Changes for page Westwood Mambapoor Neg
Summary
-
Objects (2 modified, 11 added, 0 removed)
- Caselist.CitesClass[7]
- Caselist.RoundClass[5]
- Caselist.CitesClass[8]
- Caselist.CitesClass[9]
- Caselist.CitesClass[10]
- Caselist.CitesClass[11]
- Caselist.CitesClass[12]
- Caselist.CitesClass[13]
- Caselist.CitesClass[14]
- Caselist.CitesClass[15]
- Caselist.RoundClass[6]
- Caselist.RoundClass[7]
- Caselist.RoundClass[8]
Details
- Caselist.CitesClass[7]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -2016-12-16 22:51:33. 8421 +2016-12-16 22:51:33.0
- Caselist.RoundClass[5]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +7,8,9
- Caselist.CitesClass[8]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,14 @@ 1 +=CP – Revenge Pornography = 2 + 3 + 4 +==1NC== 5 + 6 + 7 +====CP text: Public colleges and institutions ought not to restrict constitutionally protected speech except in the instance of revenge pornography ==== 8 +Koppelman 15 . Andrew Koppelman ~~John Paul Stevens Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science~~, "Revenge Pornography and First Amendment Exceptions," Emory University School of Law, Volume 65, Issue 3, 09/14/15, http://law.emory.edu/elj/content/volume-65/issue-3/articles/revenge-pornography-first-amendment-exceptions.html//AD 9 +People are marvelously inventive in devising new ways to hurt each other. Some of these new ways involve speech. The Supreme Court has recently declared that speech is protected by the First Amendment unless it is a type of communication that has traditionally been unprotected. If this is the law, then harms will accumulate and the law will be helpless to remedy them. A recent illustration is the new phenomenon of “revenge pornography”—the online posting of sexually explicit photographs without the subject’s consent, usually by rejected ex-boyfriends. The photos are often accompanied by the victim’s name, address, phone number, Facebook page, and other personal information. They are sometimes shared with other websites, viewed by thousands of people, and become the first several pages of hits that a search engine produces for the victim’s name. The photos are emailed to the victim’s family, friends, employers, fellow students, or coworkers. They are seen on the Internet by prospective employers and customers. Victims have been subjected to harassment, stalking, and threats of sexual assault. Some have been fired from their jobs. Others have been forced to change schools. The pictures sometimes follow them to new jobs and schools. The pictures’ availability can make it difficult to find new employment. Most victims are female. 1 Twenty-six states have passed laws prohibiting this practice, and others are considering them. 2 (Civil remedies are often available but have not been much of a deterrent: victims often cannot afford to sue, and perpetrators often have few assets to collect. 3 ) The constitutionality of such laws is uncertain, however. These laws restrict speech on the basis of its content. Content-based restrictions (unless they fall within one of the categories of unprotected speech) are invalid unless necessary to a compelling state interest. 4 The state’s interest in prohibiting revenge pornography, so far from being compelling, may not even be one that the state is permitted to pursue. The central harm that such a prohibition aims to prevent is the acceptance, by the audience of the speech, of the message that this person is degraded and appropriately humiliated because she once displayed her naked body to a camera. The harm, in other words, consists in the acceptance of a viewpoint. Viewpoint-based restrictions on speech are absolutely forbidden. 5 There are exceptions to the ban on content-based restrictions: the Court has held that the First Amendment does not protect incitement, threats, obscenity, child pornography, defamation of private figures, criminal conspiracies, and criminal solicitation, for example. 6 None of those exceptions is applicable here. The pathologies of revenge pornography I have just described are the product of entirely new technologies: digital photography and the Internet. Because it is so new, however, it is not a category of speech that has traditionally been denied First Amendment protection. The Court has recently announced that unless speech falls into such a category, it is fully protected. There can be no new categories of unprotected speech. Laws prohibiting revenge pornography thus violate the First Amendment as the Court now understands it. The crux of the problem is the Court’s announced unwillingness to create new categories of non-protection. That unwillingness is not a necessary inference from the First Amendment. The present exceptions to free speech protection are judge-made doctrines. The courts that made them are by the same authority free to construct additional exceptions. Those exceptions would be justified by whatever justified the exceptions already on the books. Free speech is a complex cultural formation that aims at a distinctive set of goods. Its rules must be formulated and reformulated with those specific goods in mind. Pertinently here, one of those goods is a citizenry with the confidence to participate in public discussion. Traumatized, stigmatized women are not the kind of people that a free speech regime aims to create. Revenge pornography threatens to create a class of people who are chronically dogged by a spoiled social identity, and a much larger class of people who know that they could be subjected to such treatment without hope of redress. That state of affairs is directly contrary to the ideal of a regime in which everyone is empowered to participate in public discourse. Part I of this Article examines the constitutional objections to a statute that bans revenge pornography, and argues that those objections, although they are firmly rooted in the doctrines laid down by the Supreme Court, rest on an indefensibly wooden vision of free speech. Part II argues that this vision rests on an impoverished understanding of liberalism, which does not merely aim at constraint on government but which affirmatively seeks a society whose citizens have certain desirable traits of character, notably the courage to participate in public discourse. I develop this claim with a close reading of John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty. Part III argues that revenge pornography has a silencing effect on its victims that directly attacks the Millian ideal. Part IV argues that the creation of free speech exceptions cannot persuasively be ruled out in the way the Court has done, but are a normal part of judicial construction of the First Amendment’s text. The Conclusion reflects on the mechanical character of the free speech rules that the Court has constructed. 10 + 11 + 12 +====Pornography reinforces a cultural of male-dominant sexuality and normalizes sexual violence – turns case==== 13 +Jensen and Okrina 4. Robert Jensen ~~Professor in the School of Journalism at the University of Texas, a founding board member of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center, and a member of the board of Culture Reframed.~~, Debbie Okrina ~~Member of VAWnet – staff writer~~, "Pornography and Sexual Violence", National Resource Center on Domestic Violence 14 +Commercial pornography in the United States is at the same time increasingly more normalized and more denigrating to women. There is understandable interest in the question about the connection between pornography and sexual violence. Rather than asking "does pornography cause rape?" we would be better served by investigating whether pornography is ever a factor that contributes to rape. In other words, Is pornography implicated in sexual violence in this culture? There are limits to what research can tell us about the complex interactions of mass media and human behavior. But from both laboratory research and the narratives of men and women, it is not controversial to argue that pornography can: (1) be an important factor in shaping a male-dominant view of sexuality; (2) be used to initiate victims and break down their resistance to unwanted sexual activity; (3) contribute to a user's difficulty in separating sexual fantasy and reality; and (4) provide a training manual for abusers. These conclusions provide support for the feminist critique of pornography that emerged in the 1970s and '80s, which highlighted pornography's harms to the women and children: (1) used in the production of pornography; (2) who have pornography forced on them; (3) who are sexually assaulted by men who use pornography; and (4) living in a culture in which pornography reinforces and sexualizes women's subordinate status. People who raise critical questions about pornography and the sex industry often are accused of being prudish, anti-sex, or repressive, but just the opposite is true. Such questions are crucial not only to the struggle to end sexual and domestic violence, but also to the task of building a healthy sexual culture. Activists in the anti-violence and anti-pornography movements have been at the forefront of that task. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-12-16 22:51:34.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +McConoway, Cameron - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lake Highland SS - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +5 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Westwood Mambapoor Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - CP - Revenge Pornography - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Strake Jesuit
- Caselist.CitesClass[9]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,37 @@ 1 +=DA – Funding= 2 + 3 + 4 +==1NC== 5 + 6 + 7 +===Link: Lawsuits/Budgets=== 8 + 9 + 10 +====The affirmative leads to more student lawsuits against universities==== 11 +Jensen 93. Ejner J. Jensen, ~~Senate Assembly Chair~~, 2-8-1993, "The pros and cons of a policy covering hate speech," The University Record, http://ur.umich.edu/9293/Feb08'93/8.htm //AD 12 +1. Universities have a right and duty to provide an educational environment, a climate of civility, where all students can learn and live free from bigotry. 2. A university’s objective is to educate and to instill within students fundamental values of human decency. 3. Numerous responses from students to the rights and responsibilities document last summer indicated that a significant proportion of the harassment experienced by U-M students comes from faculty. They described in-class harassment, racial harassment at a public event, harassment based on ethnic origin, and clear cultural bias in classroom settings. 4. Speech codes publicly announce a university’s support of civil rights and equal dignity of all persons; the failure to adopt a speech code implies that the University condones hate speech. 5. The University may be held liable for damages by persons who were subjected to harassment, if the University knowingly tolerates such conduct. 6. Faculty and staff, as well as students, should be prohibited from violating the rights of other members of the University community. 7. While harassment by faculty may be quite rare, it is important to have a mechanism for dealing with reported incidents and resolving misunderstandings that may be interpreted as harassment. 13 + 14 +====Increased lawsuits kill university budgets==== 15 +Ryman 9. Anne Ryman, 12-20-2009, "Christian group wages fight against censorship on campus," The Arizona Republic, http://archive.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/12/20/20091220alliance1220.html //AD 16 +At a sprawling, glass-and-brick office complex in north Scottsdale, a dozen or so attorneys and colleagues gather each morning in a dim, ornate room to pray. The group of Christians is seeking God's guidance in an ongoing quest to preserve family values and freedom of religious expression. The group draws strength from prayers and from a well of assets: a $30 million annual budget, paid and volunteer lawyers across the country, and the organization's years of doing battle in court. That organization, the non-profit Alliance Defense Fund, is now undertaking a special campaign on a familiar front of the culture wars. Armed with a $9.2 million donation from an anonymous family plus its own matching funds, the group is stepping up efforts to combat what it says is widespread and unconstitutional censorship at public colleges. With an estimated three years of funding, the University Project, as it is called, will deploy more attorneys to defend students or student groups that feel they are being prevented from expressing socially conservative or religious views. The 15-year-old Alliance Defense Fund has long been involved in freedom-of-speech cases at universities, but members believe censorship is growing. The new project represents one of many areas in which the group and similar organizations are waging legal fights as a growing enforcement of anti-discrimination laws by governments and schools clashes with religious rights. The Defense Fund now has 55 legal cases in which it either sued a college or is working with student groups to assert their rights. The cases include issues such as students who feel their pro-life views were censored, a student who tangled with a professor over religious views in class, and an independent student newspaper whose distribution bins were removed from campus. The University Project will likely mean dozens more lawsuits at a time when college budgets are stretched thin because of state funding cuts. Some advocacy groups say the organization's effort is misguided because religious students have many opportunities to promote their beliefs on campuses. For their part, universities say their policies are crafted to both protect free speech and ensure a safe, respectful environment. At Arizona State University, for instance, a law professor worked closely with the American Civil Liberties Union to write guidelines to encourage free speech rather than to restrict it, said Nancy Tribbensee, staff attorney for the Arizona Board of Regents. Tribbensee said she hopes the Defense Fund also will seek constructive dialogue with institutions with which the group has concerns before launching into litigation. 