Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[11]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[10]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[11]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-01-07 06:01:24.590
	1	+2017-01-07 06:01:24.0

Caselist.CitesClass[10]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,50 @@
	1	+Framework
	2	+The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater that presents the best governmental policy option – key to out of round advocacy skills. Role playing as public actors shatters apathy and political alienation which is critical to check oppression
	3	+Mitchell 2000. Gordon Mitchell, Associate Professor of Communication at University of Pittsburgh, Winter 2000, “Stimulated Public Argument As Pedagogical Play on Worlds”, Argumentation and Advocacy, vol 36, no 3, pq
	4	+When we assume the posture of the other in dramatic performance, we tap into who we are as persons, since our interpretation of others is deeply colored by our own senses of selfhood. By encouraging experimentation in identity construction, role-play "helps students discover divergent viewpoints and overcome stereotypes as they examine subjects from multiple perspectives..." (Moore, p. 190). Kincheloe points to the importance of this sort of reflexive critical awareness as an essential feature of educational practice in postmodern times. "Applying the notion of the postmodern analysis of the self, we come to see that hyperreality invites a heteroglossia of being," Kincheloe explains; "Drawing upon a multiplicity of voices, individuals live out a variety of possibilities, refusing to suppress particular voices. As men and women appropriate the various forms of expression, they are empowered to uncover new dimensions of existence that were previously hidden" (1993, p. 96). This process is particularly crucial in the public argument context, since a key guarantor of inequality and exploitation in contemporary society is the widespread and uncritical acceptance by citizens of politically inert self-identities. The problems of political alienation, apathy and withdrawal have received lavish treatment as perennial topics of scholarly analysis (see e.g. Fishkin 1997; Grossberg 1992; Hart 1998; Loeb 1994). Unfortunately, comparatively less energy has been devoted to the development of pedagogical strategies for countering this alarming political trend. However, some scholars have taken up the task of theorizing emancipatory and critical pedagogies, and argumentation scholars interested in expanding the learning potential of debate would do well to note their work (see e.g. Apple 1995, 1988, 1979; Britzman 1991; Giroux 1997, 1988, 1987; Greene 1978; McLaren 1993, 1989; Simon 1992; Weis and Fine 1993). In this area of educational scholarship, the curriculum theory of currere, a method of teaching pioneered by Pinar and Grumet (1976), speaks directly to many of the issues already discussed in this essay. As the Latin root of the word "curriculum," currere translates roughly as the investigation of public life (see Kincheloe 1993, p. 146). According to Pinar, "the method of currere is one way to work to liberate one from the web of political, cultural, and economic influences that are perhaps buried from conscious view but nonetheless comprise the living web that is a person's biographic situation" (Pinar 1994, p. 108). The objectives of role-play pedagogy resonate with the currere method. By opening discursive spaces for students to explore their identities as public actors, simulated public arguments provide occasions for students to survey and appraise submerged aspects of their political identities. Since many aspects of cultural and political life work currently to reinforce political passivity, critical argumentation pedagogies that highlight this component of students' self-identities carry significant emancipatory potential.
	5	+
	6	+I value morality, as per the evaluative term, ‘ought’ in the resolution.
	7	+
	8	+First, to evaluate ethical judgments we must interrogate ontologies of exclusion to filter out ethical biases.
	9	+Butler 9 (Judith Butler, “Frames of War: When is Life Grievable?” Jan 1st 2009, Pg.138, http://books.google.com/books/about/Frames_of_War.html?id=ga7hAAAAMAAJ)
	10	+We ask such normative questions as if we know what we mean by the subjects even as we do not always know how best to represent or recognize various subjects. Indeed, the “we” who asks such questions for the most part assumes that the problem is a normative one, namely, how best to arrange political life so that recognition and representation can take place. And though surely this is a crucial, if not the most crucial, normative question to ask, we cannot possibly approach an answer if we do not consider the ontology of the subject whose recognition and representation is at issue. Moreover, any inquiry into that ontology requires that we consider another level at which the normative operates, namely, through norms that produce the idea of the human who is worthy of recognition and representation at all. That is to say, we cannot ask and answer the most commonly understood normative questions, regarding how best to represent or recognize such subjects, if we fail to understand the differential of power at work that distinguishes between those subjects who will be eligible for recognition and those who will not.
