Changes for page Westwood Nanavati Neg
Summary
-
Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)
-
Objects (1 modified, 0 added, 27 removed)
- Caselist.CitesClass[6]
- Caselist.CitesClass[7]
- 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.CitesClass[16]
- Caselist.CitesClass[17]
- Caselist.CitesClass[18]
- Caselist.CitesClass[19]
- Caselist.CitesClass[20]
- Caselist.RoundClass[5]
- Caselist.RoundClass[6]
- Caselist.RoundClass[7]
- Caselist.RoundClass[8]
- Caselist.RoundClass[9]
- Caselist.RoundClass[10]
- Caselist.RoundClass[11]
- Caselist.RoundClass[12]
- Caselist.RoundClass[13]
- Caselist.RoundClass[14]
- Caselist.RoundClass[15]
- Caselist.RoundClass[16]
- Caselist.RoundClass[17]
Details
- Page properties
-
- Author
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -XWiki.sa avannanavati@gmailcom1 +XWiki.shahrishabh7@gmailcom
- Caselist.CitesClass[6]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,6 +1,0 @@ 1 -====The 1AC's attempt to use "first step" solutions is a palliative that fails to problematize the root cause of Eurocentric colonialism i.e. occupation of Native American land. Reject the affirmative and pursue indigenous land return as a first priority.==== 2 -Ward **Churchill** 19**96** (Professor of Ethnic Studies at University of Colorado, Boulder, BA and MA in Communications from Sangamon State, From A Native Son pgs 85-90) 3 -The question which inevitably arises with regard to indigenous land claims, especially in the 4 -AND 5 -realism." Isn't it time we all worked on attaining it? 6 -dw - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-09-17 16:15:15.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -i dunno - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -i dunno - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Nanavati Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -give back the land k - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -greenhill
- Caselist.CitesClass[7]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,13 +1,0 @@ 1 -**====The aff causes decommissioning which leads to sacrifice zones that destroys nearby communities – turns the case====** 2 -**Schneider '88** (Keith Schneider is an editor and writer for the New York Times "Dying Nuclear Plants Give Birth to New Problems" Special to the New York Times October 31^^st^^, 1988) http://www.nytimes.com/1988/10/31/us/dying-nuclear-plants-give-birth-to-new-problems.html?pagewanted=all. //AG 3 -Piece by piece, unused radioactive laboratories, mothballed processing buildings and dormant nuclear reactors 4 -AND 5 -nuclear waste storage cribs to some of the largest concrete structures ever built. 6 - 7 - 8 -====Turns and outweighs the case on timeframe and magnitude – decommissioning is dangerous and takes twice as long as the reactor was operational==== 9 -**Cooper 8.** Cooper, Christopher. Sovacool, Benjamin K. (Executive Director of the Network for New Energy; director of the Danish Center for Energy Technology at the Department of Business Technology and Development and a professor of social sciences at Aarhus University) "Nuclear Nonsense: Why Nuclear Power is No Answer to Climate Change and the World's Post- Kyoto Energy Challenges." William and Mary Environmental Law Policy Review. Vol 33. Issue 1. Article 2. 38-42. 2008. Web. August 11, 2016. http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040andcontext=wmelpr 10 -The price of energy inputs and environmental costs of every nuclear power plant continue to 11 -AND 12 -from decommissioning reprocessing plants, underscoring the immensity of cleanup 269costs. 13 -dw - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-09-17 16:15:15.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -i dunno - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -i dunno - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Nanavati Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Sacrifice Zone DA - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -greenhill
- Caselist.CitesClass[8]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,9 +1,0 @@ 1 -====Text: The IAEA will create a nuclear fuel reserve that provides countries access to reliable fuel at competitive market prices. The nuclear fuel reserve will collect and reprocess spent fuel to permanently dispose of plutonium waste.==== 2 - 3 - 4 -====CP solves nuclear prolif and the aff==== 5 -**Barnaby and Kemp 07** (Frank Barnaby – nuclear physicist, Executive Secretary of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, Director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, James Kemp – Research Associate coordinating ORG's Secure Energy project, Oxford Research Group, "TOO HOT TO HANDLE? Frank Barnaby and James Kemp THE FUTURE OF CIVIL NUCLEAR POWER", http://nonuclear.se/files/barnaby-kemp200707.pdf) 6 -One of the proposals is to set up a nuclear "fuel bank" or 7 -AND 8 -, reprocess them and eventually permanently dispose of the radioactive waste. 9 -dw - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-09-18 12:30:16.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -wjire - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -ewr - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -6 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Nanavati Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -fuel bank cp - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -grenil
- Caselist.CitesClass[9]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -refer to jason yang's neg wiki - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-03 19:22:08.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -ed - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -ed - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -7 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Quads - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Nanavati Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1NC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -UT
- Caselist.CitesClass[10]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -refer to jason yang's neg wiki - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-03 19:22:11.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -ed - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -ed - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -8 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Quads - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Nanavati Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1NC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -UT
- Caselist.CitesClass[11]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,35 +1,0 @@ 1 -Funding DA 2 -Universities lose funding if they don’t restrict constitutionally protected speech 3 -FIRE 16. , 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 4 -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. 5 -Loss of funding kills quality of education – turns case 6 -Mitchell et al 16. Mitchell, MichaelMichael 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 LeachmanMichael 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 MastersonKathleen 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 7 -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. 8 -Chilling Effect DA 9 -Hate speech is protected by the constitution. 10 -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 11 -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. 12 -Hate speech creates academic and discursive exclusion, kills minority education – turns case. 13 -Garrett 2. Deanna M. Garrett, Deanna M. Garrett graduated from the University of Virginia in 1997 with a bachelor's degree in Religious Studies and a minor in Biology. She is a second-year HESA student and a Graduate Assistant in the Department of Residential Life, “Silenced Voices: Hate Speech Codes on Campus”, University of Vermont, 07/29/2002, https://www.uvm.edu/~vtconn/?Page=v20/garrett.html //AD 14 -Advocates of hate speech codes contend that the inclusion of racist, sexist, and homophobic speech serves only to silence others’ voices. "Such speech not only interferes with equal educational opportunities, but also deters the exercise of other freedoms, including those secured by the First Amendment" (Strossen, 1994, p. 193). Faced with hate speech, many individuals are silenced or forced to flee, rather than engaging in dialogue (Lawrence, 1993). In higher education, dialogue is key to learning and gaining new knowledge. Students engage in dialogue with one another, challenge each other, and propose new ideas. However, racist speech does not invite this exchange but seeks to silence non-dominant individuals. Post (1994) outlines three ways in which minority groups are silenced by hateful speech: (1) Victim groups are silenced because their perspectives are systematically excluded from the dominant discourse; (2) victim groups are silenced because the pervasive stigma of racism systematically undermines and devalues their speech; and (3) victim groups are silenced because the visceral "fear, rage, and shock" of racist speech systematically preempts response. (p. 143) 15 -Academic exclusion in hostile campuses leads to lower graduation rates, perpetuating exclusion. 16 -Perry 15. Andre M. Perry, 11-11-2015, "Campus racism makes minority students likelier to drop out of college. Mizzou students had to act.," https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/11/11/campus-racism-makes-minority-students-likelier-to-drop-out-of-college/?tid=a_inl//AD 17 -By now you know the story: Three days ago, University of Missouri footballers offered administrators an ultimatum: University system President Tim Wolfe had to go or the team wouldn’t play. Monday morning, Wolfe resigned. Credit players and protesters, led by hunger-striking grad student Jonathan Butler, for drawing attention to Wolfe’s failure to address campus racism. But beyond applauding the activism of students, it’s important to understand what’s at stake at Missouri and other campuses — like Yale University, where students at the Silliman residential college have taken on their live-in faculty advisers over competing views about the impact of racially insensitive Halloween costumes — is college survival itself: In hostile environments, students of color graduate at lower rates, jeopardizing not only their academic careers but also future success. In one sense, given the controversies at Mizzou — where a hostile campus climate serves as a mechanism by which students of color remain outsiders — the students didn’t have a choice. It would be illogical, and self-defeating, if they didn’t use the power they had at their disposal. Campus racial climate has been linked to academic success. And research has long shown that academic preparedness is only one of many factors that determine why students do or don’t graduate. The psychological attitudes between and among groups, as well as intergroup relations on campuses, influences how well students of color perform and whether they stay on track toward graduation. Graduation rates lag when schools don’t provide an environment that fosters the scholastic pursuits of minority students, particularly black men. Researcher Sylvia Hurtado explains that “Just as a campus that embraces diversity provides substantial positive benefits, a hostile or discriminatory climate has substantial negative consequences.” Her research found that “Students who reported negative or hostile encounters with members of other racial groups scored lower on the majority of outcomes.” A study of students at the University of Washington found that black students there were the only campus group to suffer a clear statistical GPA disadvantage from a nasty campus climate: “Results indicate that campus climate is significantly related to academic achievement of African American students, as represented by GPA, accounting for about 11 percent of the variance.” That means black students facing adverse conditions are likelier to leave college early — and would, presumably, be likelier to stay in what they felt to be a safe space. In “Interactional Diversity and the Role of a Supportive Racial Climate” the University of Maryland’s Leah Kendra Cox found much the same thing: “In unhealthy climates, students — both majority and minority — are less likely to thrive academically or socially.” She found that a supportive racial climate had more impact than any other factor on the strength of diversity on campus. Perhaps not coincidentally, a Gallup survey last month illustrated that students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities, or HBCUs — where the climate, by design, nurtures students of color — were far more likely to “strongly agree that their colleges prepared them for life after graduation (55) than black graduates of other institutions (29).” In that context, consider the reports of what’s taken place in the Mizzou community. In September, Missouri Students Association