Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[1]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[2]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[1]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-01-27 03:38:43.435
	1	+2017-01-27 03:38:43.0

Caselist.CitesClass[2]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,29 @@
	1	+The AC’s idea of full freedom of speech and expression is a form of ableism that disabled bodies cannot access. Hirschmann 7
	2	+Hirschmann 7 - Hirschmann, Nancy J., and Kirstie M. McClure, eds. Feminist Interpretations of John Locke. United States: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2007. Print.
	3	+This is the dominant model presumed by many philosophers who write on disability, and even more by those who write on freedom. In particular it is an accepted view of contemporary theories of freedom that freedom presupposes ability. Richard Flathman offers the standard example: we are not able “to jump, unaided, twenty-five feet straight up from the surface of the earth, to develop gills instead of or in addition to lungs… Few if any of us decide to stand upright, to walk by moving first one foot and then the other, or to see figures three-dimensionally.” What humans are able to do determines the context for freedom, for even thinking about freedom is conduct within these general facts.
	4	+
	5	+Exposure to hate speech undermines student mental health. Ford 14
	6	+Ford 14 - Ford, Zack. “Exposure to hate speech on Facebook undermines users’ mental health.” Think Progress. ThinkProgress, 2 Sept. 2014. Web. 12 July 2016.
	7	+A new study from Italy finds that social networking sites like Facebook have a negative impact on individuals’ mental well-being, as well as their levels of social trust, because of their exposure to hate speech and other offensive content. Researchers at Rome’s Sapienza University and the Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques du Grand-Duché du Luxembourg analyzed a wide representative sample o,f 50,000 Italian citizens, assessing how much they interacted with social media and how they rated their happiness and self-esteem. Those who used sites like Facebook more often tended to have stronger relationships with people they were connected to, but lower social trust because of the strangers they interacted with in venues like comment threads. The researchers note that “there is a tendency for people to assume that their own opinions, beliefs, preferences, values, and habits are ‘normal’ and that others also think the same way that they do.” In online networks, however, exposure to a greater diversity of ideas may causes individuals to realize they are “surrounded with preference types they dislike (e.g. a racist person may find out that most people appreciate ethnic diversity, or vise versa).” For example, “tolerant users may easily find themselves to interact with unknown, racist or homophobic readers in a ‘public’ page,” which can turn into a “powerful source of frustration and distrust.” The study notes that the high risk of being targeted with offensive behaviors and hate speech is “particularly significant for womyn and users belonging to minorities or discriminated groups.” This is exacerbated by the fact that online discussions do not obey “the same social norms usually acknowledged in physical interactions.” Because strangers’ reactions are “invisible,” the study suggests, “people care less of the risk of offending others in a conversation.” That’s why “in online interactions, dealing with strangers who advance opposite views in an aggressive and insulting way seems to be a widespread practice.” This risk of worsening people’s trust in others in turn has an impact on people’s life satisfaction. The researchers recommend that Facebook do more to moderate content and create avenues for feedback and review to hold accountable those proliferating offensive, hurtful, or hateful speech. A recent study of how young people are using social networking found that LGBT youth turn to the internet to find social support, but it also opens them to cyberbullying. LGBT young people were nearly three times as likely (42 percent vs. 15 percent) to experience cyberbullying, especially in rural areas. Back in 2012, Facebook rolled out a series of new tools to assist users who encounter cyberbullying, but it remains unclear how effectively the site has been at moderating content.
	8	+
	9	+Hate speech forces negative perceptions on cultural AND handicapped minorities causing a lower psychological state. Smith 04
	10	+Smith 4 - Smith, Craig. “Circumventing the ‘True Threat’ Standard in Campus Hate Speech Codes.” The center for First amendment studies CSULB. 2004. Web. 12 July 2016.
	11	+Words can reinforce and/or maintain social inequality in the home, in the classroom, in the workplace, and in social settings. Hate messages are real and immediate for victims. In her article in the Miami Law Review, Professor Patricia Williams called hate messages "spirit murder."3 According to research completed by professors Kitano and Allport, the effects of hate speech include displaced aggression, avoidance, retreat, withdrawal, alcoholism, and suicide. The special report of the Attorney General of California 1988 demonstrates that epithets and harassment "often cause deep emotional scarring and bring feelings of intimidation and fear that pervade every aspect of a victim's life." In his book Words that Wound, Professor Delgado demonstrates that hate speech victims suffer High Blood Pressure and loss of self-worth. In the Journal of Social Psychiatry, Professor Hafner demonstrates that psychological disturbances including headaches, social withdrawal, depression, and