	11	+Thus, the standard is combatting structural violence.
	12	+
	13	+Prefer consequence-based frameworks:
	14	+1 Intent and means-based frameworks reflect privilege and decenter oppressed voices
	15	+Utt ’13. Jamie Utt is a writer and a diversity and inclusion consultant and sexual violence prevention educator, “Intent vs. Impact: Why Your Intentions Don’t Really Matter,” July 30, 2013
	16	+Imagine for a moment that you’re standing with your friends in a park, enjoying a nice summer day. You don’t know me, but I walk right up to you holding a Frisbee. I wind up – and throw the disc right into your face. Understandably, you are indignant. Through a bloody nose, you use a few choice words to ask me what the hell I thought I was doing. And my response? “Oh, I didn’t mean to hit you! That was never my intent! I was simply trying to throw the Frisbee to my friend over there!” Visibly upset, you demand an apology. But I refuse. Or worse, I offer an apology that sounds like “I’m sorry your face got in the way of my Frisbee! I never intended to hit you.” Sound absurd? Sound infuriating enough to give me a well-deserved Frisbee upside the head? Yeah. So why is this same thing happening all of the time when it comes to the intersection of our identities and oppressions or privileges? Intent v. Impact From Paula Deen to Alec Baldwin to your annoying, bigoted uncle or friend, we hear it over and over again: “I never meant any harm…” “It was never my intent…” “I am not a racist…” “I am not a homophobe…” “I’m not a sexist…” I cannot tell you how often I’ve seen people attempt to deflect criticism about their oppressive language or actions by making the conversation about their intent. At what point does the “intent” conversation stop mattering so that we can step back and look at impact? After all, in the end, what does the intent of our action really matter if our actions have the impact of furthering the marginalization or oppression of those around us? In some ways, this is a simple lesson of relationships. If I say something that hurts my partner, it doesn’t much matter whether I intended the statement to mean something else – because my partner is hurting. I need to listen to how my language hurt my partner. I need to apologize. And then I need to reflect and empathize to the best of my ability so I don’t do it again. But when we’re dealing with the ways in which our identities intersect with those around us – and, in turn, the ways our privileges and our experiences of marginalization and oppression intersect – this lesson becomes something much larger and more profound. This becomes a lesson of justice. What we need to realize is that when it comes to people’s lives and identities, the impact of our actions can be profound and wide-reaching. And that’s far more important than the question of our intent. We need to ask ourselves what might be or might have been the impact of our actions or words. And we need to step back and listen when we are being told that the impact of our actions is out of step with our intents or our perceptions of self. Identity Privilege and Intent For people of identity privilege, this is where listening becomes vitally important, for our privilege can often shield us from understanding the impact of our actions. After all, as a person of privilege, I can never fully understand the ways in which oppressive acts or language impact those around me. What I surely can do is listen with every intent to understand, and I can work to change my behavior. Because what we need to understand is that making the conversation about intent is inherently a privileged action. The reason? It ensures that you and your identity (and intent) stay at the center of any conversation and action while the impact of your action or words on those around you is marginalized. So, if someone ever tells you to “check your privilege,” what they may very well mean is: “Stop centering your experience and identity in the conversation by making this about the intent of your actions instead of their impact.” That is: Not everything is about you. “What They Did” vs. “What They Are” The incredible Ill Doctrine puts it well when he explains the difference between the “What They Did” conversation and the “What They Are” conversation, which you can watch here. In essence, the “intent” conversation is one about “what they are.” Because if someone intended their action to be hurtful and racist/sexist/transphobic/pickyourpoison, then they must inherently be racist/sexist/transphobic/pickyourpoison. On the other hand, the “impact” conversation is one about “what they did.” For you, it takes the