President Payton Head, who is black, took to Facebook to report being called the n-word by a driver in a passing car as he walked down a street near campus. In early October, the Legion of Black Collegians tweeted that intoxicated white students had shouted the n-word at them during a campus protest. Later that month, tensions flared when someone smeared feces in the form a swastika in a campus bathroom — creating the kind of climate that alienates and marginalizes minority students, who have just as much right to pursue their education on the Missouri campus, free from harassment, as anyone else. Students still remember the 2010 incident in which two Missouri students were suspended for dropping cotton balls in front of the campus’ Black Culture Center. Wolfe’s inaction, in the face of repeated demands to better address students’ frustration with the charged campus environment, precipitated his ouster. Though he later apologized, many cite his failure to engage with students — remaining cloistered in his car — when approached by the campus group ConcernedStudent1950 at a homecoming parade, as one of the last straws that ended his administration. And while commentators like Rush Limbaugh say Wolfe resigned for “committing the crime of being a white male,” their argument, beyond the hyperbole, is the wrong way to evaluate the relationship of the university to its students. Wolfe’s job was to use the resources at his disposal to build a campus community where all students feel they can pursue their academic careers in an environment where they’re respected and taken seriously. But as Butler told The Post: When you localize it to the hunger strike it really is about the environment that is on campus. We have reactionary, negligent individuals on all levels at the university level on our campus and at the university system level, and so their job descriptions explicitly say that they’re supposed to provide a safe and inclusive environment for all students … but when we have issues of sexual assault, when we have issues of racism, when we have issues of homophobia, the campus climate continues to deteriorate because we don’t have strong leadership, willing to actually make change. So, for me, I’m fighting for a better tomorrow. As much as the experiences on campus have not been that great for me — I had people call me the n-word, I had someone write the n-word on the a door in my residence hall — for me it really is about a call for justice. I’m fighting for the black community on campus, because justice is worth fighting for. And justice is worth starving for. So is education. The U.S. Department of Education found markedly lower graduation rates for blacks and Latino men (33.2 percent and 44.8 percent, respectively, graduate from college within six years) compared with their white and Asian peers (57.1 percent and 64.2 percent, respectively). These disparities have been depressingly constant in recent years. One factor contributing to these disparities is that universities frequently place a premium on meeting the (short-term) needs of black athletes in revenue generating sports while paying lip service to the needs of other students of color. From the disciplines faculty teach in to the traditions they uphold, predominantly white institutions haven’t fully dealt with the changing demographics of collegians. For many students, especially first-generation collegians, these institutions often place the burden on students to adapt to an unwelcoming environment. But the Missouri case illustrates the imperative for colleges to transform what they are and who they serve if they are to fulfill their mission of addressing societal problems, training the workforce and educating the public. And black student-athletes, who are overrepresented in the major-revenue sports — football and basketball — may be uniquely empowered to move university leaders who, in the case of the University of Missouri, at least, didn’t demonstrate they were otherwise compelled by the data. If colleges can prioritize the needs of students of color in their athletic programs, they also can prioritize the development of scientists, historians and teachers of color. In order to do this, postsecondary institutions must change at a structural level. One approach would be to transition their merit-based scholarships into need- or place-based scholarships. First-generation collegians should have access to living-learning communities in which dormitories provide wrap-around supports. Colleges must attract and retain black and brown faculty at much higher levels. Faculty must embrace their role as counselors, not just instructors or researchers. Academic support for first-generation collegians shouldn’t be treated as remediation. Finally, faculty and administrators should be held accountable for graduation rates. Success isn’t just on students’ shoulders. 18 -This perpetuates generational cycles of antiblackness – it’s the reason demographic poverty trends exist along lines of race. 19 -Cyberbullying DA 20 -The 1AC gets rid of anti-cyberbullying laws. 21 -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 22 -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. 23 -Cyberbullying is conducive to abuse and kills self-worth – impedes the ability to get education, turns case 24 -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 25 -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. 26 -Cyberbullying disproportionately affects minorities – turns case 27 -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 28 -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. 29 -Revenge Pornography DA 30 -The first amendment protects revenge pornography. The impact is a never ending cycle of mental, emotional, and physical oppression for the survivor. 31 -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 32 -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. 33 -This reinforces a cultural of male-dominant sexuality and normalizes sexual violence – turns case 34 -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 35 -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
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-17 15:26:18.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -jf - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -jf - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -9 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -9 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Nanavati Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JF 1NC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -strake
- Caselist.CitesClass[12]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,20 +1,0 @@ 1 -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. 2 -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) 3 -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. 4 -The First Ammendment has become a tool of neoliberal governmentality furthering the capacity of corporations to influence decision-making 5 -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 6 -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 7 - 8 -Schools like Uchicago use free speech to market recruitment in the college – they are complicit in capital 9 -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 10 -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.” 11 -Capitalism perpetuates all other forms of oppression – we control the direction of their impacts. 12 -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 13 -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. 14 -Our alternative is to vote negative to refuse to participate in activities that support capitalism – key to hollowing out capitalist structures. 15 -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) 16 -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. 17 -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. 18 -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, 19 -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. 20 -dw - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-17 15:48:59.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -kd - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -dak - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -10 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Nanavati Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JF Jan Feb Cap K - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -strake
- Caselist.CitesClass[13]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,25 +1,0 @@ 1 -Blackness is ontological - The Middle Passage has branded the black body as non-being, laying the foundation upon which civil society was built. Chattel changed his name to Jim Crow then to Mike Brown but they both die under the same grammar of suffering that originates from this fundamental antagonism. The role of the ballot is to deconstruct whiteness. 2 -Wilderson ‘08 He is one of two Americans to hold elected office in the African National Co ngress and is a former insurgent in the ANC’s armed wing, He is a full professor of Drama and African American studies at the University of California, Irvine. He received his BA in government and philosophy from Dartmouth College, his Masters in Fine Arts from Columbia University and his PhD in Rhetoric and Film Studies from the University of California, Berkeley. (Frank B. III “Chapter One: The Ruse of Analogy” Red, White, and Black: Cinema and the Structure of U.S. Antagonisms,) 2008 //roman 3 -Two tensions are at work here. One operates under the labor of ethical dilemmas~-~- “simple enough one has only not to be a nigger.” This, I submit, is the essence of being for the White and non-Black position: ontology scaled down to a global common denominator. The other Tension is found in the impossibility of ethical dilemmas for the Black: “I am,” Fanon writes, “a slave not of an idea others have of me but of my own appearance.” Being can thus be thought of, in the first ontological instance, as non-niggerness; and slavery then as niggerness. The visual field, “my own appearance,” is the cut, the mechanism that elaborates the division between the non-niggerness and slavery, the difference between the living and the dead. Whereas Humans exist on some plane of being and thus can become existentially present through some struggle for/of/through recognition, Blacks cannot attain the plane of recognition (West 82). Spillers, Fanon, and Hartman maintain that the Violence that has positioned and repetitively re-positions the Black as a void of historical movement is without analog in the suffering dynamics of the ontologically alive. The violence that turns the African into a thing is without analog because it does not simply oppress the Black through tactile and empirical technologies of oppression, like the “little family quarrels” which for Fanon exemplify the Jewish Holocaust. Rather, the gratuitous violence of the Black’s first ontological instance, the Middle Passage, “wiped out his/her metaphysics…his customs and sources on which they are based” (BSWM 110). Jews went into Auschwitz and came out as Jews. Africans went into the ships and came out as Blacks. The former is a Human holocaust; the latter is a Human and a metaphysical holocaust. That is why it makes little sense to attempt analogy: the Jews have the Dead (the Muselmenn) among them; the Dead have the Blacks among them. This violence which turns a body into flesh, ripped apart literally and imaginatively, destroys the possibility of ontology because it positions the Black within an infinite and indeterminately horrifying and open vulnerability, an object made available (which is to say fungible) for any subject. As such, “The black has no ontological resistance in the eyes of the white man” (110) or, more precisely, in the eyes of Humanity. 