17 + 18 + 19 +===Link: Funding=== 20 + 21 + 22 +====Not restricting constitutionally protected speech means the government yanks away funding from institutions==== 23 +FIRE 16. Foundatiion for Individual Rights in Education, 4-25-2016, "Department of Justice: Title IX Requires Violating First Amendment," Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, https://www.thefire.org/department-of-justice-title-ix-requires-violating-first-amendment///AD 24 +The Department of Justice now interprets Title IX to require colleges and universities to violate the First Amendment. In an April 22 findings letter concluding its investigation into the University of New Mexico’s policies and practices regarding sex discrimination, the Department of Justice (DOJ) found the university improperly defined sexual harassment. DOJ flatly declared that “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature”—including “verbal conduct”—is sexual harassment “regardless of whether it causes a hostile environment or is quid pro quo.” To comply with Title IX, DOJ states that a college or university “carries the responsibility to investigate” all speech of a sexual nature that someone subjectively finds unwelcome, even if that speech is protected by the First Amendment or an institution’s promises of free speech. “The Department of Justice has put universities in an impossible position: violate the Constitution or risk losing federal funding,” said Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) President and CEO Greg Lukianoff. “The federal government’s push for a national speech code is at odds with decades of legal precedent. University presidents must find the courage to stand up to this federal overreach.” The shockingly broad conception of sexual harassment mandated by DOJ all but guarantees that colleges and universities nationwide will subject students and faculty to months-long investigations—or worse—for protected speech. In recent years, unjust “sexual harassment” investigations into protected student and faculty speech have generated national headlines and widespread concern. Examples include: Northwestern University Professor Laura Kipnis was investigated for months for writing a newspaper article questioning “sexual paranoia” on campus and how Title IX investigations are conducted. Syracuse University law student Len Audaer was investigated for harassment for comedic articles he posted on a satirical law school blog patterned after The Onion. A female student at the University of Oregon was investigated and charged with harassment and four other charges for jokingly yelling “I hit it first” out a window at a couple. The Sun Star, a student newspaper at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, was investigated for nearly a year for an April Fools’ Day issue of the newspaper and for reporting on hateful messages posted to an anonymous “UAF Confessions” Facebook page. And just two weeks ago, a police officer at the University of Delaware ordered students to censor a “free speech ball”—put up as part of a demonstration in favor of free speech—because it had the word “penis” and an accompanying drawing on it, claiming that it could violate the university’s sexual misconduct policy. DOJ’s rationale would not just legitimize all of the above investigations—it would require campuses to either conduct such investigations routinely or face potential federal sanctions. This latest findings letter doubles down on the unconstitutional and controversial “blueprint” definition of sexual harassment jointly issued by DOJ and the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights in a May 2013 findings letter to the University of Montana. FIRE and other civil liberties advocates at the time warned that the controversial language threatens the free speech and academic freedom rights of students and faculty members. “Requiring colleges to investigate and record ‘unwelcome’ speech about sex or gender in an effort to end sexual harassment or assault on campus is no more constitutional than would be a government effort to investigate and record all ‘unpatriotic’ speech in order to root out treason,” said Robert Shibley, FIRE’s executive director. “Students, faculty, and administrators must not give in to this kind of campus totalitarianism—and FIRE is here to fight alongside them.” In January, FIRE sponsored a lawsuit filed against Louisiana State University (LSU) that challenges the unconstitutional definition of sexual harassment being promulgated by the Departments of Education and Justice in this and in previous letters. Teresa Buchanan, a tenured associate professor of early childhood education in LSU’s acclaimed teacher certification program, was fired for “sexual harassment” under an LSU policy that tracks the federal government’s broad definition. Buchanan’s lawsuit challenges the policy’s constitutionality and its application to her. FIRE is a nonpartisan, nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, freedom of expression, academic freedom, due process, and freedom of conscience at our nation’s colleges and universities. FIRE’s efforts to preserve liberty on campuses across America can be viewed at thefire.org. 25 + 26 + 27 +====State funding is already down – federal funding key to maintain universities. ==== 28 +Mitchell et al 16. Mitchell, Michael~~Michael Mitchell is a Senior Policy Analyst with the Center’s State Fiscal Policy division. Prior to joining the Center, Mitchell worked as a State Policy Fellow for the Washington State Budget and Policy Center, where he conducted research on state taxes and borrowing, the effects of budget cuts on communities of color, and the impacts of the recession on young adults. Mitchell holds a B.A. in Economics and Political Science from the University of Connecticut and an MPA from the Maxwell School at Syracuse University~~ , Michael Leachman~~Michael Leachman is Director of State Fiscal Research with the State Fiscal Policy division of the Center, which analyzes state tax and budget policy decisions and promotes sustainable policies that take into account the needs of families of all income levels. Since joining the Center in 2009, Leachman has researched a range of state fiscal policy issues including the impact of federal aid, the debt states owe in their Unemployment Insurance trust funds, and the wisdom of state spending limits. Prior to joining the Center, he was a policy analyst for nine years at the Oregon Center for Public Policy (OCPP), a member of the State Priorities Partnership. His work at OCPP included research on corporate income taxes, reserve funds, spending limits, the Earned Income Tax Credit, food stamps, and TANF. Earlier in his career, Leachman worked as a community organizer in Chicago and, during graduate school, conducted a range of research projects in collaboration with community organizations. Leachman holds a Ph.D. in sociology from Loyola University Chicago~~, and Kathleen Masterson~~Kathleen Masterson joined the Center as a Research Assistant for the State Fiscal Project in April 2015. Prior to joining SFP, she interned at the Center with the Food Assistance team, primarily tracking the implementation of the community eligibility provision. Masterson has also interned with the Arms Control Association and spent a year teaching English in China. She holds a MPIA from the University of Pittsburgh, and a B.A. in History and Political Science from The College of William and Mary~~. "Funding Down, Tuition Up." Funding Down, Tuition Up. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 15 Aug. 2016. Web. 11 Dec. 2016. http://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/funding-down-tuition-up//AD 29 +As tuition soared after the recession, federal financial aid also increased. The Federal Pell Grant Program ― the nation’s primary source of student grant aid ― increased the amount of aid it distributed by just over 80 percent between the 2007-08 and 2014-15 school years. This substantial boost has enabled the program not only to reach more students ― 2.7 million more students received Pell support last year than in 2008 ― but also to provide the average recipient with more support. The average grant rose by 21 percent — to $3,673 from $3,028.44 The increase in federal financial aid has helped many students and families cover recent tuition hikes. The College Board calculates that the annual value of grant aid and higher education tax benefits for students at four-year public colleges nationally has risen by an average of $1,410 in real terms since the 2007-08 school year, offsetting about 61 percent of the average $2,320 tuition increase. For community colleges, increases in student aid have more than made up the difference, leading to a drop in net tuition for the average student.45 Since the sticker-price increases have varied so much from state to state while federal grant and tax-credit amounts are uniform across the country, students in states with large tuition increases ¾ such as Arizona, Georgia, and Louisiana ¾ likely still experienced substantial increases in their net tuition and fees, while the net cost for students in states with smaller tuition increases may have fallen. Financial aid provided by states, however — which was far less than federal aid even before the recession — has fallen on average. In the 2007-2008 school year, state grant dollars equaled $740 per student. By 2014, the latest year for which full data is available, that number had fallen to $710, a drop of roughly 4 percent.46 30 + 31 + 32 +===Impact=== 33 + 34 + 35 +====Loss of funding kills quality of education – turns case ==== 36 +Mitchell et al 2. Mitchell, Michael~~Michael Mitchell is a Senior Policy Analyst with the Center’s State Fiscal Policy division. Prior to joining the Center, Mitchell worked as a State Policy Fellow for the Washington State Budget and Policy Center, where he conducted research on state taxes and borrowing, the effects of budget cuts on communities of color, and the impacts of the recession on young adults. Mitchell holds a B.A. in Economics and Political Science from the University of Connecticut and an MPA from the Maxwell School at Syracuse University~~ , Michael Leachman~~Michael Leachman is Director of State Fiscal Research with the State Fiscal Policy division of the Center, which analyzes state tax and budget policy decisions and promotes sustainable policies that take into account the needs of families of all income levels. Since joining the Center in 2009, Leachman has researched a range of state fiscal policy issues including the impact of federal aid, the debt states owe in their Unemployment Insurance trust funds, and the wisdom of state spending limits. Prior to joining the Center, he was a policy analyst for nine years at the Oregon Center for Public Policy (OCPP), a member of the State Priorities Partnership. His work at OCPP included research on corporate income taxes, reserve funds, spending limits, the Earned Income Tax Credit, food stamps, and TANF. Earlier in his career, Leachman worked as a community organizer in Chicago and, during graduate school, conducted a range of research projects in collaboration with community organizations. Leachman holds a Ph.D. in sociology from Loyola University Chicago~~, and Kathleen Masterson~~Kathleen Masterson joined the Center as a Research Assistant for the State Fiscal Project in April 2015. Prior to joining SFP, she interned at the Center with the Food Assistance team, primarily tracking the implementation of the community eligibility provision. Masterson has also interned with the Arms Control Association and spent a year teaching English in China. She holds a MPIA from the University of Pittsburgh, and a B.A. in History and Political Science from The College of William and Mary~~. "Funding Down, Tuition Up." Funding Down, Tuition Up. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 15 Aug. 2016. Web. 11 Dec. 2016. http://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/funding-down-tuition-up//AD 37 +Years of cuts in state funding for public colleges and universities have driven up tuition and harmed students’ educational experiences by forcing faculty reductions, fewer course offerings, and campus closings. These choices have made college less affordable and less accessible for students who need degrees to succeed in today’s economy. YEARS OF CUTS HAVE MADE COLLEGE LESS AFFORDABLE AND LESS ACCESSIBLE FOR STUDENTS.Though some states have begun to restore some of the deep cuts in financial support for public two- and four-year colleges since the recession hit, their support remains far below previous levels. In total, after adjusting for inflation, funding for public two- and four-year colleges is nearly $10 billion below what it was just prior to the recession. As states have slashed higher education funding, the price of attending public colleges has risen significantly faster than the growth in median income. For the average student, increases in federal student aid and the availability of tax credits have not kept up, jeopardizing the ability of many to afford the college education that is key to their long-term financial success. States that renew their commitment to a high-quality, affordable system of public higher education by increasing the revenue these schools receive will help build a stronger middle class and develop the entrepreneurs and skilled workers that are needed in the new century. Of the states that have finalized their higher education budgets for the current school year, after adjusting for inflation:2 Forty-six states — all except Montana, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming — are spending less per student in the 2015-16 school year than they did before the recession.3 States cut funding deeply after the recession hit. The average state is spending $1,598, or 18 percent, less per student than before the recession. Per-student funding in nine states — Alabama, Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina — is down by more than 30 percent since the start of the recession. In 12 states, per-student funding fell over the last year. Of these, four states — Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, and Vermont — have cut per-student higher education funding for the last two consecutive years. In the last year, 38 states increased funding per student. Per-student funding rose $199, or 2.8 percent, nationally. Deep state funding cuts have had major consequences for public colleges and universities. States (and to a lesser extent localities) provide roughly 54 percent of the costs of teaching and instruction at these schools.4 Schools have made up the difference with tuition increases, cuts to educational or other services, or both. Since the recession took hold, higher education institutions have: Increased tuition. Public colleges and universities across the country have increased tuition to compensate for declining state funding and rising costs. Annual published tuition at four-year public colleges has risen by $2,333, or 33 percent, since the 2007-08 school year.5 In Arizona, published tuition at four-year schools is up nearly 90 percent, while in six other states — Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, and Louisiana — published tuition is up more than 60 percent. These sharp tuition increases have accelerated longer-term trends of college becoming less affordable and costs shifting from states to students. Over the last 20 years, the price of attending a four-year public college or university has grown significantly faster than the median income.6 Although federal student aid and tax credits have risen, on average they have fallen short of covering the tuition increases. Tuition increases have compensated for only part of the revenue loss resulting from state funding cuts. Over the past several years, public colleges and universities have cut faculty positions, eliminated course offerings, closed campuses, and reduced student services, among other cuts. A large and growing share of future jobs will require college-educated workers.7 Sufficient public investment in higher education to keep quality high and tuition affordable, and to provide financial aid to students who need it most, would help states develop the skilled and diverse workforce they will need to compete for these jobs. Sufficient public investment can only occur, however, if policymakers make sound tax and budget decisions. State revenues have improved significantly since the depths of the recession but are still only modestly above pre-recession levels.8 To make college more affordable and increase access to higher education, many states need to supplement that revenue growth with new revenue to fully make up for years of severe cuts. But just as the opportunity to invest is emerging, lawmakers in a number of states are jeopardizing it by entertaining tax cuts that in many cases would give the biggest breaks to the wealthiest taxpayers. In recent years, states such as Wisconsin, Louisiana, and Arizona have enacted large-scale tax cuts that limit resources available for higher education. And in Illinois and Pennsylvania ongoing attempts to find necessary resources after large tax cuts threaten current and future higher education funding. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-12-16 22:51:34.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +McConoway, Cameron - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lake Highland SS - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +5 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Westwood Mambapoor Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - DA - Funding - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Strake Jesuit
