Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[61]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[71]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[61]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-02-23 19:44:59.625
	1	+2017-02-23 19:44:59.0

Caselist.CitesClass[71]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,23 @@
	1	+Link
	2	+YOU USE the word COLORBLINDNESS IN YOUR ADVOCACY~-~-~-~-~-~-The term “blindness” specifically in the context of the ac ingrains the oppression of those with no sight, implying their lack of sight is a flaw. We recognize that ignorance of race is a bad thing, but you don’t need abelist to explain this
	3	+James: 2k, Rachel, 8-19-09 Deeply Problematic, “‘Blinded by privileged’: ableist language in critical discourse” PESH AK
	4	+
	5	+Using the term "blindness" to reflect mishaps of privilege is a way to further ingrain the oppression of those with little or no sight. By constructing the disablity of blindness as something that an ignorant person needs to educate themselves about, that someone needs to overcome, it minimizes the permanence of lack of sight and turns it into a fault., a flaw. It's also constructing blindness as something that needs to be fixed, as something that leads to misery and inflicted hurt, rather than part of a full and happy life. It's is even more problematic when the "privilege-blindness" is constructed as willful— putting one's blinders on to avoid looking at uncomfortable truths. This supposes that the disability of blindness is somehow false or temporary. ¶ This may seem as if I'm somehow overly concerned with minutiae, but it's necessary to be careful about my language when I'm discussing how to end or mitigate oppression. "Lame" and "retard" have become thoroughly unacceptable in progressive discourse, but we are turning another word into a slur by saying that being "blind" is a status to be avoided, something that will hurt others. Blind has been turned from a word describing disabilities into a pejorative attacking ignorance. It's made being blind synonymous with stupidity and having sight synonymous with truth. When I say that I must open my eyes to oppression, I must see my own racism, I must stop being blinded by my cis privilege, what am I saying about the people who are literally blind? Are they are not included in the discussion of working towards a better world, or does their blindness prevent them from truly seeing oppression? Why are my views on oppression and racism and sexism insights? ¶ The stigmatization of blindness has very real consequences that significantly impair and impact the blind community. As Alena recently wrote: ¶ Have you ever noticed that calling someone blind is like calling them a four letter word.?
	6	+
	7	+
	8	+
	9	+The alternative is to reject the affirmative in an explicit endorsement of increasing access to the debate space.
	10	+And, I link stronger to 1AC framing. Your reps exclude people from debate- it’s a precondition to embrace he alternative.
	11	+
	12	+Lanning
	13	+Eric Lanning Eric Lanning is a debater at the University of Houston and former National Debate Tournament Champion. January 22, 2014, “What is Access?”, access debate, http://accessdebate.com/2014/01/22/what-is-access/
	14	+I’ve been thinking a lot lately about what “access” means in the context of the debate community. I don’t have all (or even a lot) of the answers to this question, but I’m beginning to think that might be the point. We can’t figure this out alone. We need each other. Disability Studies gives the means, motives and opportunity to reframe this “dependence” as inevitable, necessary and valuable. What would it mean to universally design debate? What would it mean to ask and answer this question together? I believe that “access” is the process (not outcome) of answering that question over and over. It is the process of destabilizing our assumptions about what debaters “are” and “do”.  What assumptions do we make about debaters inherent “abilities” or natural “capabilities” when we debate in particular ways and in particular spaces? What changes should we make to debate practice and culture? These are questions that I am asking and answering in every negative debate – but the “pre-requisite” for me to asking and answering these questions in any debate was my own disability consciousness. The most portable skill debate ever gave me was consciousness. Debate gave me a vocabulary and audience to articulate what my lived experience with disability teaches me everyday. It gave me the experience and environment to develop and explain my own consciousness of disability. For me, that is the beginning of access. Before we can debate about what access means, it is worth thinking about the status quo – what does it mean for debate to be “inaccessible” to particular debaters and particular identities?  What is wrong with the status quo? For many years and for most debaters, “ableism” was nothing more than a list of words you should not use: blinded, silenced, paralyzed, crazy, lame, disabled, crippled, etc. To be clear, I think that ableist language is problematic and constitutes a micro-aggression against disabled people that we should all work to stop. But it is about SO much more than language. Disability is an embodied experience. In a poem I wrote called “Broken” – I explain this distinction as, “disability is not something you have, its something you are” (If you’re interested in hearing/reading the entire poem, I’ve included a link at the end). This recognition of the lived experience of disability – of disability as a social and political fact – of disability as a category of human existence is missing from our current debates about ableism and access. One of the most meaningful and empowering contributions of disability studies is expressed in the mantra, “nothing about us without us”. It is a call to foreground and privilege the experience of disability. This is not to say that TABS (temporarily abled bodies) can’t participate and contribute to the conversation about access, but instead it is a call to reverse the history of marginalization of disabled people‘s experience in the academy and our society.  Obviously not every debater has a lived experience with disability, but we all do research. In debate, this research is a reflection of our priorities