4 - 5 -The conversation for free speech on college campuses is structured around white fragility and white supremacy. Free speech is just a flinch away from the horrors of anti-blackness that seeks to give a voice to white supremacy. Empirically proven – they cant explain who fights the racists and how they do so. 6 -Carpenter 16 7 -“Free speech, Black lives and white fragility” Bennett Carpenter, Grad student studying free speech, Duke Chronicle, January 19th 2016, http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2016/01/free-speech-black-lives-and-white-fragility) 8 -As I write my first column, I am thinking a lot about speech. I am thinking about how an urgent and overdue conversation about racism—on our campus and across our country—has been derailed by a diversionary and duplicitous obsession with the First Amendment. I am thinking about how quickly the conversation has shifted from white supremacy to white fragility—and how this shift is itself an expression of white supremacy. White fragility refers to a range of defensive behaviors through which white people (or more accurately, people who believe they are white) deflect conversations about race and racism in order to protect themselves from race-based stress. Because white people tend to live in environments where whiteness is both dominant and invisible, they grow accustomed to racial comfort, as a result of which even a small amount of racial stress becomes intolerable. This helps explain why talking about white supremacy can feel more painful to white people than white supremacy itself, why the ostensible "stifling" of debate can feel more pressing than the literal strangulation of Eric Garner and how "free speech" seems more important than Black lives. Needless to say, it requires an astounding degree of narcissism, ignorance and— yes—fragility to scan headlines detailing the daily, state-sanctioned slaughter of people of color and somehow conclude that speech is the real problem. White fragility weighs the minimal discomfort of being confronted with painful realities about race and racism against the literal death of Black and brown bodies and decides that the latter matter less than white discomfort. Which is how we end up here, talking about speech on campus and reading a dozen iterations of the same editorial in which students describe—with utterly unintentional irony—how being called out by anti-racist activists makes them feel upset and hurts their feelings. This leaves those of us committed to abolishing white supremacy in a double bind. To engage with this debate is to fall for a diversionary tactic in which we again center the conversation on white feelings. To refuse to engage grants the latter a monopoly on the airways, drowning out more vital issues in an ocean of white noise. Still, in the interests of the open, honest debate the free speechers ostensibly advocate, let me try to address the constitutional and philosophical principles at play here. The first point to make is that, despite the hand-wringing, I have yet to see a single example of student activists violating the First Amendment. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how they could do so, given that the latter proscribes government abridgment of speech while student activists are private citizens. Many seem to confuse "free speech" with some banal notion of civility, forgetting that the very freedoms they invoke to defend racist drivel permit anti-racists to respond—whether by calling someone out or calling for their resignation. This would seem to set up a nice equivalence between racists and anti-racists—both exercising free-speech freedoms, which must be equally and indiscriminately defended. What this ignores, however, is the centuries-long history of racialized oppression to which hate speech contributes. Hate speech is thus both violent and an incitement to further violence. The courts already prohibit walking into a crowded theater and shouting "fire." How is this any different from walking into a white supremacist society and shouting racial slurs? It has become almost a truism that there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Historically speaking, this is inaccurate. As M. Alison Kibler details in her "Censoring Racial Ridicule," the U.S. has a long history of regulating forms of speech that expose racialized groups to "contempt, derision or obloquy." Indeed, as recently as 1952, the Supreme Court upheld an Illinois law applying the standards of libel (another free-speech exception) to hate speech. It is only in recent years that the courts have, as the National Center for Human Rights Education puts it, "privileged white racists to express themselves at the expense of the safety of African-Americans and other people of color." Key to this new interpretation is a firm separation between speech and action, a legal variant on the old childhood adage: "sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you." The problem—as anyone who has been the victim of hate speech can tell you—is that this simply isn't true. Words hurt as much as actions; indeed, words are actions. Within the context of white supremacy, any distinction between a defaced poster, a racist pamphlet and legal or extralegal murder can be only of degree. At the same time—and here I'll throw a bone to the civil libertarians—I'm unconvinced that hate speech legislation can resolve this. Not because hate speech isn't violent, but because the state is. As others have noted, we often view the state like some strange sort of Jekyll and Hyde—as if the very government quite literally built on white supremacy could somehow save us from its effects. I've sometimes noticed the same double vision among campus activists, who both call out Duke (quite rightly) for institutional racism yet also call on the administration to fix it. So where does that leave us? With the painful yet empowering realization that no one will save us but ourselves. Rather than relying on the state to censure hate speech, anti-racists can assume that task—calling out and shouting down every expression of white supremacy as we work to build a genuinely free society. In the meantime, we can construct safe spaces for ourselves where hatred is barred at the door. In other words, the exact work that campus activists are already doing. Cowardly racists and homophobes who deface posters or vandalize dormitories are not heroic defenders of free speech. The true heroes are those who have spoken out against injustice, time and again, in the face of both material and psychological retaliation. Everything else is just white noise 9 - 10 -Under this system the vocality of the slave is one of pupethood, fulfilling civil society’s desire for legitimized violence against black bodies. Black speech always equals asking for it in a society defined by anti-blackness. 11 -Brady 12 Nicholas. “Louder Than the Dark: Toward an Acoustics of Suffering”, http://www.thefeministwire.com/2012/10/louder-than-the-dark-towards-an-acoustics-of-suffering/. Edited for Ableist Language//roman 12 -If Anna Brown’s suffering is inaudible, the second half of the video speaks to how her voice and pain are criminalized. When the police arrive, they surround Anna and then drag her out of the wheelchair, handcuff her, and leave her on the hospital floor. She is given two different charges: Her protests for better service are charged as “trespassing” and her inability to walk due to her injury is charged as “resisting arrest.” When she is in the police car, the camera in the vehicle has a microphone. When they arrive at the prison, Anna continues to tell them she can’t walk and that she needs to be in a hospital. The police officers ignore her statements and instead oscillate between asking her “are you going to get out” and threatening her; “you have two seconds to swing your legs out…” Each This implies that she can move her legs and she is choosing not to. As Saidiya Hartman writes in Scenes of Subjection, “the slave was recognized as a reasoning subject who possessed intent and rationality solely in the context of criminal liability.” Her suffering remains inaudible, but her voice can only be heard by the police as challenging the law, resisting arrest, disrespecting their authority; her voice can only be heard as a legitimizing force for their violence. As they drag her out of the car, she screams out in pain before the door is shut and her voice becomes muffled.¶ They carried Anna Brown to the cell and laid her body on the ground as if she were already a corpse; they even refused her the dignity of lying on the bed. As they stepped around her body and closed the cell door, the only sign she was still alive were her wordless screams. Her screams pierce through my speakers, haunting my mind but they seem to have no effect on the prison workers. She was clearly not the first screaming body they had carried into a cell, for they did not even take time to stop their chatter. There is no passion, intimacy, or perverse enjoyment, just a multicultural group of men doing their job. Anna’s death is not the “primal scene” that the beating of Aunt Hester (Frederick Douglass’s Aunt) was. These two black women’s screams are connected by the paradigm of anti-blackness, yet their screams terrify for different reasons. The beating of Aunt Hester is a spectacular example of the “blood-stained gate” of the slave’s subjection. While the circulation of the Anna Brown video has given me pause, her death is more an example of the “mundane and quotidian” terror that Hartman focuses on in her text. Brown’s death was a (non)event, concealed from the world by the walls of the prison cell. Without this video, only those on the inside would have heard her screams. Anna Brown didn’t simply pass away, she was killed, but who did it? Douglass’s Aunt Hester was beaten by Captain Anthony, a man who wanted her and was jealous of her relationship to another slave. Anna Brown was murdered by a disparate set of (non)events where her body shuttled between a hospital and a prison, doctors and nurses, police officers and prison officials. There is no one person who killed her; instead, a structure of violence murdered her. No intimacy, just cold efficiency. Her scream was less of a sorrow song than the sharp pitch of nu-bluez: an impossible scream to be heard from the depths of incarceration and incapacity. 13 - 14 -Vertigo is the ontological impact of blackness in a white society. Black people built America but are continually displaced in it. This is why white women clutch their purses when they see black men, why the prison industrial complex has dedicated its sustainment to the imprisonment of black people, why black people are continuously stigmatized for being black. 15 -Wilderson 11 (Frank, Associate Professor, African American Studies Dept., UC Irvine, “The Vengeance of Vertigo: Aphasia and Abjection in the Political Trials of Black Insurgents”, InTensions, Vol 5, http://www.yorku.ca/intent/issue5/articles/frankbwildersoniii.php#footxvii, ) 16 - 17 -2 With only small arms and crude explosives at their disposal, with little of nothing in the way of logistical support,iii with no liberated zone to claim or reclaim, and with no more than a vague knowledge that there were a few hundred other insurgents scattered throughout the U.S. operating in largely uncoordinated and decentralized units,iv the BLA launched 66 operationsv against the largest police state in the world. Vertigo must have seized them each time they clashed with agents of a nuclear-weapons regime with three million troops in uniform, a regime that could put 150,000 new police on the streets in any given year, and whose ordinary White citizens frequently deputize themselves in the name of law and order. Subjective vertigo, no doubt: a dizzying sense that one is moving or spinning in an otherwise stationary world, a vertigo brought on by a clash of grossly asymmetrical forces. There are suitable analogies, for this kind of vertigo must have also seized Native Americans who launched the AIM’s occupation of Wounded Knee, and FALN insurgents who battled the FBI. 3 Subjective vertigo is vertigo of the event. But the sensation that one is not simply spinning in an otherwise stable environment, that one’s environment is perpetually unhinged stems from a relationship to violence that cannot be analogized. This is called objective vertigo, a life constituted by disorientation rather than a life interrupted by disorientation. This is structural as opposed to performative violence. Black subjectivity is a crossroads where vertigoes meet, the intersection of performative and structural violence. 4 Elsewhere I have argued that the Black is a sentient being though not a Human being. The Black’s and the Human’s disparate relationship to violence is at the heart of this failure of incorporation and analogy. The Human suffers contingent violence, violence that kicks in when s/he resists (or is perceived to resist) the disciplinary discourse of capital and/or Oedipus. But Black peoples’ subsumption by violence is a paradigmatic necessity, not just a performative contingency. To be constituted by and disciplined by violence, to be gripped simultaneously by subjective and objective vertigo, is indicative of a political ontology which is radically different from the political ontology of a sentient being who is constituted by discourse and disciplined by violence when s/he breaks with the ruling discursive codes.vi When we begin to assess revolutionary armed struggle in this comparative context, we find that Human revolutionaries (workers, women, gays and lesbians, post-colonial subjects) suffer subjective vertigo when they meet the state’s disciplinary violence with the revolutionary violence of the subaltern; but they are spared objective vertigo. This is because the most disorienting aspects of their lives are induced by the struggles that arise from intra-Human conflicts over competing conceptual frameworks and disputed cognitive maps, such as the American Indian Movement’s demand for the return of Turtle Island vs. the U.S.’s desire to maintain territorial integrity, or the Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional’s (FALN) demand for Puerto Rican independence vs. the U.S.’s desire to maintain Puerto Rico as a territory. But for the Black, as for the slave, there are no cognitive maps, no conceptual frameworks of suffering and dispossession which are analogic with the myriad maps and frameworks which explain the dispossession of Human subalterns. 