anxiety attacks result from working or learning in a hostile environment. Other reports clearly demonstrate that hate speech results in feelings of ethnic or gender inferiority. In the Journal of Experimental Sociology (1985), Greenberg and Pysczynski Piszynski demonstrate that overhearing a racist slur causes the listener to evaluate members of the slurred group more harshly in the future. Hostile environments trigger avoidance strategies that limit personal freedom and have serious economic consequences. Students who are victims of hate speech often avoid classes and other places of hate speech such as food courts and libraries. Their grades then suffer along with their socialization into a healthy diverse community. According to Lieberson, Stereotypes: The Consequences for Race and Ethnic Interaction in Marrett and Leggon, eds (1985) Research on Race and Ethnic Relations).
	12	+
	13	+Ableism is a method of oppression that permeates all forms of discrimination – categorization based on normative biological standards justifies every form of discrimination and violence. Sierbers 09
	14	+Siebers 9 Tobin Siebers (Professor of Literary and Cultural Criticism @ University of Michigan), “The Aesthetics of Human Disqualification”, 10/28/9, Lecture, http://disabilities.temple.edu/media/ds/lecture20091028siebersAesthetics_FULL.doc
	15	+
	16	+Oppression is the systematic victimization of one group by another. It is a form of intergroup violence. That oppression involves “groups,” and not “individuals,” means that it concerns identities, and this means, furthermore, that oppression always focuses on how the body appears, both on how it appears as a public and physical presence and on its specific and various appearances. Oppression is justified most often by the attribution of natural inferiority—what some call “in-built” or “biological” inferiority. Natural inferiority is always somatic, focusing on the mental and physical features of the group, and it figures as disability. The prototype of biological inferiority is disability. The representation of inferiority always comes back to the appearance of the body and the way the body makes other bodies feel. This is why the study of oppression requires an understanding of aesthetics—not only because oppression uses aesthetic judgments for its violence but also because the signposts of how oppression works are visible in the history of art, where aesthetic judgments about the creation and appreciation of bodies are openly discussed. One additional thought must be noted before I treat some analytic examples from the historical record. First, despite my statement that disability now serves as the master trope of human disqualification, it is not a matter of reducing other minority identities to disability identity. Rather, it is a matter of understanding the work done by disability in oppressive systems. In disability oppression, the physical and mental properties of the body are socially constructed as disqualifying defects, but this specific type of social construction happens to be integral at the present moment to the symbolic requirements of oppression in general. In every oppressive system of our day, I want to claim, the oppressed identity is represented in some way as disabled, and although it is hard to understand, the same process obtains when disability is the oppressed identity. “Racism” disqualifies on the basis of race, providing justification for the inferiority of certain skin colors, bloodlines, and physical features. “Sexism” disqualifies on the basis of sex/gender as a direct representation of mental and physical inferiority. “Classism” disqualifies on the basis of family lineage and socioeconomic power as proof of inferior genealogical status. “Ableism” disqualifies on the basis of mental and physical differences, first selecting and then stigmatizing them as disabilities. The oppressive system occults in each case the fact that the disqualified identity is socially constructed, a mere convention, representing signs of incompetence, weakness, or inferiority as undeniable facts of nature. As racism, sexism, and classism fall away slowly as justifications for human inferiority—and the critiques of these prejudices prove powerful examples of how to fight oppression—the prejudice against disability remains in full force, providing seemingly credible reasons for the belief in human inferiority and the oppressive systems built upon it. This usage will continue, I expect, until we reach a historical moment when we know as much about the social construction of disability as we now know about the social construction of race, class, gender, and sexuality. Disability represents at this moment in time the final frontier of justifiable human inferiority.
	17	+
	18	+The alt is to embrace vulnerability which allows for a non-oppressive space for the disabled body. Goggin 9.
	19	+ Goggin 9 - Goggin, G., Disability, Media, and the Politics of Vulnerability, Asia Paci c Media Educator, 19, 2009, 1-13.
	20	+Available at:h p://ro.uow.edu.au/apme/vol1/iss19/2
