Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[46]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[45]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[46]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-02-16 15:00:17.257
	1	+2017-02-16 15:00:17.0

Caselist.CitesClass[45]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,29 @@
	1	+=1-off =
	2	+A. Interp: The affirmative may not defend another country in which to implement the resolution besides the United States of America. To clarify, all actions must occur within the United States of America and not another country.
	3	+
	4	+=2-off =
	5	+
	6	+
	7	+==Part 1 is Links==
	8	+1. The affirmative's assumption that speech can ever be free ignores economic realities that shape such freedoms in the academic world. It also commodities speech. This turns and outweighs the case- their scholarship can never be liberatory in a capitalist world.
	9	+Chatterjee and Maira 14, Chatterjee Piya, and Sunaina Maira. "The Imperial University: race, war, and the nation-state." The imperial university: Academic repression and scholarly dissent (2014): 1-50.
	10	+Our geopolitical positions—of our immediate workplaces as well as trans- national work circuits—underscore the complex contradictions of our locations within the U.S. academy. These paradoxes of positionality and employment have seeded this project in important ways. We have both taught at the University of California for many years—in addition to other U.S. universities—and have been members of the privileged upper caste of U.S. higher education: the tenured professoriate. We have each used these privileges of class, education, and cultural capital to live and work transna- tionally and have organized around and written about issues of warfare, colo- nialism, occupation, immigration, racism, gender rights, youth culture, and labor politics, within and outside the United States. In fact, we first began working together when we collaborated in 2008 on a collective statement of feminist solidarity with women suffering from the violence of U.S. wars and occupation, during the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the Israeli siege of Gaza.7 Yet our privileges of entry, of inclusion, and of outside-ness are also always marked by the "dangerous complicities" of imperial privi- lege and neoliberal capital, as the chapters by Julia Oparah; Sylvanna Falcón, Sharmila Lodhia, Molly Talcott, and Dana Collins; Vijay Prashad; and Laura Pulido powerfully remind us. Even as we have recognized the institutional privileges and complicities through which we can do this work, we have experienced at various moments and in different ways—as the chapters by Alexis Gumbs, Clarissa Rojas, Thomas Abowd, and Nicholas De Genova suggest—a keen sense of being "outsiders" within—in the university, in aca- demic disciplines, in different nations.8 As scholars and teachers located within "critical ethnic studies" and "women and gender studies," we are also well aware of a certain politics of value, legitimacy, and marginality at play, especially as the dismantling of the public higher education system and attacks on ethnic studies around the nation accelerate. The struggles to build ethnic studies and women/gen- der/sexuality studies as legitimate scholarly endeavors within the academy, emerging from several strands of the civil rights and antiwar movements, are well chronicled and keenly debated. The precarious positions as well as increasing professionalization and policing of these interdisciplinary fields within the current restructuring of the university is a matter of deep con- cern; for example, in the wake of the assault on ethnic studies in Arizona, the dismantling of women's studies programs, and in a climate of policing and criminalizing immigrant "others" across the nation. The pressure on academics to fund one's own research—following the dominant grant-writing models of science and technology—is now even more explicit in a time of fiscal crisis and deepening fissures between faculty in the humanities, social sciences, physical sciences, education, and business who occupy very different positions in an increasingly privatized university.9 Prashad reminds us in his chapter of the consequences of the fiscal crisis for college students who bear a massive and growing burden of debt. We recognize these pressures on faculty and students as stemming from neolib- eral capitalism and the university's capitulation to a global "structural adjust- ment" policy that is now coming "home" to roost in the United States, as astutely argued by Farah Godrej in her analysis linking the neoliberal uni- versity to militarism and violence. The academy has also tried to market the notion of "public scholarship," transforming activist scholarship into a commodifiable form of knowledge production and dissemination that can affirm the university's civic engagement—confined by the parameters of per- missible politics, as incisively critiqued by Salaita, Rojas, and Abowd. If we cannot—or choose not to—market our scholarship and pedagogies through these programs of funding and institutionalization, we find our work further devalued within the dominant terms of privatization in the academy. Given that neoliberal market ideologies now underwrite the "value" of our research and intellectual work, what happens to scholars whose writing directly tack- les the questions of U.S. state violence, logics of settler colonialism, and global political and economic dominance? We know from stories about campaigns related to tenure or defamation of scholars, often shared in hallways during conferences and sometimes through e-mail listservs and the media, that there are serious costs to writing and speaking about these matters. For far too many colleagues who confront the most taboo of topics, such as indigenous critiques of genocide and settler colonialism or especially the question of Palestine, the price paid has been extraordinarily high. It has included the denial of promotion to tenure, being de-tenured, not having employment contracts renewed, or never being hired and being blacklisted, as this book poignantly illustrates. Coupled with the loss of livelihood or exile from the U.S. academy, many scholars have been stigmatized, harassed, and penalized in overt and covert ways. There are numerous such cases, sadly way too many to recount here—most famously those of Ward Churchill, Norman Finkelstein, David Graeber, Joel Kovel, Terri Ginsberg, Marc Ellis, Margo Nanlal-Rankoe, Wadie Said, and Sami Al- Arian—but it is generally only the handful that generate public campaigns that receive attention while many others remain unknown, not to mention innumerable cases of students who have been surveilled or harassed, such as Syed Fahad Hashmi from Brooklyn College, while again there are countless other untold stories.10 These are the scandals and open secrets, we argue, that need to be revealed and placed in broader frames of analysis of labor and survival within the U.S. university system.11