- Caselist.CitesClass[10]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,37 @@ 1 +=K – Cap= 2 + 3 + 4 +==Default 1NC== 5 + 6 + 7 +===1NC=== 8 + 9 + 10 +====The university has become the cornerstone of production, where research and learning has become more and more focused on using students as capital for knowledge economies and mass capitalist globalization.==== 11 +**Peters and Besley 06** (Michael A. Peters and A.C. Besley, Building Knowledge Cultures: Education and Development in the Age of Knowledge Capitalism, 2006, pp 24-25, 7/5/2016) 12 +It is not hard to make the leap from informatization and the postmodernization of production to an understanding of the implications for higher education or, indeed, schooling per se. In this context, we can easily talk of the informatization of knowledge production. We can recognize, as have many national governments, the significance of higher education in the knowledge economy, and the role of research in bolstering productivity. Many of the strategies concerning technology transfer have been centered on universities, with an emphasis on partnerships with business and the development of new start-up and spin-off companies. Governments have also tried to encourage the “clustering” of universities as a means of regional development. There has been a general reorientation of university curricula toward more practical and vocational knowledge, and university teachers and lectures are increasingly encouraged to engage in e-learning and to prepare their lectures as part of online courses. In this context, the questions of immaterial labor, intellectual property, and the culturalization of economic knowledge become leading policy issues. The World Bank recognizes the importance of tertiary education systems for developing and transitional economies, which face significant new trends regarding the convergent impacts of globalization, the information and communication revolutions, and the increasing importance of knowledge as a main driver of growth. The bank now argues that the role of tertiary education in the construction of knowledge economies and democratic societies is more influential than ever and that tertiary education is central to knowledge creation and production. At the same time, there is the danger of a growing digital divide between strata within developing countries between North and South. In a major report, Constructing Knowledge Societies: New Challenges for Tertiary Education, the World Bank (2002) describes how tertiary education contributes to building up a country’s capacity for participating in an increasingly knowledge-based world economy. It also investigates policy options for tertiary education that have the potential to enhance economic growth and reduce poverty. In some ways, the report indicates new directions. While it expands on Higher Education: The Lessons of Experience (World Bank 1994), it also emphasizes new trends, particularly the emerging role of knowledge as a major driver of economic development, and greater competition from nontraditional providers in a “borderless education” environment. The report recognizes that modes of delivery and organizational structures will become transformed as a result of the communications revolution. It comments on the rise of market forces in tertiary education and the emergence of a global market for advanced human capital. 13 + 14 + 15 +====The First Ammendment has become a tool of neoliberal governmentality furthering the capacity of corporations to influence decision-making==== 16 +**Cohen, 2015 **~~Cohen, Julie E., Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center "The Zombie First Amendment", William and Mary Law Review, vol. 56, forthcoming 2015, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract'id=2473798anddownload=yes~~ 17 +So far, I have argued that First Amendment scholars should pay more systematic attention to a set of developments that only partially overlaps the territory long conceived as the First Amendment’s traditional core. Many of those developments involve private economic activity and proprietary claims to information. In general, the Court has resolved First Amendment claims relating to private economic activity in a way that ratifies emerging distributions of information power. In this respect, contemporary First Amendment jurisprudence aligns with what scholars in a variety of fields have identified as a more general shift toward a neoliberal governmentality that emphasizes market liberties and a market-based approach to political participation.64 Constitutional law does not itself produce the shift toward neoliberal governmentality. As Morton Horwitz has observed, “A constitutional revolution can take place only when the intellectual ground has first been prepared.”65 Horwitz was describing the New Deal revolution in constitutional law, and more particularly the need to take careful note of its prehistory. As his research showed, the development of private and commercial law during both the antebellum period and the post-Civil War years established the distributive backdrop against which the constitutional disputes of the Lochner and New Deal eras were litigated. Economic regulation was commonplace in the nineteenth century, and initially emerged in ways that reinforced emerging patterns of industrial power, while judges came to understand the common law instrumentally, as a tool for promoting commerce and economic development.66 The judicial philosophy that produced Lochner was in part a reaction to perceived special-interest legislation that threatened property interests, but the turn toward social science methodology that progressive legal thought set in motion also tended to validate existing economic arrangements.67 Similarly, the First Amendment jurisprudence outlined in Part I takes its shape from an antecedent pattern of subconstitutional settlements and justifications that reflects perceived economic, commercial, and political imperatives. The point I want to make here is most aptly characterized as Hohfeldian: in the emerging information economy, the balance of rights, privileges, powers, and immunities that characterized the industrial economy and the regulatory frameworks put in place to constrain it is shifting.68 The transformation now underway in our political economy is engendering a corresponding shift in the distribution of legal power and privilege that extends across doctrinal boundaries and that is far more fundamental than the subject-matter divisions that such boundaries attempt to impose. A. Corporate Citizens in the Marketplace In both Citizens United and the earlier cases about the free speech rights of media companies on which the Citizens United majority relied, the Court took as given that corporations speak in the same ways that people do and that money enhances communicative power in a linear, additive way. Those assumptions are charmingly oldfashioned. In the contemporary information economy, the expressive power of capital is not additive but rather multiplicative and synergistic. One of the principal vehicles for the expressive power of capital is the corporate brand, and corporations rely on their brands to engage in norm entrepreneurship on a wide range of social, economic, and technical issues. The communicative impact of brands is backed by both old and new forms of legal and market privilege. Brand-driven corporate messaging is both increasingly pervasive and increasingly difficult to disentangle from the commercial and social contexts in which it is embedded.69 Logos and other indicia of corporate sponsorship adorn bodies, billboards, theaters and arenas, and other public spaces. In addition, corporate brand owners pursue a wide range of other branding opportunities that might yield bottomline benefits: product placements in films and television shows, displays on the uniforms and equipment of professional athletes, and so on. The modern corporation does not simply advertise its wares, however. It develops a “social media presence” on platforms like Facebook and Twitter, streaming updates to its followers about developments that might implicate its market or enhance its brand cachet. In addition, it develops gamified promotional strategies designed to recruit individual consumers as brand evangelists and reward them for their successes.70 These developments make the cumulative power of corporate messaging far greater than the Court’s discussion presumed. Although speech in the service of branding tends not to be overtly political, it reflects and reinscribes the ethos of consumerist, transactionally inflected participation that increasingly characterizes public discourse.71 18 + 19 + 20 +====Schools like Uchicago use free speech to market recruitment in the college – they are complicit in capital==== 21 +**FIRE 15** ~~FIRE Student Network (FSN)Support free speech on your campus. The FIRE Student Network (FSN) is a coalition of students and faculty members who recognize the importance of advancing civil liberties on their campuses. Signing up for the FSN is free! ... Video Watch FIRE's latest videos about protecting rights on campus. FIRE Launches Campaign in Support of University of Chicago Free Speech Statement," FIRE. 10-23-2015. https://www.thefire.org/cases/fire-launches-campaign-in-support-of-university-of-chicago-free-speech-statement/~~//roman 22 +From its very founding, the University of Chicago has dedicated itself to the preservation and celebration of the freedom of expression as an essential element of the University’s culture. In 1902, in his address marking the University’s decennial, President William Rainey Harper declared that “the principle of complete freedom of speech on all subjects has from the beginning been regarded as fundamental in the University of Chicago” and that “this principle can neither now nor at any future time be called in question.” Thirty years later, a student organization invited William Z. Foster, the Communist Party’s candidate for President, to lecture on campus. This triggered a storm of protest from critics both on and off campus. To those who condemned the University for allowing the event, President Robert M. Hutchins responded that “our students . . . should have freedom to discuss any problem that presents itself.” He insisted that the “cure” for ideas we oppose “lies through open discussion rather than through inhibition.” On a later occasion, Hutchins added that “free inquiry is indispensable to the good life, that universities exist for the sake of such inquiry, and that without it they cease to be universities.” 23 + 24 + 25 +====Capitalism perpetuates all other forms of oppression – we control the direction of their impacts.==== 26 +**Bennett 12.** Sara Bennett. Socialist Review is a monthly magazine covering current events, theory and history, books and arts reviews from a revolutionary socialist perspective. It is the sister publication of Socialist Worker. , May 2012, "Marxism and oppression," Socialist Review, http://socialistreview.org.uk/369/marxism-and-oppression //RS 27 +Marx recognised that oppression, far from being a natural and thus a permanent feature of human society, is a historical invention. True, the oppression of certain groups of people in society existed before capitalism. For example, Marx's collaborator Engels traced the origins of women's oppression to the formation of the family with the rise of class society. Despite the many changes to the family over the centuries, it persists to this day because it plays a crucial role in the continuation of the system, by bearing the brunt of the cost for caring for present and past generations of workers and the rearing of the next - all at our own expense. So, despite the fact that the majority of women in this country who can work do work, their role in the family means they still accept lower wages and fewer career opportunities. Other forms of oppression have arisen with the emergence of capitalism. So racism was created to justify the slave trade and imperialism and is perpetuated by the need to keep workers divided. Towards the end of the 19th century a new sexual identity, the "homosexual", was invented and portrayed as a threat to society and the maintenance of the family. What is common to all forms of oppression, however, is that they have a material basis and arise from the structures and dynamics of class society. Oppression serves to reinforce the interests of capitalism. But while Marx understood that some forms of oppression existed before capitalism, he also grasped the way the nature of oppression under capitalism was different to what had gone before. Under feudalism or slavery the mass of the population were either slaves, the property of masters, or serfs tied to particular pieces of land and bound to a lord. Such societies were rigidly hierarchical and were based on the idea that everyone had their "rightful place". Notions of freedom for those other than the rulers in society were rare and subordination in society was widely accepted. When new societies emerge so too do new ideas. The bourgeois revolutions that overthrew feudalism and paved the way for capitalism did so under the banner of "liberty, equality and fraternity", as the French Revolution put it. This was a huge step forward for humanity compared to previous societies. Under capitalism production takes the form of creating commodities to be sold in the market. Everything becomes a commodity, including our ability to labour. Workers are no longer tied to individual lords and masters. The new ideas of individual freedom and equality under capitalism reflect this new way of organising production. But in reality freedom for the vast majority of the human race is simply this ability to sell their labour power to one or another capitalist (provided, of course, that there is sufficient demand). Capitalism holds out the promise of liberation, but then denies it to the majority of society. Capitalist production increasingly comes to depend on the mass cooperation of workers, but as capitalism brings workers together so too it divides them from each other. Workers are forced to continually compete against each other - for jobs, overtime, housing, even access to decent healthcare provision. Oppression helps to create and reinforce divisions between workers. For example, the mass media and mainstream government encourage us to see immigrant workers as inferior to native-born workers. While it may be acceptable for immigrants to participate in our workforce when there are plenty of jobs, as soon as jobs become more scarce, immigrants are portrayed as less deserving of work, and therefore a threat. Alienation These divisions are underpinned by the alienation of workers under capitalism from control over their labour. This results in a sense of powerlessness, especially when workers do not fight back collectively. In this situation, some workers may gain a feeling of empowerment by looking down on others and feeling superior. So a white person may look down on a black person or a man on a woman. And it is not just non-oppressed groups who feel superior to oppressed groups - it cuts across oppressed groups too. For example, a "second-generation immigrant" can feel superior to a recently arrived immigrant, or a gay man can feel superior to a disabled person. As a result, some people argue that sections of workers have an interest in sustaining oppression, rather than seeing that all oppression works to allow the continuation of capitalism by providing it with material benefits. So we hear arguments that men benefit from women's oppression, or that all whites benefit from the oppression of black people. While it's true that non-oppressed groups do not suffer in the way that oppressed people may, it is wrong to think they therefore have some interest in the continuation of oppression. For example, the fact that women in full-time work still earn around 15 percent less than their male counterparts does not allow men's wages to increase further - it simply means it's easier for the bosses to keep all wages down. The best solution to this would be for male and female workers to fight together for decent wages for all. This may be easier said than done for a woman at work being sexually harassed by a male colleague, however. After all, she experiences her oppression through his sexist commetns and gestures. But while he may be the immediate culprit, the causes of oppression run much deeper - they are rooted in capitalism. Socialists have to fight all forms of oppression through the struggle for class unity. Alienation and distorted notions of freedom and equality also mean that people are not necessarily conscious of their oppression and can lead them to actively embrace some of the worst aspects of it. With the emphasis under capitalism on the individual rather than the social whole, we are made to feel that the worst symptoms of our oppression must be through some fault of our own. Here capitalism steps in to sell us the very "solutions" we need. So we have a whole industry of self-help books in the UK which is estimated to have earned publishers some £60?million in the past five years. In a similar vein, the answer to women not feeling "sexy enough" is to attend pole dancing "fitness classes", or undergo cosmetic surgery. There are even skin-lightening techniques for black people. A divisive system Capitalism works quite hard to ensure we keep believing our main enemy is some other group of ordinary people in society rather than the nature of our distorted relationships under capitalist society. The mass media have to continuously pump out horrific anti-immigrant, anti-traveller, anti single mum propaganda. Capitalism maintains its hold by dividing those workers who collectively could overturn it, and ideology plays a significant role. And this means it has to work to undermine the reality of our lives that actually brings us into constant contact and cooperation with all types of people, whether Muslim, gay, disabled and so on. While many non-Marxists fight with us against oppression, there is often disagreement about our emphasis on the working class as the key agent of change. After all, oppression affects all classes, not just the working class. This means some people believe that the oppressed group itself is the key to overcoming its own oppression. At a recent demonstration at Cambridge University over the visit of former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn, one of the chants was "The women united will never be defeated." It's not hard to see why this might seem like common sense to some; after all, every woman can be a victim of sexual assault. But which women are we uniting with? Christine Lagarde, Strauss-Kahn's replacement, is central to the imposition of draconian austerity measures across Europe, driving the living standards of millions of women and men down - something that in turn will increase the pressures on people's lives and place more women at the risk of violence. 