5 The structural, or paradigmatic, violence that subsumes Black insurgents’ cognitive maps and conceptual frameworks, subsumes my scholarly efforts as well. As a Black scholar, I am tasked with making sense of this violence without being overwhelmed and disoriented by it. In other words, the writing must somehow be indexical of that which exceeds narration, while being ever mindful of the incomprehension the writing would foster, the failure, that is, of interpretation were the indices to actually escape the narrative. The stakes of this dilemma are almost as high for the Black scholar facing his/her reader as they are for the Black insurgent facing the police and the courts. For the scholarly act of embracing members of the Black Liberation Army as beings worthy of empathic critique is terrifying. One’s writing proceeds with fits and starts which have little to do with the problems of building the thesis or finding the methodology to make the case. As I write, I am more aware of the rage and anger of my reader-ideal (an angry mob as readers) than I am of my own interventions and strategies for assembling my argument. Vertigo seizes me with a rash of condemnations that emanate from within me and swirl around me. I am speaking to me but not through me, yet there seems to be no other way to speak. I am speaking through the voice and gaze of a mob of, let’s just say it, White Americans; and my efforts to marshal a mob of Black people, to conjure the Black Liberation Army smack of compensatory gestures. It is not that the BLA doesn’t come to my aid, that they don’t push back, but neither I nor my insurgent allies can make the case that we are worthy of our suffering and justified in our actions and not terrorists and apologists for terror who should be locked away forever. How can we be worthy of our suffering without being worthy of ourselves? I press on, even though the vertigo that seizes me is so overwhelming that its precise nature—subjective, stemming from within me, or objective, catalyzed by my context, the raging throng—cannot be determined. I have no reference points apart from the mob that gives no quarter. If I write “freedom fighter,” from within my ear they scream “terrorist”! If I say “prisoner of war,” they chant “cop killer”! Their denunciations are sustained only by assertion, but they ring truer than my painstaking exegesis. No firewall protects me from them; no liberated psychic zone offers me sanctuary. I want to stop and turn myself in. 18 -Turns case 19 -1. Ontological damnation is the root cause of your impacts – students are taught they are worthless to society and are scared to speak. 20 -2. Outweighs on severity – all revolutionary politics in terms of the aff is just an example of subjective vertigo – objective vertigo is when you don’t have a strategy to fight the state. 21 - 22 - 23 -The alternative is to reject the affirmative as an act of burning down the structure of hierarchy that produces violence against the slave. Freedom is an illusion created by the shackles of civil society, and abandoning the pursuit for equality is the only way to break down the way that whiteness maintains itself. Civil society is inseparable from its foundation. The White-Black Binary is too engrained for any hopes of reform. 24 -Farley 4 (Anthony Paul, Associate Profess @ Albany Law School, “Perfecting Slavery”, http://www.luc.edu/law/activities/publications/lljdocs/vol36_no1/farley.pdf, Accessed: 11/9/11, ) 25 -What is to be done? Two hundred years ago, when the slaves in Haiti rose up, they, of necessity, burned everything: They burned San Domingo flat so that at the end of the war it was a charred desert. Why do you burn everything? asked a French officer of a prisoner. We have a right to burn what we cultivate because a man has a right to dispose of his own labour, was the reply of this unknown anarchist.48 The slaves burned everything because everything was against them. Everything was against the slaves, the entire order that it was their lot to follow, the entire order in which they were positioned as worse than senseless things, every plantation, everything.49 “Leave nothing white behind you,” said Toussaint to those dedicated to the end of white-overblack. 50 “God gave Noah the rainbow sign. No more water, the fire next time.”51 The slaves burned everything, yes, but, unfortunately, they only burned everything in Haiti.52 Theirs was the greatest and most successful revolution in the history of the world but the failure of their fire to cross the waters was the great tragedy of the Nineteenth century.53 At the dawn of the Twentieth century, W.E.B. Du Bois wrote, “The colorline belts the world.”54 Du Bois said that the problem of the Twentieth century was the problem of the colorline.55 The problem, now, at the dawn of the Twenty-first century is the problem of the colorline. The colorline continues to belt the world. Indeed, the slave power that is the United States now threatens an entire world with the death that it has become and so the slaves of yesterday, today, and tomorrow, those with nothing but their chains to lose, must, if they would be free, if they would escape slavery, win the entire world. win the entire world. VIII. TRAINING We begin as children. We are called and we become our response to the call. Slaves are not called. What becomes of them? What becomes of the broken-hearted? The slaves are divided souls, they are brokenhearted, the slaves are split asunder by what they are called upon to become. The slaves are called upon to become objects but objecthood is not a calling. The slave, then, during its loneliest loneliness, is divided from itself. This is schizophrenia. The slaves are not called, or, rather, the slaves are called to not be. The slaves are called unfree and thus the living can never be and so the slaves burst apart and die. The slaves begin as death, not as children, and death is not a beginning but an end. There is no progress and no exit from the undiscovered country of the slave, or so it seems. We are trained to think through a progress narrative, a grand narrative, the grandest narrative, that takes us up from slavery. There is no up from slavery. The progress from white-over-black to white-over-black to white-overblack. The progress of slavery runs in the opposite direction of the past-present- future timeline. The slave only becomes the perfect slave at the end of the timeline, only under conditions of total juridical freedom. It is only under conditions of freedom, of bourgeois legality, that the slave can perfect itself as a slave by freely choosing to bow down before its master. The slave perfects itself as a slave by offering a prayer for equal rights. The system of marks is a plantation. The system of property is a plantation. The system of law is a plantation. These plantations, all part of the same system, hierarchy, produce white-overblack, white-over-black only, and that continually. The slave perfects itself as a slave through its prayers for equal rights. The plantation system will not commit suicide and the slave, as stated above, has knowing non-knowledge of this fact. The slave finds its way back from the undiscovered country only by burning down every plantation. When the slave prays for equal rights it makes the free choice to be dead, and it makes the free choice to not be. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-20 19:16:53.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Idr - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Idr - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -11 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Quads - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Nanavati Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Antiblackness K - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Idr
- Caselist.CitesClass[14]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,25 +1,0 @@ 1 -Framework: The standard is consistency with universal freedom. 2 - 3 -First, an agent’s will acts on a law that it gives to itself. If pleasure were a law to you, then you would straightaway do the pleasurable act, but since you’re autonomous, you can reason about taking the action. Thus a condition of action is that the will is self-determined. KORSGAARD: 4 -“Self-Constitution in the Ethics of Plato and Kant” by Christine M. Korsgaard LW-DD 5 -“Now I’m going to argue that that sort of willing is impossible. The first step is this: : to conceive of yourself as the cause of your actions is to identify with the principle of choice on which you act. A rational will is a self-conscious causality, and a self-conscious causality is aware of itself as a cause. To be aware of yourself as a cause is to identify yourself with something in the scenario that gives rise to the action, and this must be the principle of choice. For instance, suppose you experience a conflict of desire: you have a desire to do both A and B, and they are incompatible. You have some principle that favors A over B, so you exercise this principle, and you choose to do A. In this kind of case, you do not regard yourself as a mere passive spectator to the battle between A and B. You regard the choice as yours, as the product of your own activity, because you regard the principle of choice as expressive, or representative, of yourself. You must do so, for the only alternative to identifying with the principle of choice is regarding the principle of choice as some third thing in you, another force on a par with the incentives to do A and to do B, which happened to throw in its weight in favor of A, in a battle at which you were, after all, a mere passive spectator. But then you are not the cause of the action. Self-conscious or rational agency, then, requires identification with the principle of choice on which you act.” (123) 6 - 7 -And, a rational will must set ends within a system of reciprocal constraints. Anything else justifies that someone could impede your ability to achieve your end in the first place, which also means reason constrains end-based frameworks. SIYAR: 8 -Jamsheed Aiam Siyar: Kant’s Conception of Practical Reason. Tufts University, 1999 LW-DD 9 -“Recall that insofar as I represent a rationally determined end, I represent it having rational and hence objective worth. That is—as noted above—I represent my end as to be done just in virtue of the perfectly general rational grounds that I take to be decisive for its adoption. I will now argue that I must also represent my objectively worthy end as recognizable as such by all other subjects—this is just what my representation of communicability consists in. Now, when I represent my end as to be done, I represent it as binding me to certain courses of actions, precluding other actions, etc. Thus, my ends and function as constraints for me in that they determine what I can or must do (at least if I am to be consistent). I may of course give up an end such as that of eating ice cream at a future point; yet while I have the end, I must see myself as bound to do what is necessary to realize it.35 Thus, I must represent my ends as constraints that I have adopted, constraints that structure the possible space of choice and action for me. Further, given that my end is rationally determined, I take it to be generally recognizable that my end functions as a rationally determined constraint. That is, I take it that others subjects can also recognize my end it as an objective constraint, for I take it that they as well as myself can cognize its determining grounds—the source of its objective worth—through the exercise of reason. Indeed, in representing an end, I in effect demand recognition for it from others subjects: since the end functions as an objective though self-imposed constraint for me, I must demand that this constraint be recognized as such. The thought here is simply that if I am committed to some end, e.g. my ice cream eating policy, I must act in certain ways to realize it. In this context, I cannot be indifferent to the attitudes and actions of others, for these may either help or hinder my pursuit of my end. Hence, if I am in fact committed to realizing my end, i.e. if I represent an end at all, I must demand that the worth of my end, its status as to be done, be recognized by others. For instance, my ice cream eating policy entails the demand that where practically possible, others not hinder my actions in its service. Further, at least in principle, the actions and attitudes of any other subject could have some bearing on my pursuit of my end. Hence, my demand for recognition must be fully general: it must be directed to rational beings per se. In representing an end, I must demand that this end in effect function as a law for all rational beings. I must demand, in other words, that all other subjects recognize and represent my end as constraining their actions just as I represent it as constraining my actions.” (80-81) 10 - 11 -Second, action is determined by the unification of intentional means aimed at an overall end. For example, setting the end of tea making allows me to unify the necessary actions to produce tea, like getting a pot, filling it with water, etc. Any other explanation fails since it can’t give meaning to why we take transitioning action. It would treat filling the pot with water as completely arbitrary. This justifies universality since we cannot unify action if we set contradictory ends. That’s a side constraint on the AC—ethics is a guide to action so it must appeal to a structure of action. 