Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[52]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[53]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[52]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-12-18 19:07:45.306
	1	+2016-12-18 19:07:45.0

Caselist.CitesClass[53]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,14 @@
	1	+Symbolic challenges to power aren’t real challenges – analytic
	2	+Instead, we must materially challenge the dress code. Material challenges to power pose true threats to power.
	3	+
	4	+The first amendment is not sufficient protection – schools have to follow the constitution yet they impose dress codes, proves no solvency.
	5	+
	6	+Additionally, the dress code is an exception to the first amendment in instances in which educators decide that the clothing is disruptive to the learning environment. The aff’s extension of the first amendment puts power in the hands of institutions to decide what and what is not disruptive, which will inevitably lead to them not allowing trans- people to dress how they want.
	7	+Phillips 10 (Fisher Phillips, January 2010, “Should Your School's Dress Code Address Transgender Students?”, https://www.fisherphillips.com/resources-newsletters-article-should-your-schools-dress-code-address-transgender-students
	8	+Other schools have been less supportive of blurring traditional gender expectations for dress, citing the potential for distraction for other students and worries of violence toward the cross-dressing student as reasons to prohibit cross-gender dressing. Schools have reportedly sent male students home for wearing wigs or make-up, and prohibited students from cross dressing for their yearbook photographs.
	9	+
	10	+Text: Public colleges and universities should leave restrictions that ban hate code but get rid of dress code altogether.
	11	+
	12	+This speech act is MY performance – voting for me starts the movement to end the dress code from within the debate space. A ballot for Logan however ends here. Do not be fooled – their strategy to vote us down as a movement against the dress code despite the fact that they don’t defend abolishing the dress code and despite the fact that we didn't do anything, is used to make you feel better as a judge and give them the ballot while keeping the existing transphobic system unchanged.
	13	+BatTzedek ’99 (Elliott-MS, Women's Studies) “Identity Politics and Racism: Some Thoughts and Questions” http://www.feminist-reprise.org/docs/iprace.htm (xo1)
	14	+VI) What all of this has taught me about how NOT to deal with oppression There are many kinds of boundaries around groups. Some are physical: our land goes from the mountain to the river. Some are cultural: our people are the ones who dress and speak like us. With the arrival of the nation-state, boundaries became geo-political: invented lines on maps which states enforced with armies. Without state power, nor a common culture, nor physical boundaries, Identity Politics used what I call geo-paradigmatic borders, ideology-based but still clear and enforced boundaries around groups which are defined by their political and theoretical approaches. These new boundaries were built upon the pre-existing chaos of our lived experience of identity: a crossroads of social meaning, personal meaning, personal and social history, and spiritual, emotional and theoretical understandings. Having boundaries tidied the chaos, gave us a clear sense of purpose and a way to tell "us" from "them." As Douglas explains, "Rituals of purity and impurity create unity in experience ... Ideas about separating, purifying, demarcating and punishing transgressions have as their main function to impose system on an inherently untidy experience." Out of the chaos of our lives rose answers based in our experience, explanations for what happens to us, suggestions for gaining our own kinds of power. But this process of separating came with a strong need to defend boundaries, for two reasons: 1)the chosen identity categories really aren't inherent, but are built on the lies of existing social power, and 2) many of the identities were mainly defined by what they were not, so didn't have a strong center. Because these underlying, organizing structures were not to be spoken of, calling them into question in any way was sure to invoke pollution behavior. As part of this pollution behavior, all challenges and transgressions were met with intense boundary-setting and defending, including separating out and/or purging those seen as a threat. This drive toward purity and punishment almost always happened in the name of addressing "oppression," of eliminating 'bad" knowledge and attitudes and replacing them with the "truth" which would, as the saying goes, set us free. But is achieving ideological purity and conforming within well-defended boundaries the same thing as having equality and freedom? Did all of our purging of "oppressive" people and ideas change anything? From the window into my own culture offered by considering pollution behavior, I've been thinking about how I've seen charges of being "oppressive" function within IP groups. This is the scenario played out time and time again: tension builds within the group, sometimes around an actual problem, but usually, I think, around leadership and position within the group pecking order. Everyone in the group has the feeling that something is wrong. Then someone who either has power within the group or is trying to gain power names the problem. Within Leftist/Feminist IP groups, the problem is often identified as "racism." Racism is, after all, an easy target because the effects of racism are always present, because theorists of color have worked so hard to make visible its working, and because we do honestly want to be anti-racist. Of course, charges of classism, anti-Semitism, ageism, etc also work. However, no matter the charge, whether or not it is taken seriously is more about the social status of the accuser within the group than about the presence or absence of discrimination. Now, sometimes, when the charge is leveled, the point is to actually describe and interrupt racism or classism, or whatever the problem at hand is. When this is the case, and the accusation isn't about defining personal or group power, positive change can