person who said or did the hurtful thing out of the center and places the person who was hurt in the center. It ensures that the conversation is about how “what they did” hurts other people and further marginalizes or oppresses people. And it’s important for people to understand the difference. Just because you did something sexist doesn’t mean that you are sexist. Just because you said something racist doesn’t mean that you are racist. When your actions are called into question, it’s important to recognize that that’s all that is being called into question – your actions, not your overall character. Listen. Reflect. Apologize. Do Better. It doesn’t matter whether we, deep down, believe ourselves to be __________-ist or whether we intended our actions to be hurtful or _________-ist. It. Doesn’t. Matter. If the impact of our actions is the furthering of oppression, then that’s all that matters. So we need to listen, reflect, apologize, and work to do better in the future. What does that look like? Well, to start, we can actually apologize. I don’t know about you, but I am sick of hearing the ““I am sorry your face got in the way of my Frisbee! I never intended to hit you” apologies. Whether it’s Paula Deen weeping on TV or Alec Baldwin asking us to simply trust that he’s not a “homophobe,” those are not apologies. That’s why I was incredibly inspired and relieved to see a major organization do it well when Kickstarter apologized and took full responsibility for their role in funding a creepy, rapey seduction guide. They apologized earnestly and accepted the role they played in something really terrible. hey pledged to never allow projects like this one to be funded in the future. And then they donated $25,000 to RAINN. At the interpersonal level, we can take a cue from Kickstarter. When we are told that the impact of our action, inaction, or words is hurtful and furthers oppression, we can start by apologizing without any caveats. From there, we can spend the time to reflect in hopes of gaining at least some understanding (however marginal) of the harmful impact. And we can do our best to move forward by acting more accountably.
	17	+2 Experience is epistemic – it is how we empirically ground our existence. Pain is universally bad and pleasure is universally good.
	18	+Nagel 86 (Thomas “The View From Nowhere”, 1986)
	19	+I shall defend the unsurprising claim that sensory pleasure is good and pain bad, no matter who’s they are. The point of the exercise is to see how the pressures of objectification operate in a simple case. Physical pleasure and pain do not usually depend on activities or desires which themselves raise questions of justification and value. They are just is a sensory experiences in relation to which we are fairly passive, but toward which we feel involuntary desire or aversion. Almost everyone takes the avoidance of his own pain and the promotion of his own pleasure as subjective reasons for action in a fairly simple way; they are not back up by any further reasons. On the other hand if someone pursues pain or avoids pleasure, either it as a means to some end or it is backed up by dark reasons like guilt or sexual masochism. What sort of general value, if any, ought to be assigned to pleasure and pain when we consider these facts from an objective standpoint? What kind of judgment can we reasonably make about these things when we view them in abstraction from who we are? We can begin by asking why there is no plausibility in the zero position, that pleasure and pain have no value of any kind that can be objectively recognized. That would mean that I have no reason to take aspirin for a severe headache, however I may in fact be motivated; and that looking at it from outside, you couldn't even say that someone had a reason not to put his hand on a hot stove, just because of the pain… Without some positive reason to think there is nothing in itself good or bad about having an experience you intensely like or dislike, we can't seriously regard the common impression to the contrary as a collective illusion. Such things are at least good or bad for us, if anything is. What seems to be going on here is that we cannot from an objective standpoint withhold a certain kind of endorsement of the most direct and immediate subjective value judgments we make concerning the contents of our own consciousness. We regard ourselves as too close to those things to be mistaken in our immediate, nonideological evaluative impressions. No objective view we can attain could possibly overrule our subjective authority in such cases. There can be no reason to reject the appearances here.