12 - 13 -Third, presume freedom since it allows each of us to pursue our individual search for ethics. This serves as a tie breaker if there is a conceded framework justification or if there is ethical uncertainty about the AC framework. 14 - 15 -Impact Calc: The framework is means based. Foreseen effects are independent of what an agent determines because the consequences themselves are dependent upon things external to the will so only how we will the means to an action can be self-determined. 16 - 17 -Contention: 18 - 19 -Freedom implies an innate right to determine the course of your actions. In the state of nature, might rather than right governs these judgements. Absent of a public authority, rights violations are inevitable. VARDEN: 20 -“A Kantian Conception of Free Speech” by Helga Varden Chapter from: “Freedom of Expression in a Diverse World” edited by Deirdre Golash 2010 // LM-DD 21 -“The first important distinction between Kant and much contemporary liberal thought issues from Kant’s argument that it is not in principle possible for individuals to realize right in the state of nature. Kant explicitly rejects the common assumption in liberal theories of his time as well as today that virtuous private individuals can interact in ways reconcilable both with one another’s right to freedom and their corresponding innate and acquired private rights. All the details of this argument are beyond the scope of this paper. It suffices to say that ideal problems of assurance and indeterminacy regarding the specification, application and enforcement of the principles of private right to actual interactions lead Kant to conclude that rightful interaction is in principle impossible in the state of nature.5 Kant argues that only a public authority can solve these problems in a way reconcilable with everyone’s right to freedom. This is why we find Kant starting his discussion of public right with this claim: however well disposed and right-loving men might be, it still lies a priori in the rational idea of such a condition (one that is not rightful) that before a public lawful condition is established individuals human beings... can never be secure against violence from one another, since each has her own right to do what seems right and good to her and not be dependent upon another’s opinion about this (6: 312).6 There are no rightful obligations in the state of nature, since in this condition might (‘violence’, or arbitrary judgments and ‘opinion’ about ‘what seems right and good’) rather than right (freedom under law) ultimately governs interactions. According to Kant, therefore, only the establishment of a public authority can enable interaction in ways reconcilable with each person’s innate right to freedom. Moreover, only a public authority can ensure interaction consistent with what Kant argues are our innate rights (to bodily integrity and honor) and our acquired rights (to private prop- erty, contract and status relations). The reason is that only the public authority can solve the problems of assurance and indeterminacy without violating anyone’s right to freedom. The public authority can solve these problems because it represents the will of all and yet the will of no one in particular. Because the public authority is representative in this way – by being “united a priori ” or by being an “omnilateral” will (6: 263) – it can regulates on behalf of everyone rather than on behalf of anyone in particular. For these reasons, civil society is seen as the only means through which our interactions can become subject to universal laws that restrict everyone’s freedom reciprocally rather than as subject to anyone’s arbitrary choices.” (46-47) 22 - 23 -And, the Brandenburg v. Ohio U.S. Supreme Court decision maintains that seditious speech is protected by the First Amendment so long as it does not indicate an “imminent” threat. But, seditious speech is never compatible with an omnilateral will and must be restricted. The intent requires the right to destroy the state, which justifies the annihilation of all rights. VARDEN 2: 24 -“A Kantian Conception of Free Speech” by Helga Varden Chapter from: “Freedom of Expression in a Diverse World” edited by Deirdre Golash 2010 // LM-DD 25 -“To understand Kant’s condemnation of seditious speech, remember that Kant, as mentioned above, takes himself to have shown that justice is impossible in the state of nature or that there is no natural executive right. Since Kant considers himself to have successfully refuted any defense of the natural executive right, he takes himself also to have shown that no one has the right to stay in the state of nature. This, in turn, explains why Kant can and does considers seditious speech a public crime. The intention behind seditious speech is not merely to criticize the government or to discuss theories of government critically, say. In order to qualify as seditious, the speaker’s intention must be to encourage and support efforts to subvert the government or to instigate its violent overthrow, namely revolution. To have such a right would be to have the right to destroy the state. Since the state is the means through which right is possible, such a right would involve having the right to annihilate right (6: 320). That is, since right is impossible in the state of nature, to have a right to subversion would be to have the right to replace right with might. Since the state is the only means through which right can replace might, the state outlaws it. And since it is a crime that “endangers the commonwealth” rather than citizens qua private citizens, it is a public crime (6: 331).” (52) - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-20 19:18:26.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Idr - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Idr - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -12 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Triples - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Nanavati Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JF Kant - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Idr
- Caselist.CitesClass[15]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,9 +1,0 @@ 1 -Housing policy over-determines physical existence, forcing individuals to sacrifice their rights in favor of the biopolitical state 2 -Zeiderman 13 (Austin Zeiderman, Anthropologist and Assistant Professor in the Department of Geography and Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, “Living dangerously: biopolitics and urban citizenship in Bogotá, Colombia.”, American Ethnologist, 2013, http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/48524/1/Zeiderman_Living_dangerously_2013.pdf) //AD 3 -Having shown how cities become the stage for the reconfigurations of citizenship, anthropologists are attuned to situations in which residents make demands on state agencies according to their rights as members of an urban community. Situations like these are widespread throughout Latin America. My ethnographic material makes sense, however, only once we acknowledge other frames of social inclusion and political recog- nition. For, as Chatterjee argues, urban populations in most of the world “are only tenu- ously, and even then ambiguously and contextually, rights-bearing citizens in the sense imagined by the constitution” (2004:38).3 They are not “outside the reach of the state or even excluded from the domain of politics,” he clarifies, but as “populations within the territorial jurisdiction of the state, they have to be bot h looked after and controlled by various governmental agencies” (Chatterjee 2004:38). It is often their classification as targets of governmental intervention, Chatterjee shows, that brings the urban poor “into a certain political relationship with the state” (2004:38). Thus, he directs our atten- tion to “political society,” or the “site of negotiation and contestation opened up by the activities of governmental agencies aimed at population groups” (Chatterjee 2004:74). Although the dichotomy between “civil” and “political” society may be reductive (Holston 2011b), it nevertheless forces us to ask why citizens with rights appeal as population groups to governmental agencies for recognition, inclusion, and protection. Following a liberal democratic paradigm, which is not the approach favored here, we could see Liliana’s petition as prefiguring an expansion of rights to the urban poor and a progres- sion toward equal citizenship. We might acknowledge that most settlers on the urban periphery are not rights-bearing citizens in the fullest, most substantive sense but then mistake her case for an example of the process by which members of this population struggle to be recognized as such. Once we shift our gaze to the politics of the gov- erned, however, and examine the terrain of engagement on which claims are made, we recognize that the politics of rights is subordinated to a politics of life. Indeed, the reset- tlement program does not set out to provide “decent housing” to everyone but, rather, to those living in “zones of high risk.” And, while this constitutional right is shared formally by all citizens, it is dependent on the degree to which their lives are in danger. The right to housing is thus a privilege bestowed on members of a collectivity whose entitlements are grounded not only in shared membership within a political community but also in their common condition of vulnerability. It is within this biopolitical domain that the poor in Bogotá must define and execute their citizenship claims. 4 -This biopolitical apparatus makes populations dependent on the state whereby the threat of removing a home can be invoked at any moment. This threat allows for the management of populations, rendering life calculable and worthless. 5 -Inda 02 (Jonathan Xavier Inda, Department of Chicano Studies at University of California “Biopower, Reproduction, and the Migrant Woman’s Body”, 2002. 100-101) 6 -“For a long time ,” Foucault notes, “one of the characteristic privileges of sovereign power was the right to decide life and death” (History: 135). For instance, If an external enemy sought to overthrow him, the sovereign could justly wage war, requiring his subjects to fight in defense of the state. So, without directly proffering their death, the sovereign was sanctioned to risk their life. In this case, he exercised “an indirect power over them of life and death” (135). However, if someone hazarded to rebel against him and violate his laws, the sovereign could exert a direct power over the transgressor’s life, such that, as penalty, the latter could be put to death. The right to life and death, then, was somewhat dissymmetrical, falling on the side of death: “The sovereign exercised his right to life only by exercising his right to kill, or by refraining from killing; he evidenced his power over life only through the death he was capable of requiring. The right which was formulated as the ‘power of life and death’ was in reality the right to take life or let live” (136). As such, this type of power, Foucault observes, was wielded mainly as a mechanism of deduction, making it “essentially a right of seizure: of things, time, bodies, and ultimately life itself” (136). That is, power was fundamentally a right of appropriation—the appropriation of a portion of the wealth, labor, services, and blood of the sovereign’s subjects~-~--one that culminated in the right to seize hold of life in order to subdue it. The power of appropriation or of deduction, Foucault suggests, is no longer the principal form of power in the West. Since the classical age, the mechanisms of power here have undergone a radical transformation. Power now works “to incite, reinforce, control, monitor, optimize, and organize the forces under it”; it is “a power bent on generating forces, making them grow, and ordering them, rather than one dedicated