actually happen. I saw this in effect at the "Intersections and Parallels" anti-racism conference in Iowa in the late 80's, when the established social norm was that we would all make mistakes, and that doing so did not prove you weren't dedicated to ending racism. In this setting, I watched as a Jewish daughter of immigrants sang the song 'We all came over on different boats, but we're on the same boat now," and Native women raised a completely justified complaint. Because there was no power to be gained by purging anyone, the singer had social space to say, "You're absolutely right. I hadn't thought about," the Native women had a chance to educate everyone, and no one left the conference in tears only to be written up in national Feminist press as a "danger to Feminists." However - and this is a BIG However - too often these rituals are about establishing or maintaining power within a group. Often, the exact nature of what "racist" thing has happened is not clear. Or, if it is, the "degree" of the problem becomes defined by how much status the accuser has in the group; not all women of color are granted equal authenticity, so some can stop a festival with a sentence, while others are simply ignored. Regardless, it is not the clarity of oppression that matters, but rather the sheer fact that the "problem" has been named at all. If the charge is granted power, the group must act to fix the problem; members must choose a path, either changing something within the group or within group members, or by identifying the source of the "threat" and purging it. The former can happen, bringing real change. But usually the latter happens; some marginal person-someone who never quite "fit" in the group anyway-or some outsider, is identified as the "racist" one and is publicly purged. "Ah, triumph" the group then sighs with relief, "see, we've addressed racism!" Or, if the accuser doesn't have power within the group, she herself is purged, as a way of "proving" that the accusation wasn't real. Sheer pollution behavior, this is. If all of this purging was ever actually about solving the problem of racism, it would be long since solved. Instead we have endless re-enactions of the scapegoat ritual, except that in this actual ritual, the group members knew that they were putting their "sins" onto the goat and sending it into the wilderness; they didn't pretend that the goat itself was the source of "sin" in the community. Within the boundary-defending war games of IP, where our social group is our inherent identity, it is far too easy to confuse the "sins" and the goat. This confusion has cost us precious time, over and over again, as we've used pollution rituals to make the group feel better without actually addressing racism or race, or age, or ability, or economic privilege. Purging has actually kept us, time and time again from being able to challenge oppression and exploitation by focusing on one person's "bad" words or action instead of asking questions about power. Purging has also cost us our most precious resource~-~-women of good intention who actually do want a different, more just world. The point of a purging ritual as we've enacted it is not only to make the group feel clean, but to make the "guilty" party believe in her guilt. If, for example, a lesbian group could only get Susie to admit that she was, in fact horribly oppressive and would leave for the good of the group, then the lesbians who remain never have to question themselves about their relationship to oppression or their role in banishing Susie. She admitted to the charge, so off with her head and everything is peachy again.(11) Getting someone to confess and withdraw is the ultimate signal that pollution behavior is in full force for, as Douglas writes: "Pollution rules, by contrast with moral rules are unequivocal. They do not depend on intention or a nice balancing of rights and duties. The only material question is whether a forbidden contact has taken place or not."(12) If Susie confesses to being oppressive, the problem of "oppression" is solved, clearly and absolutely, with no left-over, messy issues of intention or meaning. "A polluted person" Douglas writes, "is always in the wrong." Even if she doesn't confess, a public campaign against her can work to convince everyone that she is the source of the pollution, so that no one has to look any further upstream. Once Susie has been identified and purged, she is gone forever, there is no way for her to become "ritually pure" again. This is another function of IP's denial that it is engaging in pollution behavior. In societies with conscious pollution rituals, there were clear rules for how the ritually impure person could re-enter. Within Hebrew tribal laws as described in Leviticus, for example, people who had become impure would wait outside of the camp until nightfall (that is, the beginning of a new day by the Hebrew calendar), do ritual cleansing with water, and then return, understood by all to no longer be polluted. Within our Feminist and Lesbian communities, where we leave all of this unspoken, there is no way back in for Susie once she's been labeled as racist or classist or ableist. Her status of polluted will follow her from community to community, long after anyone cares to remember what happened, as if she personally had the power to bring social, economic, and spiritual oppression to any place she enters. Nothing she has ever done, or will ever do, to bring justice into the world will matter to her status as impure. And so we have lost women, one at a time or in groups, sending them into the wilderness bearing what should be our responsibilities. We've done this for years, then we wonder why there are so few of us left in "the fight," blaming those who are gone for having "sold out."

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-12-18 19:07:46.15

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Dino De La O, Martin Sigalow

Opponent

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

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+31

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Westwood Mandavilli Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+JANFEB - CP - Ban Dress Codes

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Strake Jesuit Round Robin