	11	+2. The aff relies on a public/private distinction because the advocacy refers to public universities. Their representation of the resolution affirms that private ownership exists, the basis of capitalism. Also takes out the perm- this inclusion is too large to overcome.
	12	+
	13	+
	14	+==Part 2 is Impacts==
	15	+1. This commodification turns and outweighs the case- it destroys the value of free speech and kills value to life by making it a mere object
	16	+Morgaridge 98** ~~Morgaridge, Clayton, Prof of Philosophy at Lewis and Clark College, 1998, Why Capitalism is Evil 08/22 http://www.lclark.edu/~~clayton/commentaries/evil.html~~**
	17	+**Now none of these philosophers are naive: none of them thinks that sympathy, love, or caring determines all, or even most, human behavior. The 20th century proves otherwise. What they do offer, though, is the hope that human beings have the capacity to want the best for each other. So now we must ask, What forces are at work in our world to block or cripple the ethical response? This question, of course, brings me back to capitalism. But before I go there, I want to acknowledge that capitalism is not the only thing that blocks our ability to care. Exploitation and cruelty were around long before the economic system of capitalism came to be, and the temptation to use and abuse others will probably survive in any future society that might supersede capitalism. Nevertheless, I want to claim, the **putting the world at the disposal of** those with **capital has done more damage to the ethical life than anything else**. To put it in religious terms, capital is the devil. To show why this is the case, let me turn to capital's greatest critic, Karl Marx. **Under cap**italism, Marx writes, **everything **in nature and everything that human beings are and can do **becomes an object**: a resource for, or an obstacle, to the expansion of production, the development of technology, the growth of markets, **and** the circulation of money. For those who manage and live from capital, nothing has value of its own. Mountain streams, clean air,** human lives** — all** mean nothing in themselves,** but are valuable only if they can be used to turn a profit.~~1~~ If capital looks at (not into) the human face, it sees there only eyes through which brand names and advertising can enter and mouths that can demand and consume food, drink, and tobacco products. If human faces express needs, then either products can be manufactured to meet, or seem to meet, those needs, or else, if the needs are incompatible with the growth of capital, then the faces expressing them must be unrepresented or silenced. Obviously what capitalist enterprises do have consequences for the well being of human beings and the planet we live on. Capital profits from the production of food, shelter, and all the necessities of life. The production of all these things uses human lives in the shape of labor, as well as the resources of the earth. If we care about life, if we see our obligations in each others faces, then we have to want all the things capital does to be governed by that care, to be directed by the ethical concern for life. But feeding people is not the aim of the food industry, or shelter the purpose of the housing industry. In medicine, making profits is becoming a more important goal than caring for sick people. **As **capitalist enterprises these activities aim single-mindedly at the accumulation of capital, and such purposes as caring for the sick or feeding the hungry becomes **a **mere **means to** an end, an instrument of corporate** growth**. Therefore ethics, the overriding commitment to meeting human need, is left out of deliberations about what the heavyweight institutions of our society are going to do. **Moral convictions are expressed **in churches, in living rooms, in letters to the editor, sometimes even by politicians and widely read commentators, but almost always **with** an attitude of **resignation** to the inevitable. People no longer say, "You can't stop progress," but only because they have learned not to call economic growth progress. They still think they can't stop it. And they are right — as long as the production of all our needs and the organization of our labor is carried out under private ownership. Only a minority ("idealists") can take seriously a way of thinking that counts for nothing in real world decision making. Only when the end of capitalism is on the table will ethics have a seat at the table.**
	18	+==Part 3 is the alt==
	19	+The alternative is to reject the 1AC's representations and to entirely withdraw from the logic of capital—individual criticism is key to solve. The AFF uniquely coopts the movement.
	20	+Johnston 04 (Adrian ~~interdisciplinary research fellow in psychoanalysis at Emory University~~, "The Cynic's Fetish: Slavoj Žižek and the Dynamics of Belief" Psychoanalysis, Culture and Society, December p259)