28 + 29 + 30 +====Our alternative is to vote negative to refuse to participate in activities that support capitalism – key to hollowing out capitalist structures.==== 31 +**Herod 4. ** Herod, Columbia University Graduate and Political Activist, 2004 (James, Getting Free, http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman'g/Strate/GetFre/06.htm, JC) 32 +It is time to try to describe, at first abstractly and later concretely, a strategy for destroying capitalism. This strategy, at its most basic, calls for pulling time, energy, and resources out of capitalist civilization and putting them into building a new civilization. The image then is one of emptying out capitalist structures, hollowing them out, by draining wealth, power, and meaning out of them until there is nothing left but shells. This is definitely an aggressive strategy. It requires great militancy, and constitutes an attack on the existing order. The strategy clearly recognizes that capitalism is the enemy and must be destroyed, but it is not a frontal attack aimed at overthrowing the system, but an inside attack aimed at gutting it, while simultaneously replacing it with something better, something we want. Thus capitalist structures (corporations, governments, banks, schools, etc.) are not seized so much as simply abandoned. Capitalist relations are not fought so much as they are simply rejected. We stop participating in activities that support (finance, condone) the capitalist world and start participating in activities that build a new world while simultaneously undermining the old. We create a new pattern of social relations alongside capitalist relations and then we continually build and strengthen our new pattern while doing every thing we can to weaken capitalist relations. In this way our new democratic, non-hierarchical, non-commodified relations can eventually overwhelm the capitalist relations and force them out of existence. This is how it has to be done. This is a plausible, realistic strategy. To think that we could create a whole new world of decent social arrangements overnight, in the midst of a crisis, during a so-called revolution, or during the collapse of capitalism, is foolhardy. Our new social world must grow within the old, and in opposition to it, until it is strong enough to dismantle and abolish capitalist relations. Such a revolution will never happen automatically, blindly, determinably, because of the inexorable, materialist laws of history. It will happen, and only happen, because we want it to, and because we know what we’re doing and know how we want to live, and know what obstacles have to be overcome before we can live that way, and know how to distinguish between our social patterns and theirs. But we must not think that the capitalist world can simply be ignored, in a live and let live attitude, while we try to build new lives elsewhere. (There is no elsewhere.) There is at least one thing, wage-slavery, that we can’t simply stop participating in (but even here there are ways we can chip away at it). Capitalism must be explicitly refused and replaced by something else. This constitutes War, but it is not a war in the traditional sense of armies and tanks, but a war fought on a daily basis, on the level of everyday life, by millions of people. It is a war nevertheless because the accumulators of capital will use coercion, brutality, and murder, as they have always done in the past, to try to block any rejection of the system. They have always had to force compliance; they will not hesitate to continue doing so. Nevertheless, there are many concrete ways that individuals, groups, and neighborhoods can gut capitalism, which I will enumerate shortly. We must always keep in mind how we became slaves; then we can see more clearly how we can cease being slaves. We were forced into wage-slavery because the ruling class slowly, systematically, and brutally destroyed our ability to live autonomously. By driving us off the land, changing the property laws, destroying community rights, destroying our tools, imposing taxes, destroying our local markets, and so forth, we were forced onto the labor market in order to survive, our only remaining option being to sell, for a wage, our ability to work. It’s quite clear then how we can overthrow slavery. We must reverse this process. We must begin to reacquire the ability to live without working for a wage or buying the products made by wage-slaves (that is, we must get free from the labor market and the way of living based on it), and embed ourselves instead in cooperative labor and cooperatively produced goods. Another clarification is needed. This strategy does not call for reforming capitalism, for changing capitalism into something else. It calls for replacing capitalism, totally, with a new civilization. This is an important distinction, because capitalism has proved impervious to reforms, as a system. We can sometimes in some places win certain concessions from it (usually only temporary ones) and win some (usually short-lived) improvements in our lives as its victims, but we cannot reform it piecemeal, as a system.¶ Thus our strategy of gutting and eventually destroying capitalism requires at a minimum a totalizing image, an awareness that we are attacking an entire way of life and replacing it with another, and not merely reforming one way of life into something else. Many people may not be accustomed to thinking about entire systems and social orders, but everyone knows what a lifestyle is, or a way of life, and that is the way we should approach it. The thing is this: in order for capitalism to be destroyed millions and millions of people must be dissatisfied with their way of life. They must want something else and see certain existing things as obstacles to getting what they want. It is not useful to think of this as a new ideology. It is not merely a belief-system that is needed, like a religion, or like Marxism, or Anarchism. Rather it is a new prevailing vision, a dominant desire, an overriding need. What must exist is a pressing desire to live a certain way, and not to live another way. If this pressing desire were a desire to live free, to be autonomous, to live in democratically controlled communities, to participate in the self-regulating activities of a mature people, then capitalism could be destroyed. Otherwise we are doomed to perpetual slavery and possibly even to extinction. 33 + 34 + 35 +====The role of the ballot is challenging capitalism in educational spaces – it has seeped into educational sites and has corrupted our epistemology, means K is a prior question.==== 36 +**Giroux ’08. **(Henry A, Global Network Television Chair in English and Cultural Studies at McMaster University, and Susan S, Associate Professor of English and Cultural Studies at McMaster University, "Education After Neoliberalism", December 31 2008, http://www.truth-out.org/archive/component/k2/item/81781:education-after-neoliberalism, 37 +In spite of the crucial connection between various modes of domination and pedagogy, there is little input from progressive social theorists of what it might mean to theorize how education as a form of cultural politics actually constructs particular modes of address, identification, affective investments and social relations that produce consent and complicity with the ethos and practice of neoliberalism. Hence, while the current economic crisis has called into question the economic viability of neoliberal values and policies, it often does so by implying that neoliberal rationality can be explained through an economic optic alone, and consequently gives the relationship of politics, culture and inequality scant analysis. Neoliberal rationality is lived and legitimated in relation to the intertwining of culture, politics and meaning. Any viable challenge to the culture of neoliberalism as well as the current economic crisis it has generated must address not merely the diffuse operations of power throughout civil society and the globe, but also what it means to engage those diverse educational sites producing and legitimating neoliberal common sense, whether they be newspapers, advertising, the Internet, television or more recent spheres developed as part of the new information revolution. In addition, it is crucial to examine what role public intellectuals, think tanks, the media and universities actually play pedagogically in constructing and legitimating neoliberal world views, and how the latter works pedagogically in producing neoliberal subjects and securing consent. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-12-17 00:45:05.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +McCormick, Sean - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lake Highland Prep MC - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +6 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +3 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Westwood Mambapoor Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - K - Cap - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Strake Jesuit
- Caselist.CitesClass[11]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,24 @@ 1 +=DA – Cyberbullying= 2 + 3 + 4 +==1NC== 5 + 6 + 7 +====No anti-cyberbullying laws in the 1AC b/c they are restrictions on free speech – increases cyberbullying==== 8 +Hayward 13. John O. Hayward, ~~Senior Lecturer in Law at Bentley Universityds~~, "Anti-Cyberbullying Laws Are a Threat to Free Speech," Netiquette and Online Ethics, Gale: Opposing Viewpoints in Context, 2013, http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/DocumentToolsPortletWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpointsandjsid=86b8d9990680ac70437ab043a7b61192andaction=2andcatId=anddocumentId=GALE7CEJ3010868216andu=nysl'we'bcsdandzid=e5792b8229fbb3d88a51bec521a1e8cf//AD 9 +While forty-three states have anti-bullying statutes, only twenty-one prohibit cyber bullying, which usually is defined as "bullying" conducted by electronic means. Additionally, the laws can be grouped into prohibitions that explicitly include off-campus cyber bullying or implicitly include or exclude it. Typical legislative language is "immediately adjacent to school grounds," "directed at another student or students," "at a school activity," or "at school-sponsored activities or at a school-sanctioned event." The statutes also usually contain language prohibiting cyber bullying if it results in one or more of the following: (1) causes "substantial disruption" of the school environment or orderly operation of the school, (2) creates an "intimidating," "threatening" or "hostile" learning environment, (3) causes actual harm to a student or student's property or places a student in reasonable fear of harm to self or property, (4) interferes with a student's educational performance and benefits, (5) includes as a target school personnel or references "person" rather than "student," and (6) incites third parties to carry out bullying behavior. Five states prohibit cyber bullying if it is motivated by an actual or perceived characteristic or trait of a student. Presumably this protects gay and lesbian students and school personnel from criticism because of their sexual orientation but it could also shield obese, bulimic, short and tall students from disparagement due to their weight or height. While many applaud anti-cyber bullying legislation, some are concerned that it gives school officials unbridled authority that will be used to burnish their image, not protect bullying victims, or that it threatens student free speech. Furthermore, if their authority is unleashed beyond the school yard, it is essentially limitless. Thus no student, even in the privacy of their home, can write about controversial topics of concern to them without worrying that it may be "disruptive" or cause a "hostile environment" at school. In effect, students will be punished for off-campus speech based on the way people react to it at school. Many of the terms are so vague that they offer no guidance to distinguish permissible from impermissible speech. In this sense, they are akin to campus speech codes that courts invalidated in the 1990s for vagueness and overbreadth. Consequently, these laws don't simply "chill" student free speech, they plunge it into deep freeze. This viewpoint argues that for these reasons, some anti-cyber bullying laws violate the First Amendment and should be struck down as unconstitutional. 