Changes for page North Crowley Reed Aff
Summary
-
Attachments (0 modified, 0 added, 1 removed)
-
Objects (1 modified, 0 added, 17 removed)
- Caselist.CitesClass[24]
- Caselist.CitesClass[25]
- Caselist.CitesClass[26]
- Caselist.CitesClass[27]
- Caselist.CitesClass[28]
- Caselist.CitesClass[29]
- Caselist.CitesClass[30]
- Caselist.CitesClass[31]
- Caselist.CitesClass[32]
- Caselist.RoundClass[29]
- Caselist.RoundClass[30]
- Caselist.RoundClass[31]
- Caselist.RoundClass[32]
- Caselist.RoundClass[33]
- Caselist.RoundClass[34]
- Caselist.RoundClass[35]
- Caselist.RoundClass[36]
- Caselist.RoundClass[37]
Details
- North Crowley-Reed-Aff-Strake Jesuit-Round2.docx
-
- Author
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -XWiki.loganreed101@attnet - Size
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -48.0 KB - Content
- Caselist.CitesClass[24]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -See open source! - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-16 22:18:19.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Kris Wright - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Prosper ZE - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -29 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -North Crowley Reed Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4- Dress AC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Strake Jesuit
- Caselist.CitesClass[25]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,33 +1,0 @@ 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
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-07 03:37:48.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Courtney DeVore - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Elkens MP - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -30 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -North Crowley Reed Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4- Giroux AC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Winston Churchill
- Caselist.CitesClass[26]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,49 +1,0 @@ 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
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-13 22:47:32.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -uh idk shes a FW judge - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -American Heritage KK - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -31 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -North Crowley Reed Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4-Agonism AC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Sunvite
- Caselist.CitesClass[27]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,65 +1,0 @@ 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
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-31 15:08:18.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -IDK - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Southlake - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -32 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -9 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -North Crowley Reed Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4- rule util AC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Flomo
- Caselist.CitesClass[28]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,53 +1,0 @@ 1 -Yay debate! AC 2 - 3 -Trigger warning for description of sexual harrassment 4 -First, framing- 5 -Every time we debate, we discuss inclusion. Sometimes these discussions are explicit, other times these discussions are the lack of these discussions- when our practices exclude gender and racial minorities, bodies are consigned to a comment on a ballot, at best, destroying the ethical subjectivity of the very debaters we try to educate and mold. Instead, we become a space so privileged, we silence attempts at community change with calls to abstract ethics, fairness claims, root cause claims, and even moral skepticism- these responses allow us to replicate the systems of oppression in our space with impunity, preventing us from accessing normative judgments as we never genuinely encounter the other that we speak about. We prefer to discuss ‘safe’ interpretations of the topic, abstract ethics, or policy positions. However, these discussions are unsafe for the oppressed because they never include the non-subject. 6 -Leonardo and Porter 10. Zeus and Ronald K. Ronald K. Pedagogy of fear: toward a Fanonian theory of 'safety' in race dialogu. Race Ethnicity and Education, 13: 2, 139 — 157. July 9, 2010. AKB. 7 -In other words, There is the category of people who are neither self nor others. They are no-one. The dialectics of recognition is disrupted, and the struggle of such people becomes one of achieving such a dialectics. Put differently, they are not fighting against being others. They are fighting to become others and, in so doing, entering ethical relationships. This argument results in a peculiar critique of liberal political theory. Such theory presupposes ethical foundations of political life. What Fanon has shown is that political work needs to be done to make ethical life possible. That is because racism and colonialism derail ethical life. (italics added) A Pedagogical approach that avoids safety in the interest of image and personal management makes such an ethical relationship possible. ¶ If we are truly interested in racial pedagogy, then we must become comfortable with the idea that For marginalized and oppressed minorities, there is no safe space. As implied above, mainstream race dialogue in education is arguably already hostile and unsafe for many students of color whose perspectives and experiences are consistently minimized. Violence is already there. In other words, like Fanon’s understanding of colonialism, safe space enacts violence. Those who are interested in engaging in Racial pedagogy must be prepared to (1) undo the violence that is inherent to safe-space dialogue, and (2) enact a form of liberatory violence within race discussions to allow for a creativity that shifts the standards of humanity. In other words, anger, hostility, frustration, and pain are characteristics that are not to be avoided under the banner of safety, which only produces Freire’s (1993) ‘culture of silence’. They are attributes that are to be recognized on the part of both whites and people of color in order to engage in a process that is creative enough to establish new forms of social existence, where both parties are transformed. This is not a form of in violence that is life threatening and narcissistic, but one that is life affirming through its ability to promote mutual recognition. 8 - 9 - 10 -This is especially damming considering the current meta-game in LD- we tell our students to read structural violence impacts for easy wins but never train them to actually give a shit about the oppressed. A pre-requisate for debate to be a useful site of discourse is a relentless self-critique 11 -There are no sources in the current document. 12 - “What’s left is a community of very ‘woke’ students who thrive on a set of, honestly, quite bizarre community norms framed by espousals of a community ethic of academic progressivism. As we’ve started speaking faster and spending more time with our faces buried in academic literature studying the root conditions of social inequity, I think we’ve lost sight of the intersection between the now ever-present discussions of the oppressed in rounds and the real marginalized students who aren’t given the opportunity to speak in the debate space that we’ve carved out around their social image. Debate, with the apparent tenure of role of the ballot-style arguments, is evolving into it’s potential as a micropolitical space that would be incredibly valuable for oppressed voices who are all too often placed in educational settings that, fatally, do not give them the skills to question their own situations. We must go forth with unwavering self-critique of our tendency to fall into internalist tunnel vision if we are to reclaim authenticity in an increasingly obfuscated debate climate. I debated locally on the New Orleans, Louisiana LD circuit for Benjamin Franklin High School all four years of high school. My sophomore year I became cognizant of the national (or TOC) circuit of debate and knew I wanted to be part of it. I looked up to the national circuit debaters I watched, they seamlessly could control a round and think fast on their feet. But those debaters generally came from big programs with funding for coaches and travel, which made their presence on the national circuit of little controversy. I never felt the same comfort. Coming from a small charter school in education budget-stripped Louisiana, my school was unable to monetarily assist me in the, frankly, enormous costs to travel nationally and could only give me the ability to use the school name. My family isn’t rich, but we get by, and I was lucky enough to have a father invested enough in debate to travel with me to tournaments across the country out of our pocket. I traveled nationally my junior and senior years and qualified to the Tournament of Champions both years and saw, first hand, the ways that debate excludes those who need it most. During my time debating, one thing always tore at my connection to the activity: the hands-on disparities I felt as an independent (or “lone wolf”) debater and, much larger than my own struggle, the unspoken truth of the barrier to entry faced by countless racially and economically disenfranchised students across the country. The national circuit rests on a set of paradoxes: we speak rapidly in an intense lexicon of jargon indecipherable by those outside of our nerd commune, but read cases that tout frameworks about establishing social conditions for participatory and moral inclusion; tournament directors homogenize independent debaters as anarchic forces that threaten the stability of established program hegemony, but if a debater defends any long-standing institution of power they are likely to be critiqued as a degenerate peddling the ideology of absolute evil; programs would rather hire a new coach to turn debaters into perfect social justice allies for ballots, instead of dedicating funds to scholarships to allow low-income students in middle school debate leagues to access the established, well-funded programs that win rounds off of recycled images of these students very real social position. Sadly, the inconsistencies go on and, upon examination of this quiet hypocrisy, our supposed devotion to the radical restructuring of powerful systems in favor of the oppressed looks more like soft-boiled, self-moralizing liberalism. It seems to be the case that it’s time to put our intellectual money where are mouths are and for the prevailing in-and-out of round discussion to shift from, ‘What can debate do for the marginalized?’ to ‘How can we incorporate the marginalized into high levels of debate?’ Talking to local circuit debaters coming from a background in national circuit debate was always incredibly humbling because I had no greater claim to my ability to travel than the less privileged debaters I spoke to. They would speak longingly about the ability to travel and see the regional spectrums of the national circuit, be privy to experienced judges, and have the ground to read new philosophy. These students often dealt with various combinations of undedicated and/or inexperienced coaches, lack of school funding, and personally unstable financial situations. These students have all the passion and curiosity (if not more) of the greatest national circuit debaters and the barrier they face is unacceptable in a community that espouses mass, unabashed openness. Some tournaments and debate camps have begun to feature open table discussions about community issues of exclusion surrounding race, gender, sexuality, etc. These discussions are incredibly valuable and I have been a part of many of them, but they are ultimately not encompassing of those who have no voice in those discussions at all. They are part of a privileged form of liberalism that has proliferated national circuit debate. It hails anyone’s inclusion into discursive spaces…as long as you can pay for your plane tickets to the Glenbrooks. We must understand discrimination in debate as multi-leveled. The type of discrimination we are generally concerned about is the institutional disparities between social groups within debate. This is only the surface and it overlooks the web of structural violence and exclusion that keeps debate, and many sites of political discourse, defined by class lines and prejudice. It is the lived reality of these forgotten, yet never introduced students that show us exactly whom debate’s “critical pedagogy” is not made for. “Critical pedagogy” is a term often thrown around in debate rounds without much inquiry as to what it constitutes, it has just become another assumption in our jargon and a buzzword. Paulo Freire, one of the first to write extensively on the subject, explains these forgotten, yet defining features of critical pedagogy in Pedagogy of the Oppressed: “Authentic education is not carried on by “A” for “B” or by “A” about “B,” but rather by “A” with “B,” mediated by the world—a world which impresses and challenges both parties, giving rise to views or opinions about it. These views, impregnated with anxieties, doubts, hopes, or hopelessness, imply significant themes on the basis of which the program content of education can be built. In its desire to create an ideal model of the “good human,” a naively conceived humanism often overlooks the concrete, existential, present situation of real people. … For the truly humanist educator and the authentic revolutionary, the object of action is the reality to be transformed by them together with other people—not other men and women themselves… The revolutionary’s role is to liberate, and be liberated, with the people—not to win them over.” Critical arguments and identity politics attempt to create a model of good human conduct towards the Other, but currently do very little materially to include many of those that they claim to liberate with their words. Critical pedagogy is defined by the egalitarian academic relationship between the marginalized student, educators, and academic spheres, such that they can come together to draft authentic liberatory strategies for the historically marginalized. These arguments may exist as cathartic and crucial academic avenues for traditionally societally marginalized students who are fortunately allowed to debate, but the proliferation of these arguments has not lead to the proliferation of attempts to bridge the socially deprived and the national circuit – these arguments can only benefit those who have already been integrated, which seems odd from a community that treats Wynter and Leighton like one of the 10 Commandments. Impersonal appeals to roles of ballots and judges are ultimately what Freire characterizes as revolutionary’s appealing to the marginalized in an attempt to ‘win them over.’ This is problematic because it imagines the marginalized solely as an object of suffering and not as a concrete, political subject with potential for creating positive, material change. Debate heroism drains the marginalized of agency through false representation and, like any self-serving palliative in the economy of white supremacy, tells us that our dues have been paid to the marginalized without having to actually interact with them. Sure, the education that current debaters gain now is important, but are well-off students the ones who are really lacking an academic source of the critical thinking skills that debate fosters in comparison to students whose classroom setting are cyclically underfunded and present a façade of learning. Freire’s model of critical pedagogy critiqued the “banking model” of teaching that runs supreme in these destitute classrooms. Banking is characterized by the teaching of ‘objective’ facts to be memorized and repeated, but never critically examined – this is the demand of a society that mixes quality of academia and capital. The crucial issue with this model of education is that marginalized students never learn how to question the terms and conditions of their social location from this system because their social position is taught to them as fact to be internalized for regurgitation. Absent an educational site for marginalized students to relate their quotidian experiences with oppression to larger systems of social division’s historical construction, authentic and informed social and policy changes will never come because the voice of the marginalized is not its foundation. National circuit debate often only produces the privileged conjecture of what world the oppressed must desire if they think like the rest of us, and that approach disguises itself as a humanist gesture from elites to cover up their conscious use of narratives of real suffering to fulfill self-interested ends, which constitutes the total commodification of the suffering of the Other. Which is to say, the suffering of the Other is used as a strong persuasive tool to breed fear-based politics around a narrative of moral absolution to Western liberalism. In a society structured heavily by class lines, we continually consume images of the suffering to relieve deep-seated anxieties about our own social locations through displacement. This is why people watch mindless reality television and shows like Narcos or Orange is the New Black, which serve as disaster porn for an increasingly numbed audience. When heteronormative, sexist, and racist violence is what average people watch before they go to bed, how do we actually process impacts of structural violence and social death against groups of people who are largely not even present? In The Illusion of the End, sociologist Jean Baudrillard examines this frenzied devouring of suffering: “We have long denounced the capitalistic, economic exploitation of the poverty of the ‘other half of the world’ ‘autre monde. We must today denounce the moral and sentimental exploitation of that poverty – charity cannibalism being worse than oppressive violence. The extraction and humanitarian reprocessing of a destitution, which has become the equivalent of oil deposits and gold mines. The extortion of the spectacle of poverty and, at the same time, of our charitable condescension: a worldwide appreciated surplus of fine sentiments and bad conscience. … material exploitation is only there to extract that spiritual raw material that is the misery of peoples, which serves as psychological nourishment for the rich countries and media nourishment for our daily lives.” Without an authentic attempt to place the exploited in the center of our discussions, we commodify their real, lived experiences to moralistic ballot appeals that quarantine potentially liberatory discussion to a 45-minute discursive proxy wars where the only real goal is the accumulation of communal prestige. Fiat fuels our politics of exaggeration by establishing an undue assumption of reality behind the advocacies of debaters. This allows debaters to make claims like voting aff is a “try-or-die” situation for the marginalized people the aff speaks about, but after the round the aff doesn’t happen, no one is saved and those people may still ‘or-die’, but the judge and debater leave and feel like they’re done the ‘right’ thing. Here we see exactly why the subjectivities of the marginalized are absolutely essential when deconstructing historical lines of oppression. The marginalized are the sole interlocutor between perspectives defined by survival and subversion against prevailing paradigms of total antagonism, and the revolutionary energy stored within the silenced for reclamation of a stolen humanity. It is critical education that allows the marginalized to synthesize these two conditions into real change that defies our scheduled demands for suffering. An example familiar to a fair amount of debaters who have, inadvertently or not, read this argument is Damien Schnyder, UC President’s Postdoctoral Fellow, when he writes about the importance of including ‘black thought’ in light of it’s historic exclusion by virtue of it’s ability to imagine alternatives to our major systems of economy. It is this hegemonic fear of possibility that explains both the debate community’s flocking to Blackness studies as the new, cool outlook, and it’s simultaneous disavowal of personal narrativity through a culture that worships academic evidence: “Black bodies, through their collective experiences of subjugated Blackness, become a threat to the very function of civil society. Blackness has to be contained and managed in order to protect white supremacy. … It is at this moment – when Blackness becomes identified as antithetical to the notions of work –that white supremacy is able to unleash it’s fury upon the Black body. For it is within this space that the Black body can have anything and everything done to protect the order of civil society.46 Thus in order to contain the threat of Blackness, the Herculean managers of the hydra-like attack upon society are teachers (Linebaugh and Rediker, 2000).47 Within the development of civil society, the function of teachers is to both categorize states of being and enclose Blackness. … Students are prevented from interjecting alternative versions of economic systems within the framework of the discussion. Students must perform the perfunctory duty of work (basic memorization and recitation skills) not to only to be awarded with a passing grade, but not to be penalized. The result is a silencing of Black voices whose life experiences are in direct contradiction with hegemonic constructions of economy (i.e. supply and demand) that was taught by Mr. Keynes. There was no space to analyze the racial structure that frames economic modes of relation, nor was there opportunity to engage in dialogue with regards to the economics of why many of the students had to work to support their families.” If we are to create true critical pedagogy, centrally interested in the marginalized student’s liberation, the community must devote itself to actually doing the ‘right’ thing after these rounds and confirming that direction with those we intend to recover full humanity with. If we legitimately care about the community principle of fighting structural violence, we must start with those who understand that violence as quotidian. Hegemonic systems privilege established factions because the marginalized have very purposefully never been given an active voice in social construction. We are beginning to face a challenge to the extent of our progressivism and it increasingly seems like we’re only willing to draw attention to the marginalized when it posits us as discursive Robin Hoods and fills our ego with ballots. This orientation risks inculcating bad dispositions towards life and political agency outside of debate. When judges aren’t there to drool over social justice parlor tricks, debaters have no incentive to do anything more than change their Facebook profile pictures in line with social events to get the same self-moralism through ‘likes’ and validation. Therefore, if we are to earnestly reverse this trend, the role of the debate community is to give marginalized students a new and encompassing means by which they can speak in the supposed ‘space of inclusion’ we’ve built, 13 - 14 -And, the discursive performance of the ac is a prior question to the inclusion of the marginalized 15 -Butler 5, Judith, badass MoFo and mother of modern feminism in her text “Beside Oneself: On the Limits of Sexual Autonomy” 16 - or that violence might be said to realize or apply this discourse. Violence against those who are already not quite lives, who are living in a state of suspension between life and death, leaves a mark that is no mark. If there is a discourse, it is a silent and melancholic writing in which there have been no lives, and no losses, there has been no common physical condition, no vulnerability that serves as the basis for an apprehension of our commonality, and there has been no sundering of that commonality. None of this takes place on the order of the event. None of this takes place. How many lives have been lost from AIDS in Africa in the last few years? Where are the media representations of this loss, the discursive elaborations of what these losses mean for communities there? I began this chapter with a suggestion that perhaps the interrelated movements and modes of inquiry that collect here might need to consider autonomy as one dimension of their normative aspirations, one value to realize when we ask ourselves, in what direction ought we to proceed, and what kinds of values ought we to be realizing? I suggested as well that the way in which the body figures in gender and sexuality studies, and in the struggles for a less oppressive social world for the otherwise gendered and for sexual minorities of all kinds, is precisely to underscore the value of being beside oneself, of being a porous boundary, given over to others, finding oneself in a trajectory of desire in which one is taken out of oneself, and resituated irreversibly in a field of others in which one is not the presumptive center. The particular sociality that belongs to bodily life, to sexual life, and to becoming gendered (which is always, to a certain extent, becoming gendered for others) establishes a field of ethical enmeshment with others and a sense of disorientation for the first-person, that is, the perspective of the ego. As bodies, we are always for something more than, and other than, ourselves. To articulate this as an entitlement is not always easy, but perhaps not impossible. It suggests, for instance, that “association” Beside Oneself: On the Limits of Sexual Autonomy 25 RT9239_C01.qxd 6/25/04 12:51 PM Page 25 is not a luxury, but one of the very conditions and prerogatives of freedom. Indeed, the kinds of associations we maintain importantly take many forms. It will not do to extol the marriage norm as the new ideal for this movement, as the Human Rights Campaign has erroneously done.1 No doubt, marriage and same-sex domestic partnerships should certainly be available as options, but to install either as a model for sexual legitimacy is precisely to constrain the sociality of the body in acceptable ways. In light of seriously damaging judicial decisions against second parent adoptions in recent years, it is crucial to expand our notions of kinship beyond the heterosexual frame. It would be a mistake, however, to reduce kinship to family, or to assume that all sustaining community and friendship ties are extrapolations of kin relations. I make the argument in “Is Kinship Always Already Heterosexual” in this volume that kinship ties that bind persons to one another may well be no more or less than the intensification of community ties, may or may not be based on enduring or exclusive sexual relations, may well consist of ex-lovers, nonlovers, friends, and community members. The relations of kinship cross the boundaries between community and family and sometimes redefine the meaning of friendship as well. When these modes of intimate association produce sustaining webs of relationships, they constitute a “breakdown” of traditional kinship that displaces the presumption that biological and sexual relations structure kinship centrally. In addition, the incest taboo that governs kinship ties, producing a necessary exogamy, does not necessarily operate among friends in the same way or, for that matter, in networks of communities. Within these frames, sexuality is no longer exclusively regulated by the rules of kinship at the same time that the durable tie can be situated outside of the conjugal frame. Sexuality becomes open to a number of social articulations that do not always imply binding relations or conjugal ties. That not all of our relations last or are meant to, however, does not mean that we are immune to grief. On the contrary, sexuality outside the field of monogamy well may open us to a different sense of community, intensifying the question of where one finds enduring ties, and so become the condition for an attunement to losses that exceed a discretely private realm. Nevertheless, those who live outside the conjugal frame or maintain modes of social organization for sexuality that are neither monogamous nor quasi-marital are more and more considered unreal, and their loves 26 Undoing Gender RT9239_C01.qxd 6/25/04 12:51 PM Page 26 and losses less than “true” loves and “true” losses. 