to impeding them, making them submit, or destroying them” (History: 136). Thus, in contrast to a power organized around the sovereign, modern “power would no longer be dealing simply with legal subjects over whom the ultimate dominion was death, but with living beings, and the mastery if would be able to exercise over them would be applied at the level of life itself; it was the taking charge of life, more that the threat of death, that gave power its access even to the body” (142-143). In short, political power has assigned itself the duty of managing life. It is now over life that power establishes its hold and on which it seeks to have a positive influence. This power over life, which Foucault calls biopower, is most apparent in the emergence of “population” as an economic and political problem in the eighteenth century. This “population” is not simply a collection of individual citizens. We are not dealing , as Foucault notes, with subjects, or even with a “people,” but with a composite body “with its specific phenomena and its peculiar variables: birth and death rates, life expectancy, fertility, state of health, frequency of illness, patterns of diet and habitation” (History: 25). The “population,” in other words, has its own form of order, its own energy, traits, and dispositions. The management of this “population,” principally of its health, Foucault suggests, has become the primary commitement as well as the main source of legitimacy of modern forms of government: it’s the body of society which becomes the new principle of political organizations in the nineteenth century. It is this social body which needs to be protected, in a quasi-medical sense. In place of the rituals that served to restore the corporeal integrity of the monarch, remedies and therapeutic devices are employed such as the segregation of the sick, the monitoring of contagions, the exclusion of delinquents. (“Body/Power”: 55) The concern of government, then, is to produce a healthy and productive citizenry. Its commitment is to the protection and enhancement of the health of particular bodies in order to foster the health of the composite body of the population. This means, according to Foucault, that “biological existence” has now come to be “reflected in political existence” (history: 142). As such, biopower ultimately designates “what brought life and its mechanisms into the realm of explicit calculations”(143), its main overall concern being the life of the population, that is, of the species body—the body that functions as the foothold of biological processes pertaining to birth, death, health, and longevity. Simply put, the species body and the individual as a simple living being have become what are at stake in a state’s political tactics, marking the politicization of life, turning politics into biopolitics and the state into a biopolitical state. 7 -Alt is to reject the aff to adopt a new a liberatory subjectivity 8 -Godiwala ‘6 Godiwala, Dimple. Dimple Godiwala was educated at the Universities of Bombay and Oxford. She is the author of 'Breaking the Bounds: British Feminist Dramatists Writing in the Mainstream "The Western patriarchal impulse" Interactions 15.1 (2006): Web. Dimple is quoting Foucault in this. 9 -Maybe the target nowadays is not to discover what we are, but to refuse what we are. We have to imagine and to build up what we could be to get rid of political 'double bind',which is the simultaneous individualization and totalization of modern power structures. The conclusion would be that the political, ethical, social, philosophical problem of our days is notto try and liberate the individual from the state, and from the state's institutions, but to liberate us both from the state and from the type of individualization which is linked to the state. We have to promote new forms of subjectivity through refusal of this kind of individuality which has been imposed upon us for several centuries. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-09 17:48:26.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Kris Wright - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cy-Fair - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -14 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Nanavati Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -MARCHAPRIL - Biopower K - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -TFA
- Caselist.CitesClass[16]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,6 +1,0 @@ 1 -Courts won’t defend the plan. 2 -NYCB 16 (New York City Bar, February 2016, “REPORT BY THE INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE THE NEW YORK CITY BAR ASSOCIATION OF ADVANCING THE RIGHT TO HOUSING IN THE UNITED STATES: Using International Law as a Foundation”, http://www2.nycbar.org/pdf/report/uploads/20072632-AdvancingtheRighttoHousingIHR2122016final.pdf) //SN 3 -At the most fundamental level, the US Constitution does not include a right to housing. Although arguments have been made that certain language in the Constitution is broad enough to encompass a right to adequate housing,51 in Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56 (1972), the US Supreme Court held that the Constitution provides no “guarantee of access to dwellings of a particular quality.”52 The debate persists, but federal law continues to offer only a limited scope of protections with respect to housing. 4 -Courts are key to your solvency – empirics. 5 -Olds 10 (Kyra Olds, May 21st 2010, “THE ROLE OF COURTS IN MAKING THE RIGHT TO HOUSING A REALITY THROUGHOUT EUROPE: LESSONS FROM FRANCE AND THE NETHERLANDS”, http://hosted.law.wisc.edu/wordpress/wilj/files/2011/10/olds_170.pdf) //SN 6 -On May 30, 2008, for the first time, a court upheld DALO, (“droit au logement opposable” or “roughly translated, ‘the inalienable right to housing that a court cannot deny you’”2 ), a French law enacted in March 2007.3 The court ruled that in order for the state to meet its obligation to protect the right to housing, families must not merely have a place to stay for the night but an adequate home.4 On March 3, 2008, Namizata Fofana’s housing application was denied.5 The mediation committee ruled that her need for housing was not urgent because she currently had a place to live. Madame Fofana, a 26 year-old mother of two and legal immigrant from Cote d’Ivoire, was living in a shelter.7 However, she only had permission to live in that shelter for a total of 21 months.8 On June 9, 2008, she and her two children would be forced to leave the shelter, and without governmental assistance, would end up on the streets.9 Madame Fofana appealed the administrative decision to the courts. The courts overturned the decision based on DALO, which recognizes a legally enforceable right to housing.10 Without the courts, Madame Fofana and her children would have had nowhere to turn. While France purports to support an inalienable right to housing, in this case, the government’s practices did not reflect the ideals it had established in its statutes and international agreements. Judicial action was necessary to make this right a reality for the Fofana family. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-09 17:48:27.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Kris Wright - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cy-Fair - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -14 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Nanavati Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -MARCHAPRIL - Courts DA - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -TFA
- Caselist.CitesClass[17]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,9 +1,0 @@ 1 -The window to stop climate change is now 2 -Canadell et. al. 2/16 (Dr. Josep (Pep) Canadell, Glen Peters, Corinne Le Quéré, Dr. Josep (Pep) Canadell is an EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GLOBAL CARBON PROJECT AND CSIRO RESEARCH SCIENTIST for the GLOBAL CARBON PROJECT, Glen Peters is a senior researcher for CICERO. Le Quéré is also another contributor for CICERO. "We can still keep global warming below 2℃ – but the hard work is about to start", No Publication, 2-16-2017, page numbers here, http://www.cicero.uio.no/no/posts/klima/we-can-still-keep-global-warming-below-2-but-the-hard-work-is-about-to-start)//DM Accessed 3-8-2017 3 -Last year we found that the growth in global fossil fuel emissions have stalled over the past three years. But does this mean we are on track to keep global warming below 2℃, as agreed under the 2015 Paris Agreement? In our study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change today, we looked at how global and national energy sectors are progressing towards global climate targets. We found that we can still keep global warming below 2℃ largely thanks to increasing use of clean energy, a global decline in coal use, improvements in energy efficiency, and a consequent stalling of emissions from fossil fuels over the past three years. Nations need to accelerate deployment of existing technologies to lock in and build on the gains of the last three years. More challenging, is the needed investment to develop new technologies and behaviours necessary to get to net-zero global emissions by mid-century. World moving away from fossil fuels We looked at several key measures, including carbon emissions from fossil fuels, the carbon intensity of the energy system (how much carbon is produced for each unit of energy) and the amount of carbon emitted to produce one dollar of wealth. ...we can still keep global warming below 2℃ largely thanks to increasing use of clean energy, a global decline in coal use, improvements in energy efficiency, and aconsequent stalling of emissions from fossil fuels over the past three years. The world share of energy from fossil fuels is starting to decline. There has been no growth in coal consumption and strong growth in energy from wind, biomass, solar and hydro power. The emerging trend is therefore towards lower carbon emissions from energy production. Energy efficiency has also improved globally in recent years, reversing the trends of the 2000s. These improvements are reducing the amount of carbon emissions to produce new wealth. From all these changes, global fossil fuel emissions have not grown over the past three years. Remarkably, this has occurred while the global economy has continued to grow. As the global economy grows, it is using less energy to produce each unit of wealth as economies become more efficient and shift towards services. These promising results show that, globally, we are broadly in the right starting position to keep warming below 2℃. But modelling suggests that stringent climate policy will only slightly accelerate this historical trend of improvements in energy intensity. And to keep warming below 2℃ will require deep and sustained reductions in the carbon intensity of how energy is produced. 4 -Building homes explodes emissions 5 -Monahan and Powell 11. Monahan, J., , Powell, J.C. , “The significance of embodied carbon and energy in house construction”. Energy and Buildings 43: 179-188. DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.09. 005, Science for Environmental Policy, European Comission DG, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/38si9_en.pdf) //AD 6 -As almost a quarter of all global CO2 emissions are attributed to energy use in buildings, reducing the energy demand and carbon emissions linked to buildings is an important goal for government climate policy. However, the energy used, and associated carbon emissions, when a house is built is often overlooked and mainly comes from the extraction, processing, manufacture, transportation and use of materials for construction. This energy and carbon is thus considered to be hidden or ‘embodied’ in the house. The researchers assessed the energy used and carbon emitted in the construction of a novel low-energy house in the UK using a life cycle method. The house was a threebedroom semi-detached house made with a factory-built, foam insulated, timber frame and assembled in modules at the building site, where it was clad with larch planks. It was compared with two similar buildings constructed using more traditional methods: a timberframed house with brick cladding and a house built with traditional masonry techniques (block internal walls, insulated cavity walls and brick cladding). The assessment, based on data from an inventory of all the materials and fossil fuels used during construction, revealed that the low-energy house required a total of 519GJ (gigajoules) of primary energy to build (5.7 GJ/m2 ), embodying 35 tonnes of CO2 (405 kilograms of CO2 per square metre). 