	15	+
	16	+
	17	+
	18	+AND-Ableism entails the subjugation of oppressed groups as physically inferior. A social model of disability consciousness creates a side constraint on body politics, allowing the contestation of the universal individual as the dominant conception of normality. K offense is a sequencing question – you can’t get access to offense about bodies with specific racial identity markers while justifying the exclusion of bodies based upon ability.
	19	+
	20	+Russell
	21	+Marta Russell, The Social Movement Left Out, SOA Watch, http://www.soaw.org/resources/anti-opp-resources/112-abilities/828-the-social-movement-left-out
	22	+It is disheartening, to say the least, when I can still pick up a book or read a all for unity to fight for social justice which omits or does not give equal weight to the disability social movement against oppression. Here is one recent call for forming alliances with various groups in the struggle. The groups listed are "Greens, labor, people of color, feminists, environmental activists, students and youth, supporters of a death penalty moratorium, gay/lesbian people, people of faith, peace activists, senior and community organizations." Can we call this anything other than disablism or ableism ableism being defined as "any social relations, practices, and ideas that presume that all people are ablebodied"? (Chouinard and Grant, 1995) Nondisabled activists and scholars have fervently studied and challenged the rational explanation for oppression based on identity in particular, gender, race, and ethnicity but excluded disability. Disability activists and scholars, on the other hand, have fervently been supplying a plethora of disability social model theorizing which doesn't seem to be read or absorbed by many of the other activists and scholars. Knowing what less than stellar past other social movements in this country have had regarding impairment, it is necessary to confront this history so that we can all move forward. Here I am going to rely of the work of Douglas Baynton in his essay "Disability and the Justification of Inequality in American History" (Paul K. Longmore and Lauri Umansky, eds, THE NEW DISABILITY HISTORY: AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES, 2001) to explain how other oppressed groups have situated disablement. Baynton lays it out plain and simple. He writes, "Rarely have oppressed groups denied that disability is an adequate justification for social and political inequality. Thus, while disabled people can be considered one of the minority groups historically assigned inferior status and subjected to discrimination, disability has functioned for all such groups as a sign of and justification for inferiority." (Baynton p. 34) The concept of inferiority is rooted in the late 19th century social creation of "normality." "The normal" was used as a means of measuring, categorizing, and managing populations. It informed hegemony, ranking order by the directive of the constructed "norm." In turn, normality established the universal, unequivocal good and right from which social, economic, and political rights were granted rights being a means in liberal democratic societies of mitigating oppression. Simultaneously the concept of normality equated with a belief in western progress. Eugenics was its obvious "scientific" progeny. Under the eugenic view, perfection was attainable; by eliminating the abnormal; the defective could be eradicated from humanity. Along with the conservatives and later the Nazis, Anarchist Emma Goldman, "friend of the oppressed" and a proponent of eugenic thought wrote that unless birth control was encouraged, the state would "legally encourage the increase of paupers, syphilitics, epileptics, dipsomaniacs, cripples, criminals, and degenerates." (D.J. Kevles, IN THE NAME OF EUGENICS, 1985) (emphasis mine)What was not so obvious was that both blacks and women's liberation movements did not challenge the notion that disability was a legitimate reason for social, economic and political exclusion. he continues Historically, labor associations similarly found it shameful to be injured or impaired and "equated manhood with independence (bodily and financial)." (John Williams Searle, "Cold Charity: Manhood, Brotherhood, and the Transformation of Disability, 1870 1900," THE NEW DISABILITY HISTORY, 2001) It has been close to a century since US disabled peoples'first known disability civil rights group formed, the League for the Physically Handicapped. Some three hundred disabled pensioners in New York engaged in civil disobedience during the Great Depression to protest their discriminatory rejection from the employment offered by the Works Progress Administration. Much later, in 1970, came Disabled in Action (DIA) which founded and adopted the tactic of direct political protest. There were many groups of all types of impairments involved