17 - 18 -Thus the advocacy; debate rounds within public colleges and universities should not restrict any speech protected by the current Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) constitution. 19 -Advantage 1- performance debate 20 -First, the CEDA constitution protects all styles of debate, including ‘performance’ debate- it both positively and negatively protects speech that creates minority participation 21 -CEDA constitution . "Section 1: The Nature of the Academic Debate Community." CONSTITUTION OF THE CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION ARTICLE I: THE ORGANIZATION (n.d.): n. pag. Mar. 2016. Web. 22 -Preamble: The Cross Examination Debate Association is dedicated to the principle of free expression and exploration of ideas in an atmosphere of civility and mutual respect. Related to this principle is the belief that all members of this community will have access to CEDA debate activities without regard to race, creed, age, sex, national origin, sexual or affectional preference, or non-disqualifying handicap. These principles should guide the behavior of the organization's members and participants. Section 1: The Nature of the Academic Debate Community It is the nature of the academic debate community to provide a forum for the robust expression, criticism and discussion (and for the tolerance) of the widest range of opinions. 23 -And, CEDA protects against censoring certain styles of debate 24 -CEDA constitution . " CONSTITUTION OF THE CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION ARTICLE I: THE ORGANIZATION (n.d.): n. pag. Mar. 2016. Web. 25 -Judges are important to the debate activity. In addition to supplying decisions as judges, they educate the student participants through their reasons for decision and suggestions for improvement. CEDA recognizes the inherent tension and potential conflict between these two roles. In an attempt to facilitate both functions, CEDA encourages judge-educators to acknowledge their two-fold responsibility and act with competence, integrity, fairness and courtesy before, during and after each debate round. Debate seeks to be a full, free testing of ideas. Yet as educators, some feel a responsibility to discourage student behavior they find to be counterproductive. Often judges must delicately balance these two considerations: the need for rigorous examination of any and all views, however unpopular or unrealistic and the guidance and direction of student behavior. If undesirable behavior is discouraged in a positive, fair and courteous manner, the judge/educator roles can be simultaneously satisfied. Ethical principles for judges participating in CEDA include: A. Judges should strive at all times to render impartial decisions. Judges should excuse themselves from rounds they do not feel they could judge fairly. B. Judges should be willing to inform debaters, either through a statement of philosophy or through response to student questions, of strongly held beliefs or standards that could affect the outcome of the debate round. C. Judges should evaluate debate rounds on the arguments as they are presented by the debaters, rather than on personal knowledge of or opinion about particular substantive arguments. Judges need not be "tabula rasa" but do need to be fair. D. Judges should provide detailed and constructive criticism of any and all rounds of debate they evaluate. Reasons for decision should be in accordance with any beliefs or standards announced at the outset of the round. Judges are expected to provide written comments on the ballots provided by the tournament, even if they also provide an oral critique. These written comments should be made available to all the debaters a judge has heard by the conclusion of the tournament. E. Judges have an ethical obligation to uphold without exception the tournament rules. Judges should inform the tournament director of any conflicts which could prevent them from carrying out this duty. F. Judges who have the misfortune of witnessing fraudulent behavior on the part of Current as of March, 2016 (questions, contact jeffrey.jarman@wichita.edu) 45 competitors they are judging should: 1. conform to tournament rules (if any), and 2. act in accordance with their consciences in assessing appropriate sanctions. 26 - 27 -And, sqo debate has judges that automatically reject non-T affs or affs without plans- both are important 28 -Here’s some of Maggie’s Berthiaume’s Paradigm. I picked them at random as an example of how some forms of debate are rejected in the squo 29 -https://www.tabroom.com/index/tourn/paradigms.mhtml?tourn_id=4745andcategory_id=11881 30 -Do I have to be topical? 31 -Yes. Affirmatives are certainly welcome to defend the resolution in interesting and creative ways, but that defense should be tied to a topical plan to ensure that both sides are prepared for the debate. Affirmatives do not need to “role play” or “pretend to be the USFG” to suggest that the USFG should change a policy. 32 -And, Performance debate empowers black and minority students by eliminating the forced choice between assimilation and exiting the activity- we don’t need every debate to be performative, but it HAS TO BE AN OPTION. 33 -Polson 12 (Dana Roe Polson, PhD in Language Literacy and Culture, UMBC, Baltimore city public and public charter schools high school teacher, “’Longing for Theory:’ Performance Debate in Action” Dissertain directed by Dr. Christine Mallinson, Assistant Professor, Language, Literacy, and Culture pp. 142)CEFS 34 -Further, I would argue that the policy debate world is in some ways hyper-white: it rewards and represents white cultural and epistemological norms to a degree many students might not experience in public schools, even majority-white ones. But again: this rejection of whiteness does not necessarily equate with rejection of academic success. While I will look at this issue of cultural authenticity more specifically in chapters 4 and 5, I will mention here that I think performance debate finds away around this bind for African American debaters. The style gives them a practice that is race-based and conscious, within the policy debate community. There is no forced choice to assimilate or to leave the activity. As coach participant Jason Burton put it, And so like the question was, what motivates students to participate in the activity? And for, for us, that was the style component of the activity... when we brought the hip hop music into it and changed the style of it, that we saw had an effect on the way it motivated students to use their life experiences, their personal narrative, you know um being able to see how things within the arguments that they were making about social policy actually could affect the communities and the lives around them. (Jason Burton, group interview I, p. 4) Burton’s team at the time was working out stylistic choices that felt to them more culturally familiar. As he points out, these culturally familiar styles led them to bring their own experience into debate, and to understand how the theory they were using in debate related to their communities. Performance debate thus does what I think Ogbu’s schools should do: instead of blaming involuntary minorities’ culture for lack of achievement, they should recognize the full historical and cultural depths of the problem. A mismatch between white ways of schooling and the culture of African American children, a mismatch that devalues the children and their culture, is a profound problem not to be explained away by the existence of often successful voluntary minorities. While I do reject what I see as Ogbu’s overgeneralization, if it were true that even some African American students reject schooling (or debate) as white spaces, perhaps we should consider this situation carefully rather than reject it as unlike the often-effective instrumental responses of voluntary minorities. Instead of idealizing dominant white ways of being in schools, we could investigate some African American students’ responses to those white ways as critique, as critical resistance, rather than as an automatic and counterproductive reactivity. Indeed, Yosso suggests that resistant capital is a feature of African American cultural wealth: “Resistant capital refers to those knowledges and skills fostered through oppositional behavior that challenges inequality” (Yosso, 2005, p. 80). Ogbu sometimes seemed to write as if the problems faced by involuntary minority students in schools were all in their or their parents’ heads; what if they were, instead, contemporary examples of structural racism? 35 - 36 - Advantage 2- harassment 37 -Debate is patriarchal- womyn quit, causing performance gaps that create a cycle of marginalization. 38 -New Evidence on Gender Disparities in Competitive High School Lincoln-Douglas Debate BY DANIEL TARTAKOVSKY, http://vbriefly.com/2016/05/15/new-evidence-on-gender-disparities-in-competitive-high-school-lincoln-douglas-debate/ 39 -Table 1 reports summary statistics for men and women separately. There are three key take-aways. First, men comprise about 60 of the competitors and an even higher fraction of total observations. On average men in the database compete in 42 preliminary rounds while women compete in about 35. Second, men win a higher fraction of debates: There is a 3.7 percentage point male-female win gap in preliminary rounds. Finally, the performance gap in elimination rounds is even larger. Men are 12 percentage points more likely to win an elimination round than women. These differences are all statistically significant (see Table 1). Table 1. Summary Statistics: Performance of National Circuit Lincoln Douglas Debaters by Gender DT Table 1 Note: Table 1 reports summary statistics for high school Lincoln Douglas debate tournament results on Tabroom.com. The unit of observation is an individual. a The total number of identifiable unique competitors (those whose genders are either labeled or can be inferred using Census data) is 4,666. b Restricted to National Circuit tournaments with 6 preliminary rounds. c Speaker points are generally awarded on a scale of 0-30; in practice, the scale is about 25-30, with 27.5-28 being an average varsity debater. Standard errors in parentheses. Source: Tabroom.com National Circuit Lincoln Douglas Debate competition results for a sample of 89 tournaments spanning the 2011-12 to 2015-16 seasons. See Appendix C for list of tournaments. Are Women Leaving the Activity? One explanation for differential performance may be that women are less likely to continue debating for all four years of high school. If male debaters are more likely than female debaters to persist in the activity, all else being equal they will accumulate more experience and perform better. Two data points suggest that this is the case. First, the average graduation year for men is about 2 months earlier than than for women. Moreover, 46 of current high school freshmen are female compared to only 33 of those who graduated high school in 2015. However, this statistic could be misleading: If more women have begun competing in Lincoln-Douglas debate over the last few years, we would expect there to be relatively more young female debaters even absent differential attrition. To resolve this issue, I restrict the sample to the cohort of debaters graduating from high school in 2016. I then calculate a “participation gap,” defined as the difference between fraction of male and female debaters who, conditional on having debated as sophomores, also debate as juniors and as seniors. Table 2 shows that women who debated in at least one tournament as sophomores are about 2.5 percentage points less likely than men to debate as juniors. However, the participation gap does not seem to grow from junior to senior year. There is thus some evidence that women are more likely to quit National Circuit Lincoln-Douglas debate than men 40 -why does this happen? Sexual harassment is a huge part of the problem- we all know this happens. Its underreported and exclusionary practices are almost never checked. Here’s a narrative explaining the problem- 41 -Allison Pickett, SAID, SHE SAID, GENDER ISSUES IN LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE, https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/ldPickett20and20Scott0202.pdf 42 -In the fall of 1994, my debate career nearly ended as quickly as it had begun. Lord knows I was already nervous enough as I stood outside the classroom, waiting for my very first debate round to begin. Never mind the fact that I had three (!) more to do before I could go home and cry, the only thing I could imagine doing after what promised to be one of the most mortifying days of my life. (Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I think I may have had a self-confidence problem.) I was on the brink of emotional meltdown—and then, it happened… Whew! Hey baby, what’s your name? I need your number. And so it went. For twenty minutes outside the room and then throughout the entire round. No, you can’t be a freshman, you’ve gotta be a junior—or even my judge…where did you get those eyes? Aw, honey, don’t be scared, I’m just going to ask you a few easy questions. Could I really cross-examine someone with such beautiful eyes as yours? Did I mention the starring, perhaps better termed leering? I’m not kidding; I was ready to quit debate forever after round one. Luckily, I didn’t, and I learned a few things along the way: Gender in debate rounds was usually subtle, but often important. A seemingly clear concept became anything but in assessing what to wear, how to talk, what to say, whom to imitate… For some people, the choice of a skirt versus pants in the morning was decided on a whim; for me, and for many of my fellow female debaters, what to wear was inevitably a decision about my image as a young woman as well. Makeup or not and how much became more of an issue than I had ever thought it could be. And there was always that question in the back of my head: Am I a debater who happens to be a girl, or am I a girl who happens to be a debater? 43 -Thus-Use the aff to reject this-our advocacy protects the positive ability for womyn to speak in the space, and recognizes that this entails prohibiting harassment. The 44 -CEDA constitution . "Section 1: The Nature of the Academic Debate Community." CONSTITUTION OF THE CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION ARTICLE I: THE ORGANIZATION (n.d.): n. pag. Mar. 2016. Web. 45 -It does not provide a license for bigotry in the form of demeaning, discriminatory speech actions and it does not tolerate sexual harassment. Any member of this community who is threatened by discrimination or harassment is liable to be harmed in mind, body or performance and is denied the guarantee of an equal opportunity to work, learn and grow inherent in the above principles. In the debate community, the presentation of a reasoned or evidenced claim about a societal group that offends members of that group is to be distinguished from a gratuitous denigrating claim about, or addressed to, an individual or group such as those enumerated above. The former is bona fide academic behavior while the latter may demean, degrade or victimize in a discriminatory manner and, if so, undermines the above principles. Sexual harassment is a form of discrimination and consists of verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, imposed on the basis of sex, that has the effect of denying or limiting one's right to participate in the activity, or creates a hostile, intimidating or offensive environment that places the victim in an untenable situation and/or diminishes the victim's opportunity to participate fairly. Sexual conduct can become discriminatory and harassing when the nature of the interaction is unwelcome, or when a pattern of behavior that is offensive to a "reasonable woman" exists. Discrimination or harassment by one person against another is particularly abhorrent when the first person is in a position of power with respect to the second. 46 - 47 - 48 -Advantage 3- attire 49 -1st- Cross apply the second CEDA card- arbitrary, non-argumentative factors like dress is a protected speech that is granted by the CEDA constitution 50 -2nd- formal and informal dress codes function as a method of oppression within debate- female debaters are harmed. Additionally, they create a fucked up environments where dressing in accordance to ones identity risks backlash from conservative judges, while not doing so opens one up to an increase in micro-aggressions. 51 -ZHOU The Sexism of School Dress Codes These policies can perpetuate discrimination against female students, as well as LGBT students. Alfaguarilla / Shutterstock LI ZHOU OCT 20, 2015, http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/10/school-dress-codes-are-problematic/410962/ 52 -Maggie Sunseri was a middle-school student in Versailles, Kentucky, when she first noticed a major difference in the way her school’s dress code treated males and females. Girls arewere disciplined disproportionately, she says, a trend she’s seen continue over the years. At first Sunseri simply found this disparity unfair, but upon realizing administrators’ troubling rationale behind the dress code—that certain articles of girls’ attire should be prohibited because they “distract” boys—she decided to take action. “I’ve never seen a boy called out for his attire even though they also break the rules,” says Sunseri, who last summer produced Shame: A Documentary on School Dress Code, a film featuring interviews with dozens of her classmates and her school principal, that explores the negative impact biased rules can have on girls’ confidence and sense of self. The documentary now has tens of thousands of YouTube views, while a post about the dress-code policy at her high school—Woodford County High—has been circulated more than 45,000 times on the Internet. Although dress codes have long been a subject of contention, the growth of platforms like Facebook and Instagram, along with a resurgence of student activism, has prompted a major uptick in protests against attire rules, including popular campaigns similar to the one championed by Sunseri. Conflict over these policies has also spawned hundreds of Change.org petitions and numerous school walkouts. Many of these protests have criticized the dress codes as sexist in that they unfairly target girls by body-shaming and blaming them for promoting sexual harassment. Documented cases show female students being chastised by school officials, sent home, or barred from attending events like prom. Meanwhile, gender non-conforming and transgender students have also clashed with such policies on the grounds that they rigidly dictate how kids express their identities. Transgender students have been sent home for wearing clothing different than what’s expected of their legal sex, while others have been excluded from yearbooks. Male students, using traditionally female accessories that fell within the bounds of standard dress code rules, and vice versa, have been nonetheless disciplined for their fashion choices. These cases are prompting their own backlash. Dress codes—given the power they entrust school authorities to regulate student identity—can, according to students, ultimately establish discriminatory standards as the norm. The prevalence and convergence of today’s protests suggest that schools not only need to update their policies—they also have to recognize and address the latent biases that go into creating them. * * * At Woodford County High, the dress code bans skirts and shorts that fall higher than the knee and shirts that extend below the collarbone. Recently, a photo of a female student at the school who was sent home after wearing a seemingly appropriate outfit that nonetheless showed collarbone—went viral on Reddit and Twitter. Posted by Stacie Dunn on Thursday, August 13, 2015 The restrictions and severity of dress codes vary widely across states, 22 of which have some form of law granting local districts the power to establish these rules, according to the Education Commission of the States. In the U.S., over half of public schools have a dress code, which frequently outline gender-specific policies. Some administrators see these distinctions as necessary because of the different ways in which girls and boys dress. In many cases, however, female-specific policies account for a disproportionate number of the attire rules included in school handbooks. Certain parts of Arkansas’s statewide dress code, for example, exclusively applies to females.* Passed in 2011, the law “requires districts to prohibit the wearing of clothing that exposes underwear, buttocks, or the breast of a female student.” (The provision prohibiting exposure of the "underwear and buttocks" applies to all students.) Depending on administrators and school boards, some places are more relaxed, while others take a hard line. Policies also tend to fluctuate, according to the University of Maryland American-studies professor and fashion historian Jo Paoletti, who described dress-code adaptations as very “reactionary” to whatever happens to be popular at the time—whether it’s white go-go boots or yoga pants. Jere Hochman, the superintendent of New York’s Bedford Central School District echoes Paoletti in explaining that officials revisit his district’s policy, which has been in place “for years and years and years,” “on an informal basis.” “It’s likely an annual conversation, he notes, “based on the times and what’s changed and fads.” While research on dress codes remains inconclusive regarding the correlation between their implementation with students’ academic outcomes, many educators agree that they can serve an important purpose: helping insure a safe and comfortable learning environment, banning T-shirts with offensive racial epithets, for example. When students break the rules by wearing something deemed inappropriate, administrators must, of course, enforce school policies. The process of defining what’s considered “offensive” and “inappropriate,” however, can get quite murky. Schools may promote prejudiced policies, even if those biases are unintentional. For students who attend schools with particularly harsh rules like that at Woodford, one of the key concerns is the implication that women should be hypercognizant about their physical identity and how the world responds to it. “The dress code makes girls feel self-conscious, ashamed, and uncomfortable in their own bodies,” says Sunseri. Yet Sunseri emphasizes that this isn’t where she and other students take the most issue. “It's not really the formal dress code by itself that is so discriminatory, it’s the message behind the dress code,” she says, “My principal constantly says that the main reason for it is to create a ‘distraction-free learning zone’ for our male counterparts.” Woodford County is one of many districts across the country to justify female-specific rules with that logic, and effectively, to place the onus on girls to prevent inappropriate reactions from their male classmates. (Woodford County High has not responded to multiple requests for comment.) “These are not girls who are battling for the right to come to school in their bikinis—it’s a principle.” “To me, that’s not a girl’s problem, that’s a guy’s problem,” says Anna Huffman, who recently graduated from Western Alamance High School in Elon, North Carolina, and helped organize a protest involving hundreds of participants. Further north, a group of high-school girls from South Orange, New Jersey, similarly launched a campaign last fall, #IAmMoreThanADistraction, which exploded into a trending topic on Twitter and gleaned thousands of responses from girls sharing their own experiences. Educators and sociologists, too, have argued that dress codes grounded in such logic amplify a broader societal expectation: that women are the ones who need to protect themselves from unwanted attention and that those wearing what could be considered sexy clothing are “asking for” a response. “Often they report hearing phrases like, ‘boys will be boys,’ from teachers,” says Laura Bates, a co-founder of The Everyday Sexism Project. “There’s a real culture being built up through some of these dress codes where girls are receiving very clear messages that male behavior, male entitlement to your body in public space is socially acceptable, but you will be punished. 53 -Since yall aren’t gonna engage the aff, heres the underview - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-04 15:25:05.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -William Ponder - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood RS I think - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -33 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -North Crowley Reed Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4-CEDA AC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Collyville