	20	+3 Intentions and states of being are non-falsifiable and can only be informed by hypothetical consequences
	21	+4 Life is a pre-requisite to agency and freedom – that justifies exceptions to hyper-individualist ethics
	22	+5 Discussions of free speech and the constitution mandate a consequentialist approach
	23	+Goldberg 15 (Erica Goldberg is a Climenko Fellow and Lecturer on Law for the Harvard Law School and Assistant Professor for the Ohio Northern Law School. “FREE SPEECH CONSEQUENTIALISM,” Columbia Law Review Vol. 116:687. August 17, 2015. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2645869) //WW JA 1/5/16
	24	+Even scholars who favor what they deem nonconsequentialist theories of free speech, and who believe, for example, that free speech has inherent value and is a right of autonomous moral agents,16 will in some circumstances balance these values against the harms speech causes. This balancing would occur for so-called nonconsequentialists either in defining what constitutes speech, in determining which categories of speech are protected, or in evaluating whether speech that is protected can nonetheless be prohibited because its harms greatly outweigh its virtues.17 Some scholars would argue that free speech rights are balanced not against harms but against other rights, such as the right to privacy, property, or reputation. However, unless one of the rights at issue is defined absolutely, resolving this conflict would also require consideration of the harms at issue and the value of the speech. Thus, the question becomes not whether free speech consequentialism is appropriate, but how harms caused by speech should be accounted for in First Amendment jurisprudence. The allure of free speech consequentialism is also reflected in the courts. Describing the Supreme Court’s approach to content-based restrictions on speech is superficially simple. Laws that suppress speech on the basis of content are subject to the strictest constitutional scrutiny, which is often outcome determinative.18 Strict scrutiny is a demanding standard.19 But in operation, the doctrine is much more complex—it incorporates considerations of harm in multiple ways. In a variety of cases, different groups of concurring and dissenting Justices have shown willingness to relax the strict scrutiny applied to content-based restrictions in order to account for the harm from depictions of animal cruelty,20 violent video games,21 and lies about military honors.22 The Supreme Court is not even clear on at what point in its First Amendment analysis, or at what level of abstraction, this balancing should be performed, if at all, when free speech doctrine intersects with both criminal and tort law.23
	25	+Plan
	26	+Plan Text: Public colleges and universities in the United States should not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.
	27	+I can clarify questions about implementation in cx.
	28	+Advantage 1 is Echo Chambers
	29	+Campus speech codes are controlled by liberals – they utilize them to exclude conservatives from campuses. This creates liberal echo chambers wherein liberals insulate themselves from conservative ideas, thus never learning how to contest opposing views.
	30	+Powers 15. Kirsten Powers is a columnist for The Daily Beast. She is also a contributor to USA Today and a Fox News political analyst. She served in the Clinton administration from 1993 to 1998 and has worked in New York state and city politics. Her writing has been published in The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, New York Post, The New York Observer, Salon.com, Elle magazine, and American Prospect online., 5-11-2015, "How Liberals Ruined College," Daily Beast, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/11/how-liberals-have-ruined-college.html //RS
	31	+The root of nearly every free-speech infringement on campuses across the country is that someone—almost always a liberal—has been offended or has sniffed out a potential offense in the making. Then, the silencing campaign begins. The offender must be punished, not just for justice’s sake, but also to send the message to anyone else on campus that should he or she stray off the leftist script, they too might find themselves investigated, harassed, ostracized, or even expelled. If the illiberal left can preemptively silence opposing speakers or opposing groups— such as getting a speech or event canceled, or denying campus recognition for a group—even better. In a 2014 interview with New York magazine, comedian Chris Rock told journalist Frank Rich that he had stopped playing college campuses because of how easily the audiences were offended. Rock said he realized some time around 2006 that “This is not as much fun as it used to be” and noted George Carlin had felt the same way before he died. Rock attributed it to “Kids raised on a culture of ‘We’re not going to keep score in the game because we don’t want anybody to lose.’ Or just ignoring race to a fault. You can’t say ‘the black kid over there.’ No, it’s ‘the guy with the red shoes.’ You can’t even be offensive on your way to being inoffensive.” Sadly, Rock admitted that the climate of hypersensitivity had forced him and other comedians into self-censorship. This Orwellian climate of intimidation and fear chills free speech and thought. On college campuses it is particularly insidious. Higher education should provide an environment to test new ideas, debate theories, encounter challenging information, and figure out what one believes. Campuses should be places where students are able to make mistakes without fear of retribution. If there is no margin for error, it is impossible to receive a meaningful education. Instead, the politically correct university is a world of land mines, where faculty and students have no idea what innocuous comment might be seen as an offense. In December 2014, the president of Smith College, Kathleen McCartney, sent an email to the student body in the wake of the outcry over two different grand juries failing to indict police officers who killed African-American men. The subject heading read “All Lives Matter” and the email opened with, “As members of the Smith community we are struggling, and we are hurting.” She wrote, “We raise our voices in protest.” She outlined campus actions that would be taken to “heal those in pain” and to “teach, learn and share what we know” and to “work for equity and justice.” Shortly thereafter, McCartney sent another email. This one was to apologize for the first. What had she done? She explained she had been informed by students “the phrase/hashtag ‘all lives matter’ has been used by some to draw attention away from the focus on institutional violence against black people.” She quoted two students, one of whom said, “The black students at this school deserve to have their specific struggles and pain recognized, not dissolved into the larger student body.” The Daily Hampshire Gazette reported that a Smith sophomore complained that by writing “All Lives Matter,” “It felt like McCartney was invalidating the experience of black lives.” Another Smith sophomore told the Gazette, “A lot of my news feed was negative remarks about her as a person.” In her apology email McCartney closed by affirming her commitment to “working as a white ally.” McCartney clearly was trying to support the students and was sympathetic to their concerns and issues. Despite the best of intentions, she caused grievous offense. The result of a simple mistake was personal condemnation by students. If nefarious motives are imputed in this situation, it’s not hard to extrapolate what would, and does, happen to actual critics who are not obsequiously affirming the illiberal left. In an article in the Atlantic, Wendy Kaminer—a lawyer and free-speech advocate—declared, “Academic freedom is declining. The belief that free speech rights don’t include the right to speak offensively is now firmly entrenched on campuses and enforced by repressive speech or harassment codes. Campus censors don’t generally riot in response to presumptively offensive speech, but they do steal newspapers containing articles they don’t like, vandalize displays they find offensive, and disrupt speeches they’d rather not hear. They insist that hate speech isn’t free speech and that people who indulge in it should be punished. No one should be surprised when a professor at an elite university calls for the arrest of ‘Sam Bacile’ who made the YouTube video The Innocence of Muslims while simultaneously claiming to value the First Amendment.” On today’s campuses, left-leaning administrators, professors, and students are working overtime in their campaign of silencing dissent, and their unofficial tactics of ostracizing, smearing, and humiliation are highly effective. But what is even more chilling—and more far reaching—is the official power they abuse to ensure the silencing of views they don’t like. They’ve invented a labyrinth of anti-free speech tools that include “speech codes,” “free speech zones,” censorship, investigations by campus “diversity and tolerance offices,” and denial of due process. They craft “anti-harassment policies” and “anti-violence policies” that are speech codes in disguise. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education’s (FIRE) 2014 report on campus free speech, “Spotlight on Speech Codes,” close to 60 percent of the four hundred–plus colleges they surveyed “seriously infringe upon the free speech rights of students.” Only 16 of the schools reviewed in 2014 had no policies restricting protected speech. Their 2015 report found that of the 437 schools they surveyed, “more than 55 percent maintain severely restrictive, ‘red light’ speech codes—policies that clearly and substantially prohibit protected speech.” FIRE’s Greg Lukianoff attributed the slight drop to outside pressure from free-speech groups and lawsuits. For many Americans the term “speech code” sends shivers up the spine. Yet these noxious and un-American codes have become commonplace on college campuses across the United States. They are typically so broad that they could include literally anything and are subject to the interpretation of school administrators, who frequently fail to operate as honest brokers. In the hands of the illiberal left, the speech codes are weapons to silence anyone—professors, students, visiting speakers—who expresses a view that deviates from the left’s worldview or ideology. Speech that offends them is redefined as “harassment” or “hate speech” both of which are barred by most campus speech codes. At Colorado College, a private liberal