Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[47]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[48]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[47]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-12-10 00:08:15.912
	1	+2016-12-10 00:08:15.0

Caselist.CitesClass[48]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,58 @@
	1	+Our alternative is a performative interrogation of debate
	2	+Hi. I’m Logan. I hope you are having a good day. I wonder, have you ever heard that in a round before? In this round, flow everything you can, this debate shouldn’t be read like a flow, but rather a novel. Every word is relevant. Lets start with some poetry.
	3	+Decency, by Logan Reed
	4	+Published on my wiki
	5	+Tabroom offers a gender option.
	6	+You knew that,
	7	+You got a text before the round.
	8	+It told you to call me she.
	9	+You looked on my wiki.
	10	+It told you to call me she.
	11	+You may have even asked me.
	12	+I told you to call me she.
	13	+Yet you still called me he.
	14	+This is me every week,
	15	+At every tournament this year, I’ve been called he.
	16	+We claim to fight oppression in debate,
	17	+And that sounds great,
	18	+Winter and Leighton,
	19	+And safe spaces.
	20	+And we claim advocacy.
	21	+But what’s the relevancy,
	22	+If we can’t act decently?
	23	+Even in progressive attempts to create gender equality in debate, transgender identity is disregarded. Articles talking about gender in debate literally in exclude gender identities that don’t fall into conventional binaries. Here’s the method of ‘Gender Disparities in Competitive High School Debate’- To clarify, in this paper, “gender gap” refers to gender identity since the data I use asks for selfor coach-reported gender. The data does not distinguish between biological sex and gender identity. It is probably safe to interpret summary statistics as applicable to either a “biological sex gap” or a “gender gap” given the small size of the population whose biological sex and gender identity differ, but there is no way to know this with certainty. Moreover, I exclude observations where gender is labeled “Other” due to concerns about reporting accuracy and sample size. For instance, only 5 debate rounds in my sample were judged by a judge whose gender was labeled “Other.” While some of these observations may capture students or judges who identify as genderqueer or otherwise, others may simply be errors in data entry. Gates and Steinberger (2010) have documented substantial errors in gender reporting on U.S. Census data that pose large challenges to studying same-sex couples, and similar problems apply to this paper’s dataset.
	24	+
	25	+Next, the community
	26	+Trans students aren’t just marginalized in debate; we aren’t even part of the conversation. This results in an environment where I don’t feel safe using the restroom at debate tournaments, where I’m told even by my own school that, for the purposes of competition, I am to be labeled with my assigned gender at birth, and where I and other students face consistent and sometimes malignantly misgendered both in and out of round. Most the time, there’s no action taken, not even a comment on the ballot, even by judges aware of the circumstances. This is the shit that we have to fix- we need to interrogate our norms that allow us to talk about oppression every round then actively oppress members of our community. You link specifically through your commodification of the others suffering- this is uniquely bad under a Levinasian ethic.
	27	+Right now, we “ 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 eve r-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, otherwise debate’s tragic irony can only be described as an ivory tower made to host elephants. I can only think of the countless impoverished students that we implicitly refer to when we make structural violence arguments, and their deeply ironic absence as we claim to do something novel. The faces behind our impacts cannot afford to be in the room to know they’ve been saved. Some may characterize this as fatalistic and an unfair evaluation of the state of debate activism, but I view it more as a realistic platform for looking forward. We have done well to create such an open-minded space amongst mostly privileged actors, we simply need to redirect that energy to real programs instead of ballots that do nothing for the social groups that they are directed at. Urban debate leagues do good work in exposing marginalized students to forums of critical exchange, but few do well in bridging the gap to the national circuit. Teams like Newark Science Park in Newark and Success Academy in New York City constitute only a small section of the national circuit, but give us a good vision for how independent actors should work to empower traditionally excluded schools and communities. It should be noted that these schools are able to have such progressive programs due to the crucial coaching work of ex-debaters who are willing to give back to those who need debate most. Ex-debaters with national circuit experience should give serious thought to devoting some time to helping those who otherwise cannot experience what they did. Revolutionary education is only valuable if we spread it to those who have a significant stake in its vision and national circuit does give us a conceptually great framework for the marginalized to imagine change. However, as an ex-independent and as someone who coaches a few independent debaters now, arbitrary exclusion of independents is rampant. This stigma derives from the belief by a group of prominent coaches that independents homogenously are not held accountable for school rules, do not provide judges, and are somehow betraying their schools. When I debated nationally, I, and my current independent students, followed all tournament and school rules, provided judges consistently, and had approval from the school. These facts did not allow me to register for anti-independent tournaments (which include massive bid tournaments) and did not stop tournament directors from making registration harder than necessary. My, and many other aspiring debaters, situation is not the fault of students; it’s the fault of nationally poorly funded public education programs. We effectively victim blame students for going to public schools in the status quo of debate, so, before we hail ourselves for being progressive leftists, we ought to examine our own practices, prejudices, and norms ”