- Caselist.CitesClass[29]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,53 +1,0 @@ 1 -Part one is framework- 2 -First, I value morality derived of ought in the resolution- any other value is infinitely regressive as we can always ask why that value matters 3 -Second, In a democratic society our principles of justice must be based on the idea that all citizens are free and equal moral persons because basic equality is a necessary condition for democratic citizenship. Thus, only what citizens would rationally will from a shared point of view, called the original position, can be just because it is the only mechanism that respects citizens as free and equal. 4 - 5 -Samuel Freeman Avalon Professor in the Humanities at The University of Pennsylvania. Justice and the Social Contract: Essays on Rawlsian Political Philosophy. Oxford University Press. New York, NY. 2007. 40-42 6 - 7 -Agreement from the original position serves this role; it is a procedural interpretation of practical reason in matters of justice (CP, 345–46; TJ, 256/226 rev.) or, more exactly, of a conception of persons as both reasonable and rational. Since this procedure is designed to model the moral powers,51 the content of the principles chosen from that point of view will be determined by these reasoning capacities and the conception of the person to which they give rise (CP, 303, 306).52 In this sense, moral principles are constructed on the basis of reason.¶ The objectivity that Rawls ascribes to his of these principles rests on his claim that they would be willed and agreed to from a shared point of view, which is objective in that everyone abstracts from their particular (subjective) aims, beliefs, and perspectives to view society on an equal footing (TJ, 516–19/452–55 rev.). This conception of objectivity is practical, as opposed to theoretical, in the following sense: Rawls's claim is not that, being impartially situated, we all have a clear, undistorted view that allows us to make true judgments about a prior and independent moral order. In constructivism, Rawls says, there is no order of moral facts, prior to human reasoning, for our moral judgments to be true of (CP, 354). This does not mean that Rawls one must deny that a prior order of moral facts or principles can exist rather, for that metaphysical commitment would conflict with his the practical aim. Rather, it means that if there is such an order, it is not because certain principles are true of it that we are bound, as democratic citizens, to follow them. What commits us, as citizens, to these principles is that they are most reasonable for us (CP, 340), in that they best accord with our capacities for practical reasoning in the circumstances of a democratic society. The conception of objectivity that informs this claim is practical, since the shared point of view from which we would agree to these principles is designed not to give us privileged access to a prior moral order but to represent our powers of practical reasoning in a way appropriate to our democratic conception of ourselves as free and equal.53 8 - 9 - 10 -And, The shared point-of-view necessary for rational agreement is represented by the original position, the idea that citizens can imagine themselves behind a veil of ignorance. This is a thought experiment that lets us understand equality- behind the veil citizens would not know whether they were rich or poor, their gender, their race, or any other contingent fact about their place in society, and so would be represented purely as free and equal. And, that also means it is the only system that has no risk of bias and so is not arbitrary decision-making. Preventing arbitrariness is a prerequisite to any framework because morality serves to guide action so it must prevent arbitrariness that contradicts rationally adopted rules and undermines any moral code. 11 - 12 -And, behind the veil, citizens would design a system that benefitted the least advantaged because 1) diminishing marginal utility dictates that helping the most advantaged provides less utility than the least advantaged. This is why giving a dollar to a homeless person would probably make them happier than giving a dollar to a billionaire; already having goods makes each additional good less valuable. 2) People are risk-averse, meaning that they would avoid risks of occupying the worst social position, but this would ensure reasonable treatment regardless. 13 - 14 - 15 -Therefore, in order to rectify the arbitrary disadvantages of the natural lottery, we must adopt a principle of equality of opportunity. 16 - 17 -Danny Scoccia prof of phil, NM State. " Rawls, The Difference Principle, and Equality of Opportunity." http://web.nmsu.edu/~dscoccia/320web/320RawlsDP.pdf 18 - 19 -The basic motivation behind the equality of opportunity (EO) principle is this: if you can walk into a nursery and correctly make statistical predictions like “this baby because of his skin color and/or his family’s socioeconomic status is likely to make $20,000 per year less when he grows up than that baby over there,” then the society in which such predictions can be made is unjust and ought to be changed so that such predictions are no longer true of it. Equality of opportunity attempts to mitigates the effects of social caste. It requires a legal ban on racist/sexist hiring and promotion practices in the private sector, as well as state efforts to improve the educational opportunities of the poor by providing free public education, Head Start programs, etc. Equality of opportunity and does not forbid inequalities in wealth and power that are due to people's free choices. Suppose that I’m poor because I've chosen not to make the sacrifices necessary to develop highly marketable labor skills (I dropped out of the public high school because it bored me), or because I frittered away my inheritance from my grandmother playing Internet blackjack. You, on the other hand, have a large stock portfolio and a high paying job because you've saved and made sacrifices. EO as usually understood implies that there is no injustice in the inequality between us. I deserve my poverty and you your wealth, because they are due entirely to our choices. It is only some inequalities of outcome that equality of opportunity condemns, namely, the undeserved ones that are due to unequal opportunity. 20 - 21 - 22 -Thus, the standard is ensuring equality of opportunity. This implies that our primary moral consideration should be the less well off, namely, the global poor, as we don’t choose where we are born, thus we have equivalent obligations to all. 23 -Prefer the standard for 2 additional reasons: 24 - 25 -First, people are moral equals unless a morally relevant distinction exists because no characteristics exist to differentiate them, so the results of the natural lottery shouldn’t arbitrarily disadvantage some people over others, which requires equality of opportunity. 26 - 27 -Second, people born with disadvantages are subject to external pressures that affect the choices they have, which destroys their autonomy because they don’t have free reign over their own lives, which outweighs any individual violation on magnitude. And, autonomy is a prerequisite to moral theorizing because free will is responsible for the judgment of principles and commitment to a certain action. 28 - 29 -Part two is the contention 30 -Contention one is trade bias- globalization will always help the poor more than the wealthy, ensuring a more equal society. This evidence is really good, its recent and takes into account all statistical outliers, the authors literally created new statistical methodologies to answer the question of who is helped most by globalization. Be highly skeptical of any evidence opposing it, especially if theirs comes from a newspaper. 31 - 32 -Fajgelbaum, Pablo D., and Amit K. Khandelwal. "Measuring the unequal gains from trade." The Quarterly Journal of Economics (2015): qjw013. https://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/akhandelwal/papers/mugft_FINAL.pdf 33 - 34 -Understanding the distributional impact of international trade is one of the central tasks pursued by international economists. A vast body of research has examined this question through the effect of trade on the distribution of earnings across workers (e.g., Stolper and Samuelson 1941). A second channel operates through the cost of living. It is well known that the consumption baskets of high- and low-income consumers look very different (e.g., Deaton and Muellbauer 1980b). International trade therefore has a distributional impact whenever it affects the relative price of goods that are consumed at different intensities by rich and poor consumers. For example, a trade-induced increase in the price of food has a stronger negative effect on low-income consumers, who typically have larger food expenditure shares than richer consumers. How important are the distributional effects of international trade through this expenditure channel? How do they vary across countries? Do they typically favor high- or low- income consumers? In this paper we develop a methodology to answer these questions. The approach is based on aggregate statistics and model parameters that can be estimated from readily available bilateral trade and production data. It can therefore be implemented across many countries and over time (…..) This paper develops a methodology to measure the distribution of welfare changes across hetero- geneous consumers through the expenditure channel for many countries over time. The approach has broad applicability as it is based on aggregate statistics and model parameters that can be estimated from readily available bilateral trade and production data. This is possible by using the AIDS demand structure which allows for non-homotheticities and has convenient aggregation properties. We estimate a non-homothetic gravity equation generated by the model to obtain the key parameters required by the approach, and identify the effect of trade on the distribution of welfare changes through counterfactual changes in trade costs. The estimated parameters suggest large differences in how trade affects individuals along the income distribution in different countries. The multi-sector analysis reveals that the gains from trade are typically biased towards the poor. This is because the poor tend to concentrate expenditures in sectors that are more traded, and because these sectors have lower price elasticities. Heterogeneity in the pro-poor bias of trade is driven, in part, by a country’s pattern of specialization relative to its trading partners. While our goal in this paper is to demonstrate the importance of demand heterogeneity across consumers for the distributional effects of trade, we believe that a promising avenue lies in integrat- ing this approach with a richer supply-side structure to measure jointly the impact of trade through both the expenditure and income channels across consumers. We leave this for future work. 35 - 36 -Contention two is global poverty rate- Free trade is great for the global poor, history proves 37 - Worstall, OCT 1, 2015 @ 07:06 AM 3,009 VIEWS Peek Inside The Billionaire Portfolio Of Trump’s Key Advisor If You're Anti-Poverty You Should Be Pro- Free Trade And Globalization Tim Worstall , CONTRIBUTOR, http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/10/01/if-youre-anti-poverty-you-should-be-pro-free-trade-and-globalisation/2/#352c5b4460d6 38 -The Minneapolis Fed has a little piece out making an argument that I’ve been stating for some time now. If you’re pro-poor, then you really should be vehemently pro- free trade and globalization. Because those are the two things that have led to the greatest reduction in poverty in the history of our species. Meaning, obviously, that they have been the two most effective things at reducing poverty across history. As to why this is it’s really very simply derived from the economics of Smith and Ricardo. The division and specialization of labor, along with the resultant trade in production, just is what economic growth consists of. Sure, there’s other things as well, but that’s still a very good description of what economic growth actually consists of. So, the more of this we do and the more people we do it with then the more economic growth there is. And given that someone gets to consume that greater production then obviously the less poverty there is. As they point out about recent historical experience: According to a World Bank Study, in the three decades between 1981 and 2010, the rate of extreme poverty in the developing world (subsisting on less than $1.25 per day) has gone down from more than one out of every two citizens to roughly one out of every five, all while the population of the developing world increased by 59 percent.8 This reduction in extreme poverty represents the single greatest decrease in material human deprivation in history. That’s a pretty good outcome from an economic policy and it’s why I support the process of globalization quite as much as I do. Absolute poverty, that peasant destitution, is something I regard as an abhorrence. Killing it off through economic growth I thus regard as not just desirable but a moral duty. OK, but there’s a problem with this, as the paper points out. For some policies will be good for one set of poor people, those absolutely poor out in the Great Big World, yet bad for another set of the poor, those who are the poor in the already rich societies. And this globalization and free trade mixture is exactly one of those policies that has this effect. Rising inequality in the rich nations is a logical result of adding those couple of billion low wage workers to the global economy. We could predict it would happen, theory tells us it should happen and it has happened: no one should be surprised about that. I’ve made clear around here a number of times that I both understand this point and also think that it’s a perfectly fair price to be paying. Yes, of course, that’s easy enough for me to say as I’ve not got to pay it. Although that’s not actually true either. Online writing is one of those things that does indeed face very high and hard competition from other parts of the world. Wages in this field have been falling substantially over these decades. No, not a complaint, it’s still well paid, thank you. But that the relatively lowly paid in the rich countries stand still for a bit while the absolutely poor of the world climb the economic ladder to the joys of three squares a day, yes, I think that a price well worth us all paying. For as the Fed says: A typical American in the lowest 5 percent of income (for America) has a higher income than 95 percent of Indians, 80 percent of Chinese and 50 percent of Brazilians. Another such statistic is that if you’re getting just that average SNAP or food stamps payment of $29 a week then you’re in the top 20 of all incomes world wide. Our poor, the rich world poor, are only relatively poor by our standards, they’re both absolutely and relatively rich by global and historical standards. Of course this justification only works if the two results are indeed from the same policy. And they are: Recommended by Forbes Facebook's Billion User Day And The Strange Death Of Globalisation We Can Think Of Globalisation As A Sort Of Keynesianism For The World IBMVoice: How Blockchain Could Help To Make The Food We Eat Safer... Around The World Increased Globalisation Explains Some Of The Increase In The US Profit Sha... US Inequality Not Caused By Soaring CEO Pay; Globalisation Instead MOST POPULAR Photos: The Richest Person In Every State +222,466 VIEWS iPhone 8 Leak Reveals Apple's Expensive Secrets MOST POPULAR Photos: The World's Highest-Paid Models 2016 MOST POPULAR Stan Lee Introduces Augmented Reality For His Kids Universe One possible cause of both trends has been the increase in international trade, which lessens the market value of less-skilled labor in developed countries while increasing its value in developing countries.9 If one uses a behind-the-veil criterion focused only on developed countries, then the increase in trade has made things worse. If instead one considers the entire world, then the trade increase has made the world phenomenally better. All of which is what I have myself been arguing. Where the Fed goes further is in the next step. Which is this: Consider the following highly stylized example: In a world with just two countries, one developed and the other poor, output is produced in each by a combination of skilled workers and unskilled workers. When they’re young, unskilled workers have the opportunity to become skilled by working with older, skilled workers. But imagine that young, unskilled workers can work with older, skilled workers from either country. In particular, assume that skilled, older workers (such as plant managers) from developed countries can train young, unskilled workers from developing countries. (Alternatively, imagine that young, unskilled workers from developing countries travel to developed countries to become educated and then return home as skilled workers.) When these young workers age, they in turn train future generations of young workers at home. Suppose further that in each country only some young workers are born with an innate ability to acquire skills, while others are born without that ability. Suppose also that young workers who have this ability must exert effort to acquire skills and therefore must be provided with appropriate incentives to do so. A rich-country policy to tax high incomes will redistribute income (within that country) from those with high innate abilities (and, by assumption, with the ability to become highly skilled) to those with lower innate abilities. In so doing, that policy will reduce inequality within the rich country, but it will also create disincentives there to becoming highly skilled and thereby reduce the global supply of skilled workers. This reduced supply of skilled workers from the developed country then reduces opportunities for young workers in the poor country to become skilled. Yes, it is highly stylized but that’s just to illustrate the point that they want to get across. It’s entirely possible that we could have some policy or other that makes our own, rich world , poor better off. But which at the same time makes the absolutely poor of the world worse off. And if we did have such a policy, and we were also concerned about the poor, then we shouldn’t have that policy. Even though it benefits our poor they’re not in fact all of the poor. And given where our poor are in the global income distribution then they’re almost certainly not the poor that we should be worrying about. There’s an obvious example of such a policy too: the US sugar regime deliberately keeps sugar grown by poor people in poor countries out of the US. To the benefit of some very small number of cane and beet farmers in the US and to the disbenefit of those poor farmers elsewhere. And, of course, to the cost of all US consumers. It would actually be a pro-poor policy simply to abolish this entire regime and throw the sugar market open to free trade. I would make the same argument about any import restriction upon trade in fact. For buying things made by poor people in poor countries is a remarkably, see above for proof, method of making poor people less poor. So, a pro-poor policy is one of free trade. 39 - 40 -And, globalization is a pre-requisate for the economic development of less wealthy nations. 41 -Vitez, Small BusinessFinances and TaxesFree Trade The Benefits of Free Trade for Developing Countries by Osmond Vitez, Chron, http://smallbusiness.chron.com/benefits-trade-developing-countries-3834.html 42 -Free trade is an economic practice whereby countries can import and export goods without fear of government intervention. Government intervention includes tariffs and import/export bans or limitations. Free trade offers several benefits to countries, especially those in the developing stage. "Developing countries" is a broad term. According to a widely used definition, a developing country is a nation with low levels of economic resources and/or low standard of living. Developing countries can often advance their economy through strategic free trade agreements. Ads by Google Top Franchises for 2017 Find Franchises for Sale. Be Your Own Boss - Connect Today! franchise.com Increased Resources Developing countries can benefit from free trade by increasing their amount of or access to economic resources. Nations usually have limited economic resources. Economic resources include land, labor and capital. Land represents the natural resources found within a nationandrsquo;s borders. Small developing nations often have the lowest amounts of natural resources in the economic marketplace. Free trade agreements ensure small nations can obtain the economic resources needed to produce consumer goods or services. Improved Quality of Life Free trade usually improves the quality of life for a nationandrsquo;s citizens. Nations can import goods that are not readily available within their borders. Importing goods may be cheaper for a developing country than attempting to produce consumer goods or services within their borders. Many developing nations do not have the production processes available for converting raw materials into valuable consumer goods. Developing countries with friendly neighbors may also be able to import goods more often. Importing from neighboring countries ensures a constant flow of goods that are readily available for consumption. Better Foreign Relations Better foreign relations is usually an unintended result of free trade. Developing nations are often subject to international threats. Developing strategic free trade relations with more powerful countries can help ensure a developing nation has additional protection from international threats. Developing countries can also use free trade agreements to improve their military strength and their internal infrastructure, as well as to improve politically. This unintended benefit allows developing countries to learn how they should govern their economy and what types of government policies can best benefit their people. Production Efficiency Developing countries can use free trade to improve their production efficiency. Most nations are capable of producing some type of goods or service. However, a lack of knowledge or proper resources can make production inefficient or ineffective. Free trade allows developing countries to fill in the gaps regarding their production processes. Individual citizens may also visit foreign countries to increase education or experience in specific production or business methods. These individuals can then bring back crucial information about improving the nationandrsquo;s production processes. 43 -Contention three is existence- globalization key to promoting peace that is needed for poor countries to exist in the first place. 44 -Vitez, Small BusinessFinances and TaxesFree Trade The Benefits of Free Trade for Developing Countries by Osmond Vitez, Chron, http://smallbusiness.chron.com/benefits-trade-developing-countries-3834.html 45 -Many developing nations do not have the production processes available for converting raw materials into valuable consumer goods. Developing countries with friendly neighbors may also be able to import goods more often. Importing from neighboring countries ensures a constant flow of goods that are readily available for consumption. Better Foreign Relations Better foreign relations is usually an unintended result of free trade. Developing nations are often subject to international threats. Developing strategic free trade relations with more powerful countries can help ensure a developing nation has additional protection from international threats. Developing countries can also use free trade agreements to improve their military strength and their internal infrastructure, as well as to improve politically. This unintended benefit allows developing countries to learn how they should govern their economy and what types of government policies can best benefit their people. Production Efficiency Developing countries can use free trade to improve their production efficiency. Most nations are capable of producing some type of goods or service. However, a lack of knowledge or proper resources can make production inefficient or ineffective. Free trade allows developing countries to fill in the gaps regarding their production processes. Individual citizens may also visit foreign countries to increase education or experience in specific production or business methods. These individuals can then bring back crucial information about improving the nationandrsquo;s production processes. 46 - 47 - 48 -Part three is observations- 49 -1. the resolution sets up a clear burden structure; the affirmative must advocate that we should prefer globalization over protectionism. This means that the neg has the inverse burden; they must prove that we should value protectionism over globalization. Just proving that globalization is bad is insufficient, because it may still be better than protectionism. 50 - 51 -2. Protectionism is really bad- it promotes fascist tendencies, leading to a collapse into genocide and world war 52 -Williams BERENBERG: Politics right now 'evokes memories of the dreadful 1930s' Oscar Williams-Grut Nov. 14, 2016, 5:57 AM 6,967, http://www.businessinsider.com/berenberg-similarities-trump-brexit-1930s-protectionism-populism-nationalism-2016-1 53 -The private German bank Berenberg believes that "some aspects of Donald Trump's successful election campaign evoke memories of the dreadful 1930s." The bank's chief economist, Holger Schmieding, said in a note sent out on Monday, "After the Brexit vote and the triumph of Trump, the echo of the early 1930s sounds a little less faint than it did before." Schmieding highlights populism, rising protectionism and nationalism, isolationism, and the erosion of the political middle ground as key features of both the current political climate and the 1930s. "Populist" leaders — including the dictators Hitler and Mussolini — came to power across Europe in the 1930s with promises to restore glory and honour to their countries, often blaming individual races - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-11 16:28:27.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -IDK - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -IDK - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -34 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -North Crowley Reed Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -UIL- Rawls AC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Grandview
- Caselist.CitesClass[30]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,52 +1,0 @@ 1 -Chapter one is protectionism 2 -Nationalism is on the rise, 3 -boarders are closing, 4 -refugees are dying, 5 -and Trump is president; 6 -We have barred life of the denationalized subject in a dizzying array of ethnic protectionist policies, culminating in the dehumanization of the persistent Other, the ‘foreigner’ who is excluded by force of the nation state. This dooms us eternally to fascism- protection is no longer about trade but about ‘protection’ from the black or brown person, who is rendered a non subject by state violence 7 -Giorgio Agamben Beyond Human Rights, This English translation of the original Italian text (1993) was first published in: Giorgio Agamben, ‘Means without End. Notes on Politics’ in: Theory Out of Bounds, Vol. 20 (Minneapolis/London: University of Minnesota Press, 2000). 8 -contained in the second. That there is no autonomous space in the political order of the nation-state for something like the pure human in itself is evident at the very least from the fact that, even in the best of cases, the status of refugee has always been considered a temporary condition that ought to lead either to naturalization or to repatriation. A stable statute for the human in itself is inconceivable in the law of the nation-state. It is time to cease to look at all the declarations of rights from 1789 to the present day as proclamations of eternal metajuridical values aimed at binding the legislator to the respect of such values; it is time, rather, to understand them according to their real function in the modern state. Human rights, in fact, represent first of all the originary 2008/No. figure for the inscription of natural naked life in the political-juridical order of the nation-state. Naked life (the human being), which in antiquity belonged to God and in the classical world was clearly distinct (as zoe) from political life (bios), comes to the forefront in the management of the state and becomes, so to speak, its earthly foundation. Nation-state means a state that makes nativity or birth nascita (that is, naked human life) the foundation of its own sovereignty. This is the meaning (and it is not even a hidden one) of the first three articles of the 1789 Declaration: it is only because this declaration inscribed (in articles 1 and 2) the native element in the heart of any political organization that it can firmly bind (in article 3) the principle of sovereignty to the nation (in conformity with its etymon, native natío originally meant simply ‘birth’ nascita. The fiction that is implicit here is that birth nascita comes into being immediately as nation, so that there may not be any difference between the two moments. Rights, in other words, are attributed to the human being only to the degree to which he or she is the immediately vanishing presupposition (and, in fact, the presupposition that must never come to light as such) of the citizen. If the refugee represents such a disquieting element in the order of the nation-state, this is so primarily because, by breaking the identity between the human and the citizen and that between nativity and nationality, it brings the originary fiction of sovereignty to crisis. Single exceptions to such a principle, of course, have always existed. What is new in our time is that growing sections of humankind are no longer representable inside the nation-state – and this novelty threatens the very foundations of the latter. Inasmuch as the refugee, an apparently marginal figure, unhinges the old trinity of state-nation-territory, it deserves instead to be regarded as the central figure of our political history. We should not forget that the first camps were built in Europe as spaces for controlling refugees, and that the succession of internment campsconcentration camps-extermination camps represents a perfectly real filiation. One of the few rules the Nazis constantly obeyed throughout the course of the ‘final solution’ was that Jews and Gypsies could be sent to extermination camps only after having been fully denationalized (that is, after they had been stripped of even that second-class citizenship to which they had been relegated after the Nuremberg Laws). When their rights are no longer the rights of the citizen, that is when human beings are truly sacred, in the sense that this term used to have in the Roman law of the archaic period: doomed to death. The concept of refugee must be resolutely separated from the concept of the ‘human rights’, and the right of asylum (which in any case is by now in the process of being drastically restricted in the legislation of the European states) must no longer be considered as the conceptual category in which to inscribe the phenomenon of refugees. (One needs only to look at Agnes H 9 - 10 -AND, Drawing from the resolution we come to a set of presupposed assumptions about the very existence of the nation state, never questioning the legitimacy of the demarcation between foreign and domestic policy. When we approach the word protectionism, we see it is a concept so interdependent on boarders and nationalism that protectionist rhetoric threatens to draw the west into the same collapse into fascism that caused the holocaust and world war two 11 -Williams BERENBERG: Politics right now 'evokes memories of the dreadful 1930s' Oscar Williams-Grut Nov. 14, 2016, 5:57 AM 6,967, http://www.businessinsider.com/berenberg-similarities-trump-brexit-1930s-protectionism-populism-nationalism-2016-1 12 -The private German bank Berenberg believes that "some aspects of Donald Trump's successful election campaign evoke memories of the dreadful 1930s." The bank's chief economist, Holger Schmieding, said in a note sent out on Monday, "After the Brexit vote and the triumph of Trump, the echo of the early 1930s sounds a little less faint than it did before." Schmieding highlights populism, rising protectionism and nationalism, isolationism, and the erosion of the political middle ground as key features of both the current political climate and the 1930s. "Populist" leaders — including the dictators Hitler and Mussolini — came to power across Europe in the 1930s with promises to restore glory and honour to their countries, often blaming individual races and religions for the problems. Both Britain's Brexit proponents and Trump's 2016 presidential campaign blamed outsiders (such as the European Union, Mexicans, and Muslims) for problems at home and had strong nationalist streaks (Take Back Control, Make America Great Again). International trade tailed off after the 1929 Wall Street crash as the US turned inward. Schmieding said "two major policy mistakes turned the financial crisis into a depression" — the US Federal Reserve tightening monetary policy and the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which enacted protectionist taxes on imports. Both Trump and the current pro-Brexit UK government have promised to reverse the rising tide of globalism. Trump says he will do this by scrapping or significantly changing a trade deal with Mexico and putting tariffs on imports from China. UK Prime Minister Theresa May has promised to rein in globalisation. Schmieding calls the 1930s "dreadful" because the Great Depression, triggered by policy mistakes, led to widespread poverty. The potent economic and political cocktail of depression and nationalism also led to World War II. But Schmieding adds that today's situation "is very different in at least three key respects." These are: Rising employment: "Despite widespread anger at the establishment, we are not quite living in pitchfork times again." Lack of ideology: "Trump and some other leading populists today come across as opportunistic self-promoters rather than incorrigible ideologues." International cooperation: "Institutions of international co-operation and the rule of law at home are much stronger in the developed world than they were in Europe in the 1930s." As a result, he does not think we are hurtling toward another major global conflict or serious economic crisis. Still, he identifies significant risks. 