arts college, administrators invented a “violence” policy that was used to punish non-violent speech. The consequences of violating a speech code are serious: it can often lead to public shaming, censoring, firings, suspensions, or expulsions, often with no due process. AMAZON.COM Many of the incidents sound too absurd to be true. But true they are. Consider, for example, how Yale University put the kibosh on its Freshman Class Council’s T-shirt designed for the Yale-Harvard football game. The problem? The shirt quoted F. Scott Fitzgerald’s line from This Side of Paradise, that, “I think of all Harvard men as sissies.” The word “sissy” was deemed offensive to gay people. Or how about the Brandeis professor who was found guilty of racial harassment—with no formal hearing—for explaining, indeed criticizing, the word “wetbacks.” Simply saying the word was crime enough. Another professor, this time at the University of Central Florida, was suspended for making a joke in class equating his tough exam questions to a “killing spree.” A student reported the joke to the school’s administration. The professor promptly received a letter suspending him from teaching and banning him from campus. He was reinstated after the case went public. The vaguely worded campus speech codes proliferating across the country turn every person with the ability to exercise his or her vocal cords into an offender in the making. New York University prohibits “insulting, teasing, mocking, degrading or ridiculing another person or group.” The College of the Holy Cross prohibits speech “causing emotional injury through careless or reckless behavior.” The University of Connecticut issued a “Policy Statement on Harassment” that bans “actions that intimidate, humiliate, or demean persons or groups, or that undermine their security or self-esteem.” Virginia State University’s 2012–13 student handbook bars students from “offending ... a member of the University community.” But who decides what’s “offensive”? The illiberal left, of course. The list goes on and on. The University of Wisconsin-Stout at one point had an Information Technology policy prohibiting the distribution of messages that included offensive comments about a list of attributes including hair color. Fordham University’s policy prohibited using email to “insult.” It gets worse: Lafayette College—a private university—instituted a “Bias Response Team” which exists to “respond to acts of intolerance.” A “bias-related incident” was “any incident in which an action taken by a person or group is perceived to be malicious ... toward another person or group.” Is it really wise to have a policy that depends on the perception of offense by college-aged students? Other schools have bias-reporting programs encouraging students to report incidents. Speech codes create a chilling environment where all it takes is one accusation, true or not, to ruin someone’s academic career. The intent or reputation or integrity of the accused is of little import. If someone “perceives” you have said or acted in a racist way, then the bar for guilt has been met. If a person claims you caused them “harm” by saying something that offended them, case closed. In November 2013, more than two dozen graduate students at UCLA entered the classroom of their professor and announced a protest against a “hostile and unsafe climate for Scholars of Color.” The students had been the victims of racial “microaggression,” a term invented in the 1970s that has been recently repurposed as a silencing tactic. A common definition cited is that racial microaggressions “are brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults towards people of color.” Like all these new categories, literally anything can be a microaggression. So what were the racial microaggressions that spawned the interruption of a class at the University of California at Los Angeles? One student alleged that when the professor changed her capitalization of the word “indigenous” to lowercase he was disrespecting her ideological point of view. Another proof point of racial animus was the professor’s insistence that the students use the Chicago Manual of Style for citation format (the protesting students preferred the less formal American Psychological Association manual). After trying to speak with one male student from his class, the kindly 79-year-old professor was accused of battery for reaching out to touch him. The professor, Val Rust, a widely respected scholar in the field of comparative education, was hung out to dry by the UCLA administration, which treated a professor’s stylistic changes to student papers as a racist attack. The school instructed Rust to stay off the Graduate School of Education and Information Services for one year. In response to the various incidents, UCLA also commissioned an “Independent Investigative Report on Acts of Bias and Discrimination Involving Faculty at the University of California, Los Angeles.” The report recommended investigations, saying that “investigations might deter those who would engage in such conduct, even if their actions would likely not constitute a violation of university policy.”
	32	+Rights Precedent: restrictions on free speech creates a dangerous slippery slope. Universities should not be the arbiters of communication.