	28	+Heres some additional links- you use legal reform: “The hypothesis drawn by some feminist lawyers from Gilligan's research is that, just as traditional psychological theories have privileged a male perspective and marginalized women's voices, so too law privileges a male view of the universe and that law is part of the structure of male domination. The hierarchical organization of law, its adversarial format and its aim of the abstract resolution of competing rights, make the law an intensely patriarchal institution. Law, thus represents a very limited aspect of human experience. The language and imagery of the law underscores is maleness: it lays claim to rationality, objectivity and abstractness, characteristics traditionally associated with men, and is defined in contrast to emotion, subjectivity and contextualized thinking - the province of women. ”
	29	+AND, “Though patriarchal customs preceded state formation, masculinist and class systems got institutionalized as states were structured. Gender and class relations were backed by the coercive power of the state and the reproduction of this hierarchy was ensured through a complex of legitimizing ideologies. The 'individual household unit rendered women vulnerable to and dependent on fathers/brothers/husbands and weakened their access to countervailing power and support from larger kin networks. The role of women in the domestic/household sphere was regulated by the state. With new inheritance claims, sexuality and reproduction too were regulated by the state. For instance, women's adultery became a crime against the state and was punished publicly. The state became the main organizer of power relations of gender. It engaged in the mystification of its patriarchal base by constructing and manipulating the ideology that drew a distinction between public and private life. ”
	30	+This is especially true of this specific topic. We ignore the way that ”“The state further formalized gender power relations by retaining male domination of the top personnel within it. Gender differentiation became evident, thanks to disproportionate number of men in the coercive structures of the state (army, police, etc.), and women in the service sectors (teaching, health, clerical support, etc.). In fact, women were "protected" from the so-called "tough professions" in order to keep them out and to prevent them from getting equal rights. Men became eligible for better jobs and better pay in the liberal societies while women had to struggle hard for these privileges. ”
	31	+And we act like state action changes anything in the first place, despite the fact that “Traditional feminism, in law as elsewhere, sought to "put women on the agenda" ~-~- for example, to make violence against women a violation of international human rights. While first-wave feminism concentrated on legal reform, the second wave has lost faith. Reform has often been ineffectual or led to transformation, rather than eradication, of male dominance. Sometimes, "using" law may have seemed to be a fatal concession. For the law and legal method may themselves, with their adversarial style and obsession with authority and rationality, be bastions of stereotypical masculinity-hence, of male domination. This applies also to the rhetoric of liberal rights ("men's rights," Shelley Wright, p. 120). While "rights," like reformism, may have played a beneficial role in early feminist struggles, they have also proved counterproductive. They oversimplify complex power relations (within the family, for instance); they are individualistic, indeterminate, conflictual and easily appropriated to enhance domination (as the right of free speech is used to defend pornography). ”
	32	+Your ballot should signify an epistemic break, a genuine encounter with the other where we interrogate lived experiences with oppression in the debate space. The ac is a performative act with the intent of criticizing the replication and commodification of oppression in debate. Negate in a rejection of passivity, of rage, that confronts the powers that work against gender autonomy. We demand that identities marginalized by the totality of normalcy be recognized in this space. Historically,
	33	+ I hate straight people who can’t listen to queer anger without saying “hey, all straight people aren’t like that. I’m straight too, you know,” as if their egos don’t get enough stroking or protection in this arrogant, heterosexist world. Why must we take care of them, in the midst of our just anger brought on by their f—ed up society?! Why add the reassurance of “Of course, I don’t mean you. You don’t act that way.” Let them figure out for themselves whether they deserve to be included in our anger.¶ But of course that would mean listening to our anger, which they almost never do. They deflect it, by saying “I’m not like that” or “now look who’s generalizing” or “You’ll catch more flies with honey … ” or “If you focus on the negative you just give out more power” or “you’re not the only one in the world who’s suffering.” They say “Don’t yell at me, I’m on your side” or “I think you’re overreacting” or “Boy, you’re bitter.”