'Try to see it through Putin's eyes' The first is Trump's attitude to the Middle East. Trump has signalled he will move the US to a more isolationist stance when it comes to international affairs and has expressed no interest in getting involved in Syria. This could create a power imbalance in the region that creates trouble in Europe. Schmieding said: "Having intervened forcefully to tilt the balance in Europe in WWI, the US thereafter did little to stabilise the fragile new order it had helped to establish, preferring to retreat instead. Could something similar happen again, this time in the Arab world in Europe's immediate neighbourhood? If so, the consequences including potential further flows of refugees would be a much bigger issue for Europe than for the US itself." putin Russian President Vladimir Putin.Reuters The second risk is Russia. Schmieding said Trump's warm relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin and his reputation as a "wheeler dealer" could lead to "a businessmen's deal on, say, new borders for Ukraine," which would destabalise Russia's relationship with the EU. Schmieding added, however, that this was unlikely, however. A greater threat, he said, once again would be Trump's isolationist views and his anti-NATO stance. Schmieding writes: "Try to see it through Putin's eyes. After Russia had invaded parts of Georgia in 2008, US President Barack Obama pushed the policy 'reset' button upon coming to office in 2009. Putin's attack on Ukraine yielded visible gains (Crimea, Donetsk) for him in 2014 at limited Russian casualties. That boosted his popularity and stabilised his regime despite some significant economic costs. Why not do it again, unless the economic costs seem prohibitively high?" 'Populists can promise their voters the moon — but they cannot deliver' Finally, Schmieding flagged perhaps the greatest global risk — that Trump and the Brexit are just the start. There is a risk of more contemporary fringe parties rising to power across Europe, and while Schmieding does not believe France's far-right National Front party will get a Trump boost as party leader Marine Le Pen has suggested, he wrote: "The experience that pollsters got the Brexit vote and the US elections so wrong adds to the concerns. In the same vein, the Italian risk is not trivial." (Italy will hold a constitutional referendum shortly, and a loss could destabalise Prime Minister Matteo Renzi.) Marine le Pen Marine Le Pen, the leader of France's far-right National Front party.REUTERS/Charles Platiau HSBC and Macquarie last week flagged the danger that a Trump victory could make the rise of populist parties like the National Front and Italy's Five Star Party more likely. And ultimately, Schmieding said: "Populists can promise their voters the moon. But they cannot deliver. When Trump and Brexit fails to deliver everything people hoped it would — almost inevitable because the two movements meant so many different things to so many different people — there will be more anger." He adds: "Who will rustbelt voters fall for next time if Trump does not bring back the jobs lost to China? What if Brexit results in fewer rather than more jobs in UK industry? What if curbs on immigration stoke inflation and damage the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK instead of raising the living standards of disgruntled voters in northern England? "What comes after the current batch of populists is a key risk to watch." If the problems Brexit and Trump campaigners highlighted are not solved, a new batch of firebrand politicians could come along and exploit public anger to rise to power. Who knows what they may look like. 13 - 14 -AND, this is due to the ideological presupposition of borders; Nation-states create boundary lines to legitimize the destruction of the natural frontiers- the continuation of post-world war boundaries allows for western aggression, valuing the lives of those in power above the less fortunate. 15 -Orakhelashvili 09 (Dr. Alexander, has taught and researched public international law at four British universities over the past 10 years. His teaching also includes criminal law and jurisprudence. He is a frequent speaker at international conferences and seminars on developments in public international law, and has provided legal advice regarding public international law issues in litigation before English and American courts, “INTERNATIONAL LAW AND GEOPOLITICS: ONE OBJECT, CONFLICTING LEGITIMACIES?*”, Pg 185-187)***this has been modified for abelist language 16 -Contemporary international law is premised on inviolability of state boundaries. Geopolitics focuses on frontiers in terms of their utility in ensuring stable settlement of relevant conflicts or controversies, with the durability of frontiers. In this sense frontiers can be motivated by economic, security or ethnic factors each of which can contribute to or undermine their stability and durability. Obviously every territorial conquest is motivated by advantages following from the resources and location of the territory. This factor cannot by itself justify territorial aspirations. But the underlying question of geopolitics seems to go deeper and address the fundamental needs of defence, security and economic existence. Before they divided states, boundaries served as dividing zones between primitive tribes. The primary purpose of having boundary zones in that context was twofold: to be an extreme limit of the area within which the relevant tribe could obtain necessary fold supply and use resources; and if located at the appropriate side, to prevent other tribal groups from intruding. 97 Thus, ever since the time immemorial, two principal functions of boundary related to economic survival and security of the relevant entities. In other words, boundaries are necessary premises for existence and survival Under some views, natural frontiers are determined above all by the access to the sea, and by the language factor. 98 As Spykman observes, ‘The boundary is thus not only a line of demarcation between legal systems but also a point of contact of territorial power structures.’ Natural frontiers, such as deserts, swamps, forests, mountains, have historically contributed to the defence of states but nature alone cannot create impassable barriers. The advance of technology and communication means enables penetrating through natural obstacles; frontier fortifications can be no hindrance to aerial bombardment. Thus frontier has lost a good deal of its significance. Still, ‘Even if ground must be sacrificed and advanced positions surrendered, the frontier still performs its strategic function if it retards the first onslaught and provides a barrier zone behind which the nation can mobilise the full strength of its economic and military resources.’ 99 Proponents of German Geopolitikhad their own understanding of frontiers as temporary. Desirable frontiers favoured the nation that expands and challenges the neighbour nation that wants to obtain strategic frontier. In other words, ‘good’ frontier favours the nation attacking the existing international order. Haushofer argued that only declining nations seek stable borders. At the same time, the concept of dynamic frontier was borrowed by Haushofer from the British geopolitical thinking. 100 Given that geopolitical aspirations to revise frontiers often motivate wars, crises and frictions, it may have been right to observe that ‘The best political frontier is that which has ceased to matter.’ 101 Few cases can demonstrate this better than that of the Afghan-Pakistani border in the area of the Waziristan prov- ince. This case demonstrates the importance of boundaries as signifying the limit on territorial sovereignty in the context of conflict in Afghanistan, where much of the Taliban support comes from the neighbouring Pakistani area of Waziristan where Taliban runs its own mini-state. Yet, the existence of an international border that divides Waziristan from Afghanistan has for a long while prevented the US and NATO intervention beyond the border line, and thus curbs their capacity in fighting Taliban. The invasion of Waziristan in September 2008 by the United States forces have been criticised as infringement of the sovereignty of Pakistan, 102 and the latter’s military has professed in having put up armed resistance to the US forces secure land boundaries have often been aspired and obtained in practice, but the legality of boundary depends not on the security factor as such, but on the agreement that reflects these security needs. A comprehensive analysis of postFirst World War and post-Second World war boundary negotiations and agreements that have caused the multiple re-arrangements of European state boundaries, has demonstrated that the predominant attitude has always been to obtain secure boundaries through concluding treaties rather than through unilateral determination of security claims. Secure boundaries have also been obtained in the context of the aggressor’s responsibility. 17 - 18 -Chapter two is globalization- 19 -We advocate affirming globalization as a deconstruction of the border- we view globalization as a complex engagement that isn’t just about the economy, but about how we think of the interconnected nature of the world. This entails rejecting protectionism, which is a heuristic or reactionary nationalism. 20 - 21 -This is not about directly supporting the deconstruction of physical borders but destroying the mental constructs of borders that create the mindsets that make borders necessary 22 -Schlee 3 (Gunther Schlee Africa: Journal of the International African Institute, Vol. 73, No. 3 (2003) REDRAWING THE MAP OF THE HORN: THE POLITICS OF DIFFERENCE) Crystal 23 -The other day' Donald Donham showed me his draft introduction to a collected volume entitled Remapping Ethiopia. In this introduction Donald expresses some ideas which are dear also to me, pointing out that in the case of Ethiopia 'the very shape of the country-the iconic outline that symbolises the nation2-has changed as Eritrea has become its own country.' The present contribution will have a yet clearer geographical focus than that planned volume (since published as James et al., 2002) in which the term 'mapping' is taken up sometimes literally but also in various metaphorical senses. Of course I am aware of the difference between the surface of the earth and a map. And also a boundary is not a simple given but a mental construct. Some boundaries are visible-the German/German one consisted of a fence and other fortifications, and the Kenyan/Ethiopian one is a straight cut-line, which undulates like a white ribbon across the hilltops. But most boundaries are not visible in most places and in social reality might amount more to a transitional zone than to well-defined lines. But apart from this necessary caution I want to speak about maps and boundaries at the lowest possible level of abstraction. The shape of a national territory can never be seen. From a spacecraft we see continents and mountain ranges but no boundaries, and if we come close enough to see cut-lines or other boundary markers, we can no longer see a surface large enough to cover the whole territory. Nevertheless from weather forecast maps, advertisements and other forms of visual representations, we are all so familiar with the territorial shape of the nation-state we live in-and those of many other such units-that these shapes have come to stand as emblems for the respective national identities. 24 -Our advocacy is key- European imposed borders result in massive ethnic wars and genocide- only by understanding the world as interconnected and fluid can we solce. 25 -Amadife and Warhola 93 (Emmanuel N. Amadife associate prof at KSU and James W. Warhola prof at University of Maine, Africa's Political Boundaries: Colonial Cartography, the OAU, and the Advisability of Ethno-National Adjustment International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, Vol. 6, No. 4 (Summer, 1993) Crystal 26 -Examples of ethnic differences reflecting serious national conflicts abound in post-colonial Africa; they appear to be the rule rather than the exception. The full-scale civil wars largely along ethnic lines in Sudan (1956-1972; resumed in 1989-present); Rwanda (1959-1964, and since intermittently); Ethiopia; and Nigeria (1967-1970) illustrate the point. Equally significant, many intracountry civil conflicts, which on the surface appeared as ideological or factionally-based wars, were in fact ethnic conflicts carried on under a non-ethnic or ostensibly supra-ethnic banner. The civil conflicts in Angola, Mozambique, Liberia, Uganda, and Sudan are cases in point. The existence and ready diagnosis of the problem nonetheless produced a muted acknowledgement from most African leaders, who frequently argued that recognizing the claims of different ethnic groups could precipitate secessionist wars analogous, perhaps, to the chain of military coups d'etat beginning in the mid-1960s, or could start a process of 'Balkanization' in Africa that would be impossible to halt without massive amounts of blood being shed. Ignoring the existing and unfolding patterns is no viable solution, given the social conditions in which they originate; and repressing potential ethnic conflicts is likely to provide as implausible a long-term civic peace as the USSR's "Leninist nationality policy" did in purportedly resolving that country's simmering ethnic troubles. Although the two regions (Africa and former USSR) differ profoundly, the sobering and unavoidable point is that many of the same social forces giving rise to ethnic conflict in the former USSR and Eastern Europe are operating as powerfully, though somewhat differentially, in Africa. Since these forces are so powerful, and far from displaying signs of abating into the 21st century, we turn now to a closer examination of what they imply for Africa's political framework. 27 -AND-Maps are tools for the state- they legitimize the state to take land and erase people to create its own area, creating refugee crisis and ceding all power to the state. Our advocacy disrupts the power of state control. 28 -Wood 12 (Denis, is an artist, author, cartographer and a former professor of Design at North Carolina State University, “The Anthropology of Cartography”, Pg 297 http://www.deniswood.net/content/Anthro20Cart.pdf) 29 -But I don't Insist on it here because where I really want to go is to the performance of the state and we're almost there. By the time Fels and I came to write 'Designs on Signs' it had become obvious that maps laboured extensively in the service of the state. Or maybe this understates It, for certaInly it was one of the principal assertions of the critical cartography that was then being born - the assertion that most enflamed the ire of the old guard - that maps had political agendas, that they were tools of the state. The papers given at the 1985 Nebenza hl Lectu res at the Newberry Library and later collected under the title MOllarcl/s, Ministers, and Maps: The Emergence of Cartography as a Tool of Govemment ill Early Modem Europe began to sketch something of the range of the map's labours for the state; Fels and I something of their inwardness; and Brian Harley's 'Maps, Knowledge, and Power' of 1988 and later papers something of their penetration and ... grip (Buisseret 1992; Wood and Fels 1986; Harley 1988, 2(01). In the lecture I gave to inaugurate the Power of Maps exhibition I simply took it for granted that the map was a weapon in the arsenal of state control, discussing the map under the headings of subjugation, intimidation and legitimation. But the state had many tools at its disposal: what was it about the map that the state found SO valuable, especially the state emerging in early modern China, Europe, Japan and elsewhere? Tile Anthropology of Cartography 297 It is important to observe that all the bureaucratic functions fulfilled by maps during this period could have been handled without maps, as they had been during the later Middle Ages. The historians of cadastral mapping, Roger Ka in and Elizabeth Baigent, remind us that maps are not indispensable even for cadastral; and this leads them to wonder why so many states adopted cadastral mapping during the early modern period. 'Conviction of the merits of mapping was a precondition for mapping itself', they argue (1992: 343). This is a theme in much contemporary scholarship where a particularly significant merit was the ability of the map to figure the new state itself, to perform lite shape of statehood, to give the state what the historian Thongchai Winichakul calls a geo-body (1994).18 The early modern state was in the opening phase of an evolution from an older structure in which loyalty had been offered to one's lord, one's immediate community and one's family (typified by a powerful sense of mutual obligations among face-to-face acquaintances), to a novel political organization with increasingly impersonal institutions and abstract character. This impersonal state required new forms for its embodiment. Contemporary scholarship is unanimous that the map possessed an all but unique power to give the elusive idea of this new state concrete form, both for those living within it and for those contemplating it from without; and has documented this for Japan, China, Russia, France, the United States, Mexico, Siam, British Guyana, Israel and elsewhere. 19 The most striking feature about all these assertions is their persuasion that the map was an artefact that constructed the state, that literally helped to bring the state into being, that brought it into focus. It's almost as though it were the map that in a graphic performance of statehood conjured the state as such into existence: out of the territories of the recently warring daimyo of Japan, out of the far-flung possessions of Chinese emperors out of the disjointed rabble of the American colonies 30 - 31 - 32 -Chapter three is framing 33 - 34 -The judge is an educator, 2 warrents 35 -Debate is an educational setting; we represent schools in a school 36 - 37 -B. the ballot endorses a truth claim, such as ‘I affirm’, thus the judge endorses a frame of truth, educating students with it 38 - 39 - 40 -Thus, the judge has the primary obligation to deconstruct oppressive regimes. Schooling institutions, like this debate round, are especially important in this role. 41 -Robinson, Kerry, and Cristyn Davies. "Docile bodies and heteronormative moral subjects: Constructing the child and sexual knowledge in schooling." Sexuality and Culture 12.4 (2008): 221-239. 42 -Schools, as a discursive field, are sites where technologies of power produce ‘regimes of truth’ that uphold the hegemonic social, political and moral values of dominant and powerful groups (Foucault 1977). This is obvious within the syllabi that we examine in this discussion, in which children are constructed as heteronormative subjects. Schooling as a disciplining state apparatus has a compulsory captive audience––docile bodies––through which to constructs knowledge and discipline heternormative moral subjects. Foucault’s concept of the powerknowledge nexus operates through hegemonic discourses that are perpetuated through curricula, rules and regulations, philosophies, policies, and pedagogical practices that prevail in schooling (Foucault 1977). The regulative and repetitive practices of schooling become part of children’s habitus as they tap into the cultural, social and economic capital valued in schooling (Bourdieu 1991). Habitus refers to the dispositions, perceptions, and attitudes generated throughout an individuals’ cultural history that can enable or prohibit effective exchange or accumulation of one’s capital (Robinson and Jones-Diaz 2006). However, it is important to point out that part of the way that education is transformed is through teachers’ critical approach towards pedagogy and the curriculum. Some teachers question what constitutes ‘official knowledge’ within the mainstream curriculum to reshape and contest the power of dominant groups. Syllabi are also interpreted by individual teachers, who can include perspectives that challenge regimes of truth operating in schools. So despite our critique of educational syllabi in this paper, we need to acknowledge that some teachers would have challenged the representation of knowledge about health and its presentation. It is also important to acknowledge that even though we critique the lack of specific Docile Bodies and Heteronormative Moral Subjects 123 detail in the syllabi on sexual identity, we do so with an awareness that some teachers may have used this space (marked by an absence of definition around sexual identity) to address issues of non-heterosexuality. However, this potential ‘queer space’ may also be counteracted by other forms of regulation, including students’ surveillance of heteronormative values, or the introduction of additional policies, such as the Controversial Issues Policy that has operated along side the syllabi in NSW schools since the 1970’s. 43 - 44 -AND, Our reinvisioning of the debate space introduces radical abolitionist pedagogy as a praxis for learning, calling into question those common sense truths that underlie that modern. Only this opening activates the agency and challenging necessary for any viable pedagogy. 45 - 46 -Rodriguez 10. Dylan (University of California at Riverside). “The Disorientation of the Teaching Act: Abolition as Pedagogical Position” Radical Teacher, Number 88, Summer 2010, pp. 7-19 University of Illinois Press, Project Muse. PESH AK/AKB 47 - 48 -Finally, The horizon of the possible is only constrained by one’s pedagogical willingness to locate a particular political struggle (here, prison abolition) within the long and living history of liberation movements. In this context, “Prison abolition” can be understood as one important strain within a continuously unfurling fabric of liberationist political horizons, in which the imagination of the possible and the practical is shaped but not limited by the specific material and institutional conditions within which one lives. It is useful to continually ask: on whose shoulders does one sit, when undertaking the audacious identifications and political practices endemic to an abolitionist pedagogy? There is something profoundly indelible and emboldening in realizing that one’s “own” political struggle is deeply connected to a vibrant, robust, creative, and beautiful legacy of collective imagination and creative social labor (and of course, there are crucial ways of comprehending historical liberation struggles in all their forms, from guerilla warfare to dance). While I do not expect to arrive at a wholly satisfactory pedagogical endpoint anytime soon, and am therefore hesitant to offer prescriptive examples of “how to teach” within an abolitionist framework, I also believe that rigorous experimentation and creative pedagogical radicalism is the very soul of This praxis. There is, in the end, no teaching formula or pedagogical system that finally fulfills the abolitionist social vision, there is only a political desire that understands the immediacy of struggling for human liberation from precisely those forms of systemic violence and institutionalized dehumanization that are most culturally and politically sanctioned, valorized, and taken for granted within one’s own pedagogical moment. To refuse or resist this desire is to be unaccountable to the historical truth of our moment, in which the structural logic and physiological technologies of social liquidation (removal from or effective neutralization within civil society) have merged with history’s greatest experiment in punitive human captivity, a linkage that increasingly lays bare racism’s logical outcome in genocide.18 Abolitionist Position and Praxis Given the historical context I have briefly outlined, and the practical-theoretical need for situating an abolitionist praxis within a longer tradition of freedom struggle, I contend that There can be no liberatory teaching act, nor can there be an adequately critical pedagogical practice, that does not also attempt to become an abolitionist one. Provisionally, I am conceptualizing abolition as a praxis of liberation that is creative and experimental rather than formulaic and rigidly programmatic. Abolition is a “radical” political position, as well as a perpetually creative and experimental pedagogy, because formulaic approaches cannot adequately apprehend the biopolitics, dynamic statecraft, and internalized violence of genocidal and proto-genocidal systems of human domination. As a productive and creative praxis, this conception of abolition posits the material possibility and historical necessity of a social capacity for human freedom based on a cultural-economic infrastructure that supports the transformation of oppressive relations that are the legacy of genocidal conquest, settler colonialism, racial slavery/capitalism,19 compulsory hetero-patriarchies, and global white supremacy. In this sense, Abolitionist praxis does not singularly concern itself with the “abolition of the prison industrial complex,” although it fundamentally and strategically prioritizes the prison as a central site for catalyzing broader, radical social transformations. In significant part, this suggests envisioning and ultimately constructing “a constellation of alternative strategies and institutions, with the ultimate aim of removing the prison from the social and ideological landscape of our society.”20 In locating abolitionist praxis within a longer political genealogy that anticipates the task of remaking the world under transformed material circumstances, This position refracts the most radical and revolutionary dimensions of a historical Black freedom struggle that positioned the abolition of “slavery” as the condition of possibility for Black—hence “human”—freedom. To situate contemporary abolitionism as such is also to recall the U.S. racist state’s (and its liberal allies’) displacement and effective political criminalization