10 + 11 + 12 +====Anti-cyberbullying laws key to prevent cyberbullying – squo solves and checks off campus behavior==== 13 +Patchin 10. Justin W. Patchin, ~~Professor of Criminal Justice in the Department of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire~~, 09/28/10, "Cyberbullying Laws and School Policy: A Blessing or Curse?," Cyberbullying Research Center, http://cyberbullying.org/cyberbullying-laws-and-school-policy-a-blessing-or-curse//AD 14 +Many schools are now in a difficult position of having to respond to a mandate to have a cyberbullying policy, without much guidance from the state about the circumstances under which they can (or must) respond. When folks ask me if I think there needs to be a “cyberbullying law” I basically respond by saying “perhaps – but not the kind of law most legislators would propose.” I would look for a law to be more “prescriptive” than “proscriptive.” By that, I mean I would like to see specific guidance from states about *how* and *when* schools can take action in cyberbullying incidents. Many states have taken the easy way out by simply passing laws saying effectively “schools need to deal with this.” Not only have they stopped short in terms of providing specific instructions or even a framework from which schools can evaluate their role, but they have not provided any additional resources to address these issues. Some states are now requiring schools to educate students and staff about cyberbullying or online safety more generally, but have provided no funding to carry out such activities. Unfunded mandates have become cliché in education, and this is just another example. Moreover, school administrators are in a precarious position because they see many examples in the media where schools have been sued because they took action against a student when they shouldn’t have or they failed to take action when they were supposed to. Schools need help determining where the legal line is. Many states already have existing criminal and civil remedies to deal with cyberbullying. Extreme cases would fall under criminal harassment or stalking laws or a target could pursue civil action for intentional infliction of emotional distress or defamation, to name a few. Bullying (whatever the form) that occurs at school is no doubt already subject to an existing bullying policy. To be sure, schools should bring their bullying and harassment policies into the 21st Century by explicitly identifying cyberbullying as a proscribed behavior, but they need to move beyond the behaviors that occur on school grounds or those that utilize school-owned resources. But in order to do this they need guidance from their state legislators and Departments of Education so that they draft a policy and procedure that will be held up in court. School, technology, and privacy lawyers disagree about what should (or must) be in a policy. It’s no wonder many educators are simply throwing their hands up. We really like New Hampshire’s recently passed bullying law, even though like other efforts it demands a lot from schools without a corresponding increase in resources. This section is key: “Bullying or cyberbullying shall occur when an action or communication as defined in RSA 193-F:3: … (b) Occurs off of school property or outside of a school-sponsored activity or event, if the conduct interferes with a pupil’s educational opportunities or substantially disrupts the orderly operations of the school or school-sponsored activity or event.” This puts schools, students, and parents on notice that there are instances when schools can discipline students for their off campus behavior. It will take many years, though, before we will know if this law can be used as a model. Schools will need to pass policies based on the law; a school will then need to discipline a bully based on the new policy; then they will need to be sued; then the case will need to be appealed. Perhaps then the case will get to a significant enough court that it will matter. Hang on and see how it turns out. In the meantime, lobby your legislators to pass meaningful, prescriptive laws instead of laws that simply say “cyberbullying is wrong, now YOU do SOMETHING about it.” It’s election time, so I’m sure your local representative will be all ears… 15 + 16 + 17 +====Cyberbullying is conducive to abuse and kills self worth – impedes the ability to get education, turns case==== 18 +ETCB 16, End To Cyber Bullying, ~~The End to Cyber Bullying (ETCB) Organization was founded in 2011 to raise global awareness on cyberbullying, and to mobilize youth, educators, parents, and others in taking efforts to end cyberbullying~~, "A Surprising Long-Term Effect of Cyberbullying, ETCB Organization, 2016, http://www.endcyberbullying.org/a-surprising-long-term-effect-of-cyberbullying///AD 19 +If someone repeatedly tells the victim online that they is are worthless, useless, a waste of space or that they should kill themselves, soon the victim might – at least partially – begin to believe it. According to Psychcentral.com, signs that someone is experience low self-esteem include: • Self-critical or a negative opinion of themselves • Sensitivity to even constructive criticism • Fatigue, insomnia, headaches • Poor performance at school or work due to lack of trying or lethargy It is important for an individual to maintain a healthy self-esteem so that they can achieve in life. A cyberbullying victim may miss out on opportunities because the victim believes they is unworthy of achievement. It’s important to realize that these two effects go well beyond being in a bad mood and not liking something about oneself. Depression, Low Self-Esteem and Dating Abuse Research is inconclusive, but most would agree that people who are victimized in abusive dating relationships often choose those relationships because of their depression or low self-esteem. Findyouthinfo.gov states that past experience with stressful life events – cyberbullying, for example – can put someone at risk for entering an abusive dating relationship. This is especially true if the cyberabuse included abuse directed at a female victim’s sexuality, or lack thereof. Feelings of worthlessness and a negative outlook on life can throw a previously-cyberbullied victim into yet another abusive relationship. However, instead of faceless strangers and bullies dolling out abuse, it would be the victim’s significant other. Dating abuse can encompass many forms of abuse, including cyberabuse. According to Dosomething.com, other forms of abuse in dating relationships include: • Physical abuse – in the form of “hitting, punching, slapping, biting” and anything that causes physical pain. • Mental abuse – in the form of verbal putdowns and belittling. The abuser might call their victim names, “make threats, or accuse the other person of cheating.” • Emotional abuse – in the form of control over the victim’s “behavior, personality, and life.” • Sexual abuse – in the form of unwanted touching, pressuring the victim to have sex, or rape. It’s getting harder to track cyberbullying since most people make their online profiles and social networking pages private. Also, apps like Snapchat would allow cyberbullies to attack their victim and have the evidence wiped away within seconds. According to this tech expert, “Users are drawn to the impermanence of the site’s uploads and the anonymity that impermanence provides.” However impermanent the actual abusive message may be, the lasting effects of the abuse upon the psyche of the victim are anything but impermanent. 20 + 21 + 22 +====Cyberbullying disproportionately affects racial/sexual minorities – turns case==== 23 +Brandon 14. Mary Howlett-Brandon, ~~Doctor of Philosophy at Virginia Commonwealth University~~ "CYBERBULLYING: AN EXAMINATION OF GENDER, RACE, ETHNICITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS FROM THE NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEY: STUDENT CRIME SUPPLEMENT, 2009", 2014, http://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4485andcontext=etd//AD 24 +Other and mixed race students reported cyberbullying victimization at 4.2, 26 Black students at 1.9, and Hispanic students at 1.3. Whites, however, experienced 3.1 victimization by electronic technology. Wang et al. (2009) also reported the percentage of cyberbullying by race. Black students reported the highest level of cyberbullying activity at 10.9, Hispanic students at 9.6, and the category of students classified as other at 7.3. White students reported cyberbullying victimization at 6.7. The Kessel Schneider et al. (2012) study also addressed the cyberbullying behavior of students by race and ethnicity. The race/ethnic breakdown of the sample is as follows: 75.2 White, 12.3 mixed/other, 5.8 Hispanic, 3.9 Asian, and 2.8 Black. Kessel Schneider et al. (2012) found that 5.7 of the White students and 8.4 of the non-White students conveyed they had been cyberbullied during the previous 12 months. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-12-17 00:45:07.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +McCormick, Sean - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lake Highland Prep MC - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +6 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +3 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Westwood Mambapoor Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - DA - Cyberbullying - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Strake Jesuit
- Caselist.CitesClass[12]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,60 @@ 1 +===Kritik 1NC=== 2 + 3 + 4 +====The 1ac’s act of resistance still clings to the belief of a just and free university. These are the very values that lure us into the process of extermination of our social and physical beings.==== 5 +Occupied UC Berkeley, "The Necrosocial: Civic Life, Social Death, and the UC." Anti-Capital Projects. 11-18-2009. http://anticapitalprojects.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/the-necrosocial/ 6 +In the university we prostrate ourselves before a value of separation, which in reality 7 +... 8 +the positions we thoughtlessly enact. It’s the particular nature of being owned. 9 + 10 + 11 +====Academia is a fatal project the 1AC is—an re-scripting of the very terms of contestation such that nothing is left but the continued propagation of social death==== 12 +**Occupied UC Berkeley ‘9** ("The Necrosocial – Civic Life, Social Death, and the University of California," November 2009, Craccum Magazine – University of Auckland Student Magazine. Iss. 4, 2012. http://craccum.ausa.auckland.ac.nz/?p=286) ~~m leap~~ 13 +Yes, very much a cemetery. Only here there are no dirges, no 14 +... 15 +. We need, we desire occupations. We are an antagonistic dead. 16 + 17 + 18 +====That means their discursive challenge within academic forums like debate is only absorbed and masked by power, turning higher education into a graveyard filled with the bodies of countless victims.==== 19 +Occupied UC Berkeley. "The Necrosocial: Civic Life, Social Death, and the UC." Anti-Capital Projects. 11-18-2009. http://anticapitalprojects.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/the-necrosocial/ 20 +Totally managed death. A machine for administering death, for the proliferation of technologies 21 +... 22 +gets its own designated burial plot. Who doesn’t participate in this graveyard? 23 + 24 + 25 +====A free university within capital is a reading room inside a prison—our occupation of the university aligns us with the dispossessed multitude engaging in the refusal of work everywhere.==== 26 +Communiqué from an Absent Future. "On the Terminus of Student Life." Anti-Capital Projects. 11-26-2009. http://anticapitalprojects.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/communique-from-an-absent-future-on-the-terminus-of-student-life/ 27 +WE SEEK TO PUSH THE UNIVERSITY STRUGGLE TO ITS LIMITS. Though we denounce the 28 +... 29 +common conditions that, like a hidden water table, feed each struggle. 30 + 31 + 32 +====The academy will never be able to escape its intrinsic hierarchies nor its role in producing and reproducing a docile labor force.==== 33 +Anti-Capital Projects. "Anti-Capital Projects: Questions and Answers." Anti-Capital Projects. 11-19-2009. http://anticapitalprojects.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/anti-capital-projects/ 34 +We want students to see this increase for what it is: a form of 35 +... 36 +between us and the larger movement. We are one face of it. 37 + 38 + 39 +====This is part and parcel of a system that demarcates global zones of death subject to killings on a mass scale.==== 40 +Etienne Balibar. Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at University of Paris and Distinguished Professor of Humanities at University of California-Irvine. We, The People of Europe? Reflections on Transnational Citizenship. 2004. pp. 126-129 ~~This evidence has been gender-modified~~ 41 +I am aware of all these difficulties, but I would maintain that a reality 42 +... 43 +borderlines themselves, the issue of equality, the horizon of political action. 44 + 45 + 46 +====The alternative is to occupy everything, demand nothing.==== 47 + 48 + 49 +====Every demand is necessarily exclusionary and that is why we choose none. The only effect the ballot can ever have is to signal a participation in or refusal of the university. ==== 50 +Anti-Capital Projects. "Anti-Capital Projects: Questions and Answers." Anti-Capital Projects. 11-19-2009. http://anticapitalprojects.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/anti-capital-projects/ 51 +Why No Demands? First, because anything we might win now would be too 52 +... 53 +advance. They will define themselves by rising up and standing with us. 54 + 55 + 56 +====The insurrection is here and we refuse to believe that debate will make the university a better place. Of course our role as debaters necessarily implicates us, but that is precisely the point—we must occupy spaces like debate to expose the futility of reform. ==== 57 +Communiqués from Occupied California. "Introduction." Anti-Capital Projects. 2-15-2010. http://anticapitalprojects.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/communiques-from-occupied-california-introduction/ 58 +The radical or anti-reformist position within the movement has often insisted upon a 59 +... 60 +current occupation movement attempts to push those objective conditions toward a breaking point. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-07 13:44:08.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Engel, Max - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +StTho NB - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +7 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Westwood Mambapoor Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - K - University - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Winston Churchill Classic
- Caselist.CitesClass[13]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,10 @@ 1 +==CP== 2 + 3 + 4 +====CP text: Public colleges and universities should allow for free speech except in the instance of revenge pornography ==== 5 +Koppelman 15 . Andrew Koppelman ~~John Paul Stevens Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science~~, "Revenge Pornography and First Amendment Exceptions," Emory University School of Law, Volume 65, Issue 3, 09/14/15, http://law.emory.edu/elj/content/volume-65/issue-3/articles/revenge-pornography-first-amendment-exceptions.html//AD 6 +People are marvelously inventive in devising new ways to hurt each other. Some of these new ways involve speech. The Supreme Court has recently declared that speech is protected by the First Amendment unless it is a type of communication that has traditionally been unprotected. If this is the law, then harms will accumulate and the law will be helpless to remedy them. A recent illustration is the new phenomenon of “revenge pornography”—the online posting of sexually explicit photographs without the subject’s consent, usually by rejected ex-boyfriends. The photos are often accompanied by the victim’s name, address, phone number, Facebook page, and other personal information. They are sometimes shared with other websites, viewed by thousands of people, and become the first several pages of hits that a search engine produces for the victim’s name. The photos are emailed to the victim’s family, friends, employers, fellow students, or coworkers. They are seen on the Internet by prospective employers and customers. Victims have been subjected to harassment, stalking, and threats of sexual assault. Some have been fired from their jobs. Others have been forced to change schools. The pictures sometimes follow them to new jobs and schools. The pictures’ availability can make it difficult to find new employment. Most victims are female. 1 Twenty-six states have passed laws prohibiting this practice, and others are considering them. 2 (Civil remedies are often available but have not been much of a deterrent: victims often cannot afford to sue, and perpetrators often have few assets to collect. 3 ) The constitutionality of such laws is uncertain, however. These laws restrict speech on the basis of its content. Content-based restrictions (unless they fall within one of the categories of unprotected speech) are invalid unless necessary to a compelling state interest. 4 The state’s interest in prohibiting revenge pornography, so far from being compelling, may not even be one that the state is permitted to pursue. The central harm that such a prohibition aims to prevent is the acceptance, by the audience of the speech, of the message that this person is degraded and appropriately humiliated because she once displayed her naked body to a camera. The harm, in other words, consists in the acceptance of a viewpoint. Viewpoint-based restrictions on speech are absolutely forbidden. 5 There are exceptions to the ban on content-based restrictions: the Court has held that the First Amendment does not protect incitement, threats, obscenity, child pornography, defamation of private figures, criminal conspiracies, and criminal solicitation, for example. 