	21	+Perhaps the absence of a detailed political roadmap in Zizek's recent writings isn't a major shortcoming. Maybe, at least for the time being, the most important task is simply the negativity of the critical struggle, the effort to cure an intellectual constipation resulting from capitalist ideology and thereby to truly open up the space for imagining authentic alternatives to the prevailing state of the situation. Another definition of materialism offered by Zizek is that it amounts to accepting the internal inherence of what fantasmatically appears as an external deadlock or hindrance (Zizek, 2001d, pp 22-23) (with fantasy itself being defined as the false externalization of something within the subject, namely, the illusory projection of an inner obstacle, Zizek, 2000a, p 16). From this perspective, seeing through ideological fantasies by learning how to think again outside the confines of current restrictions has, in and of itself, the potential to operate as a form of real revolutionary practice (rather than remaining merely an instance of negative/critical intellectual reflection). Why is this the case? Recalling the analysis of commodity fetishism, the social efficacy of money as the universal medium of exchange (and the entire political economy grounded upon it) ultimately relies upon nothing more than a kind of "magic," that is, the belief in money's social efficacy by those using it in the processes of exchange. Since the value of currency is, at bottom, reducible to the belief that it has the value attributed to it (and that everyone believes that everyone else believes this as well), derailing capitalism by destroying its essential financial substance is, in a certain respect, as easy as dissolving the mere belief in this substance's powers. The "external" obstacle of the capitalist system exists exclusively on the condition that subjects, whether consciously or unconsciously, "internally" believe in it.
	22	+This takes out the perm since reconciliation allows capitalism to continue unharmed. Any inclusion of capitalism removes our ability to rethink alternatives.
	23	+
	24	+
	25	+==Part 4 is Framework==
	26	+The role of the judge is to resist capitalism. Question their scholarship prior to the consequences of the plan.
	27	+1. We must challenge capitalist policies in debate in order to counteract the flawed direction of academics.
	28	+Harvey 11, David (Distinguished Professor of Anthropology and Geography at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York). The enigma of capital: and the crises of capitalism. Profile Books, 2011. Print
	29	+Since Marx's goal was to change the world and not merely to understand it, ideas had to be formulated with a certain revolutionary intent. This inevitably meant a conflict with modes of thought more convivial to and useful for the ruling class. The fact that Marx's oppositional ideas have been the targets, particularly in recent years, of repeated repressions and exclusions (to say nothing of bowdlerisations and misrepresentations galore) suggests that they may still be too dangerous for the ruling classes to tolerate. While Keynes repeatedly avowed that he had never read Marx, in the 1930s he was surrounded and influenced by many people like his economist colleague Joan Robinson who had. While many of them objected vociferously to Marx's foundational concepts and his dialectical mode of reasoning, they were acutely aware of and deeply affected by some of his more prescient conclusions. It is fair to say, I think, that the Keynesian theory revolution could not have been accomplished without the subversive presence of Marx lurking in the wings. The trouble in these times is that most people have no idea who Keynes was and what he really stood for, while understanding of Marx is negligible. The repression of critical and radical currents of thought – or to be more exact the corralling of radicalism within the bounds of multiculturalism and cultural choice – creates a lamentable situation within the academy and beyond, no different in principle to having to ask the bankers who made the mess to clean it up with exactly the same tools as they used to get into it. Broad adhesion to postmodern and post-structuralist ideas which celebrate the particular at the expense of big picture thinking does not help. To be sure, the local and the particular are vitally important and theories that cannot embrace, for example, geographical difference are worse than useless (as I have earlier been at pains to emphasise). But when that fact is used to exclude anything larger than parish politics, then the betrayal of the intellectuals and abrogation of their traditional role become complete. Her Majesty the Queen would, I am sure, love to hear that a huge effort is underway to put the big picture into some sort of copious frame such that all can see it. But the current crop of academicians, intellectuals and experts in the social sciences and humanities are by and large ill equipped to undertake such a collective task. Few seem predisposed to engage in that self-critical reflection that Robert Samuelson urged upon them. Universities continue to promote the same useless courses on neoclassical economic or rational choice political theory as if nothing has happened and the vaunted business schools simply add a course or two on business ethics or how to make money out of other people's bankruptcies. After all, the crisis arose out of human greed and there is nothing that can be done about that! The current knowledge structure is clearly dysfunctional and equally clearly illegitimate. The only hope is that a new generation of perceptive students (in the broad sense of all those who seek to know the world) will clearly see that it is so and insist upon changing it. This happened in the 1960s. At various other critical points in history student-inspired movements, recognising the disjunction between what is happening in the world and what they are being taught and fed by the media, were prepared to do something about it. There are signs, from Tehran to Athens and on to many European university campuses of such a movement. How the new generation of students in China will act must surely be of deep concern in the corridors of political power in Beijing. A youthful, student-led revolutionary movement, with all of its evident uncertainties and problems, is a necessary but not sufficient condition to produce that revolution in mental conceptions that can lead us to a more rational solution to the current problems of endless growth. The first lesson it must learn is that an ethical, non- exploitative and socially just capitalism that redounds to the benefit of all is impossible. It contradicts the very nature of what capital is about.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-02-16 15:00:19.793

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Tambe, Hunt, Fife

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+North Hollywood JS

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+46

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+West Ranch Won Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+JANFEB - Stanford Semis NC

Tournament

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