	21	+I have argued that conceptions of vulnerability and media remain problematic and narrow, and fail to grasp the conditions of media. In relation to disability and media, vulnerability is even more problematic, because it encapsulates a highly politicised and potentially oppressive account of disability — that misrecognises the social relations of disability and the construction of media helps constitute these. Should we just cast vulnerability aside, in favour of other operative concepts? Actually, I think not. There is an important revaluing and radical turn in vulnerability that critical accounts of disability allow us to recognise. Disability teaches us — and my relationships with friends, colleagues, and associates with disability have taught me personally — that vulnerability is enormously important, because it goes to the heart of what it is to be human.The dif culty has been that disability is marked out as the abnormal, the problem, the lack, and, in this case, the vulnerable.The non-disabled, the normate, and the ordinary is coded as unmarked, an operation of powerful differentiation we are familiar with from critical race, sexuality, gender, and whiteness studies (Goggin and Newell, 2005). Once we recognise that the centre, the normal, the masculine is only phantasmally invulnerable — constitutionally not admitting to weakness — then we can proceed to knowingly trace the operations of vulnerability. Here I am informed by the work of various disability studies scholars, including Michelle Jarman, who proposes: a transgressive reading of vulnerability which not only critiques these discursive practices of disability, but also understands vulnerability as a radical element in forging cross-identity, cross-cultural alliances committed to exposing and interrogating the ways western values become inscribed upon the bodies of ‘Third World’ the unrepresented subjects (Jarman, 2005: 108). Jarman draws upon the important work of another disability studies scholar, Margrit Shildrick, whose important study of the monstrous is premised on a critique of the ‘self-possession’ that underpins Western notions of the self — and the formulation of an alternative ethics of embracing, rather than disavowing, the vulnerable self (Shildrick 2000 and 2002). More recently,Angharad Beckett has presented a new model of ‘active citizenship’ based upon an account of ‘vulnerable personhood’ (Beckett 2006). Conclusion While there is a developed body of work on disability and vulnerability, I would suggest there is much work ahead in bringing this to bear on media — and also
	22	+using new work in media and journalism studies to better conceptualise the cultural dimensions of this. Space only permits brief concluding remarks to indicate what I see as useful directions here. In journalism, then, the idea of vulnerable subjectivity and the kinds of active citizenship that can be predicated upon it would allow us to acknowledge the vulnerability in journalists, as well as particular kinds of sources and audiences historically approached as vulnerable.This is the value of this special issue, it seems to me — because it pluralises and proliferates the gures of the vulnerable.And in Issue No.19, June 2008/July 2009 Asia Paci c Media Educator paying such attention to this, opens the way for us to better understand and recast relationships among these cardinal points of contemporary media. Such recognition of the politics of vulnerability allows us to nd new strategies
	23	+to rethink and improve the relationships in which media is constructed, as well as reforming the institutions and organisations which still wield much power over media producers, consumers and audiences alike. Disability scholars and activists also offer
	24	+an ethics of engagement, which can be enormously fruitful too.A sharpened sense of vulnerability can help us to draw upon, critique and reformulate the work on trauma, mental illness, grieving, and other concepts that have gured in media and journalism research and practice. Research on an expanded concept of vulnerability and how
	25	+this takes shape through media, is likely to lead to contributions to the debates and questioning with disability studies and movements about accepted forms of identity and expression — and how these can themselves lead to new forms of exclusion (Goggin and Newell 2005; Shakespeare 2006; Matthews 2008). As Ellis reminds us, for instance,‘pain and exclusion are very real aspects of the lives of people with disability and this must be acknowledged within any model that purports to empower this group’ (Ellis 2009). With a renewed, reoriented concern for questions of voice and representation comes too a new emphasis on the importance of listening (Goggin 2009), acknowledgement and collaboration — all of which promise to see better media springing from a much wider and deeper notions of vulnerability, which comprehends the broken, fragile, and still hopeful nature of whom we are.
	26	+
	27	+Voting aff takes a standing point next to ableism which fuels the cycle of discrimination and structural violence. Hehir 07
	28	+Hehir 07 (Thomas Hehir is Professor of Practice and Director of the School Leadership Program, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Educational Leadership: “Confronting Ableism.” Published in February, 2007. Accessed July 20th, 2015. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/feb07/vol64/num05/Confronting-Ableism.aspx)TheFedora
	29	+Negative cultural attitudes toward disability can undermine opportunities for all students to participate fully in school and society. When Ricky was born deaf, his parents were determined to raise him to function in the “normal” world. Ricky learned to read lips and was not taught American Sign Language. He felt comfortable within the secure world of his family, but when he entered his neighborhood school, he grew less confident as he struggled to understand what his classmates seemed to grasp so easily. Susan, a child with dyslexia, entered kindergarten with curiosity about the world around her, a lively imagination, and a love of picture books. Although her school provided her with individual tutoring and other special education services, it also expected her to read grade-level texts at the same speed as her nondisabled peers. Susan fell further