6 None of those exceptions is applicable here. The pathologies of revenge pornography I have just described are the product of entirely new technologies: digital photography and the Internet. Because it is so new, however, it is not a category of speech that has traditionally been denied First Amendment protection. The Court has recently announced that unless speech falls into such a category, it is fully protected. There can be no new categories of unprotected speech. Laws prohibiting revenge pornography thus violate the First Amendment as the Court now understands it. The crux of the problem is the Court’s announced unwillingness to create new categories of non-protection. That unwillingness is not a necessary inference from the First Amendment. The present exceptions to free speech protection are judge-made doctrines. The courts that made them are by the same authority free to construct additional exceptions. Those exceptions would be justified by whatever justified the exceptions already on the books. Free speech is a complex cultural formation that aims at a distinctive set of goods. Its rules must be formulated and reformulated with those specific goods in mind. Pertinently here, one of those goods is a citizenry with the confidence to participate in public discussion. Traumatized, stigmatized women are not the kind of people that a free speech regime aims to create. Revenge pornography threatens to create a class of people who are chronically dogged by a spoiled social identity, and a much larger class of people who know that they could be subjected to such treatment without hope of redress. That state of affairs is directly contrary to the ideal of a regime in which everyone is empowered to participate in public discourse. Part I of this Article examines the constitutional objections to a statute that bans revenge pornography, and argues that those objections, although they are firmly rooted in the doctrines laid down by the Supreme Court, rest on an indefensibly wooden vision of free speech. Part II argues that this vision rests on an impoverished understanding of liberalism, which does not merely aim at constraint on government but which affirmatively seeks a society whose citizens have certain desirable traits of character, notably the courage to participate in public discourse. I develop this claim with a close reading of John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty. Part III argues that revenge pornography has a silencing effect on its victims that directly attacks the Millian ideal. Part IV argues that the creation of free speech exceptions cannot persuasively be ruled out in the way the Court has done, but are a normal part of judicial construction of the First Amendment’s text. The Conclusion reflects on the mechanical character of the free speech rules that the Court has constructed. 7 + 8 +====Pornography reinforces a cultural of male-dominant sexuality and normalizes sexual violence – turns case==== 9 +Jensen and Okrina 4. Robert Jensen ~~Professor in the School of Journalism at the University of Texas, a founding board member of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center, and a member of the board of Culture Reframed.~~, Debbie Okrina ~~Member of VAWnet – staff writer~~, "Pornography and Sexual Violence", National Resource Center on Domestic Violence 10 +Commercial pornography in the United States is at the same time increasingly more normalized and more denigrating to women. There is understandable interest in the question about the connection between pornography and sexual violence. Rather than asking "does pornography cause rape?" we would be better served by investigating whether pornography is ever a factor that contributes to rape. In other words, Is pornography implicated in sexual violence in this culture? There are limits to what research can tell us about the complex interactions of mass media and human behavior. But from both laboratory research and the narratives of men and women, it is not controversial to argue that pornography can: (1) be an important factor in shaping a male-dominant view of sexuality; (2) be used to initiate victims and break down their resistance to unwanted sexual activity; (3) contribute to a user's difficulty in separating sexual fantasy and reality; and (4) provide a training manual for abusers. These conclusions provide support for the feminist critique of pornography that emerged in the 1970s and '80s, which highlighted pornography's harms to the women and children: (1) used in the production of pornography; (2) who have pornography forced on them; (3) who are sexually assaulted by men who use pornography; and (4) living in a culture in which pornography reinforces and sexualizes women's subordinate status. People who raise critical questions about pornography and the sex industry often are accused of being prudish, anti-sex, or repressive, but just the opposite is true. Such questions are crucial not only to the struggle to end sexual and domestic violence, but also to the task of building a healthy sexual culture. Activists in the anti-violence and anti-pornography movements have been at the forefront of that task. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-08 00:16:30.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Nikunj Patel - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Katya E - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +8 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +5 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Westwood Mambapoor Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - CP - Revenge Pornography v2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Winston Churchill Classic
- Caselist.CitesClass[14]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,10 @@ 1 +==DA== 2 + 3 + 4 +====Hateful discourse is constitutionally protected==== 5 +Volokh 15. Volokh, Eugene ~~teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy~~, "No, there’s no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment", Washington Post, 08/07/15. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?utm'term=.0285ca6aa92b//AD 6 +I keep hearing about a supposed “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment, or statements such as, “This isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech,” or “When does free speech stop and hate speech begin?” But there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas. One is as free to condemn Islam — or Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, or whites, or illegal aliens, or native-born citizens — as one is to condemn capitalism or Socialism or Democrats or Republicans. To be sure, there are some kinds of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. But those narrow exceptions have nothing to do with “hate speech” in any conventionally used sense of the term. For instance, there is an exception for “fighting words” — face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight. But this exception isn’t limited to racial or religious insults, nor does it cover all racially or religiously offensive statements. Indeed, when the City of St. Paul tried to specifically punish bigoted fighting words, the Supreme Court held that this selective prohibition was unconstitutional (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)), even though a broad ban on all fighting words would indeed be permissible. (And, notwithstanding CNN anchor Chris Cuomo’s Tweet that “hate speech is excluded from protection,” and his later claims that by “hate speech” he means “fighting words,” the fighting words exception is not generally labeled a “hate speech” exception, and isn’t coextensive with any established definition of “hate speech” that I know of.) The same is true of the other narrow exceptions, such as for true threats of illegal conduct or incitement intended to and likely to produce imminent illegal conduct (i.e., illegal conduct in the next few hours or maybe days, as opposed to some illegal conduct some time in the future). Indeed, threatening to kill someone because he’s black (or white), or intentionally inciting someone to a likely and immediate attack on someone because he’s Muslim (or Christian or Jewish), can be made a crime. But this isn’t because it’s “hate speech”; it’s because it’s illegal to make true threats and incite imminent crimes against anyone and for any reason, for instance because they are police officers or capitalists or just someone who is sleeping with the speaker’s ex-girlfriend. The Supreme Court did, in Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952), uphold a “group libel” law that outlawed statements that expose racial or religious groups to contempt or hatred, unless the speaker could show that the statements were true, and were said with “good motives” and for “justifiable ends.” But this too was treated by the Court as just a special case of a broader First Amendment exception — the one for libel generally. And Beauharnais is widely understood to no longer be good law, given the Court’s restrictions on the libel exception. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) (rejecting the view that libel is categorically unprotected, and holding that the libel exception requires a showing that the libelous accusations be “of and concerning” a particular person); Garrison v. Louisiana (1964) (generally rejecting the view that a defense of truth can be limited to speech that is said for “good motives” and for “justifiable ends”); Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps (1986) (generally rejecting the view that the burden of proving truth can be placed on the defendant); R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) (holding that singling bigoted speech is unconstitutional, even when that speech fits within a First Amendment exception); Nuxoll ex rel. Nuxoll v. Indian Prairie Sch. Dist. # 204, 523 F.3d 668, 672 (7th Cir. 2008) (concluding that Beauharnais is no longer good law); Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1200 (9th Cir. 1989) (likewise); Am. Booksellers Ass’n, Inc. v. Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323, 331 n.3 (7th Cir. 1985) (likewise); Collin v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1197, 1205 (7th Cir. 1978) (likewise); Tollett v. United States, 485 F.2d 1087, 1094 n.14 (8th Cir. 1973) (likewise); Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies 1043-45 (4th ed. 2011); Laurence Tribe, Constitutional Law, §12-17, at 926; Toni M. Massaro, Equality and Freedom of Expression: The Hate Speech Dilemma, 32 Wm. and Mary L. Rev. 211, 219 (1991); Robert C. Post, Cultural Heterogeneity and Law: Pornography, Blasphemy, and the First Amendment, 76 Calif. L. Rev. 297, 330-31 (1988). Finally, “hostile environment harassment law” has sometimes been read as applying civil liability — or administrative discipline by universities — to allegedly bigoted speech in workplaces, universities, and places of public accommodation. There is a hot debate on whether those restrictions are indeed constitutional; they have generally been held unconstitutional when applied to universities, but decisions are mixed as to civil liability based on speech that creates hostile environments in workplaces (see the pages linked to at this site for more information on the subject). But even when those restrictions have been upheld, they have been justified precisely on the rationale that they do not criminalize speech (or otherwise punish it) in society at large, but only apply to particular contexts, such as workplaces. None of them represent a “hate speech” exception, nor have they been defined in terms of “hate speech.” For this very reason, “hate speech” also doesn’t have any fixed legal meaning under U.S. law. U.S. law has just never had occasion to define “hate speech” — any more than it has had occasion to define rudeness, evil ideas, unpatriotic speech, or any other kind of speech that people might condemn but that does not constitute a legally relevant category. Of course, one can certainly argue that First Amendment law should be changed to allow bans on hate speech (whether bigoted speech, blasphemy, blasphemy to which foreigners may respond with attacks on Americans or blasphemy or flag burning or anything else). Perhaps some statements of the “This isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech” variety are deliberate attempts to call for such an exception, though my sense is that they are usually (incorrect) claims that the exception already exists. I think no such exception should be recognized, but of course, like all questions about what the law ought to be, this is a matter that can be debated. Indeed, people have a First Amendment right to call for speech restrictions, just as they have a First Amendment right to call for gun bans or bans on Islam or government-imposed race discrimination or anything else that current constitutional law forbids. Constitutional law is no more set in stone than any other law. But those who want to make such arguments should acknowledge that they are calling for a change in First Amendment law, and should explain just what that change would be, so people can thoughtfully evaluate it. Calls for a new First Amendment exception for “hate speech” shouldn’t just rely on the undefined term “hate speech” — they should explain just what viewpoints the government would be allowed to suppress, what viewpoints would remain protected, and how judges, juries, and prosecutors are supposed to distinguish the two. Saying “this isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech” doesn’t, I think, suffice. 7 + 8 +====Hate speech entrenches power structures and kills education and debate, turns case ==== 9 +Uelmen 90. Gerald F. Uelmen, ~~dean of Santa Clara University School of Law and a fellow of the Center for Applied Ethics~~, "A pro-con discussion of speech codes and free speech", Santa Clara University, November 1990, https://www.scu.edu/character/resources/campus-hate-speech-codes///AD 10 +Those who advocate hate speech codes believe that the harm codes prevent is more important than the freedom they restrict. When hate speech is directed at a student from a protected group, like those listed in Emory University's code, the effect is much more than hurt feelings. The verbal attack is a symptom of an oppressive history of discrimination and subjugation that plagues the harmed student and hinders his or her ability to compete fairly in the academic arena. The resulting harm is clearly significant and, therefore, justifies limiting speech rights. In addition to minimizing harm, hate speech codes result in other benefits. The university is ideally a forum where views are debated using rational argumentation; part of a student's education is learning how to derive and rationally defend an opinion. The hate speech that codes target, in contrast, is not presented rationally or used to provoke debate. In fact, hate speech often intends to provoke violence. Hate speech codes emphasize the need to support convictions with facts and reasoning while protecting the rights of potential victims. As a society we reason that it is in the best interest of the greatest number of citizens to sometimes restrict speech when it conflicts with the primary purpose of an event. A theater owner, for example, has a right to remove a heckler when the heckler's behavior conflicts with the primary purpose of staging a play - to entertain an audience. Therefore, if the primary purpose of an academic institution is to educate students, and hate speech obstructs the educational process by reducing students' abilities to learn, then it is permissible to extend protection from hate speech to students on college or university campuses. Hate speech codes also solve the conflict between the right to freely speak and the right to an education. A student attending a college or university clearly has such a right. But students exercising their "free speech" right may espouse hateful or intimidating words that impede other students abilities to learn and thereby destroy their chances to earn an education. Finally, proponents of hate speech codes see them as morally essential to a just resolution of the conflict .between civil rights (e.g., freedom from harmful stigma and humiliation) and civil liberties (e.g., freedom of speech). At the heart of the conflict is the fact that under-represented students cannot claim fair and equal access to freedom of speech and other rights when there is an imbalance of power between them and students in the majority. If a black student, for example, shouts an epithet at a white student, the white student may become upset or feel enraged, but he or she has little reason to feel terror or intimidation. Yet when a white student directs an epithet toward a black student or a Jewish student, an overt history of subjugation intensifies the verbal attack that humiliates and strikes institutional fear in the victim. History shows that words of hatred are amplified when they come from those in power and abridged when spoken by the powerless. Discrimination on college and university campuses is a growing problem with an uncertain future. Whether hate speech codes are morally just responses to campus intolerance depends on how society interprets the harms of discriminatory harassment, the benefits and costs of restricting free speech, and the just balance between individual rights and group rights. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-08 00:16:31.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Nikunj Patel - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Katya E - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +8 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +5 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Westwood Mambapoor Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - DA - Hate Speech - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Winston Churchill Classic