of Black radical abolitionism through the 13th Amendment’s 1865 recodification of the slave relation through the juridical reinvention of a racial-carceral relation: Given the institutional elaborations of racial criminalization, policing, and massive imprisonment that have prevailed on the 13th Amendment’s essential authorization to replace a regime of racist chattel slavery with racist carceral state violence, it is incumbent on the radical teacher to assess the density of her/his entanglement in this historically layered condition of End Page 15 violence, immobilization, and capture. Prior to the work of formulating an effective curriculum and teaching strategy for critically engaging the prison industrial complex, in other words, is the even more difficult work of examining the assumptive limitations of any “radical pedagogy” that does not attempt to displace an epistemological and cultural common sense in which the relative order and peace of the classroom is perpetually reproduced by the systemic disorder and deep violence of the prison regime. In relation to the radical challenging of common sense discussed above, another critical analytical tool for building an abolitionist pedagogy entails the rigorous, scholarly dismantling of the “presentist” and deeply ahistorical understanding of policing and prisons. Students (and many teachers) frequently enter such dialogues with an utterly mystified conception of the policing and prison apparatus, and do not generally understand that 1) these apparatuses in their current form are very recent creations, and have not been around “forever”; and 2) the rise of these institutional forms of criminalization, domestic war, and mass-scale imprisonment forms one link in a historical chain of genocidal and proto-genocidal mobilizations of the racist state that regularly take place as part of the deadly global process of U.S. nation-building. In other words, not only is the prison regime a very recent invention of the state (and therefore is neither a “permanent” nor indestructible institutional assemblage), but it is institutionally and historically inseparable from the precedent and contemporaneous structures of large-scale racist state violence. Asserting the above as part of the core analytical framework of the pedagogical structure can greatly enable a discussion of abolitionist possibility that thinks of the critical dialogue as a necessary continuation of long historical struggles against land conquest, slavery, racial colonialism, and imperialist war. This also means that our discussions take place within a longer temporal community with those liberation struggles, such that we are neither “crazy” nor “isolated.” I have seen students and teachers speak radical truth to power under difficult and vulnerable circumstances based on this understanding that they are part of a historical record. I have had little trouble “convincing” most students—across distinctions of race, class, gender, age, sexuality, and geography—of the gravity and emergency of our historical moment. It is the analytical, political, and practical move toward an abolitionist positionality that is (perhaps predictably) far more challenging. This is in part due to The fraudulent and stubborn default position of centrist-to-progressive liberalism/reformism (including assertions of “civil” and “human” rights) as the only feasible or legible response to reactionary, violent, racist forms of state power. Perhaps more troublesome, however, is that this Resistance to engaging with abolitionist praxis seems to also of the political imagination that makes liberationist dreams unspeakable. This disciplining is most overtly produced through hegemonic state and cultural apparatuses and their representatives (including elected officials, popular political pundits and public intellectuals, schools, family units, religious institutions, etc.), but is also compounded through the pragmatic imperatives of many liberal and progressive nonprofit organizations and social movements that reproduce the political limitations of the End Page 16 nonprofit industrial complex.22 In this context, the liberationist historical identifications hailed by an abolitionist social imagination also require that such repression of political-intellectual imagination be fought, demystified, and displaced. Perhaps, then, there is no viable or defensible pedagogical position other than an abolitionist one. To live and work, learn and teach, and survive and thrive in a time defined by the capacity and political willingness to eliminate and neutralize populations through a culturally valorized, state sanctioned nexus of institutional violence, is to better understand why abolitionist praxis in this historical moment is primarily pedagogical, within and against the “system” in which it occurs. While it is conceivable that in future moments, abolitionist praxis can focus more centrally on matters of (creating and not simply opposing) public policy, infrastructure building, and economic reorganization, The present moment clearly demands a convening of radical pedagogical energies that can build the collective human power, epistemic and knowledge apparatuses, and material sites of learning that are the precondition of authentic and liberatory social transformations. The prison regime is the institutionalization and systemic expansion of massive human misery. It is the production of bodily and psychic disarticulation on multiple scales, across different physiological capacities. The prison industrial complex is, in its logic of organization and its production of common sense, at least proto-genocidal. Finally, the prison regime is inseparable from—that is, present in—the schooling regime in which teachers are entangled. Prison is not simply a place to which one is displaced and where one’s physiological being is disarticulated, at the rule and whim of the state and its designated representatives (police, parole officers, school teachers). The prison regime is the assumptive premise of classroom teaching generally. While many of us must live in labored denial of this fact in order to teach as we must about “American democracy,” “freedom,” and “(civil) rights,” there are opportune moments in which it is useful to come clean: the vast majority of what occurs in U.S. classrooms—from preschool to graduate school—cannot accommodate the bare truth of the proto-genocidal prison regime as a violent ordering of the world, a primary component of civil society/school, and a material presence in our everyday teaching acts. As teachers, we are institutionally hailed to the service of genocide management, in which our pedagogical labor is variously engaged in mitigating, valorizing, critiquing, redeeming, justifying, lamenting, and otherwise reproducing or tolerating the profound and systemic violence of the global-historical U.S. nation building project. As “radical” teachers, we are politically hailed to betray genocide management in order to embrace the urgent challenge of genocide abolition. The short-term survival of those populations rendered most immediately vulnerable to the mundane and spectacular violence of this system, and the long-term survival of most of the planet’s human population (particularly those descended from survivors of enslavement, colonization, conquest, and economic exploitation), is significantly dependent on our willingness to embrace this form of pedagogical audacity. 49 -Next, the underview- 50 - 51 -Definition of globalization, Merrian Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/globalization, 52 -: the act or process of globalizing : the state of being globalized; especially : the development of an increasingly integrated global economy marked especially by free trade, free flow of capital, and the tapping of cheaper foreign labor markets - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-19 04:23:54.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Policy dude - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -lmao - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -35 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -North Crowley Reed Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -UIL- Borderlands AC vol 1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Grandview
- Caselist.CitesClass[31]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,62 +1,0 @@ 1 -analytics 2 - 3 -Certain power relations are normatively bad- violence and abjection occurs when a higharchy becomes compulsory or exclusionary, that is, when it becomes stratified and nears the inability to change while forcing moral exclusion onto the non-subject. This denies the abject the ability to participate in moral agency. The way we restore agency is through resistance inside the frame 4 -Michael Rhizome.net , Queer Theory's Loss and the Work of Mourning Jacques Derrida, Michael O'Rourke, http://www.rhizomes.net/issue10/orourke.htm 5 -hat "every sign can be cited, put between quotation marks; thereby, it can break with every given context, and engender infinitely new contexts in an absolutely nonsaturable fashion" 78. Because a subject is the product of compulsory normative frames which need to be constituted over and over again, agency is made possible and efficacious precisely because interpellation sometimes fails. The subject cannot and does not establish a distance between him/herself and these disciplinary regimes but subverts these codes from within. It is from inside these normative frames that spaces for resistance, for recitation are opened up 79. In an interview with William Connolly Butler says: "Under conditions in which gender has been constrained, in which certain sexual and gender minorities have felt their lives to be 'impossible', unviable, unlivable, then 'becoming possible' is a most certain political achievement" 80. Ten years after Gender Trouble and anticipating her more recent work on the human, livability, and bare life, Butler stresses that those who barely count as human, the abject, operate within the compulsory norms of heterosexuality, defying the "tacit and violent presumption that human life only appears as livable under the description of heterosexuality". In language reminiscent of both Agamben and Derrida she concludes "that lives foreclosed now take themselves to be 'possible' strikes me as a political good under conditions in which a certain heightened norm of compulsory heterosexuality works to make non-compliant lives into those which are impossible" 81. 14 To grossly oversimplify the argument put forward in Gender Trouble, Bodies that Matter, and later in Excitable Speech 82 (where she again draws on Derridean theories of iterability and re-markation to open up a theory of insurrectionary speech and discursive agency) Butler is trying to account for the ways in which "remainder" subjectivities are produced in specific historico-cultural situations as abjected, produced, as Hardt says, as by-products of the violent exclusions that secure normative identities. She says about this ethico-political project: There is an 'outside' to what is constructed by discourse, but this is not an absolute 'outside', an ontological thereness that exceeds or counters the boundaries of discourse; as a constitutive 'outside', it is that which can only be thought-when it can-in relation to that discourse, at and as its most tenuous borders., a process without an event" 136. If, however, the queer theory-to come were always undecidable, unanticipatable, aporetic, incalculable, im-possible, like "the shudder of an arrow of which it is still not known where and how far it will go" 137 then "those who are the future are on their way, now, even if these arrivants have not yet arrived: their present is not present, it is not in current affairs, but they are coming, they are arrivants because they are going to come" 138, Derrida tells us. 37 Queer Theory, as Sedgwick has shown recently, is endless suspicion and mistrust 139. But it is a mistrust which believes in reparative gestures, places its faith in the future, the l'avenir, in what is always yet to-come. The more queer theory provokes, the more it has faith in the impossible, the more it has a future. Indeed, Queer Theory is the future, a theory of the future. 38 The future of Queer Theory after Jacques Derrida and the messianic twist: viens, oui, oui. 6 - 7 - Thus, the normative duty becomes to make the impossible possible and to reduce violence within higharchies, and the role of the judge should be to deconstruct violent highachies. Judith Butler explains that this entails rejecting compulsory heterosexuality 8 -Rhizome.net , Queer Theory's Loss and the Work of Mourning Jacques Derrida, Michael O'Rourke, http://www.rhizomes.net/issue10/orourke.htm 9 -The subject cannot and does not establish a distance between him/herself and these disciplinary regimes but subverts these codes from within. It is from inside these normative frames that spaces for resistance, for recitation are opened up 79. In an interview with William Connolly Butler says: "Under conditions in which gender has been constrained, in which certain sexual and gender minorities have felt their lives to be 'impossible', unviable, unlivable, then 'becoming possible' is a most certain political achievement" 80. Ten years after Gender Trouble and anticipating her more recent work on the human, livability, and bare life, Butler stresses that those who barely count as human, the abject, operate within the compulsory norms of heterosexuality, defying the "tacit and violent presumption that human life only appears as livable under the description of heterosexuality". In language reminiscent of both Agamben and Derrida she concludes " 10 - 11 -analytic 12 - 13 -analytic 14 - 15 -Thus, we should use a method of Derridian Deconstruction; this entails both disrupting higharchies and striving towards better models of power relations 16 -Michael explains- we should invoke the category of sexuality within our social frame while contesting the concepts that form our current understanding 17 -Rhizome.net , Queer Theory's Loss and the Work of Mourning Jacques Derrida, Michael O'Rourke 18 -they say and from the claims they make. Their texts have a spiralling structure and these performative in(ter)ventions allow for an infinite openness and welcome to the radically other, the tout autre, the radically foreign 70. Both are theorists of the avenir, the future to-come. Butler's Queer Theory, like Derrida's deconstruction, events, invents, intervenes, is always to-come 71. While Butler is cautious about abandoning identity she argues throughout her oeuvre for the theoretical and political necessity for a creative aporetics, that is, for the necessity to " learn a double movement: to invoke the category, and hence provisionally to institute an identity and at the same time to open the category as a site of permanent political contest" 72. In keeping with Derrida's recent 'ethico-political turn' Butler's writing has a relentlessly dual focus: calling for concrete, responsive action to specific political situations in the present while preserving the possibility, indeed necessity, of a reinscribed future. Her work matters crucially to a queer Derrida 73 but in this article I want to pass quickly through her idea of performativity as it is borrowed from Derrida 74 and on to her theory of mourning before circling back to her messianicity 75. Butler's Performativity 13 In Gender Trouble, considered by many to be the founding (if there is such a thing) text of Queer Theory 76, Butler first outlined her theory of gender as performance and gender performativity. Three years later she wrote Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of 'Sex' as a corrective to some of the (mis)applications of her ideas of drag and parodic resignification. To reduce performativity to performance was for her "a mistake" and in Bodies That Matter she draws on Foucault's work on discursive formation, Derrida on speech act theory and iterability, and Sedgwick on queer performativity to fashion her idea of performativity "not as a singular or deliberate 'act', but, rather, as the reiterative and citational practice by which discourse produces the effects that it names" 77. This is most clearly dependent on Derrida's claim i"Signature, Event, Context" 19 - 20 - 21 -Thus the roll of the ballot is to deconstruct compulsory heterosexuality through Derridian Deconstruction 22 - 23 -analytic 24 - 25 -Next, case 26 - 27 -Mandatory monogamy as a form of compulsory heterosexuality is enforced by the legal and social constraints on behavior, institutionalizing the commodification of participants while locking power relations in place. This renders the non-monogamous abject. Previous queer movements have failed because they either neglect non-monogamy, getting trapped by the system, or ignore material reality and fail to make change. 28 -Robinson, Victoria. "My baby just cares for me: Feminism, heterosexuality and non‐monogamy." Journal of Gender Studies 6.2 (1997): 143-157. 29 - 30 -For some, especially radical feminists the main concern is not so much how women's sex lives are affected by gender inequalities but, more generally, how heterosexuality as it is currently institutionalised constrains women in most aspects of their lives .... For others, there is a much greater emphasis on how sexual relations are determined through inequalities in the social sphere, limiting personal pleasures (and pains) and desires. For example, Lynne Segal, in her book Straight Sex: Rethinking the Politics of Pleasure,concluded by saying: 'Straight feminists, like gay men and lesbians, have everything to gain from asserting our non-coercive desire to fuck if, when, how and as we choose' (Segal 1994: 318). (Richardson, 1996, p. 12) Combining an awareness of heterosexuality both as constraint and as enabling possible agency and desire, this analysis of heterosexual monogamy and non-monogamy suggests that for women, the decision as to whether or not to be in heterosexual relationships can be an act of political choice, constituting women's agency as sexual actors. This choice is one which must be seen to be informed and limited by such factors as 'race', class and age. It is also crucial to recognise, that such agency occurs within the framework of a dominant, institutionalised 'compulsory' heterosexuality (see Rich, 1980, and Cameron, 1992, for a discussion of the compulsory nature of heterosexuality). I also recognise as 0958-9236/97/020143-15 © 1997 Carfax Publishing LtdDownloaded by McGill University Library at 05:00 29 July 2012 144 Victoria Robinson Jackson (1995a) does, that: 'I do not view heterosexuality as simply a sexual institution' (p. 139). Theoretical attention on heterosexuality's connection to social theory, social policy and domestic life for example, is currently in progress (see Richardson, 1996). I do not wish to claim the feminist moral highground for non-monogamy (I recognise women are in monogamous relationships for a variety of reasons, ranging from economic, social and psychological dependence, to the desire to create an equal partnership), but in this article I argue that institutionalised monogamy has not served women's best interests. It privileges the interests of both men and capitalism, operating as it does through the mechanisms of exclusivity, possessiveness and jealousy, all filtered through the rose-tinted lens of romance. (For a fuller discussion of romance, see Jackson, 1993.) This of course has been theorised previously, but I want to connect this to a consideration of non-monogamous relationships which allows us to look at such issues in an explicit and self-reflective way, in the context of the 1990s. It could be argued that, non-monogamy can (potentially) allow for a radical re-working of gendered power relationships (even if such a re-working is fraught with contradiction and contestation) and reveals, as Campbell (1987) has defined it, heterosexuality as a political problematic. Although both monogamous and non-monogamous relationships may not involve sexual relations, my definition of monogamy for this argument, refers to an exclusive sexual relationship between a woman and a man, whilst non-monogamy refers to a woman being involved in parallel, plural sexual relationships. Relationships can also be characterised by emotional or economic factors. Rosa (1994) asserts that monogamy is also 'enforced by cultural products (the media), economic restraints (tax incentives, the high cost of single living), social factors (the provision of support and companionship, or social status and privilege) and by the notion that this is 'how it is', this is natural' (p. 108). Importandy, feminist theorists have argued that both institutionalised monogamy and people's individual experiences of it, can serve the interests of patriarchy and capitalism. Furthermore, they have argued that the existence of non-monogamous relationships can serve to disrupt some of the assumptions monogamy makes about human behaviour. For instance, the belief we are inherently jealous and possessive is challenged if we allow ourselves and others the choice to experience relationships with more than one person (Tsoulis, 1987). An examination of non-monogamy from a feminist perspective, (or the stronger term 'anti-monogamy' as Rosa (1994) defines it), is concerned with discussing ways of relating to each other which have the possibility of transforming aspects of monogamy. For example, the emotional and financial over-investment in one man that a woman in a traditional monogamous relationship may have, is not necessarily challenged if she has more than one male partner, but may potentially represent a critique of monogamy, that it is not always good for women, emotionally or otherwise. Rosa (1994), concerned with lesbian monogamy and non-monogamy, argues that monogamous heterosexuality separates women from each other. She also feels that if women's friendship is vital for feminism, then the means by which we are divided from each other needs to be examined. A critique of monogamy enables us to analyse contemporary social and political issues in a new way, for example, single motherhood, rising divorce rates, the 'breakdown' of family life and the diverse ways of childrearing society is now witnessing. Marriage and/or monogamy is often assumed in public debate on these issues, such as the recent furore over the Domestic Violence Bill. The often unquestioned acceptance of monogamy on the part of both the Left and feminists allows the public discussion of these issues to be carried out in the vocabulary and emotional language of the Right. Downloaded by McGill University Library at 05:00 29 July 2012 To question the view that we are not 'naturally' monogamous allows us to argue for the rights of single mothers and gives us new ways of relating, not only as lovers and partners, but as parents, since non-monogamous arrangements require us to rethink the ways in which we currently raise children. A critical consideration of monogamy allows us to respond imaginatively to changing social trends, for example divorces and re-marriages and the diverse family groupings this leads to. The so-called breakdown of family life can give us the opportunity to rethink social arrangements once the central assumption of monogamy has been held up to scrutiny. The ideology of monogamy allows policy makers to fit us into neat, well-defined categories which don't allow for the complexity and realities of the diverse ways in which human beings relate. Those who don't conform to the stereotypes, for example lesbian families or single mothers, can be discriminated against in terms of Welfare Benefits, media stereotyping and the legal system. We do not have to be non-monogamous to be affected by a monogamous ideal which underpins the social and economic system. There are many types of non-monogamous arrangements or variations on monogamy, ranging from swinging, communal living, serial monogamy, polygamy, polyandry, and so-called 'open marriages' where affairs are, to different degrees, tolerated. It is important to distinguish non-monogamous relationships which are explicitly critical of monogamy, from discussions in the popular sphere on affairs and infidelity, which often confuse the two. A recent Guardian article (1995) concerned with the morality of infidelity, linked affairs to dishonesty and betrayal, and included in this context discussions with those who had an honest open-relationship, therefore condoning the popular stereotype of all non-monogamous relationships as being the same. I am chiefly concerned with a more political conception of monogamy and non-monogamous relationships which allows for a consideration of gendered power relations. I will therefore examine theoretical definitions of monogamy specifically highlighting contemporary feminist debates which reflect on the 1960s and 1970s. Jealousy as an emotion will be explored in the context of monogamy and non-monogamous alterna- tives, and both 'commonsense' assumptions about monogamy and current feminist theorising on heterosexuality will be critiqued. Critiques of Monogamy It is important first to consider monogamy as an institution. Feminist writers and others such as Engels have critiqued monogamy from a number of standpoints. In addition to arguing that monogamy rests on a key capitalist principle—the ownership of property, (the property here being women and through them the lines of inheritance are maintained), it is asserted that men also benefit from women's over-investment in one man both emotionally and physically. Monogamous love has been seen to be the process through which monogamy operates: Monogamous love, eulogized in our society, is the tool by which woman are controlled. The familiar idealised pattern of falling in love and living with the man of our dreams for ever and ever (we hope) has infiltrated our thinking. It is no accident that 'love is blind' and leads women into an irrational loss of control. It leads us to making men the centre of our world, re-directing our energies and severing ties with others in an all-consuming fashion. (Tsoulis, 1987, p. 25)My Baby Just Cares for Me 145Downloaded by McGill University Library at 05:00 29 July 2012 146 Victoria Robinson Underpinning this idealisation of monogamy is the biologically essentialist belief that men are naturally more sexual than women and monogamy serves the interests of society by channeling and constraining what Roger Scruton has called 'the unbridled phallus'. Women on the other hand are supposedly more monogamous by nature because of their reproductive capacity and need to acquire the protection—financial or otherwise—from a mate for themselves and their children. Historically, this critique and dissatisfaction with 31 -And, persecution against polyamouous and other non-monogamous dynamics is a violent higharchy 32 -Tweedy 1, Ann E. "Polyamory as a sexual orientation." University of Cincinnati Law Review 79 (2011): 1461. 