and further behind. By 6th grade, she hated school and avoided reading. These two examples illustrate how society's pervasive negative attitude about disability—which I term ableism—often makes the world unwelcoming and inaccessible for people with disabilities. An ableist perspective asserts that it is preferable for a child to read print rather than Braille, walk rather than use a wheelchair, spell independently rather than use a spell-checker, read written text rather than listen to a book on tape, and hang out with nondisabled kids rather than with other disabled kids. Certainly, given a human-made world designed with the nondisabled in mind, children with disabilities gain an advantage if they can perform like their nondisabled peers. A physically disabled child who receives the help he or she needs to walk can move more easily in a barrier-filled environment. A child with a mild hearing loss who has been given the amplification and speech therapy he or she needs may function well in a regular classroom. But ableist assumptions become dysfunctional when the education and development services provided to the disabled children focus on their disability to the exclusion of all else. From an early age, many people with disabilities encounter the view that disability is negative and tragic and that “overcoming” disability is the only valued result (Ferguson and Asch, 1989; Rousso, 1984). In education, considerable evidence shows that unquestioned ableist assumptions are harming the disabled students and contributing to unequal outcomes (see Allington and McGill-Franzen, 1989; Lyon et al., 2001). School time devoted to activities that focus on changing disability may take away from the time needed to learn academic material. In addition, academic deficits may be exacerbated by the ingrained prejudice against performing activities in “different” ways that might be more efficient for disabled people—such as reading Braille, using sign language, or using text-to-speech software to read. The Purpose of Special Education What should the purpose of special education be? In struggling with this issue, we can find guidance in the rich and varied narratives of people with disabilities and their families. Noteworthy among these narratives is the work of Adrienne Asch, a professor of bioethics at Yeshiva University in New York who is blind. In her analysis of stories that adults with disabilities told about their childhood experiences (Ferguson and Asch, 1989), Asch identified common themes in their parents' and educators' responses to their disability. Some of the adults responded with excessive concern and sheltering. Others conveyed to children, through silence or denial, that nothing was “wrong.” For example, one young woman with significant vision loss related that she was given no alternative but to use her limited vision even though this restriction caused her significant academic problems. Another common reaction was to make ill-conceived attempts to fix the disability. For example, Harilyn Rousso, an accomplished psychotherapist with cerebral palsy, recounts, My mother was quite concerned with the awkwardness of my walk. Not only did it periodically cause me to fall but it made me stand out, appear conspicuously different—which she feared would subject me to endless teasing and rejection. To some extent it did. She made numerous attempts over the years of my childhood to have me go to physical therapy and to practice walking “normally” at home. I vehemently refused her efforts. She could not understand why I would not walk straight. (1984, p. 9) In recalling her own upbringing and education, Asch describes a more positive response to disability: I give my parents high marks. They did not deny that I was blind, and did not ask me to pretend that everything about my life was fine. They rarely sheltered. They worked to help me behave and look the way others did without giving me a sense that to be blind—“different”—was shameful. They fought for me to ensure that I lived as full and rich a life as I could. For them, and consequently for me, my blindness was a fact, not a tragedy. It affected them but did not dominate their lives. Nor did it dominate mine. (Ferguson and Asch, 1989, p. 118) Asch's narrative and others (Biklen, 1992) suggest that we can best frame the purpose of special education as minimizing the impact of disability and maximizing the opportunities for students with disabilities to participate in schooling and the community. This framework assumes that most students with disabilities will be integrated into general education and educated within their natural community. It is consistent with the 1997 and 2004 reauthorizations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which requires that individualized education program (IEP) teams address how the student will gain access to the curriculum and how the school will meet the unique needs that arise out of the student's disability. Finally, this framework embraces the diverse needs of students with various disabilities as well as the individual diversity found among students within each disability group. Falling Short of the Goal Minimizing the impact of disability does not mean making misguided attempts to “cure” disability but rather giving students the supports, skills, and opportunities needed to live as full a life as possible with their disability. Maximizing access requires that school practices recognize the right of students with disabilities to participate fully in the school community—not only in academic programs, but also in sports teams, choruses, clubs, and field trips. A look at common problems encountered by students with low-incidence