	33	+*Climate change NC, Sustainability Florida
	34	+Fisher 16 (Anthony L. Fisher, Dec 13, 2016, “Opposition to “offensive” speech on campuses will ultimately burn dissidents”, http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/12/13/13931524/free-speech-pen-america-campus-censorship)
	35	+In perhaps the most cogent line of the entire report, the authors write: “Overreaction to problematic speech may impoverish the environment for speech for all.” In the name of social justice, some students are demanding administrators become the arbiters of what speech is legitimate and what isn’t. These students don’t seem to grasp that by granting authority figures the power to adjudicate which speakers have the right to be heard, they will inevitably find their own speech silenced when opponents claim offense, fear, or discomfort. Calls for crackdowns on “offensive” speech inevitably boomerang It’s already happening. Just ask the Palestinian activists whose boycott campaigns against Israel have been deemed hate speech by a number of public universities, and whose future political activities could be endangered by an act of Congress. Just this month, the Senate unanimously passed the "Anti-Semitism Awareness Act,” which directs the Department of Education to use the bill's contents as a guideline when adjudicating complaints of anti-Semitism on campus. Among the speech-chilling components of the bill, the political (and subjective) act of judging Israel by an "unfair double standard" could be considered hate speech. To cite other examples of unintended consequences of the crackdown on “offensive” speech, a black student at the University of Michigan was punished for calling another student “white trash,” and conservative law students at Georgetown claimed they were “traumatized” when an email critical of deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia landed in their inboxes. The PEN America report also notes the Foundation for Individual Rights’ analysis of hundreds of campuses with “severely restrictive” speech codes. While a number of these campuses don't aggressively enforce their speech codes, the rules remain on the books; more than a dozen such codes have been overturned in the courts. What’s even more concerning is the increasingly popular notion that some ideas, such as opposition to abortion, should simply be “non-platformed" — that is, deemed unworthy of even being heard on campus. Although the trend of denying contentious speakers such as former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice or refugee-turned-Dutch politician and critic of Islam Ayaan Hirsi Ali public platforms by "disinviting" them from campus is disconcerting, it is not censorship. However, a pro-choice group physically blocking the display of a pro-life group on the campus of the University of Georgia is a form of censorship. As is the case of University of California-Santa Barbara professor Mireille Miller-Young, who assaulted a young woman holding a pro-life placard including graphic imagery in a "free speech" zone on campus and stole her sign. When the young woman objected to the theft of her property, Miller-Young replied, "I may be a thief, but you're a terrorist." Like it or not, almost half of all Americans consider themselves pro-life. Banning their perspective from campus won't win over converts, and it’s both immoral and counterproductive to declare completely legitimate political perspectives beyond the pale. Think of anti-war protests or demonstrations in support of integration when both causes were broadly unpopular, and then try to consider a majority on campus declaring their school a "safe space" from such "offensive" expressions of free speech.
	36	+The 1AC is key to challenge the broader culture of bigotry – restrictions on hate speech fail – multiple warrants.