¶ ¶ - The Queer Nation Manifesto ¶ ¶ Last weeks post involved a quote from The Queer Nation referring to the way in which straight people have taught us that good queers don’t get angry. A good queer is one that accepts the “progress” that others have made for us. According to straight people, and some queers who have accepted the straight position, we should be thankful for things like same-sex marriage and the repeal of DADT. However, the acceptance of progress is a form of passivity that forgets the importance of queers of the past who fought for our recognition while maintaining the uniqueness of queer identities. We forget about the politics of groups like ACT UP and the protests of Stonewall. These histories are ignored in favor of assimilationist strategies that we are taught are good because of straightness. ¶ ¶ Rather, we need to use our anger at straightness as the starting point for our politics. We need to stop accepting liberal progress narratives that keep us passive and have forced us to conform to what a “good citizen” should look like. Benjamin Shepard writes, ¶ Thus, play intermingled with a full range of emotions—from despair to pathos, from pleasure to terror. Charles King, a veteran of ACT UP New York’s Housing Committee, which evolved into Housing Works, of which he is now president, explained that these combined feelings of joy and anger fueled the group’s work: I actually think it’s a combination of the two. . . . The AIDS movement in the 1980s was fueled by this amazing combination of taking grief and anger and turning it into this powerful energy for action. But in the course of that, developing this comradely love. Yes, the anger was the fuel. It’s what brought us together and taking that anger and not just sitting with it. . . not just letting grief turn into despair. Bringing it into some sort of action was very cathartic, but also what was cathartic in the process was all the loving that was taking place. ¶ ¶ Anger can be transformative. Anger is a strategy that allows us to develop creative strategies for resistance against heteronormative institutions and practices. I am tired, and we should all be tired of both straight people along others in our own community telling us that we should be happy about all of the progress that has been made. FUCK THAT PROGRESS. Our passivity and acceptance of it makes us forget about the queer bashing that so many in our community face everyday. Anti-queerness is still just as prevalent as ever, but under the guise of tolerance we have covered up the physical and psychological violence that so many queers face everyday. There are homeless queer youth everywhere. There are queer people being assaulted in our streets. There are parents telling their children they are going to get AIDS and die, that they are perverts and should die, and are sending them to therapy to “make them straight.” Governments – state and local are complacent and strategically prevent us from having access to housing, jobs, and other material resources. Instead of being fucking happy about same-sex marriage, we should be fucking mad. We should be angry that we pretend that it’s getting better. IT IS NOT! Stop pretending. Be angry. Utilize our rage to confront the ways in which anti-queerness continue to perpetuate violence against queer bodies everywhere.
	34	+
	35	+
	36	+
	37	+
	38	+
	39	+ Heres the bibliography, in case your word processor doesn’t deal well with footnotes. If you have a problem with my formatting of cites in this case, tell me BEFORE THE ROUND please.
	40	+
	41	+ Tartakovsky, Gender Disparities in Competitive High School Debate New Evidence from Comprehensive Tournament Results Data Daniel Tartakovsky* Econ 980b: Education in the Economy May 9, 2016, http://vbriefly.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Tartakovsky_Tabroom_Analysis.pdf
	42	+
	43	+2 (Sean Fahey, 2016)
	44	+
	45	+Sean Fahey, h.-o.-l.-t.-t.-l.-c. (2016, Nov 26). An Open Letter to the LD Community: Are We Putting Our Pedagogical Money Where Our Mouth Is? Public Debate Inititive ., https://publicdebateinitiative.org/2016/11/25/an-open-letter-to-the-ld-community/
	46	+
	47	+
	48	+4 Charlesworth and Chinkin 2000 - *Hilary, **Christine Professors of Law at University of Adelaide and University of South Hampton, The boundaries of international law: a feminist analysis, 2000, p. 40-1)
	49	+
	50	+5 Chenoy 2000 – Professor of International Studies @ Nehru University. (Anuradha, Professor, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, 2000, p.19)
	51	+
	52	+6 Chenoy 2000 – Professor of International Studies @ Nehru University. (Anuradha, Professor, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, 2000, p.19)
	53	+
	54	+7 Koskenniemi 1995 Martti Koskenniemi, University of Helsinki, January, , The American Journal International Law, 89 A.J.I.L. 227, p. 227
	55	+
	56	+
	57	+8. Copenhaver 14
	58	+(Robert Copenhaver identified as a Queer person of faith, graduate of Idaho State University, whose interests include queer theory, politics, and theology. He will be starting a masters in theological studies at The Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago next fall; “Queer Rage”; published 2/19/14; http://coperoge.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/queer-rage/) GFD

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-12-10 00:08:19.246

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Nikunj Patel

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Edmond North DA

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+41

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+4

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+North Crowley Reed Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+1-Performance wreform bad k

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+UT