82 of the energy was used in preparing the materials (over a third of this from concrete) and the rest was used to transport materials, remove waste and for onsite energy requirements. The brick-clad house embodied over 30 more carbon and energy, owing to the increase in minerals associated with the cladding (sand, brick and cement) and increases in transport and construction costs. The masonry house embodied 51 more carbon and 35 more energy compared to the timber framed, larch-clad house. Most energy and carbon savings in the low-energy house came from the use of wood as an alternative to cement, bricks and steel; larch cladding produces an energy saving of 24 compared to bricks. Less structural support is also needed, further reducing the need for energy rich materials, such as steel and concrete. The offsite, factory manufacturing of the timber fames also reduced energy costs. Addressing the alternative methods of construction outlined in this study could be a valuable contribution to national carbon reduction efforts. Further energy savings from construction include reducing onsite waste production, which accounts 14 of total embodied carbon, and reducing the amount of cement used, by replacing with ground granulated blast furnace slag, fly ash or other lower carbon alternatives. 7 -Extinction 8 -Sharp and Kennedy 14 – (Associate Professor Robert (Bob) A. Sharp is the UAE National Defense College Associate Dean for Academic Programs and College Quality Assurance Advisor. He previously served as Assistant Professor of Strategic Security Studies at the College of International Security Affairs (CISA) in the U.S. National Defense University (NDU), Washington D.C. and then as Associate Professor at the Near East South Asia (NESA) Center for Strategic Studies, collocated with NDU. Most recently at NESA, he focused on security sector reform in Yemen and Lebanon, and also supported regional security engagement events into Afghanistan, Turkey, Egypt, Palestine and Qatar; Edward Kennedy is a renewable energy and climate change specialist who has worked for the World Bank and the Spanish Electric Utility ENDESA on carbon policy and markets; 8/22/14, “Climate Change and Implications for National Security,” International Policy Digest, http://intpolicydigest.org/2014/08/22/climate-change-implications-national-security/) //AD 9 -Our planet is 4.5 billion years old. If that whole time was to be reflected on a single one-year calendar then the dinosaurs died off sometime late in the afternoon of December 27th and modern humans emerged 200,000 years ago, or at around lunchtime on December 28th. Therefore, human life on earth is very recent. Sometime on December 28th humans made the first fires – wood fires – neutral in the carbon balance. Now reflect on those most recent 200,000 years again on a single one-year calendar and you might be surprised to learn that the industrial revolution began only a few hours ago during the middle of the afternoon on December 31st, 250 years ago, coinciding with the discovery of underground carbon fuels. Over the 250 years carbon fuels have enabled tremendous technological advances including a population growth from about 800 million then to 7.5 billion today and the consequent demand to extract even more carbon. This has occurred during a handful of generations, which is hardly noticeable on our imaginary one-year calendar. The release of this carbon – however – is changing our climate at such a rapid rate that it threatens our survival and presence on earth. It defies imagination that so much damage has been done in such a relatively short time. The implications of climate change is the single most significant threat to life on earth and, put simply, we are not doing enough to rectify the damage. This relatively very recent ability to change our climate is an inconvenient truth; the science is sound. We know of the complex set of interrelated national and global security risks that are a result of global warming and the velocity at which climate change is occurring. We worry it may already be too late. Climate change writ large has informed few, interested some, confused many, and polarized politics. It has already led to an increase in natural disasters including but not limited to droughts, storms, floods, fires etc. The year 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record according to an American Meteorological Society (AMS) report. Research suggests that climate change is already affecting human displacement; reportedly 36 million people were displaced in 2008 alone because of sudden natural disasters. Figures for 2010 and 2011 paint a grimmer picture of people displaced because of rising sea levels, heat and storms. Climate change affects all natural systems. It impacts temperature and consequently it affects water and weather patterns. It contributes to desertification, deforestation and acidification of the oceans. Changes in weather patterns may mean droughts in one area and floods in another. Counter-intuitively, perhaps, sea levels rise but perennial river water supplies are reduced because glaciers are retreating. As glaciers and polar ice caps melt, there is an albedo effect, which is a double whammy of less temperature regulation because of less surface area of ice present. This means that less absorption occurs and also there is less reflection of the sun’s light. A potentially critical wild card could be runaway climate change due to the release of methane from melting tundra. Worldwide permafrost soils contain about 1,700 Giga Tons of carbon, which is about four times more than all the carbon released through human activity thus far. The planet has already adapted itself to dramatic climate change including a wide range of distinct geologic periods and multiple extinctions, and at a pace that it can be managed. It is human intervention that has accelerated the pace dramatically: An increased surface temperature, coupled with more severe weather and changes in water distribution will create uneven threats to our agricultural systems and will foster and support the spread of insect borne diseases like Malaria, Dengue and the West Nile virus. Rising sea levels will increasingly threaten our coastal population and infrastructure centers and with more than 3.5 billion people – half the planet – depending on the ocean for their primary source of food, ocean acidification may dangerously undercut critical natural food systems which would result in reduced rations. Climate change also carries significant inertia. Even if emissions were completely halted today, temperature increases would continue for some time. Thus the impact is not only to the environment, water, coastal homes, agriculture and fisheries as mentioned, but also would lead to conflict and thus impact national security. Resource wars are inevitable as countries respond, adapt and compete for the shrinking set of those available resources. These wars have arguably already started and will continue in the future because climate change will force countries to act for national survival; the so-called Climate Wars. As early as 2003 Greenpeace alluded to a report which it claimed was commissioned by the Pentagon titled: An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for U.S. National Security. It painted a picture of a world in turmoil because global warming had accelerated. The scenario outlined was both abrupt and alarming. The report offered recommendations but backed away from declaring climate change an immediate problem, concluding that it would actually be more incremental and measured; as such it would be an irritant, not a shock for national security systems. In 2006 the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) – Institute of Public Research – convened a board of 11 senior retired generals and admirals to assess National Security and the Threat to Climate Change. Their initial report was published in April 2007 and made no mention of the potential acceleration of climate change. The team found that climate change was a serious threat to national security and that it was: “most likely to happen in regions of the world that are already fertile ground for extremism.” The team made recommendations from their analysis of regional impacts which suggested the following. Europe would experience some fracturing because of border migration. Africa would need more stability and humanitarian operations provided by the United States. The Middle East would experience a “loss of food and water security (which) will increase pressure to emigrate across borders.” Asia would suffer from “threats to water and the spread of infectious disease. ” In 2009 the CIA opened a Center on Climate Change and National Security to coordinate across the intelligence community and to focus policy. In May 2014, CNA again convened a Military Advisory Board but this time to assess National Security and the Accelerating Risk of Climate Change. The report concludes that climate change is no longer a future threat but occurring right now and the authors appeal to the security community, the entire government and the American people to not only build resilience against projected climate change impacts but to form agreements to stabilize climate change and also to integrate climate change across all strategy and planning. The calm of the 2007 report is replaced by a tone of anxiety concerning the future coupled with calls for public discourse and debate because “time and tide wait for no man.” The report notes a key distinction between resilience (mitigating the impact of climate change) and agreements (ways to stabilize climate change) and states that: Actions by the United States and the international community have been insufficient to adapt to the challenges associated with projected climate change. Strengthening resilience to climate impacts already locked into the system is critical, but this will reduce long-term risk only if improvements in resilience are accompanied by actionable agreements on ways to stabilize climate change. The 9/11 Report framed the terrorist attacks as less of a failure of intelligence than a failure of imagination. Greenpeace’s 2003 account of the Pentagon’s alleged report describes a coming climate Armageddon which to readers was unimaginable and hence the report was not really taken seriously. It described: A world thrown into turmoil by drought, floods, typhoons. Whole countries rendered uninhabitable. The capital of the Netherlands submerged. The borders of the U.S. and Australia patrolled by armies firing into waves of starving boat people desperate to find a new home. Fishing boats armed with cannon to drive off competitors. Demands for access to water and farmland backed up with nuclear weapons. The CNA and Greenpeace/Pentagon reports are both mirrored by similar analysis by the World Bank which highlighted not only the physical manifestations of climate change, but also the significant human impacts that threaten to unravel decades of economic development, which will ultimately foster conflict. Climate change is the quintessential “Tragedy of the Commons,” where the cumulative impact of many individual actions (carbon emission in this case) is not seen as linked to the marginal gains available to each individual action and not seen as cause and effect. It is simultaneously huge, yet amorphous and nearly invisible from day to day. It is occurring very fast in geologic time terms, but in human time it is (was) slow and incremental. Among environmental problems, it is uniquely global. With our planet and culture figuratively and literally honeycombed with a reliance on fossil fuels, we face systemic challenges in changing the reliance across multiple layers of consumption, investment patterns, and political decisions; it will be hard to fix! - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-09 17:48:27.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Kris Wright - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cy-Fair - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -14 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Nanavati Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -MARCHAPRIL - Warming DA - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -TFA