in the 25 day occupation of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) federal building in San Francisco in 1977 to have regulations issued pursuant to section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 making it illegal for federal agencies, contractors, or public universities to discriminate on the basis of disability. In 1983 came Americans Disabled for Accessible Public Transit (ADAPT), established by disability rights activists in several important cities in the USA to highlight the inaccessibility of public transit for people with mobility impairments. It quickly became known for its confrontational and often successful tactics. Movements for blind persons, deaf persons, developmentally disabled persons and psychiatric disabilities similarly evolved, the histories all too numerous to list in this brief commentary. There have been many groupings leading up to passage of the American's with Disabilities Act in 1990 and beyond. Yet to this day class, race, gender and sexual oppression are often alluded to in developing vision and strategy for social change in leftist circles disability, too often, is not. Scanning the internet I found numerous examples of sites where ableism gets left out of the isms. Here is just one such statement. This group is "in opposition to racism, sexism, homophobia, economic class oppression and all other forms of oppression and discrimination." What are "all other forms of oppression and discrimination"? Do they mean ableism? When the left leaves us out of its analysis, or includes us in a cursory manner as "other forms of oppression" this is clearly not sufficient. It only leads to the suspicion that there is no real understanding of disability oppression. For example, on the most basic level which we should be well beyond by now some still hold their events in inaccessible locations. Michael Moore did this in Cambridge when he was promoting his new book "Stupid White Men." Don't get me wrong, I like Michael Moore but please! It is so obvious that those disabled persons who could not attend his event due to it not being physically accessible to them would include him in the category of "stupid white men." We leftie disability activists have been silent far too long. I would go so far as to say that the portion of the left which still excludes by not reporting, covering or identifying disability in its platforms, programs, publications or web sites shows that it has not *fully* understood individualistic consciousness or institutionalized practices under capitalism. Despite the fact that disabled persons to this day remain at the bottom of the socio economic ladder being the most impoverished and degraded group of persons worldwide still segregated and institutionalized, some nondisabled persons and social movements have not accepted the idea that disability oppression really exists. As Michael Oliver frames it when disablism does not merit inclusion "even those writers who have specifically examined oppression have internalised the dominant, individualised world view of disability and have failed to conceptualise it as social oppression." (Oliver, Understanding Disability, p. 133) The dominant view that Oliver refers to is that the social and economic pain that disabled people deal with is a personal problem, an individual pathology, a personal tragedy and a personal failing. While other social movements have been granted the status of having a collective dimension and are viewed as the result of systemic social structures rather than personal shortcomings, the disability movement has largely been left out as an oppressed group. Oliver writes "it is not disabled people who need to be examined but able bodied society; it is not a case of educating disabled and able bodied people for integration, but offighting institutional disablism; it is not disability relations which should be the field for study but disablism." (Oliver, p. 142) Radical disability theorists have posed that under capitalism impairment is socialized as a specific form of oppression disability. The defining feature of capitalism, commodity relations, has been a primary force behind the economic impoverishment of impaired persons. The material relation is primary and the ideology of superiority/inferiority serves the function of maintenance and perpetuation of this social relation. Why cannot some elements on the left apply disablement to C. Wright Mills' observation that seemingly "personal troubles", are more appropriately understood as "public issues" which link to the institutions of society as a whole? Ongoing exclusion of disability oppression unfortunately only contributes to the disabling society when what we do need is a "trajectory of change," as Michael Albert phases it, with everyone's contributions and energies working towards global justice.
	23	+ (which people are defining and re-defining), which some believe is being coopted, there still needs to exist a particular pedagogy that advocates and provides a platform for people with disabilities, therefore the rise of disability pedagogy.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-02-23 19:45:02.278

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Vincent, Wang, Jorma

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+David Moon

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+61

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Triples

Team

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

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+1- K- Ableist reps

Tournament

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