33 -Published cases explicitly discussing polyamory appear to be few and far between. While these cases generally portray polyamory in a negative light, they are too few in number to warrant a conclusion, on their own, that polyamory constitutes an organizing principle of inequality.178 There is, however, a wealth of law pertaining to non- monogamy that demonstrates that, unlike the smoking/non-smoking distinction, the monogamy/non-monogamy distinction does have significant impact upon modes of power, institutional structures, and social dynamics. While non-monogamy is not synonymous with polyamory,179 it is nevertheless a sine qua non of polyamory as well as the practice that appears to drive most of the prejudice against polyamorists.180 Moreover, polyamorists have overtly embraced nonmonogamy in a way that many others who engage in non-monogamous actions have not. For instance, while there may be good reasons to decriminalize adultery even when practiced in its traditional form,181 the traditional adulterer, who commits to a monogamous relationship with a spouse and then secretly engages in a sexual relationship with a third person, is acquiescing to the societal framework of monogamy in a way that the polyamorist is not. By lying and sneaking around to engage in the relationship with a third party, the traditional adulterer could be said to tacitly acquiesce in the societal view that his or her additional relationship is wrong or at least socially unacceptable. Moreover, by hiding his or her actions, such a person attempts to have this illicit relationship without facing any social consequences for it (and while harming the other party to the monogamous relationship). Finally, at the very least, the prototypical adulterer is not challenging the framework of monogamy, but instead, by continuing to live under a pledge of monogamy, he or she overtly supports the framework, while secretly falling short of, or violating, it. By contrast, polyamorists have rejected the framework and consciously attempt to live outside of it. Because polyamorists explicitly embrace non-monogamy and, at a minimum, let everyone with whom they enter a romantic relationship know of this preference, polyamorists are uniquely likely to be subject to discrimination, including de jure discrimination against nonmonogamists, 34 - 35 - 36 -And, in the context of squo housing, bigamy and cohabitation laws enforce this higharchy 37 - 38 -written on November 16 by Jess, http://thelawandyourlegalrights.com/2009/11/16/bigamy-illegal-marriages-and-their-consequences/, Bigamy and its legal consequences 39 -In the United States, laws relating to the marriage relationship are created by and litigated in the individual states. In all of the states, it is illegal to willfully and knowingly enter into a second marriage while being validly married to another person. This crime is listed as Bigamy in all of the states. In California, Bigamy is defined in section 281 of the Penal Code. California law does not require any particular type of marriage ceremony for either marriage as long as it was valid where entered into. Even common law marriages (those created by cohabiting for a specified period of time), which cannot be created in California, can be used for Bigamy prosecutions if the marriage was valid where entered into. California does recognize common law marriages lawfully entered into in other states. Cohabitation of the spouses is not required, only a valid marriage. And, even if the marriages were entered into outside of California, cohabitation in California is enough to constitute bigamy. If the first marriage is voided or nullified prior to the second marriage, bigamy has not been committed. But a voidable marriage which has not been voided in court will justify a bigamy prosecution. A defective divorce results in a continuing marriage and it is no defense to bigamy that the person believed that the divorce was valid. A good faith belief that the divorce was valid will sometimes persuade a prosecutor not to file bigamy charges. But erroneous legal advice, mistake or ignorance of the law is not a defense to the crime of bigamy. A valid divorce or annulment of the first marriage after entering into to second marriage does not eliminate the crime of bigamy. Under California law, a second marriage is not considered Bigamy if the first spouse is absent for five consecutive years without being known to be alive to the other spouse. And, immigrants visiting temporarily in this country will not be charged with Bigamy if married to more than one spouse if the laws of their country permit it. The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that people who practice bigamy as part of their religion are still guilty of a crime. People facing bigamy charges sometimes try to get their first marriage annulled by the courts since this means that it never existed. Marriages can be annulled if: Either spouse was a minor and legal consent was not obtained; Either spouse was of unsound mind; Either spouse is physically unable to consummate the marriage; The marriage was procured through force or fraud; The marriage constitutes incest because of an unlawful familial relationship. In California, the penalty for committing bigamy includes a fine of up to $10,000 and incarceration in either a county jail or state prison. A person who knowingly marries a married person can be fined not less than $5,000 or be incarcerated in state prison. Immigrants convicted of bigamy can be deported. Bigamous marriages also created many legal and social problems for the second marriage partner and children of that marriage. 40 - 41 -US Legal, Prosecution and Punishment http://bigamy.uslegal.com/prosecution-and-punishment/ 42 -However, a state can enlarge the crime of bigamy in certain cases to includes cohabitation within the state in addition to marriage outside of the state. Two conditions must be satisfied for enlarging the offences to certain class of cases: there must be a marriage outside the state after a divorce was granted and during the six months period before the decree becomes final; and the offending parties must return to the state and cohabit with each other during said prohibited periodiv. In many jurisdictions, bigamy is expanded to prohibit bigamous cohabitation, in cases where marriage or the cohabitation may support prosecution. Even so, bigamy generally contemplates a marriage ceremony rather than a continuing relationshipv. Thus it can be concluded that the celebration of a second marriage completes the offense of bigamy. The state of celebration of the marriage exercises exclusive jurisdiction over the offense. A state can penalize the further act of cohabitation within its borders following the bigamous union. Statutes punishing further cohabitation do not punish the foreign offense but confirm the sovereignty of the forum state. The purpose of punishing the cohabitation of a man and woman begun under a bigamous marriage is to protect good morals and to punish indecencyvi - See more at: http://bigamy.uslegal.com/prosecution-and-punishment/#sthash.clohR2oK.dpuf 43 - 44 -And, this can support a life sentence in prison. This perfectly exemplifies abjection- if you can rot in prison for loving too many people, you are probably a non-subject 45 -Jonathan Turley, USA Today, Adultery, in many states, is still a crime, 4/25/2010 3:29 PM 46 -About two dozen states still have criminal adultery provisions. While prosecutions remain rare, they do occur. And beyond the criminal realm, these provisions can be cited in divorce proceedings, custody disputes, employment cases and even to bar people from serving on juries. Though someone such asTiger Woods might not be prosecuted, these laws could be cited in any divorce proceedings to show not just infidelity but also possible criminality in his lifestyle. When the Puritans came to this land, they left a country where the English treated adultery as largely a civil and personal matter. The Puritans wanted to create a society where moral dictates were enforced by harsh corporal punishments. Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter accurately portrayed colonial America under such criminal lawm s enforcing religious values. There was extensive entanglement between church and state, with adulterers punished for their immorality. In 1644, Mary Latham and James Britton were hanged for their adultery in Massachusetts. Ironically, England at the time was far more tolerant of adultery as a personal matter. Most of these early laws were framed in sexist terms: protecting a husband's exclusive "rights" over his wife as virtual property. Besides death, other punishments included branding, whipping and a variety of shaming punishments. Civil libertarians have long opposed adultery laws as a version of the "tyranny of the majority" over the values of citizens. Many thought this debate was closed after the 2003 decision of the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck a Texas statute criminalizing consensual sodomy. They underestimated the political resistance to the idea of making infidelity a purely civil matter. In Minnesota, for example, state Sen. Ellen Anderson in December made the modest suggestion that the state repeal laws that make it illegal for a married woman to cheat on her husband and make it a crime for single women to have sex at all. The response of the Minnesota Family Council (MFC) was to call for the law not to be repealed but strengthened. Make it a crime for men, too, the group argued. Tom Prichard, MFC's president, said these laws are essentialbecause "they send a message. ... When you are dealing with a marriage, it's not just a private activity or a private institution. It's a very public institution. It has enormous consequences for the rest of society." The law is still on the books. Likewise, when the Illinois legislature last year made a comprehensive set of changes to update the state's laws, it notably kept the criminal provisions for adultery and fornication. In addition to roughly half of the states, adultery remains a criminal offense in the military, where prosecutions occur regularly. In these state and federal systems, adults who cheat on their spouses are still deemed presumptive criminals and face the potential of a criminal charge. Just a year after the Lawrence decision, John R. Bushey Jr., then 66, the town attorney for Luray, Va., was prosecuted for adultery and agreed to a plea bargain of community service. A year later, Lucius James Penn, then 29, was charged with adultery in Fargo, N.D. In 2007, a Michigan appellate court ruled that adultery can still support a life sentence in that state. 47 - 48 -Specifically, squo housing codes normalize compulsory heterosexism- both unmarried couples as well as various queer lifestyles are rendered abject in pursuit of normalization 49 -Unmarried Equality, http://www.unmarried.org/housing/, How does the law permit marital status discrimination in housing? 50 -Housing Marital status discrimination in housing is widespread and legal – and completely unfair. UE calls on Congress to amend the Federal Fair Housing Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of marital status. UE calls on the states (especially Missouri) to enforce their existing laws against marital status discrimination, and to repeal any laws that prohibit cohabitation. How does the law permit marital status discrimination in housing? The Federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of ‘familial status’, which pertains to the presence of children under age 18, but is silent on marital status. About half of U.S. states explicitly prohibit marital status discrimination in housing, but about half the states are silent on it. In these states (unless there are stronger local laws), a landlord can legally refuse to rent to an unmarried couple. In these states, a town can decree that unmarried families, roommates or extended families cannot live certain neighborhoods. State laws prohibiting cohabitation typically use words like lewd and lascivious, public scandal, disgrace, “crime against public morals and decency.” These laws were written generations ago, and no longer reflect citizen’s values. Nonetheless, in these states a cohabiting different-sex couple can be charged with a crime, fined and imprisoned! True life examples of marital status discrimination in housing Great News! Missouri town prevented from evicting unmarried families! These laws are not enforced consistently, and are often ignored. Most landlords probably don’t discriminate, even if they are allowed to. We haven’t heard of anyone being imprisoned for cohabiting. However, discrimination does happen, and when it does, it hurts! In 2006, Olivia Shelltrack, Fondrey Loving and their three children were denied an occupancy permit when they moved into a five-bedroom house because Ms. Shelltrack and Mr. Loving are not married. In Black Jack, anyone moving into a single-family home must apply for an occupancy permit. The city prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by “blood, marriage or adoption.” The city threatened to evict the Shelltrack-Loving family. After several months, under media spotlights and facing a lawsuit by the ACLU, the city amended its zoning law. In 2004, shortly after starting her job as a sheriff’s dispatcher in North Carolina, Debora Hobbs was given this unfair ultimatum: either marry her partner, or move out of the house he lived in, or lose her job. The ACLU took her case to court. The good news is that, in 2006, the court finally found the state’s cohabitation ban to be unconstitutional. The bad news is that, by the end of 2007, no legislative action has yet been taken to repeal the law. In 1998, Dorian Solot and Marshall Miller were looking for an apartment in the Boston area. They inquired about a listing only to have the landlord make it clear that he would not rent to unmarried couples. They later found that the landlord’s inquiry into their marital status was illegal, but they couldn’t find any organization that would help them. This was one of the experiences that galvanized Dorian and Marshall to create the Alternatives to Marriage Project. Which states need to change their laws? Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia have anti-cohabitation laws on their books (although NC’s has been declared unconstitutional by a state court and should not be enforced). The following states do not prohibit marital status discrimination in housing: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, North Carolina, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming. *It’s not clear whether Alaska prohibits marital status discrimination in housing. What You Can Do Do you live in a municipality that forbids unmarried folks from living together? Find out at Municode.com, a searchable website of municipal codes. If you find restrictions on unmarried cohabitation where you live, please let us know. Write letters to your elected officials. Tell Congress to amend the Federal Fair Housing Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of marital status. Tell your governor and state representatives to prohibit marital status discrimination. Tell your governor and state representatives to repeal any anti-cohabitation laws. 51 -Thus the plan: The United States Federal Government should amend the Federal Fair Housing Act to prohibit housing discrimination on the basis of marital status, require that states enforce their existing laws against marital status discrimination, and repeal any state or federal laws that prohibit cohabitation. 52 - 53 -We will clarify in cx if needed 54 - 55 -AND, affirmations of polyamory in the public sphere is key to capture the deconstruction potential of polyamory as a relationship model- it creates a public discourse while striving towards an ideal of broader queerness 56 -Tweedy 2 , Ann E. "Polyamory as a sexual orientation." University of Cincinnati Law Review 79 (2011): 1461. 57 - 58 -Earlier and make other essentialist-sounding statements about their identities such as “monogamy is just not my nature.”94 The legal scholar Elizabeth Emens has characterized such discourse as a “minoritizing strand in contemporary writings”95 on polyamory, thus suggesting that the minoritizing way of looking at polyamory is not the norm within the community. Other evidence, which is limited in geographical scope, appears to confirm this view,96 although a very significant minority (thirty-six percent) of polyamorous bisexuals in one study reported that they had never preferred monogamy at any point in their lives.97 For at least the subset of polyamorists described above, then, there is support for placing their poly identities on the most embedded end of the scale. Their experiences of understanding, from an early age, that they wanted types of relationships that differed from the societal norm are at least somewhat reminiscent of the classic homosexual experience of growing up knowing that one lacks the societally-prescribed interest in the opposite sex, although arguably wanting multiple relationships rather than one is less radical than wanting a relationship with someone of the same sex. Additionally, some poly activists, such as Rambukkana, have described polyamory as an identity, although not necessarily an essentialist one.98 He understands polyamory, like bisexuality, to occupy a “liminial position.”99 In the case of polyamory, that liminal position is one “caught between underground radicalism and public discourse” as well as between “queer and straight discourses of desire” and “forms of relationship.”100 For Rambukkana, polyamory is part of his identity as “a sex radical,” and he considers his “ideological and political orientation towards sex” to be queer.101 However, though he believes, through his polyamory, he is “queering the concept of love or partnership,” at the same time he does not view this as enough to make him “queer,” a label he sees as reserved for homosexual desire.102 Rambukkana notes that his practice of polyamory is shaped by the experiences he had once he and his partner decided to have an open relationship.103 He also describes polyamory is as “a form of sexuality,” advocates that those polyamorists “who can afford to have the label ‘polyamorous’ linked to their identities” do so, and, finally, states that, “as a straight, out polyamorist, he is exercising his existential right to self-name and forge a subject position for himself and for those like” him.104 Although Rambukkana does not explicitly label polyamory as a constructed identity, his descriptions seem to indicate that understanding. He speaks of the difficulty of polyamory’s liminal position, noting that this position is at least part of what makes polyamory a “particularly difficult social mantle to take on”105 and describes the alienation one risks in “coming out of the poly closet.”106 This language suggests that avowing polyamory, like other disfavored identities, can have oppressive social consequences, which are presumably constructed, but entrenched in society. 59 - 60 -Especially true of compulsory heterosexuality- we challenge gender, sexual, and relationship binaries, disrupting both specific manifestations of compulsion and the root cause 61 -Barker, Meg (2005). This is my partner, and this is my. . . partner’s partner: Constructing a polyamorous identity in a monogamous world. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 18(1), pp. 75–88. 62 -Elsewhere (Barker, 2003a), I have elaborated the dominant construction of sexuality in Western culture, as reflected and perpetuated in endless Hollywood movies, pop sonzgs and self-help books (Potts, 1998 and Crawford, 2004). Three key elements of this are that sexual relationships should be (a) between a man and a woman, (b) monogamous, and (c) with the man active and the woman passive. As Richardson (1998) argues, this version of heterosexuality is ‘constructed as a coherent, natural, fixed and stable category; as universal and monolithic’ (p. 2). Those who position themselves outside of it run the risk of being problematised and demonised by our society, seen as abnormal or even criminal (Rubin, 1989). Queer theorists have explored how those in the LGBT lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities may be threatening since they can be seen as ‘disturbing and troubling heterosexuality’ (Jackson, 2003, p. 70). The same may be said of those in the polyamorous communities. Polyamory contests the ideal of the monogamous relationship (b), and in some cases the idea that relationships should be between only two people (a). Even now, most accepted psychological theories propose ‘natural’ human development as the process of forging a monogamous partnership with someone of the opposite sex and starting a ‘biological’ family. However, some past theorists have questioned this. Engels (1951) considered monogamy a restrictive state reflective of the ownership of goods and people inherent in capitalism, with women being degraded and reduced to servants, slaves to male lusts, and instruments for the production of children (Stelboum, 1999). Robinson (1997) argues that the challenging of monogamy as the dominant institution is one important avenue for women to explore in order to radically re-work gendered power relationships within heterosexuality. Therefore, polyamory may have the potential also to question the heterosexual ideal of the active man and the passive woman (c). When combined with the notion that it is possible to love more than just one gender, as was the case for most of the participants in my research, polyamory also presents the potential for challenging the idea that people are only attracted to members of the ‘opposite sex’ (a). It challenges this in a more overt and explicit way than monogamous bisexuality since polyamory makes it possible for people to have relationships with people of different genders simultaneously. This troubles the male/female and straight/gay binary constructs at the root of compulsory heterosexuality (Rich, 1980; Jackson, 2003) - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-09 18:54:30.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Robey Holland - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cameron Leavitt - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -36 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -North Crowley Reed Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5- Polyamory AC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -TFA state
- Caselist.CitesClass[32]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,70 +1,0 @@ 1 -v1 (6:00) 2 -Part 1 is the apriori’s (1:00) 3 -We begin with a message from our lord and sponsor: 4 - 5 -“We will not waver; we will not tire; we will not falter, and we will not fail. Peace and Freedom with prevail.” – George W. Bush 6 - 7 -“Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” – George W. Bush 8 - 9 -“I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we’re really talking about peace.” – George W. Bush 10 -The highest value in todays round is the undeniable human right of security given to us in the holy book: the Constitution. The value criterion is protecting ourselves against the out there fear, squashing a shadow that gets too close. 11 -Thus we affirm the resolution as an act of security. A right to housing and security are one in the same. 12 - 13 -National Economic and Social Rights Initiative 16. NESRI. Rights-based Urban Development. What is the Human Right to Housing? AKB. 14 - 15 -What is the Human Right to Housing?¶ Everyone has A fundamental human right to housing, which ensures access to a safe, secure, habitable, and affordable home with freedom from forced eviction. It is the government’s obligation to guarantee that everyone can exercise this right to live in security, peace, and dignity. This right must be provided to all persons irrespective of income or access to economic resources. There are seven principles that are fundamental to the right to housing and are of particular relevance to the right to housing in the United States:¶ Security of Tenure: Residents should possess a degree of security of tenure that guarantees protection against forced evictions, harassment, and other threats, including predatory redevelopment and displacement.¶ Availability of Services, Materials, Facilities, and Infrastructure: Housing must provide certain facilities essential for health, security, comfort, and nutrition. For instance, residents must have access to safe drinking water, heating and lighting, washing facilities, means of food storage, and sanitation.¶ Affordability: Housing costs should be at such a level that the attainment and satisfaction of other basic needs are not threatened or compromised. For instance, one should not have to choose between paying rent and buying food.¶ Habitability/Decent and Safe Home: Housing must provide residents adequate space that protects them from cold, damp, heat, rain, wind, or other threats to health; structural hazards; and disease.¶ Accessibility: Housing must be accessible to all, and disadvantaged and vulnerable groups must be accorded full access to housing resources.¶ ¶ Location: Housing should not be built on polluted sites, or in immediate proximity to pollution sources that threaten the right to health of residents. The physical safety of residents must be guaranteed, as well. Additionally, housing must be in a location which allows access to employment options, health-care services, schools, child-care centers, and other social facilities.¶ ¶ Cultural Adequacy: Housing and housing policies must guarantee the expression of cultural identity and diversity, including the preservation of cultural landmarks and institutions. Redevelopment or modernization programs must ensure that the cultural significance of housing and communities is not sacrificed. ¶ The Right to Housing is protected in:¶ Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights¶ Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights¶ Article 27 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child¶ Article 5 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination¶ Article 14 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women¶ Article XI (11) of the American Declaration on Rights and Duties of Man¶ There are also United Nations Committees (“treaty bodies”) made up of experts that oversee the implementation of particular human rights treaties. These committees oversee the treaties by, among other things, receiving government reports on the implementation of the treaties, making comments to the government reports, and issuing general comments about the treaties or specific rights contained therein.¶ The Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights has issued general comments on the right to housing.¶ See General Comment 4¶ See General Comment 7¶ Additionally, United Nations Special Rapporteurs are appointed to investigate human rights issues in countries around the world. In 2004 and 2008, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing issued press releases about the threat to the right to housing in the United States. In 2009, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing made the office's first official visit to the United States.¶ Special Rapporteur’s Solidarity Statement for residents of Chicago’s Cabrini Green, December 10, 2004¶ UN Experts call on U.S. Government to halt ongoing evictions in New Orleans, February 28, 2008¶ Media Advisory on UN Special Rapporteur's Official Visit, October 20, 2009 16 - 17 -Prefer our evidence: 18 -NESRI has a lot of money 19 -Smart people say NESRI is smart and NESRI says smart people are smart too 20 -The USFG loves NESRI 21 -uh 22 -NESRI has a fantastic social media presence with a facebook, twitter, youtube, flickr, and vimeo account. Follow them and subscribe! If you don’t share you don’t love Jesus. 23 - 24 -Part 2 is real talk (0:20) 25 -No, but seriously, public housing works. This card has too many warrants for you to respond to. 26 - 27 -Coalition for the homeless 16. We can end the homelessness crisis. http://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/ending-homelessness/proven-solutions/. AKB. 28 - 29 -We can end the homelessness crisis.¶ By stabilizing people through shelter, moving them into permanent housing, and implementing assistance programs to keep them in their housing, we can not only reduce, but eliminate, homelessness in New York City.¶ Right To Shelter¶ Housing-Based Solutions¶ Prevention and Stability¶ Right To Shelter¶ Housing-Based Solutions¶ 1¶ 2¶ 3¶ Since modern homelessness began more than thirty years ago, Research and experience have overwhelmingly shown that investments in permanent housing are extraordinarily effective in reducing homelessness — as well as being cost-effective.¶ Many of the most successful housing-based policies designed to address the homelessness crisis — in particular, permanent supportive housing for individuals living with disabilities and other special needs — were pioneered in New York City and have been replicated throughout the country. Numerous research studies have consistently confirmed that long-term housing assistance not only successfully reduces homelessness — it is also less expensive than shelter and other institutional care. Proven housing-based policies include:¶ Federal housing assistance: Federal housing programs are one of the most successful housing-based solutions to reduce homelessness. The two largest federal housing programs are public housing and federal housing vouchers, known as Housing Choice Vouchers or Section 8 vouchers. Housing vouchers allow low-income households to rent modest market-rate housing of their choice and provide a flexible subsidy that adjusts with the family’s income over time. studies show that public housing and federal housing vouchers are highly successful at reducing family homelessness and in ensuring that these families remain stably housed out of the shelter system.