- Caselist.CitesClass[18]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,9 +1,0 @@ 1 -RTH laws empirically discriminate against women – turns case. 2 -UHCHR 13 (UHCHR, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, NEW YORK AND GENEVA, 2013, “REALIZING WOMEN’S RIGHTS TO LAND AND OTHER PRODUCTIVE RESOURCES”, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/RealizingWomensRightstoLand.pdf) 3 -The Special Rapporteur also highlighted “the gap between de jure and de facto protection of women’s right to adequate housing. In many countries, women’s rights are legally protected, but in practice, women are socially and economically disadvantaged and face de facto discrimination in the areas of housing, land and inheritance rights.” In particular he noted that “genderneutral laws were interpreted and implemented in ways that discriminate and disadvantage women.”42 In resolution 2005/25, the Commission on Human Rights recognized that “laws, policies, customs, traditions and practices … act to restrict women’s equal access to credit and loans also prevent women from owning and inheriting land ….”43 4 -The impact outweighs – RTH laws lead to social exclusion, violence, and psychological trauma. 5 -UHCHR 09 (UHCHR, November 2009, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, “The Right to Adequate Housing”, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FS21_rev_1_Housing_en.pdf) //SN 6 -In many parts of the world, women and girls face entrenched discrimination in inheritance, which can seriously affect their enjoyment of the right to adequate housing. Such discrimination can be enshrined in statutory laws as well as in customary laws and practices that fail to recognize women’s equal rights to men in inheritance. As a result, women are either entitled to a lesser share than male relatives, or are simply dispossessed from any heritage of their deceased husbands or fathers. Violence is common within the context of inheritance, as a woman’s property can be forcibly seized by relatives, an attempt that often involves physical and psychological violence, and long-lasting trauma. Relatives often abuse widows with impunity, as these matters are seen as a private family affair. If a woman decides to fight for her inheritance, she may also face violence from her in-laws or even from the community at large. In general, women’s claims for inheritance can result in social exclusion, not only from the family but also from the community. 7 -Public housing independently exacerbates intimate partner violence 8 -Raghavan et al 06. (Chitra Raghavan, Professor of Psychology and Director of BA/MA Program, Amy Mennerich, , Ellen Sexton, Associate Professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Susan E. James, Professor at Columbia University“Community Violence and Its Direct, Indirect, and Mediating Effects on Intimate Partner Violence”, Violence Against Women, SAGE Publications, Vol 12, No 12, 12-11-06, http://vaw.sagepub.com/content/12/12/1132) //AD – we object to the rhetoric of victimization 9 -Typically, individual and interpersonal characteristics have been considered as more pertinent to the study of intimate partner violence (IPV) than neighborhood characteristics (e.g., Miles-Doan, 1998), despite a well-documented relationship between place of residence and violent victimization. Neighborhood disadvantage encompasses characteristics, such as high rates of poverty, joblessness, and residential mobility. Such characteristics are associated with a host of social and physical ills, including higher rates of violent crime (e.g., Krivo and Peterson, 1996), mental disorder (e.g., Silver, Mulvey, and Swanson, 2002), and mistrust and fear of crime (Renzetti and Maier, 2002; Ross and Jang, 2000). In addition, although the importance of individual and interpersonal risk factors cannot be denied, a steadily growing body of literature indicates that residents of poor neighborhoods are at high risk for IPV (Benson, Fox, DeMaris, and Van Wyk, 2003; DeKeseredy, Alvi, Schwartz, and Perry, 1999; Miles-Doan, 1998; Renzetti and Maier, 2002). Benson et al. (2003) reported that the relationship between intimate violence and neighborhood disadvantage was not linear; there was a strong relationship between IPV and disadvantage only in the fourth quartile, representing the most disadvantaged neighborhoods. Furthermore, the association between IPV and neighborhood disadvantage remains robust even after controlling for individual-level risk factors (Benson et al., 2003; Browning, 2002; Cunradi, Caetano, Clark, and Schafer, 2000). For example, recently reported annual incidence rates from women living in public housing have been as high as 19.0 and 35.0 (DeKeseredy et al., 1999; Renzetti and Maier, 2002) compared to a reported lifetime incidence among the general population ranging from 1.5 to 16.0 (Rennison and Welchans, 2000; Straus and Gelles, 1990; Tjaden and Thoennes, 1998). However, despite this knowledge, relatively little is known about neighborhood disadvantage and its effect on domestic or IPV. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-09 17:48:28.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Kris Wright - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cy-Fair - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -14 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Nanavati Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -MARCHAPRIL - Patriarchy DA - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -TFA
- Caselist.CitesClass[19]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,20 +1,0 @@ 1 -====Failure to recognize the role that intersectionality plays in the context of IPV turns the case. The impact is essentialism and serial policy failure.==== 2 -Crenshaw 93. Kimberle Crenshaw; Law professor at the University of California; "Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color" 1993 *we object to author's gendered language* 3 -Structural Intersectionality Structural Intersectionality and Battering I ~~Crenshaw~~ observed the dynamics of structural 4 -AND 5 -, these interventions are likely to reproduce rather than effectively challenge their domination. 6 - 7 - 8 -====Essentialism turns the case – if you don't fit into the 1AC's essentializing categories, your experiences don't count and you don't matter.==== 9 -**Philips 10**. Anne Philips; Department of Government, Gender Institute; "What's wrong with essentialism?"; 2010; http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/30900/1/What's20wrong20with20essentialism20(LSERO).pdf 10 -The final way of thinking about essentialism is in some ways the most challenging, 11 -AND 12 -essential defining characteristic, and those who do not fit are in trouble. 13 - 14 - 15 -====Especially true in the context of housing – kills aff solvency==== 16 -Crenshaw 93. Kimberle Crenshaw; Law professor at the University of California; "Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color" 1993 *we object to author's gendered language* 17 -Yet many immigrant women, particularly women of color, have remained vulnerable to battering 18 -AND 19 -the simultaneous impact of its antiimmigration policy and their spouses' abuse. 20 -dw - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-10 18:51:26.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -asdf - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -asdf - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -15 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Nanavati Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -intersectionality da march feb - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -tfa
- Caselist.CitesClass[20]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,16 +1,0 @@ 1 -====— framework links —==== 2 - 3 - 4 -====Home development destroys critical forest habitat and decreases biodiversity==== 5 -**Stein et al 2007**, Susan Stein is a Private Forest Studies Coordinator Ronald E McRoberts is a Mathematical Statistician from the University of Minnesota Ralph Alig has B.S., 1976, Purdue University, Forest Production; M.S., 1977, University of Missouri, Forest Economics; Ph.D., 1984, "Forests on the Edge" https://www.fs.fed.us/openspace/pubs/gtr_wo7820pg36-40.pdf NR 6 -Private forests provide critical habitat for many species. Increased housing development on rural private 7 -AND 8 -in North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Arkansas. 9 - 10 - 11 -====Anthro is the biggest impact==== 12 -**Oliver 10**. Kelly Oliver; Prof of philosophy at Vanderbilt Univ.; "Animal Ethics: Towards an Ethics of Responsivenss" Research in Phenomenology 40: 267-280 13 -In this era of global warming, species extinction and shrinking biodiversity, endless war 14 -AND 15 -how to share resources and life together on this collective planet. 16 -dw - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-10 23:07:21.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -qokwqe - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -sadko - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -16 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -6 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Westwood Nanavati Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -anthro march feb - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -tfa
- Caselist.RoundClass[5]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -6,7 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -2016-09-17 16:1 5:13.01 +2016-09-17 16:14:25.874
- Caselist.RoundClass[6]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -8 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-09-18 12:30:15.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -wjire - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -ewr - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -grenil
- Caselist.RoundClass[7]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -9 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-03 19:22:07.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -ed - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -ed - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Quads - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -ed - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -UT
- Caselist.RoundClass[8]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -10 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-03 19:22:09.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -ed - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -ed - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Quads - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -ed - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -UT
- Caselist.RoundClass[9]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -11 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-17 15:26:17.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -jf - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -jf - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -9 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -strake
- Caselist.RoundClass[10]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -12 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-17 15:48:58.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -kd - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -dak - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -strake
- Caselist.RoundClass[11]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -13 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-20 19:16:50.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Idr - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Idr - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Quads - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 off k - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Idr
- Caselist.RoundClass[12]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -14 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-20 19:18:24.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Idr - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Idr - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Triples - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Idr
- Caselist.RoundClass[13]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-09 17:47:27.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Kris Wright - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cy-Fair - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -TFA
- Caselist.RoundClass[14]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -15,16,17,18 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-09 17:48:24.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Kris Wright - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cy-Fair - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -TFA
- Caselist.RoundClass[15]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -19 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-10 18:51:25.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -asdf - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -asdf - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -tfa
- Caselist.RoundClass[16]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -20 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-10 23:07:20.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -qokwqe - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -sadko - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -6 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -tfa
- Caselist.RoundClass[17]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-10 23:08:18.871 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -okefw - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -waef - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -6 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -tfa