- Caselist.CitesClass[15]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,18 @@ 1 +==DA== 2 + 3 + 4 +====Endowments are high now but dropping rapidly - protests are alienating alumni donors, who are of older generations==== 5 +**Hartocollis 8/4** (Anemona Hartocollis. Anemona Hartocollis is a metro reporter who began covering courts for The New York Times in October 2005. On the courts beat, she has written front-page stories about the trial of accused Gambino crime family leader John Gotti, which ended in a hung jury, and the trial of 18 "grannies" acquitted of disorderly conduct during a demonstration against the war in Iraq. From 2002 until 2005, Ms. Hartocollis wrote the "Coping" column in the Sunday City section, a weekly column about life in New York City. From 1997 until 2002, she covered education for the Times, writing about policy issues like whether parents in Greenwich Village should be allowed to pay for a public-school teacher out of their own pockets and the pros and cons of testing school children. Before coming to the Times, Ms. Hartocollis had been a reporter and feature writer for The New York Daily News, New York Newsday, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Detroit News, The Staten Island Advance and Flatbush Life, a weekly paper in Brooklyn. She has freelanced for Martha Stewart Living and LIFE magazines. Ms. Hartocollis was born on November 3, 1955 in Lausanne, Switzerland. She received her bachelor’s degree in comparative literature from Harvard University in 1977. She has won the Newswomen’s Club of New York Front Page Award (twice); the New York State AP Writing Contest, first place for continuing coverage of education (1996), first place features (1992) and third place features (1995); the Society of Silurians investigative reporting award and the Deadline Club of New York award, among others. Ms. Hartocollis is the author of "Seven Days of Possibilities: One Teacher, 24 Kids, and the Music that Changed Their Lives Forever," (Public Affairs, 2004) a book about a young music teacher in the Bronx, which began as a series of stories in the Times. "College Students Protest, Alumni’s Fondness Fades And Checks Shrink". 08-04-2016. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/us/college-protests-alumni-donations.html?'r=1) //TruLe 6 +Scott MacConnell cherishes the memory of his years at Amherst College, where he discovered his future métier as a theatrical designer. But protests on campus over cultural and racial sensitivities last year soured his feelings. Now Mr. MacConnell, who graduated in 1960, is expressing his discontent through his wallet. In June, he cut the college out of his will. “As an alumnus of the college, I feel that I have been lied to, patronized and basically dismissed as an old, white bigot who is insensitive to the needs and feelings of the current college community,” Mr. MacConnell, 77, wrote in a letter to the college’s alumni fund in December, when he first warned that he was reducing his support to the college to a token $5. A backlash from alumni is an unexpected aftershock of the campus disruptions of the last academic year. Although fund-raisers are still gauging the extent of the effect on philanthropy, some colleges — particularly small, elite liberal arts institutions — have reported a decline in donations, accompanied by a laundry list of complaints. Alumni from a range of generations say they are baffled by today’s college culture. Among their laments: Students are too wrapped up in racial and identity politics. They are allowed to take too many frivolous courses. They have repudiated the heroes and traditions of the past by judging them by today’s standards rather than in the context of their times. Fraternities are being unfairly maligned, and men are being demonized by sexual assault investigations. And university administrations have been too meek in addressing protesters whose messages have seemed to fly in the face of free speech. Scott C. Johnston, who graduated from Yale in 1982, said he was on campus last fall when activists tried to shut down a free speech conference, “because apparently they missed irony class that day.” He recalled the Yale student who was videotaped screaming at a professor, Nicholas Christakis, that he had failed “to create a place of comfort and home” for students in his capacity as the head of a residential college. A rally at New Haven Superior Court demanding justice for Corey Menafee, an African-American dining hall worker at Yale’s Calhoun College who was charged with breaking a window pane that depicted black slaves carrying cotton. CreditPeter Hvizdak/New Haven Register, via Associated Press “I don’t think anything has damaged Yale’s brand quite like that,” said Mr. Johnston, a founder of an internet start-up and a former hedge fund manager. “This is not your daddy’s liberalism.” “The worst part,” he continued, “is that campus administrators are wilting before the activists like flowers.” Yale College’s alumni fund was flat between this year and last, according to Karen Peart, a university spokeswoman. Among about 35 small, selective liberal arts colleges belonging to the fund-raising organization Staff, or Sharing the Annual Fund Fundamentals, that recently reported their initial annual fund results for the 2016 fiscal year, 29 percent were behind 2015 in dollars, and 64 percent were behind in donors, according to a steering committee member, Scott Kleinheksel of Claremont McKenna College in California. His school, which was also the site of protests, had a decline in donor participation but a rise in giving. At Amherst, the amount of money given by alumni dropped 6.5 percent for the fiscal year that ended June 30, and participation in the alumni fund dropped 1.9 percentage points, to 50.6 percent, the lowest participation rate since 1975, when the college began admitting women, according to the college. The amount raised from big donors decreased significantly. Some of the decline was because of a falloff after two large reunion gifts last year, according to Pete Mackey, a spokesman for Amherst. At Princeton, where protesters unsuccessfully demanded the removal of Woodrow Wilson’s name from university buildings and programs, undergraduate alumni donations dropped 6.6 percent from a record high the year before, and participation dropped 1.9 percentage points, according to the university’s website. A Princeton spokesman, John Cramer, said there was no evidence the drop was connected to campus protests. 7 + 8 +====Endowment funds are key to US competitiveness – ensures college quality==== 9 +**Leigh 14** (Steven R. Leigh. Dean Steve Leigh is a biological anthropologist whose research explores the interactions between humans and the microbes that contribute to digestive efficiency. He also studies human growth with a special emphasis on the growth of the brain. He has extensive experience in archaeology, palaeontology, and anatomy. His teaching at the University of Colorado Boulder focuses on the history of human evolution. Leigh received his B.A. from Northwestern University, M.A. from the University of Tennessee, and Ph.D. from Northwestern University. He has served as dean of Arts and Sciences since 2012. "Endowments And The Future Of Higher Education". 03-04-2014. College Of Arts And Sciences. http://www.colorado.edu/artsandsciences/news-events/message-dean/endowments-and-future-higher-education) //TruLe 10 +These broad trends point directly to the need for CU-Boulder’s College of Arts and Sciences to increase endowment funding across the college. Endowments drive improvements in the quality of an institution and reflect alums, donors and supporters who recognize the importance of research universities in the 21st century. Endowed professorships are the first and most important component of increasing our academic quality. Named chairs recognize significant faculty achievements and help the university support faculty salary and research. CU-Boulder professors are among the most productive in the nation and are heavily recruited by competitors, including Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cornell, Berkeley, Illinois, UC Irvine and many others. Often, these competitors offer our faculty endowed professorships, conferring prestige and research support. CU must provide its faculty with comparable support to be competitive. A second major area for endowments is student scholarships and, for graduate students, fellowships. A stable source of income that helps pay tuition is the most direct and effective way to offset the costs of education. Endowed scholarships are also effective recruiting tools for admitting the nation’s best to CU. Our dynamic programs, departments and majors are attracting more and more applicants, including the best in the nation. Like faculty support, endowed scholarships and fellowships confer prestige and, most importantly, allow students to focus entirely on academics without balancing jobs and worrying about future loan repayments. Finally, endowment funding for programs greatly enriches the institution, providing capabilities that are difficult to attain when tuition revenue provides the majority of funding. Institutions funded mainly by tuition must make sure that expenditures directly benefit students, which sometimes limits options for innovation and risk-taking. Programmatic funding enables faculty and students to take risks in their research and creative work. For example, in my own field, this might involve traveling to an unexplored region to prospect for human fossils or archaeological sites. Support for high-risk projects allows our faculty and students to develop new areas of knowledge, benefitting society by broadening the capacity of the institution to innovate. The future of higher education, including CU’s future, depends to a large degree on how successfully we can build major endowments. Ultimately, U.S. competitiveness and leadership in the global knowledge economy depends on this as well. For alums, donors and supporters, endowments indelibly affirm the importance of higher education and enduringly preserve its viability and vitality. 11 + 12 +====Innovation solves great power war==== 13 +Taylor 4 (Professor of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Mark, "The Politics of Technological Change: International Relations versus Domestic Institutions," Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 4/1/2004, http://www.scribd.com/doc/46554792/Taylor)) 14 +I. Introduction Technological innovation is of central importance to the study of international relations (IR), affecting almost every aspect of the sub-field. First and foremost, a nation’s technological capability has a significant effect on its economic growth, industrial might, and military prowess; therefore relative national technological capabilities necessarily influence the balance of power between states, and hence have a role in calculations of war and alliance formation. Second, technology and innovative capacity also determine a nation’s trade profile, affecting which products it will import and export, as well as where multinational corporations will base their production facilities. Third, insofar as innovation-driven economic growth both attracts investment and produces surplus capital, a nation’s technological ability will also affect international financial flows and who has power over them. Thus, in broad theoretical terms, technological change is important to the study of IR because of its overall implications for both the relative and absolute power of states. And if theory alone does not convince, then history also tells us that nations on the technological ascent generally experience a corresponding and dramatic change in their global stature and influence, such as Britain during the first industrial revolution, the US United States and Germany during the second industrial revolution, and Japan during the twentieth century. Conversely, great powers which fail to maintain their place at the technological frontier generally drift and fade from influence on international scene. This is not to suggest that technological innovation alone determines international politics, but rather that shifts in both relative and absolute technological capability have a major impact on international relations, and therefore need to be better understood by IR scholars. Indeed, the importance of technological innovation to international relations is seldom disputed by IR theorists. Technology is rarely the sole or overriding causal variable in any given IR theory, but a broad overview of the major theoretical debates reveals the ubiquity of technological causality. For example, from Waltz to Posen, almost all Realists have a place for technology in their explanations of international politics. At the very least, they describe it as an essential part of the distribution of material capabilities across nations, or an indirect source of military doctrine. And for some, like Gilpin quoted above, technology is the very cornerstone of great power domination, and its transfer the main vehicle by which war and change occur in world politics. Jervis tells us that the balance of offensive and defensive military technology affects the incentives for war. Walt agrees, arguing that technological change can alter a state’s aggregate power, and thereby affect both alliance formation and the international balance of threats. Liberals are less directly concerned with technological change, but they must admit that by raising or lowering the costs of using force, technological progress affects the rational attractiveness of international cooperation and regimes. Technology also lowers information and transactions costs and thus increases the applicability of international institutions, a cornerstone of Liberal IR theory. And in fostering flows of trade, finance, and information, technological change can lead to Keohane’s interdependence or Thomas Friedman et al’s globalization. Meanwhile, over at the “third debate”, Constructivists cover the causal spectrum on the issue, from Katzenstein’s “cultural norms” which shape security concerns and thereby affect technological innovation; to Wendt’s “stripped down technological determinism” in which technology inevitably drives nations to form a world state. However most Constructivists seem to favor Wendt, arguing that new technology changes people’s identities within society, and sometimes even creates new cross-national constituencies, thereby affecting international politics. Of course, Marxists tend to see technology as determining all social relations and the entire course of history, though they describe mankind’s major fault lines as running between economic classes rather than nation-states. Finally, Buzan and Little remind us that without advances in the technologies of transportation, communication, production, and war, international systems would not exist in the first place. 