Summary

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

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[1]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-02-24 09:05:15.177
	1	+2017-02-24 09:05:15.0

Caselist.CitesClass[2]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,19 @@
	1	+CP Text: Public Colleges and Universities will ban all hate speech on campus.
	2	+
	3	+Competition: Aff can’t not restrict free speech and place a ban on it at the same time
	4	+Regulating hate speech isn’t about censorship but about ensuring equality of education.
	5	+Alison 92
	6	+Alison, Myhra. "The Hate Speech Conundrum And Public Schools." North Dakota Law Review. 1992. Web. December 07, 2016. http://repository.law.ttu.edu/handle/10601/632.
	7	+This authority to regulate involves not a privilege of arbitrary discretion to censor, but rather the ability to devise a scheme of regulation that comports with principles of equality and equal access to education, the First Amendment as applicable to the public schools, and normative theories of the educational purposes and authorities. One dimension of this power involves thoughtful consideration of hate, its causes, and its effects on target students, perpetrators, and the learning environment.26 Another dimension of this power requires contemplation of nonregulatory countermeasures, including, inter alia, education and training, designed to elicit student participation in public condemnation and repudiation of hate incidents and to encourage student discussion on the elimination of inter-group conflict and tension.
	8	+
	9	+Majority of schools can maintain restrictive speech policies. University of California schools empirically prove.
	10	+Watanabe 14
	11	+Watanabe, Teresa. "Students Challenge Free-speech Rules On College Campuses." LA Times. July 01, 2014. Web. December 05, 2016. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-lnfree-speech-20140701-story.html.
	12	+In a report published this year, the foundation found that 58 of 427 major colleges and universities surveyed maintain restrictive speech codes despite what it called a "virtually unbroken string of legal defeats" against them dating to 1989. Even in California — unique in the nation for two state laws that explicitly bar free speech restrictions at both public and private universities — the majority of campuses retain written speech codes, he said. Among 16 California State University campuses surveyed by the group, for instance, 11 were rated "red" for employing at least one policy that "substantially restricts" free speech. "Universities are scared of people who demand censorship ~-~- they're afraid of lawsuits and PR problems," said Robert Shibley, the foundation’s senior vice president. "Unfortunately, they are more worried about that than about ignoring their 1st Amendment responsibilities," he added. "The point of the project is to balance out the incentives that cause universities to institute rules that censor speech."
	13	+
	14	+Campus rules against hate speech will reduce racism
	15	+Delgado 91
	16	+
	17	+Richard Delgado, Campus Antiracism Rules: Constitutional Narra tives in Collision, 85 NW.U.L. Rev. 343, 371-75 (1991) , https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2104287 Charles Inglis Thomson Professor of Law, University of Colorado School of Law. J.D. 1974, U-C Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall).
	18	+
	19	+Unlike with racism's etiology, there is relative agreement on the part of social scientists on how to control its expression. Much prejudice is situational-individuals express it because the environment encourages or tolerates it.264 The attitude may be relatively constant, but most of us express it selectively-at times we hold it in check, at other times we feel freer to express it in action. 265 The main inhibiter of prejudice is the certainty that it will be remarked and punished. This " confrontation theory" 266 for controlling racism holds that most individuals are ambivalent in matters of race. We realize that the national values-those enshrined in the "American Creed"-call for fair and respectful treatment of all. But the fair-mindedness of our public norms is not always matched by our private behavior. 267 During moments of intimacy we feel much freer to tell or laugh at an ethnic joke, to make a racist or sexist remark. 268 Rules, formalities, and other environmental reminders put us on notice that the occasion requires the higher formal values of our culture. The existence of rules forbidding certain types of racist acts causes us not to be inclined to carry them out. Moreover, threat of public notice and disapproval operates as a reinforcer-the potential racist refrains from acting, out of fear of notice and sanction. The confrontation theory is probably today the majority view among social scientists on how to control racism. Most who subscribe to this approach hold that laws and rules play a vital role in controlling racism. According to Allport, they "create a public conscience and a standard for expected behavior that check overt signs of prejudice. ' 269 Nor is the change merely cosmetic. In time, rules are internalized, and the impulse to engage in racist behavior weakens. 270 The current understanding of racial prejudice thus lends some support to campus antiracism rules. The mere existence of such rules will often cause members of the campus community to behave in a more egalitarian way, particularly when others may be watching. Even in private settings, some people will refrain from acting because the law has set an example. Those whose prejudice is associated with authoritarianism will do so because the rules represent society's legitimate voice. Further, social science casts doubt on both the "hydraulic" theory of racism, according to which controlling racism in one arena will simply cause it to crop up somewhere else,271 and the theory that racist remarks are relatively harmless. A large body of literature shows that incessant racial categorization and treatment seriously impair the prospects and development of persons of minority race,272 deepen rigidity and set the stage for even more serious transgressions on the part of persons so disposed. 273

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-02-24 09:05:15.401

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 Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+jan feb ban hate speech cp

Tournament

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