted Feb. 29-March 15, 2016. The response rate for the phone survey was 49 using the American Association for Public Opinion Research’s RR-III calculation. The combined response rate for the Web recruit and telephone surveys was 6. The college student sample was weighted to correct for unequal selection probability and nonresponse. It was also weighted to match the demographics of U.S. colleges on enrollment, public or private affiliation, and region of the country, based on statistics from the IPEDS database, to ensure the sample is nationally representative of U.S. college students. For results based on this sample of college students, the margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points at the 95 confidence level. Copyright © 2016 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. 32 FREE EXPRESSION ON CAMPUS Results for the U.S. adult sample are based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 2,031 U.S. adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. Interviews were conducted March 5-8, 2016, as part of the Gallup Daily tracking survey, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. The sample of U.S. adults included a minimum quota of 60 cellphone respondents and 40 landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by region. Landline and cellular telephone numbers were selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents were chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member has the next birthday. The response rate for the Gallup Daily tracking survey was 9. Samples were weighted to correct for unequal selection probability, nonresponse and double coverage of landline and cell users in the two sample frames. They were also weighted to match the national demographics of gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, population density and phone status (cellphone only, landline only, both, and cellphone mostly). Demographic weighting targets were based on the March 2015 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older U.S. population. Phone status targets were based on the January-June 2015 National Health Interview Survey. Population density targets were based on the 2010 census. For results based on this sample of U.S. adults, the margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points at the 95 confidence level. Results for the U.S. Muslim sample are based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 250 U.S. adults, aged 18 and older, who identified their religion as Muslim. All respondents had previously been interviewed for the Gallup Daily tracking survey in 2014 and 2015. Re-contact interviews were conducted March 4-10, 2016. The sample was weighted on region, gender and education to ensure it is representative of U.S. Muslims, based on Gallup Daily tracking estimates of the U.S. Muslim population. For results based on this sample of U.S. Muslims, the margin of sampling error is ±8 percentage points at the 95 confidence level. The response rate for the Muslim sample was 22. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls. The full questionnaire, topline results, detailed crosstabulations and raw data may be obtained upon request.
65 +A key aspect of recent debate has been a perceived conflict between encouraging free expression and fostering a learning environment where students feel safe, respected and included. College students strongly believe that creating an open learning environment should take precedence over creating a positive learning environment that attempts to protect students from hearing offensive or biased speech. When asked to choose, 78 of college students believe colleges should strive to create an open learning environment that exposes students to all types of speech and viewpoints, even some that are biased or offensive toward certain groups of people. Just 22 believe colleges should create a positive learning environment for all students that would be achieved in part by prohibiting certain speech or the expression of views that are offensive or biased against certain groups of people. Large majorities of all college student subgroups say openness should take precedence, but certain student segments are more inclined to hold that view, including men, whites, Republicans and independents. Students at private (80) and public institutions (77) differ little in their preference for an open college environment.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-31 15:08:18.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +IDK
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Southlake
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +32
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +9
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +North Crowley Reed Aff
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +4- rule util AC
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Flomo
Caselist.RoundClass[29]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +24
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-12-16 22:18:16.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Kris Wright
OpenSource
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/download/North+Crowley/Reed+Aff/North%20Crowley-Reed-Aff-Strake%20Jesuit-Round2.docx
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Prosper ZE
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2
RoundReport
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Nc was-Decedence DA K and AC
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Strake Jesuit
Caselist.RoundClass[30]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +25
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-07 03:37:45.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Courtney DeVore
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Elkens MP
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
RoundReport
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +SV NC
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Winston Churchill
Caselist.RoundClass[31]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +26
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-13 22:46:00.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +uh idk shes a FW judge
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +American Heritage KK
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
RoundReport
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +hate speech NC slow round
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Sunvite
Caselist.RoundClass[32]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +27
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-31 15:08:14.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +IDK
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Southlake
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +9
RoundReport
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Hate speech NC framework and weighing
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Flomo
Caselist.RoundClass[33]
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-02-04 15:24:08.788
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +William Ponder
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Westwood RS I think
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
RoundReport
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +T theory and K
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Collyville

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)