15 + 16 +====US leadership prevents great power war and existential governance crises==== 17 +**Brooks et al. 13** (Stephen Brooks, John Ikenberry, and William C. Wohlforth. Stephen Gallup Brooks is an Associate Professor of Government in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College. Gilford John Ikenberry (October 5, 1954) is a theorist of international relations and United States foreign policy, and a professor of Politics and International Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. William Curti Wohlforth (born 1959) is the Daniel Webster Professor of Government in the Dartmouth College Department of Government, of which he was chair for three academic years (2006-2009). He is the author of Elusive Balance: Power and Perceptions during the Cold War (Cornell, 1993) and editor of Witnesses to the End of the Cold War (Johns Hopkins, 1996) and Cold War Endgame: Oral History, Analysis, and Debates (Penn State, 2003). Wohlforth published a seminal article in 1999, challenging the common knowledge at the time that US supremacy following the end of the Cold War is expected to be short-lived. He is linked to the Neoclassical realism-school and known for his work on American unipolarity, especially in collaboration with Stephen Brooks. Together they have published several articles and a book, World Out of Balance: International Relations Theory and the Challenge of American Primacy. Wohlforth was Editor-in-chief of Security Studies (journal) during 2008-2011. "Don’t Come Home America: The Case Against Retrenchment". International Security, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Winter 2012/13), pp. 7–51) //TruLe 18 +A core premise of deep engagement is that it prevents the emergence of a far more dangerous global security environment. For one thing, as noted above, the United States’ overseas presence gives it the leverage to restrain partners from taking provocative action. Perhaps more important, its core alliance commitments also deter states with aspirations to regional hegemony from contemplating expansion and make its partners more secure, reducing their incentive to adopt solutions to their security problems that threaten others and thus stoke security dilemmas. The contention that engaged U.S. power dampens the baleful effects of anarchy is consistent with influential variants of realist theory. Indeed, arguably the scariest portrayal of the war-prone world that would emerge absent the “American Pacifier” is provided in the works of John Mearsheimer, who forecasts dangerous multipolar regions replete with security competition, arms races, nuclear proliferation and associated preventive war temptations, regional rivalries, and even runs at regional hegemony and full-scale great power war. 72 How do retrenchment advocates, the bulk of whom are realists, discount this benefit? Their arguments are complicated, but two capture most of the variation: (1) U.S. security guarantees are not necessary to prevent dangerous rivalries and conflict in Eurasia; or (2) prevention of rivalry and conflict in Eurasia is not a U.S. interest. Each response is connected to a different theory or set of theories, which makes sense given that the whole debate hinges on a complex future counterfactual (what would happen to Eurasia’s security setting if the United States truly disengaged?). Although a certain answer is impossible, each of these responses is nonetheless a weaker argument for retrenchment than advocates acknowledge. The first response flows from defensive realism as well as other international relations theories that discount the conflict-generating potential of anarchy under contemporary conditions. 73 Defensive realists maintain that the high expected costs of territorial conquest, defense dominance, and an array of policies and practices that can be used credibly to signal benign intent, mean that Eurasia’s major states could manage regional multipolarity peacefully without the American pacifier. Retrenchment would be a bet on this scholarship, particularly in regions where the kinds of stabilizers that nonrealist theories point to—such as democratic governance or dense institutional linkages—are either absent or weakly present. There are three other major bodies of scholarship, however, that might give decisionmakers pause before making this bet. First is regional expertise. Needless to say, there is no consensus on the net security effects of U.S. withdrawal. Regarding each region, there are optimists and pessimists. Few experts expect a return of intense great power competition in a post-American Europe, but many doubt European governments will pay the political costs of increased EU defense cooperation and the budgetary costs of increasing military outlays. 74 The result might be a Europe that is incapable of securing itself from various threats that could be destabilizing within the region and beyond (e.g., a regional conflict akin to the 1990s Balkan wars), lacks capacity for global security missions in which U.S. leaders might want European participation, and is vulnerable to the influence of outside rising powers. What about the other parts of Eurasia where the United States has a substantial military presence? Regarding the Middle East, the balance begins to swing toward pessimists concerned that states currently backed by Washington— notably Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia—might take actions upon U.S. retrenchment that would intensify security dilemmas. And concerning East Asia, pessimism regarding the region’s prospects without the American pacifier is pronounced. Arguably the principal concern expressed by area experts is that Japan and South Korea are likely to obtain a nuclear capacity and increase their military commitments, which could stoke a destabilizing reaction from China. It is notable that during the Cold War, both South Korea and Taiwan moved to obtain a nuclear weapons capacity and were only constrained from doing so by a still-engaged United States. 75 The second body of scholarship casting doubt on the bet on defensive realism’s sanguine portrayal is all of the research that undermines its conception of state preferences. Defensive realism’s optimism about what would happen if the United States retrenched is very much dependent on its particular—and highly restrictive—assumption about state preferences; once we relax this assumption, then much of its basis for optimism vanishes. Specifically, the prediction of post-American tranquility throughout Eurasia rests on the assumption that security is the only relevant state preference, with security defined narrowly in terms of protection from violent external attacks on the homeland. Under that assumption, the security problem is largely solved as soon as offense and defense are clearly distinguishable, and offense is extremely expensive relative to defense. Burgeoning research across the social and other sciences, however, undermines that core assumption: states have preferences not only for security but also for prestige, status, and other aims, and they engage in trade-offs among the various objectives. 76 In addition, they define security not just in terms of territorial protection but in view of many and varied milieu goals. It follows that even states that are relatively secure may nevertheless engage in highly competitive behavior. Empirical studies show that this is indeed sometimes the case. 77 In sum, a bet on a benign postretrenchment Eurasia is a bet that leaders of major countries will never allow these nonsecurity preferences to influence their strategic choices. To the degree that these bodies of scholarly knowledge have predictive leverage, U.S. retrenchment would result in a significant deterioration in the security environment in at least some of the world’s key regions. We have already mentioned the third, even more alarming body of scholarship. Offensive realism predicts that the withdrawal of the American pacifier will yield either a competitive regional multipolarity complete with associated insecurity, arms racing, crisis instability, nuclear proliferation, and the like, or bids for regional hegemony, which may be beyond the capacity of local great powers to contain (and which in any case would generate intensely competitive behavior, possibly including regional great power war). Hence it is unsurprising that retrenchment advocates are prone to focus on the second argument noted above: that avoiding wars and security dilemmas in the world’s core regions is not a U.S. national interest. Few doubt that the United States could survive the return of insecurity and conflict among Eurasian powers, but at what cost? Much of the work in this area has focused on the economic externalities of a renewed threat of insecurity and war, which we discuss below. Focusing on the pure security ramifications, there are two main reasons why decisionmakers may be rationally reluctant to run the retrenchment experiment. First, overall higher levels of conflict make the world a more dangerous place. Were Eurasia to return to higher levels of interstate military competition, one would see overall higher levels of military spending and innovation and a higher likelihood of competitive regional proxy wars and arming of client states—all of which would be concerning, in part because it would promote a faster diffusion of military power away from the United States. Greater regional insecurity could well feed proliferation cascades, as states such as Egypt, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Saudi Arabia all might choose to create nuclear forces. 78 It is unlikely that proliferation decisions by any of these actors would be the end of the game: they would likely generate pressure locally for more proliferation. Following Kenneth Waltz, many retrenchment advocates are proliferation optimists, assuming that nuclear deterrence solves the security problem. 79 Usually carried out in dyadic terms, the debate over the stability of proliferation changes as the numbers go up. Proliferation optimism rests on assumptions of rationality and narrow security preferences. In social science, however, such assumptions are inevitably probabilistic. Optimists assume that most states are led by rational leaders, most will overcome organizational problems and resist the temptation to preempt before feared neighbors nuclearize, and most pursue only security and are risk averse. Confidence in such probabilistic assumptions declines if the world were to move from nine to twenty, thirty, or forty nuclear states. In addition, many of the other dangers noted by analysts who are concerned about the destabilizing effects of nuclear proliferation—including the risk of accidents and the prospects that some new nuclear powers will not have truly survivable forces—seem prone to go up as the number of nuclear powers grows. 80 Moreover, the risk of “unforeseen crisis dynamics” that could spin out of control is also higher as the number of nuclear powers increases. Finally, add to these concerns the enhanced danger of nuclear leakage, and a world with overall higher levels of security competition becomes yet more worrisome. The argument that maintaining Eurasian peace is not a U.S. interest faces a second problem. On widely accepted realist assumptions, acknowledging that U.S. engagement preserves peace dramatically narrows the difference between retrenchment and deep engagement. For many supporters of retrenchment, the optimal strategy for a power such as the United States, which has attained regional hegemony and is separated from other great powers by oceans, is offshore balancing: stay over the horizon and “pass the buck” to local powers to do the dangerous work of counterbalancing any local rising power. The United States should commit to onshore balancing only when local balancing is likely to fail and a great power appears to be a credible contender for regional hegemony, as in the cases of Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union in the midtwentieth century. The problem is that China’s rise puts the possibility of its attaining regional hegemony on the table, at least in the medium to long term. As Mearsheimer notes, “The United States will have to play a key role in countering China, because its Asian neighbors are not strong enough to do it by themselves.” 81 Therefore, unless China’s rise stalls, “the United States is likely to act toward China similar to the way it behaved toward the Soviet Union during the Cold War.” 82 It follows that the United States should take no action that would compromise its capacity to move to onshore balancing in the future. It will need to maintain key alliance relationships in Asia as well as the formidably expensive military capacity to intervene there. The implication is to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, reduce the presence in Europe, and pivot to Asia— just what the United States is doing. 83 In sum, the argument that U.S. security commitments are unnecessary for peace is countered by a lot of scholarship, including highly influential realist scholarship. In addition, the argument that Eurasian peace is unnecessary for U.S. security is weakened by the potential for a large number of nasty security consequences as well as the need to retain a latent onshore balancing capacity that dramatically reduces the savings retrenchment might bring. Moreover, switching between offshore and onshore balancing could well be difªcult. Bringing together the thrust of many of the arguments discussed so far underlines the degree to which the case for retrenchment misses the underlying logic of the deep engagement strategy. By supplying reassurance, deterrence, and active management, the United States lowers security competition in the world’s key regions, thereby preventing the emergence of a hothouse atmosphere for growing new military capabilities. Alliance ties dissuade partners from ramping up and also provide leverage to prevent military transfers to potential rivals. On top of all this, the United States’ formidable military machine may deter entry by potential rivals. Current great power military expenditures as a percentage of GDP are at historical lows, and thus far other major powers have shied away from seeking to match top-end U.S. military capabilities. In addition, they have so far been careful to avoid attracting the “focused enmity” of the United States. 84 All of the world’s most modern militaries are U.S. allies (America’s alliance system of more than sixty countries now accounts for some 80 percent of global military spending), and the gap between the U.S. military capability and that of potential rivals is by many measures growing rather than shrinking. 85 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-08 00:16:31.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Nikunj Patel - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Katya E - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +8 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +5 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Westwood Mambapoor Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +JANFEB - DA - Endownments - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Winston Churchill Classic
- Caselist.RoundClass[6]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +10,11 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-12-17 00:45:03.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +McCormick, Sean - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lake Highland Prep MC - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +3 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Went for Cap - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Strake Jesuit
- Caselist.RoundClass[7]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +12 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-07 13:44:06.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Engel, Max - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +StTho NB - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +went for K in the 2n - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Winston Churchill Classic
- Caselist.RoundClass[8]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +13,14,15 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-08 00:16:28.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Nikunj Patel - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Katya E - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +5 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Went for CP in 2N - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Winston Churchill Classic