disabilities, specific learning disabilities, and emotional disturbances illustrates that schools still have a long way to go in fulfilling the purpose of special education. Students with Low-Incidence Disabilities In Adrienne Asch's case, minimizing the impact of her blindness meant learning Braille, developing orientation and mobility skills, and having appropriate accommodations available that gave her access to education. Asch also points out that because of New Jersey's enlightened policies at the time, she could live at home and attend her local school, so she and her family were not required to disrupt their lives to receive the specialized services she needed. Unfortunately, many students today with low-incidence disabilities like blindness and deafness are not afforded the opportunities that Asch had in the early 1950s. Parents sometimes face the choice of sending their children to a local school that is ill equipped to meet their needs or to a residential school with specialized services, thus disrupting normal family life. Parents should not be forced to make this Hobson's choice. Services can be brought to blind and deaf students in typical community settings, and most students can thrive in that environment (Wagner, Black-orby, Cameto, and Newman, 1993; Wagner and Cameto, 2004). It is up to policymakers to ensure that such services are available. Students with Specific Learning Disabilities Because those identified as having learning disabilities are such a large and growing portion of the school population, we might expect that these students would be less likely to be subjected to ableist practices. The available evidence, however, contradicts this assumption. Many students with dyslexia and other specific learning disabilities receive inappropriate instruction that exacerbates their disabilities. For example, instead of making taped books available to these students, many schools require those taught in regular classrooms to handle grade-level or higher text. Other schools do not allow students to use computers when taking exams, thus greatly diminishing some students' ability to produce acceptable written work. The late disabilities advocate Ed Roberts had polio as a child, which left him dependent on an iron lung. He attended school from home in the 1960s with the assistance of a telephone link. When it was time for graduation, however, the school board planned to deny him a diploma because he had failed to meet the physical education requirement. His parents protested, and Ed eventually graduated (Shapiro, 1994). We can hardly imagine this scenario happening today, given disability law and improved societal attitudes. Yet similar ableist assumptions are at work when schools routinely require students with learning disabilities to read print at grade level to gain access to the curriculum or to meet proficiency levels on high-stakes assessments. Assuming that there is only one “right” way to learn—or to walk, talk, paint, read, and write—is the root of fundamental inequities. Seriously Emotionally Disturbed Students Perhaps no group suffers from negative attitudes more than students who have been identified as having serious emotional disturbance (SED)—and no other subpopulation experiences poorer outcomes. Students with SED drop out of school at more than double the rate of nondisabled students. Only 15 percent pursue higher education, and approximately 50 percent are taught in segregated settings (U.S. Department of Education, 2003; Wagner and Cameto, 2004). For large numbers of students with serious emotional disturbance, their IEPs are more likely to include inappropriate responses to control the most common symptom of their disability—acting-out behavior—than to provide the accommodations and support the students need to be successful in education. Only 50 percent of students with SED receive mental health services, only 30 percent receive social work services, and only 50 percent have behavior management appropriately addressed in their IEPs (Wagner and Cameto, 2004). What do these students typically receive through special education? They are commonly placed in a special classroom or school with other students with similar disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2003)—often with an uncertified teacher. Placing such students in separate classes without specific behavioral supports, counseling, or an expert teacher is unlikely to work. Substantial evidence, indicates, however, that providing these students with appropriate supports and mental health services can significantly reduce disruptive behavior and improve their learning (Sugai, Sprague, Horner, and Walker, 2000). Such supports are most effective when provided within the context of effective schoolwide discipline approaches, such as the U.S. Department of Education's Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports program (www.pbis.org). Schoolwide approaches also produce safer and better-run schools for all students. Guidelines for Special Education Decision Making The goal of minimizing the impact of disability and maximizing opportunities to participate suggests several guidelines for serving students with disabilities.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-01-27 03:38:45.660

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Any

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Any

ParentRound

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

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Finals

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Northwood Arnold Aff

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Ableism K

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Any