¶ Permanent supportive housing: Pioneered in New York City in the 1980s, permanent supportive housing has now proven to be a successful and cost-effective solution to the homelessness crisis. The supportive housing model combines affordable housing assistance with vital support services for individuals living with mental illness, HIV/AIDS or other serious health problems. Moreover, numerous research Studies have shown that permanent supportive housing costs less than other forms of emergency and institutional care. The landmark 1990 City-State “New York/New York Agreement,” which has been renewed twice, is the premier example of a permanent supportive housing initiative that successfully reduced homelessness in New York City and saved taxpayer dollars that would otherwise have been spent on costly shelters and hospitalizations.¶ “Housing first”: Another proven solution developed in New York City and replicated nationwide is the “housing first” approach to street homelessness, which builds on the success of permanent supportive housing. The “housing first” approach involves moving long-term street homeless individuals — the majority of whom are living with mental illness, substance abuse disorders and other serious health problems — directly into subsidized housing and then linking them to support services, either on-site or in the community. Research Studies have found that the majority of long-term street homeless people moved into “housing first” apartments remain stably housed and experience significant improvements in their health problems. Much like permanent supportive housing, the “housing first” approach is far less costly than emergency and institutional care, such as shelters, hospitals and correctional facilities.¶ The fundamental cause of homelessness is the widening housing affordability gap. In New York City, that gap has widened significantly over the past decades, which have seen the loss of hundreds of thousands of units of affordable rental housing. At the same time that housing affordability has worsened, government at every level has cut back on already-inadequate housing assistance for low-income people and has reduced investments in building and preserving affordable housing. Finally, The weakening of rent regulation laws, which help keep around half of all rental apartments in New York City affordable, has accelerated the loss of low-cost housing. To address New York City’s wide housing affordability gap, the Federal, State and City governments must significantly increase investments in affordable rental housing, with a significant portion targeted to homeless families and individuals. Similarly, strengthening rent regulation laws would preserve affordable housing and protect tenants, allowing them to keep their homes.¶ 30 - 31 -Part 3 is fake news (~4:40) 32 -Debate and mass media are one in the same – tying news articles and critical theory together to create the most authentic representation of the real world as possible in a logical story. BUT THE REAL DOES NOT EXIST. We live in a post-signification world, we have lost meaning, we once copied the real, we now copy copies. The valiant quest to rediscover the real is nothing more than a knight in the Spanish countryside battling a windmill. 33 - 34 -Baudrillard 1. Jean. Simulacra and Simulation. 1981. 35 - 36 -Or, very much on the contrary, there is a rigorous and necessary correlation between the two, to the extent that Information is directly destructive of meaning and signification, or that it neutralizes them. The loss of meaning is directly linked to the dissolving, dissuasive action of information, the media, and the mass media. The third hypothesis is the most interesting but flies in the face of every commonly held opinion. Everywhere Socialization is measured by the exposure to media messages. Whoever is underexposed to the media is dissocialized or virtually asocial. Everywhere information is thought to produce an accelerated circulation of meaning, a plus value of meaning homologous to the economic one that results from the accelerated rotation of capital Information is thought to create communication, and even if the waste is enormous, a general consensus would have it that nevertheless, as a whole, there be an excess of meaning, which is redistributed in all the interstices of the social—just as consensus would have it that material production, despite its dysfunctions and irrationalities, opens onto an excess of wealth and social purpose. We are all complicitous in this myth. It is the alpha and omega of our modernity, without which the credibility of our social organization would collapse. Well, the fact is that it is collapsing, and for this very reason: because where We think that information produces meaning, the opposite occurs. Information devours its own content. It devours communication and the social. And for two reasons. 1. Rather than creating communication, it exhausts itself in the act of staging communication. Rather than producing meaning, it exhausts itself in the staging of meaning. A gigantic process of simulation that is very familiar. The nondirective interview, speech, listeners who call in, participation at every level, blackmail through speech: “You are concerned, you are the event, etc.” More and more information is invaded by this kind of phantom content, this homeopathic grafting, this awakening dream of communication. A circular arrangement through which one stages the desire of the audience, the antitheater of communication, which as one knows, is never anything but the recycling in the negative of the traditional institution, the integrated circuit of the negative. Immense energies are deployed to hold this simulacrum at bay, to avoid the brutal desimulation that would confront us in the face of the obvious reality of a radical loss of meaning. It is useless to ask if it is the loss of communication that produces this escalation in the simulacrum, or whether it is the simulacrum that is there first for dissuasive ends, to short-circuit in advance any possibility of communication (precession of the model that calls an end to the real). Useless to ask which is the first term, there is none, it is a circular process—that of simulation, that of the hyperreal. The hyperreality of communication and of meaning. More real than the real, that is how the real is abolished. Thus, not only communication but The social functions in a closed circuit, as a lure— to which the force of myth is attached. Belief, faith in information attach themselves to this tautological proof that the system gives of itself by doubling the signs of an unlocatable reality. But one can believe that this belief is as ambiguous as that which was attached to myths in ancient societies. One both believes and doesn’t. One does not ask oneself, “I know very well, but still.” A sort of inverse simulation in the masses, in each one of us, corresponds to this simulation of meaning and of communication in which this system encloses us. To this tautology of the system the masses respond with ambivalence, to deterrence they respond with disaffection, or with an always enigmatic belief. Myth exists, but one must guard against thinking that people believe in it: this is the trap of critical thinking that can only be exercised if it presupposes the naïveté and stupidity of the masses. 2. Behind this exacerbated mise-en-scene of communication, the mass media, the pressure of information pursues an irresistible destructuration of the social. Thus information dissolves meaning and dissolves the social, in a sort of nebulous state dedicated not to a surplus of innovation, but, on the contrary, to total entropy. Thus the media are producers not of socialization, but of exactly the opposite, of the implosion of the social in the masses. And this is only the macroscopic extension of the implosion of meaning at the microscopic level of the sign. This implosion should be analyzed according to McLuhan’s formula; the medium is the message, the consequences of which have yet to be exhausted. That means that All contents of meaning are absorbed in the only dominant form of the medium. Only the medium can make an event—whatever the contents, whether they are conformist or subversive. A serious problem for all counter-information, pirate-radios, anti-media, etc. But there is something even more serious, which McLuhan himself did not see. Because beyond this neutralization of all content, one could still expect to manipulate the medium in its form and to transform the real by using the impact of the medium as form. If all the content is wiped out, there is perhaps still a subversive, revolutionary use value of the medium as such. That is—and this is where McLuhan’s formula leads, pushed to its limit—there is not only an implosion of the message in the medium, there is, in the same movement, the implosion of the medium itself in the real, the implosion of the medium and of the real in a sort of hyperreal nebula, in which even the definition and distinct action of the medium can no longer by determined. 37 - 38 -The academic space’s orgasmic dream for discovery of the real follows the same path of the enlightenment, positioning the human as the creator of the world and the dominator of all. This is nothing but farce. Instead, embrace an imagination of self-destruction, rupturing the space itself and its championing of a narrative of the real. 39 - 40 -Hoofd 10. Ingrid M. Hoofd, Assistant Professor in the Communications and New Media Programme at the National University of Singapore (NUS). The accelerated university: Activist academic alliances and the simulation of thought, ephemera, Feb 2010, 2010 ephemera 10(1): 7-24). AKB 3’s Michigan. 41 - 42 -But far from an ‘a-disciplinary self-constitution’ that supposedly overcomes any fictitious distinction, Investigacció for one relies heavily on The common fictitious distinction between activism and academia to validate their praxis. By contrasting their initiative to the false objectivity of academicism, they validates their own knowledge production by claiming to be in the margins as opposed to the ‘ivory tower’, as if the latter is a stable area from which one can detach oneself from the outside world and hence objectively analyse. Also, one could wonder to what extent one is actually speaking from the margins when one has the time, technologies, spaces and connections to organise an event like Investigacció. The desire to generate knowledge from ‘one’s own subjectivity, without limitations’ (2005: 3) is analogous to the mythical humanist narrative of breaking with and improving upon previous knowledge – a form of knowledge-innovation that the academic institution is also infused with.¶ The university of excellence as well as its doublings into projects like Investigacció are therefore an effect of its repetitions (with a difference) into the neo-liberal mythical space of progress and acceleration. The creation of more and more ‘spaces and mechanisms of production, exchange and collective reflection’ (2005: 3) is indeed precisely what late-capitalism seeks to forge, as long as Such reflection generates an intensification of production. The idea that subjectivities from social movements are in any way less produced by neo-liberal globalisation is highly problematic. In fact, such an idea suggests a rather positivist notion of the subject – similar to that supposedly objective academic individual Investigacció seeks to dethrone. Investigacció then somewhat nostalgically narrates a subject untainted by power structures and technologies. In fact, the Investigaccióinitiative displays how The subject of activist research empowers themselves her- or himself through recreating the fictitious distinction between activism and academia. S/he does so by reproducing this opposition, which in turn co-creates and accelerates these ‘new spaces’ – spaces that were created with the goal of facilitating global capitalism and its speed-elite, and that allow for the perfection of military power through technologies of surveillance.¶ The call for participants to become active and productive in co-organising the international event – of course, without any monetary remuneration – is also much present in Investigacció’s rhetoric. They suggest that participants should engage with one another not only at the meeting, but especially through the online spaces Investigacció has created for the purpose of generating activist research. ‘Take action!’ says their flyer, ‘... make it so the conference is yours!’ This seductive appeal to the subject-individual as the centre of creative production is very common to neo-liberal consumerism and its emphasis on cybernetic interactivity. But it is also false in that It gives the participants a sense of control over Investigacció that they actually do not have – eventually, the main organisers (have already) set the agenda and handed out the stakes. In short, the organisers fail to situate themselves by pretending everyone is on the same level of privilege – for example, not requiring monetary compensation – in this project, and this failure is strangely an effect of their attempt at reviving a more democratic academic structure.¶ Information¶ Initially, one could think that Baudrillard’s assessment confirms my analytical suspicion regarding activist-research projects. In ‘The Implosion’, Baudrillard starts from the premise that the increase of information in our media-saturated society results in a loss of meaning because it ‘exhausts itself in the act of staging communication’. New media technologies exacerbate the subject’s fantasy of transparent communication, while increasingly what are communicated are mere copies of the same, a ‘recycling in the negative of the traditional institution’ (Baudrillard, 1994: 80). New technologies are simply the materialisation of that fantasy of communication, and the ‘lure’ (1994: 81) of such a technocratic system resides in the requirement of active political engagement to uphold that fantasy. This translates in a call to subjectivise oneself – to be vocal, participate, and to ‘play the ... liberating claim of subjecthood’ (1994: 85). The result of the intensifying circular logic of this system, he says, is that meaning not only implodes in the media, but also that the social implodes in the masses – the construction of a ‘hyperreal’ (1994: 81). Contra the claim of Glocal Research Space that such praxes of alliance are ‘without an object’ (Glocal Research Space, 2003: 19), this does not mean that objectification does not take place at all. Instead, and in line with Baudrillard’s argument, the urge to subjectivise oneself and the objectification of the individual go hand in hand under speed-elitism – a double bind that locks the individual firmly into her or his technocratic conditions.¶ Indeed, the argument in ‘Activist Research’ that ‘research should be like an effective procedure which is in itself already a result’ (2003: 19) describes the conditions of Readings’ ‘university of excellence’ where any research activity, thanks to technological instantaneity, translates immediately into the capitalist result of increased information flow (Readings, 1996: 22). Active subjects and their others become the cybernetic objects of such a system of information flow. The insistence in ‘Activist Research’ on free, travelling and nomadic research simply makes sure that this logic of increased flow is repeated. Because of this desire for increased flow and connection, activist-research Projects are paradoxically highly exclusivist in advocating the discourses and tools of the speed-elite. The problem with projects like Edu-Factory or the productive cross-over of activism and academia is therefore not only that their political counter-information means just more information (and loss of meaning) as well as more capitalist production, but that it puts its faith in precisely those technologies and fantasies of control, communication and of ‘being political’ that underlie the current logic of overproduction.¶ It is at this point that John Armitage and Joanne Roberts in ‘Chronotopia’ contend that such a ‘cyclical repetition’ (Armitage and Roberts, 2002: 52) is particularly dangerous because the fantasy of control remains exactly that, a fantasy. At the same time, this increasingly forceful repetition can only eventually give way to ‘the accident’ because chronotopian speed-spaces are fundamentally and exponentially unstable. Armitage and Roberts’ idea of ‘cyclical repetition’ through chronotopianism does thus not mean an exact repetition of the speed-elite’s quest for mastery – instead, I would argue that it is this immanent quality of difference in repetition, of the ‘essential drifting due to a technology’s iterative structure cut off from … consciousness as the authority of the last analysis’ as Derrida calls it in ‘Signature Event Context’ (Derrida, 1982: 316) that allows for the accident or true event to appear. The difference through technologically sped-up repetition appears then perhaps as a potential, but only precisely as a growing potential that cannot be willed – in this sense, it will be an unanticipated event indeed.¶ One could then speak of an intensification of politics in what is perhaps too hastily called the neo-liberal university, opening up unexpected spaces for critique in the face of its neo-liberalisation, which in turn points to the fundamental instability of its enterprise. Activist-research projects add to this intensification by virtue of their techno-acceleration. This intensification of politics is no ground for univocal celebration, since it remains also the hallmark of the neo-liberal mode of production of knowledge through the new tele-technologies as excellent, regardless of its critical content. The current university’s instability mirrors and aggravates the volatility of a capitalism marked by non-sustainability, a growing feminisation of poverty, the rise of a new global upper class, and highly mediated illusions of cybernetic mastery. This nonetheless also opens up new forms of thought, if only appearing as ‘accidents’.¶ Derrida hints at this, but also at the university’s elusiveness, in ‘Mochlos, or: the Conflict of the Faculties’, when he claims that he ‘would almost call the university the child of an inseparable couple, metaphysics and technology’ (Derrida, 1993: 5, emphasis mine). Almost, but never quite – here then emerges the possibility of Truly subversive change. But this change will not be brought about by the mere content of the critique, but by the way it pushes acceleration to the point of systemic disintegration or implosion. In Fatal Strategies, Baudrillard calls this The ‘fatal strategy’ that contemporary theory must adopt: a sort of conceptual suicide attack which aims at pulling the rug out from under the speed-elitist mobilisation of semiotic oppositions, and which shows the paradox behind any attempt at structural predictions.¶ In ‘The Final Solution’, Baudrillard relates this intensification of the humanist obsession with dialectics, mastery, and transparency – the quest for immortality that is at the basis of techno-scientific research – to destruction and the death drive through the metaphor of and actual research around cloning, which strangely resonates well with Derrida’s investigation of the tele-technological archive in Archive Fever. I read Baudrillard’s ‘Final Solution’ here as a metaphor for the duplication (cloning) of thought into virtual spaces outside the university walls proper. If contemporary research seeks to make human cloning possible, argues Baudrillard, then this endeavour is equivalent to cancer: after all, cancer is simply automatic cloning, a deadly form of multiplication. It is of interest here to note that the possibility of creating an army of clones has likewise garnered much military interest, just as academia today more and more serves military ends. As the logic of cloning as automatic multiplication is typical of all current technological and humanist advancements, the exacerbation of this logic can only mean more promise and death. At this point my argument mirrors the apocalyptic tone of the activist-research projects.¶ In the final analysis, the problem with Edu-Factory, Facoltà di Fuga, Investigacció, Universidad Nómada, Ricercatori Precari, and Glocal Research Space is that these projects entail a very specific form of subjugation with dire consequences for the slower and less techno-genic classes. Techno-scientific progress entails a regress into immortality, epitomised by a nostalgia typical of the current socio-technical situation, for when we were ‘undivided’ (Baudrillard, 2000: 6). I contend that Baudrillard refers not only to the lifeless stage before humans became sexed life forms, but also makes an allusion to psycho-analytic readings of the ‘subject divided in language’ and its nostalgia for wholeness and transparent communication. The desire for immortality, like archive fever, is therefore the same as the Freudian death drive, and we ourselves ultimately become the object of our technologies of scrutiny and nostalgia. The humanist quest of totally transparency of oneself and of the world to oneself that grounds the idea of the modern techno-scientific university, is ultimately an attempt at (self-)destruction, or in any case an attempted destruction of (one’s) radical difference alterity.¶ The urgent political question, which Stiegler problematically avoided in Disorientation, then becomes: which selves are and will become caught up in the delusion of total self-transparency and self-justification, and which selves will be destroyed? And how may we conceive of an ‘ethic of intellectual inquiry or aesthetic contemplation’ that ‘resists the imperatives of speed’, as Jon Cook likewise wonders in ‘The Techno-University and the Future of Knowledge’ (Cook, 1999: 323)? It is of particular importance to note here that the very inception of this question and its possible analysis, like the conception of the speed-elite, is itself again a performative repetition of the grounding myth of the university of independent truth, justice and reason. Therefore, in carrying forward the humanist promise, this analysis is itself bound up in the intensification of the logic of acceleration and destruction, and that is then also equally tenuous. This complicity of thought in the violence of acceleration itself in turn quickens the machine of the humanist promise, and can only manifest itself in the prediction of a coming apocalypse – whether it concerns a narrative of the death of thought and the university, or of a technological acceleration engendering the Freudian death drive. We are then simply the next target in the technological realisation of complete γνωθι σαυτον (know thyself) – or so it seems. Because after all, a clone is never an exact copy, as Baudrillard very well knows; and therefore, the extent to which activist-research projects hopefully invite alterity can thankfully not yet be thought. 43 - 44 -Meaning is an infinite regress related as all things are to but never connected with the real world – all communication is sign circulation on the same plane of unreality. 45 - 46 -Ota 8. Emma. Localities of Mediation: Deterritorialization and Embeddedness in the Mediated Experience of Place. 2008. AKB 3’s Michigan. 47 - 48 -Language is the central position of this investigation, the key construct by which we attempt to describe and understand the world, but through the very act it alludes us. Language is representation. It employs signs, signifiers to represent phenomena, signified. As Saussure clearly lays out There is no relation between the signifier and the signified, this is arbitrary, "The conceptual side of value is made up solely of relations and differences with respect to the other terms of language, and the same can be said of its material side . . . in language there are only differences. Even more important: a difference generally implies positive terms between which the difference is set up; but in language there are only differences without positive terms. The idea or phonic substance that a sign contains is of less importance than the other signs that surround it." (Saussure, 1959: 117-18) Language is made up of differences, it is only through these differences that we can identify a signified, as there is no positive correlation with its denominator. This therefore promotes différance in which signs can not convey fully the signified, meaning is identified in the difference between signs, it is only in relation to others that meaning can be conveyed. Derrida, who promotes this term, identifies différance as emerging from the gaps and slippage between words and meaning, the continual flow of language. Différance is that by which ‘the movement according to which language, or any code, any system of referral in general is constituted "historically" as a weave of differences.(1984: 12)’ Derrida describes the ‘movement of signification’ which because of différance makes The present only possible if it is ‘related to something other than itself’ in which absence becomes presence and therefore denies somehow the original presence to which it refers, drawing to the conclusion that ‘there is nothing outside the text’ (1976: 163). Derrida identifies a unique point of instability which leads to the disintegration of everything which is not present, that is only the signifier exists for us, the signified is effectively lost. Therefore There is no stability in the signified, a difference always remains between signifier and signified and results in multiple readings. This is of course taken up by Barthes in the Death of the Author “ there is one place where this multiplicity is focused and that place is the reader, not, as was hitherto said, the author. The reader is the space on which all the quotations that make up a writing are inscribed without any of them being lost; a text's unity lies not in its origin but in its destination”(1977: 148). A concrete signified never exists, it is at the destination, within the reader that meaning is inscribed, therefore undermining the historical authority of the author. 13 In language there is a given structure of communication in which, as Foucault comments, there is an ‘interplay of signs’ and these signs are arranged according to the ‘nature of the signifier’, not by the signified. This is a structure based on the difference between signs and does not have direct relation to the actual content of communication. The interplay of signs therefore becomes a game ‘that invariably goes beyond its own rules and transgresses its limits.’ In language a subject can not be pinned down, Foucault recognizing as Derrida does the constant movement and différance in language which is more ‘ a question of creating a space into which the writingcommunicating subject constantly disappears.’ (1977: 102). The author here too then suffers another death along with the intended signified, we can only lose intention in language and submit to the play of signs. Eco’s ‘Open Work’ optimizes the openness in a system of differences, in which ‘Meaning is an infinite regress within a closed sphere, a sort of parallel universe related in various ways to the ‘real’ world but not directly connected to it; there is no immediate contact between the world of signs and the world of the things they refer to’ (1989: xxii). And through this separation of the world of signs and the world of ‘things’ openness arises, we ourselves make the connections between the two worlds. Eco applies this to the specific terms of the art work which he describes as ‘ a complete and closed form in its uniqueness as a balanced organic whole, while at the same time constituting an open product on account of its susceptibility to countless different interpretations which do not impinge on its unadultarable specificity (1979: 49).’ The work is simultaneously closed and open, it has been brought to some closure by the artist but the viewer then reopens this as: ‘Every reception of art is both an interpretation and a performance of it, because in every reception the work takes on a fresh perspective for itself.’ We therefore must create the work in our reception of it, we must enact it and draw out our own meanings, as the meaning itself is in a state of disturbance and beyond our reach. If there is no fixed meaning then does it matter the direction of our interpretations? Is every interpretation and misinterpretation equally valid? We can perhaps only say that each interpretation can not be taken as an absolute. But all we have are symbols, as Lacan observes "Symbols in fact envelop the life of man in a network so total that they join together, before he comes into the world, those who are going to engender him…" (1956: 42) they create our very reality, even our destiny, they cannot be escaped and they cannot be gone beyond. The mediated experience is based on a system of symbols which attempt to articulate a signified. They form their own language and therefore must be identified as a system of differences, they necessarily deterritorialize, that is remove from the referent through enacting communication. Jonathan Crary raises the separation entailed in this process through the example of the photograph which in the 19th Century ‘becomes a central element not only in a new commodity economy but in the reshaping of an entire territory in which signs and images, each effectively severed from a referent, circulate and proliferate’ (1990: 13). David Harvey proposes that ‘Any system of representation, in fact, is a spatialization of sorts which automatically freezes the flow of experience and in so doing distorts what it strives to represent.’ (1990: 206). Castells however warns against an interpretation that distortion and breakage somehow defines new media processes above other forms of interaction stating that all ‘ communication is based on the production and consumption of signs thus there is no separation between ‘reality’ and symbolic representation. In all societies humankind has existed in and acted through a symbolic environment. When critics of electronic media argue that the new symbolic environment does not represent ‘reality’ they implicity refer to an absurdly primitive notion of ‘uncoded’ real experience that never existed.’ (2000: 403-404) He challenges the concept of the ‘untouched’ ‘uncoded’, the code itself is part of reality. 49 - 50 -Security discourse specifically exists as an inaccessible abstract idea, a signified in a post-signification regime. The claim that public housing can produce security relies on the myth of the enlightenment, but we are never secure. The terrorists can always attack. Obama will still find a way to take your guns away. Thugs are everywhere. *Scream* 51 - 52 -Lundborg 16. Tom. The virtualization of security: Philosophies of capture and resistance in Baudrillard, Agamben and Deleuze. AKB. 53 - 54 -For Baudrillard, there can be no sustainable distinction between the actual and the virtual. The actual has been absorbed by simulation, making reality something that only exists virtually. The distance between the virtual and the actual has collapsed, and all that remains is a void or a desert of the real in which there is nothing left to represent, mirror or actualize. He argues: In the past, the virtual had the possibility of becoming actual réel. Actuality was even its destination. There was, then, possibility. Today, when the virtual is winning out over the real, there’s no longer any possibility, since everything is immediately realized…. The result is acceleration into the void … the desert, as I put it. (Baudrillard and Noailles, 2007: 78) In the desert of the real, where copies of copies have replaced the relationship between the copy and the model, there is an abundance of codes and algorithms which cannot be tied to a clear source or origin. Computer surveillance or ‘dataveillance’ demonstrates how this abundance of information has completely reshaped the contemporary landscape of global security. In this virtual security order, the Subjects of security are no longer in control of the information that is supposed to protect them from dangers and threats. The information is rather in control of them, highlighting a paradoxical game of subject–object inversion that means just one simple thing: we believe we think the world, but the belief is mutual. It’s a dual relation, and A can think it only because it thinks us in return. (Baudrillard and Noailles, 2007: 103; see also Bogard, 1996: 27) The excessive production of new dangers that characterizes the contemporary social and political order in the West (see Huysmans, 2014) can be seen as the logical outcome of a system that gradually has taken charge of our perception of reality. In the enormous amount of data constantly being produced, there is an excess of dangers to be dealt with – an excess that corresponds directly to the emergence of a new virtual reality, in which the modern subject of security gradually disappears (Baudrillard, 2002: 18). This new reality makes it increasingly hard to satisfy the desire for more security. The bigger the ‘machine’ becomes, the more reason to worry that something will go wrong – something that eludes established systems of sovereign control and mastery, causing them to collapse from within, ‘implode’ rather than ‘explode’. This vicious circle of increased security/ insecurity takes us further and further away from the old sovereign subject who sought to represent threats and dangers as they gradually appeared and became actualized. In the new virtual security order, there is no time for representation or actualization. The immediacy of the flows of information means that all Threats are immediately realized, in ‘the time of virtual reality’ and through ‘simultaneous screens and networks’ – without going through the detour of actualization (Baudrillard and Noailles, 2007: 119). Within this order, we are thus forced to encounter a new reality principle, the main purpose of which is to exterminate all forms of contingency without any delay. The only thing that is considered worthy of being aspired towards is a sense of ‘total’ or ‘complete’ security, which will eradicate any traces of ‘evil’ that might harm the simulation of the maximum good. According to Baudrillard: You’ve only to take the ‘zero deaths’ formula, a basic concept of the security order. It’s clear that this equates mathematically to ‘zero lives’. By warding off death at all costs … we’re being turned, through Lundborg 259 security, into living dead. On the pretext of immortality, we’re moving towards slow extermination. It’s the destiny of maximum good, of absolute happiness, to lead to a zero outcome…. This is how things are getting better and better and, at the same time, worse and worse. (Baudrillard and Noailles, 2007: 33–34) That things are getting both better and better and at the same time worse and worse is one of the great paradoxes of the search for total security and the maximum good. It is a paradox that springs from a virtual reality in which everything is simulated and nothing represented or signified. Within this reality, security does not ‘signify’ anything, be it the state, the human individual, the environment or the economy. Security and insecurity are not independent signifiers awaiting an external signified. They are part of the same virtual reality, the same simulations and the same machine, which has lost the potential for any form of transcendence. There is no external reality to be transcended by a sovereign subject, no actual objects of security/insecurity to be grasped through representation and signification. Trying to cling onto the idea that there is indeed an ‘actual’ reality of security/insecurity can only be said to conceal the fact ‘that reality no more exists outside than inside the limits of the artificial perimeter’ (Baudrillard, 1994: 14). The gradual disappearance of the modern subject of security is also explored in Der Derian’s pioneering work on the virtualization of security. Der Derian uses the virtual to examine, among other things, new technologies of information and the use of simulation in warfare and military training (see e.g. Der Derian, 1990, 1993, 2000, 2001). Unlike earlier technological developments, which primarily sought to change the ‘means of transportation, communication and information’, Der Derian (2000: 771) notes how ‘virtual innovation is driven more by software than hardware, and enabled by networks rather than agents, which means adaptation (and mutation) is not only easier, but much more rapid’. ‘Time’, he argues, thus ‘displaces space as the more significant strategic “field”’ (Der Derian, 1992: 134). Real-time simulations and the speed of contemporary warfare are the true hallmarks of the virtualization of security and war. Together they contribute to the erosion of ‘war’ as the ‘ultimate reality-check of international politics’ (Der Derian, 2000: 775). A similar point can be made about ‘sovereignty’, which, instead of merely referring to the exercise of power over a clearly demarcated territory, relies ever more heavily on the use of new media to produce images of threats and dangers (Der Derian, 2000: 775). Cynthia Weber (1995) pushes this point even further when arguing that sovereignty, far from being territorially fixed and possible to declare as either present or absent, has become simulated. To be sovereign, she notes, the ‘state’ must ‘control the simulation of its “source” of sovereign authority and simulate a boundary … which marks the range of its legitimate powers and competencies’ (Weber, 1995: 129). In this way, sovereignty lies beyond representation; it lacks reference to an external reality and belongs, rather, to a simulated reality. Neither true nor false, neither real nor imaginary, this new reality has no definite boundaries and can incorporate anything. The simulation of sovereignty underlines, once again, the gradual disappearance of the modern subject of security and shows specifically how the subject’s authority and capacity to represent an outside world have been disrupted. Yet another example of this process can be found in Debrix’s (1999: 9) analysis of the UN as a ‘virtual agent’ that simulates the ‘appearance of collective security in a world that still looks disorderly’. The simulated reality produced by this virtual agent consists, for example, of visual constructions of UN peacekeeping that help create ‘a fantasy space or dream land of international affairs (where peacekeeping operations are successful, governance is realized, etc.)’ (Debrix, 1999: 216). Along similar lines, Vaughan-Williams (2010: 1080) points to how new border security technologies simulate the effect of total security. He finds an excellent example of this process at work in the UK’s new border security doctrine, in which the traditional idea of protecting a fixed territorial space is significantly altered by a continuum of security practices. In relation to this continuum, the UK’s ‘border’ does not simply refer to the outer edges of 260 Security Dialogue 47(3) the state, but can be found in offshore spaces where people are prevented from boarding planes and trains; in biometric technologies that are used to determine the identity of people trying to enter the country; and in attempts to preempt terrorist attacks throughout society. The territorial borders of the sovereign state are clearly disrupted in this process and to a considerable extent replaced by a new virtual space of existence. 55 - 56 -Thus, we demand a right to housing. 57 - 58 -This is a call back to the anchient days when we understood our interation with the state as a demand, something to strive towards. You can win by proving this call is bad. And, we defend that our call is for an increase in literal action- check interps in CX to avoid ambiguity and encourage substantive debate. 59 - 60 -This is a form of rupturing the simulation logical criticism turns on the television to watch its own revolution before it ever speaks. We break the television – we never bought cable. Instead, we embrace a rupture of the relationship between signifier and signified. We frolic in the fundamental impossibility of guaranteeing this security. 61 - 62 - Baudrillard 2. Jean. Radical Thought. 1995. 63 - 64 -Our point is not to defend radical thought. Any idea that can be defended is presumed guilty. Any idea that does not sustain its own defense deserves to perish. But we have to fight against charges of unreality, lack of responsibility, nihilism, and despair. Radical thought is never depressing. This would be a complete misunderstanding. A Moralizing and ideological critique, obsessed by meaning and content, obsessed by a and the political finality of discourse, never takes into account writing, the act of writing, the poetic, ironic, and allusive form of language, the play with meaning. This critique does not see that the resolution of meaning is right here, in the form itself, in the formal materiality of an expression. As for meaning, it is always unfortunate. Analysis is by its very definition unfortunate since it is born out of a critical disillusion. But language on the contrary is fortunate (happy), even when it designates a world with no illusion, with no hope. This would in fact be here the very definition of radical thought: an intelligence without hope, but a fortunate and happy form. Critics, always being unfortunate (unhappy) in their nature, choose the realm of ideas as their battle field. They do not see that if discourse always tends to produce meaning, language and writing on the contrary are always a matter of illusion. Language and writing are the living illusion of meaning, the resolution of the misfortune of meaning operated through the good fortune of language. This is the only political or transpolitical act that a writer can accomplish. ¶ Everyone has ideas, even more than they need. What matters is the poetic singularity of analysis. Only this witz, this spirituality of language, can justify writing. Not a miserable critical objectivity of ideas. There will never be a solution to the contradiction of ideas, except inside language itself, in the energy and fortune (happiness) of language. So the loneliness and sadness in Edward Hopper's paintings are transfigured by the timeless quality of light, a light which comes from some place else and gives to the whole picture a totally non-figurative meaning, an intensity which renders loneliness unreal. Hopper says: "I do not paint sadness or loneliness; I only seek to paint light on this wall." ¶ In any case, it is better to have a despairing analysis in a happy language than an optimistic analysis in despairingly boring and demoralizingly plain language. Which is too often the case. The formal boredom that is secreted by an idealist thought on values, or by a goal-oriented thought on culture, is the secret sign of despair for this thought - not despair with the world, but despair toward its own discourse. This is where the real depressing thought emerges. It emerges with those people who only talk about a transcendence or a transformation of the world, while they are totally unable to transfigure their own language. ¶ Radical thought is in no way different from radical usage of language. This thought is therefore alien to any resolution of the world which would take the direction of an objective reality and of its deciphering. Radical thought does not decipher. It anathematizes and "anagramatizes" concepts and ideas, exactly what poetic language does with words. Through its reversible chaining, it simultaneously gives an account of meaning and of its fundamental illusion. Language gives an account of the very illusion of language as a definite stratagem and through that notes the illusion of the world as an infinite trap, as a seduction of the mind, as a stealing away of all mental capacities. While being a transporter of meaning, language is at the same time a supra-conductor of illusion and of the absence of meaning. Language is only signification's unintentional accomplice. By its very force, it calls for the spiritual imagination of sounds and rhythms, for the dispersion of meaning in the event of language, similar to the role of the muscles in dance, similar to the role of reproduction in erotic games. ¶ Such A passion for the artificial, a passion for illusion, is the same thing as the seductive joy (jouissance) to undo a too perfect constellation of meaning. It is also a joy (jouissance) to render transparent the imposture of the world, that is to say the enigmatic function of the world, and its mystification which supposedly is its secret. Doing this while perhaps rendering its imposture transparent: deceiving rather than validating meaning. This passion "wins" in the free and spiritual usage of language, in the spiritual game of writing. And it only disappears when language is used for a limited finality, its most common usage perhaps, that of communication. No matter what, if language wants to "speak the language" of illusion, it must become a seduction. As for "speaking the language" of the real, it would not know how to do it (properly speaking) because language is never real. Whenever it appears to be able to designate things, it actually does so by following unreal, elliptic, and ironic paths. Objectivity and truth are metaphoric in language. Too bad for the apodicticians or the apodidacticians! This is how language is, even unconsciously, the carrier of radical thought, because it always starts from itself, as a trait d'esprit vis-a-vis the world, as an ellipse and a source of pleasure. Even the confusion of languages in the Tower of Babel, a powerful mechanism of illusion for the human race, a source of non-communication and an end to the possibility of a universal language, will have appeared, finally, not as a divine punishment but as a gift from God. ¶ Ciphering, not deciphering. Operating illusions. Being illusion to be event. Turning into an enigma what is clear. Making unintelligible what is far too intelligible. Rendering unreadable the event itself. Working all the events to make them unintelligible. Accentuating the fake transparency of the world to spread a terroristic confusion, to spread the germs or viruses of a radical illusion, that is to say operating a radical disillusion of the real. A viral and deleterious thought, which corrupts meaning, and is the accomplice of an erotic perception of reality's trouble. ¶ Erasing in oneself any remaining trace of the intellectual plot. Stealing the "reality file" to erase its conclusions. But, in fact, it is reality itself which foments its own contradiction, its own denial, its own loss through our lack of reality. Hence, the internal feeling that all this affair - the world, thought, and language - has emerged from some place else and could disappear as if by magic. The world does not seek to have more existence, nor does it seek to persist in its existence. On the contrary, it is looking for the most spiritual way to escape reality. Through thought, the world is looking for what could lead to its own loss. ¶ The absolute rule, that of symbolic exchange, is to return what you received. Never less, but always more. The absolute rule of thought is to return the world as we received it: unintelligible. And if it is possible, to return it a little bit more unintelligible. A little bit more enigmatic. 65 - 66 -The symbolic exchange creates epistemic potential, gesturing towards an entirely different way of being-in-the-world. Join us on the journey, jump down Alice’s rabbit-hole, but be sure to close your eyes first. 67 - 68 -Robinson 12 (Andrew, Social Theorist and Political Activist “Jean Baudrillard: Symbolic Exchange” 17 February 2012 http://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/in-theory-baudrillard-1/ DA: 2013-10-19) 69 - 70 -Symbolic exchange – the aspect of life which is missing today according to Baudrillard – is central to his entire theory. If simulation is the exchange of signs with signs, symbolic exchange is the exchange of signs with the real. Baudrillard treats the symbolic as an “outside” to representation, the code, value, production, the law, master-signification, and the unconscious – hence as radically other to most of the familiar institutions and roles of capitalist/statist systems. Baudrillard’s idea of symbolic exchange is loosely based on Marcel Mauss’s analysis of gifts in indigenous social life, though he takes it in a different direction from Mauss, using it to analyse what is missing in today’s Capitalist societies.¶ There were, according to Baudrillard, societies without the social. They existed without the kind of representational systems which create the appearance of social life in modernity. Instead, they were based on networks of symbolic ties. They were outside production because their social forms were instead based on excess, expenditure and the symbolic. Excess exists instead of surplus or accumulation. nothing is taken from nature without being returned. They were neither societies of scarcity, nor did they limit their “production” to avoid a “surplus”. They were simply outside the logic of production.¶ Symbolic exchange is fundamental to the nature of ‘society’ in such groups. People in indigenous groups are not simply born, biologically. They become part of society through initiation. This is a process marked by exchanges and rituals. Forms of marking, such as tattoos, that turn people and the world into material for symbolic exchange. They then enter into an uninterrupted, ongoing process of exchange. According to Baudrillard, Initiation is a second birth, into a symbolic order. It breaks the Oedipal nexus of natural birth. The whole body can be used in exchange. Initiation, torture, tattooing, as well as sexuality were used to perform symbolic exchange.¶ The idea of seduction (more on this later) is closely linked to symbolic exchange. Seduction is a type of initiation. Those who ‘seduce’ someone become the second, initiatory parents. Initiation is a pure ‘event without precedent’ which is the beginning of a destiny. Destiny is taken to escape history, causality, determination and genesis, at least on the level of experience. It is something which ‘happens without your having anything to do with it’ – in other words, it is experienced as extra-subjective.¶ Symbolic exchange allows people and objects to enter a realm of destiny, where things aren’t arbitrary. Destiny is distinct from chance, probability and the aleatory – which are central aspects of modernity. The chance happening, such as birth, does not create an event. A true event only occurs via a second birth or death. Only through true events do we attain intensity. Crucially, Symbolic exchange establishes a relationship between signs and reality. It allows signs to “mean”.¶ Reality is here conceived as subjective, experiential, and expressive. In one passage in The Consumer Society, Baudrillard identifies the symbolic with a childlike emotional response to a new object or gadget. Such a response is intense, ignorant of fashion, and disregarding of others’ demands for particular meanings. It is the opposite of how consumer society works. The introduction of combinations of elements, rules of the game and so on is seen as eliminating such libidinal investment of objects. Passion is replaced by indifferent fascination or curiosity. He also suggests there was initially an absence of reproducibility in indigenous society, to the point where the existence of two identical books is bewildering.¶ Symbolic exchange also gives us a singularity or uniqueness. Symbolic exchange gives objects an individuality which rips them out of sign-, use- and exchange-value. Each object becomes unique, ambivalent and reciprocal or reversible with other objects. Initiation is based on the possibility for any system or category to overflow into others – to escape its path-dependency and jump tracks. It also removes the separation, and therefore the meaning, of things. This removal of separation causes an intense enjoyment. Indeed, Baudrillard sees this reversibility or ambivalence as the sole source of enjoyment. (Enjoyment should here be seen, as in Lacanian theory, as distinct from ‘pleasure’). Humour is a remnant of this kind of reversible enjoyment.¶ There is also no bar between subject and object in symbolic exchange. The subject does not attempt to master the object, but rather, accepts being analysed by it in turn – a relation of reversibility. Similarly, humans and animals are part of an interchangeable cycle. Genders are reversible (it is modernity which strictly establishes gender binaries). According to Baudrillard, we should respect the inhuman. Cultures dismissed as fatalist actually find their law from the inhuman. Symbolic exchange also destroys the other cherished separations of modernity. Sexuality, for instance, does not exist outside modernity. Sex is simply part of a cycle of exchanges.¶ - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-11 15:01:44.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Koshak, Varad, Castillo - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Tess - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -37 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Octas - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -North Crowley Reed Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5- George Bush AC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -TFA
- Caselist.RoundClass[29]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -24 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -2016-12-16 22:1 8:16.01 +2016-12-16 22:17:15.359 - OpenSource
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/download/North+Crowley/Reed+Aff/North%20Crowley-Reed-Aff-Strake%20Jesuit-Round2.docx
- Caselist.RoundClass[30]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -25 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-07 03:37:45.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Courtney DeVore - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Elkens MP - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -SV NC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Winston Churchill
- Caselist.RoundClass[31]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -26 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-13 22:46:00.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -uh idk shes a FW judge - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -American Heritage KK - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -hate speech NC slow round - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Sunvite
- Caselist.RoundClass[32]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -27 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-31 15:08:14.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -IDK - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Southlake - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -9 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Hate speech NC framework and weighing - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Flomo
- Caselist.RoundClass[33]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -28 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-04 15:25:02.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -William Ponder - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood RS I think - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -T theory and K - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Collyville
- Caselist.RoundClass[34]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -29 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-11 16:28:23.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -IDK - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -IDK - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Stock nc - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Grandview
- Caselist.RoundClass[35]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -30 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-19 04:23:52.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Policy dude - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -lmao - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Stock NC I can't believe i got to read this 4 times at a smalllllll oil tournament Thank god for old school policy judges who do ld judging - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Grandview
- Caselist.RoundClass[36]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -31 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-09 18:54:28.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Robey Holland - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cameron Leavitt - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -NC was 1 off performance good start - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -TFA state
- Caselist.RoundClass[37]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -32 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-11 15:01:40.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Koshak, Varad, Castillo - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Tess - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Octas - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -TFA