	37	+Majeed 9. Azhar Majeed, a native of Grosse Pointe, Michigan, received a B.A. in Political Science with a minor in History from the University of Michigan in 2004. He is also a 2007 graduate of the University of Michigan Law School. As an undergraduate, his academic interests included comparative constitutional law and political philosophy, particularly from the time period of the Enlightenment. During law school, Azhar represented the University of Michigan at the 2006 Tulane International Moot Court competition. Azhar was one of FIRE’s inaugural Robert H. Jackson Legal Fellows and was also a FIRE legal intern in 2005. , 11-18-2009, "Defying the Constitution: The Rise, Persistence, And Prevalence Of Campus Speech Codes," FIRE, https://www.thefire.org/defying-the-constitution-the-rise-persistence-and-prevalence-of-campus-speech-codes/ //RS ***BRACKETS IN ORIGINAL***
	38	+The fourth major argument in defense of speech codes is that they combat the existence of racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice in our society. According to proponents of this argument, speech codes, by prohibiting the expression of prejudicial and hateful views and punishing speakers who engage in such expression, discourage prejudicial thinking among university students. Ultimately, the theory goes, speech codes advance equality and result in a society less burdened with prejudice and intolerance. Proponents of this justification for speech codes believe that colleges and universities have a duty toward their students “to act affirmatively as a teacher of social mores and behavior that contribute positively to the overall societal goal of equality.”259 In the face of this obligation, to “‘tolerate an equal speaking to another equal in a way that denies the dignity and truth of equality is an implicit betrayal of the whole body politic, hampering positive social evolution.'”260 According to these proponents, speech codes are therefore justifiable because they discourage prejudice and intolerance among university students. By prohibiting the expression of prejudicial and hateful views, speech codes will lead students to abandon these types of beliefs and to support and uphold the equality of all members of society. Surprisingly, these arguments have found some credence in the courts, as well. The Sixth Circuit has stated, for instance, that “by informing people that the expression of racist or sexist attitudes in public is unacceptable, people may eventually learn that such views are undesirable in private, as well.”261 At an extreme, some commentators have argued that the equality purportedly created by speech codes is necessary before freedom of speech can exist at all. Alice Ma writes, “equality will not be possible without temporary inequality in the form of . . . hate speech regulations.”262 This equality, in turn, makes truly free speech possible. As Ma argues, “free speech is illusory unless each individual has equal opportunity to speak.”263 Richard Delgado similarly posits that “equality is a precondition of effective speech.”264 In other words, not only do speech codes eliminate prejudice and advance equality in society, they allow for true freedom of expression. This is because speech codes “increase the participation of minority students in the debate and dialogue that is central to college life.”265 Therefore, according to this line of reasoning, it is justifiable for universities to use speech codes to dictate what may or may not be said on campus, because this ultimately advances social equality, thereby making free speech truly possible. 1. Prejudicial Views Cannot Be Eliminated Through Censorship The first major flaw in this justification is that, intuitively, one cannot eliminate racist, sexist, and otherwise prejudicial viewpoints simply by prohibiting their expression. It is one thing to recognize that “there is a great deal of intolerance in today’s society” and that “the problems need to be acknowledged and addressed in order to produce effective policy solutions.”266 However, “repressing views does not solve the problem, but merely curtails minor symptoms and prevents true discussion of real solutions.”267 In suppressing the expression of certain views, speech codes merely create a “fictional ‘equality.'”268 The reality is that, regardless of the extent to which universities use speech codes to regulate campus speech, “incidents of hatred will continue because prohibiting certain speech will not eliminate the feelings and emotions underlying the speech.”269 As legal commentators have recognized, “driving racist, sexist, and other discriminatory speech underground will not necessarily eliminate a student’s thoughts and emotions.”270 Nadine Strossen argues that “no law could possibly eliminate all racist speech, let alone racism itself. If the marketplace of ideas cannot be trusted to winnow out the hateful, then there is no reason to believe that censorship will do so.”271 Strossen points to the fact that “there is no persuasive psychological evidence that punishment for name-calling changes deeply held attitudes” and that, rather, psychological studies “show that censored speech becomes more appealing and persuasive to many listeners merely by virtue of the censorship.”272 She also points to the dearth of empirical evidence, from nations which do prohibit racist speech, that censorship is an effective method of combating racism.273 For example, she points out that in Great Britain, which began to prohibit racist defamation in 1965, censorship of racist speech “has had no discernible adverse impact on the National Front and other neo-Nazi groups active in Britain.”274 She writes that not only has censorship “had no effect on more subtle, but nevertheless clear, signals of racism,” but in fact “some observers believe that racism is more pervasive in Britain than in the United States.”275 Therefore, she concludes, “those who share the dual goals of promoting racial equality and protecting free speech must concentrate on countering racial discrimination, rather than on defining the particular narrow subset of racist slurs that constitutionally might be regulable.”276 Generalizing from Strossen’s insights regarding racist speech, censorship is not an effective method of eliminating or reducing societal prejudice in its various forms. Speech codes therefore cannot be justified on this basis. 2. Censorship Leads to Dangerous and Counterproductive Outcomes Secondly, the justification that speech codes will eliminate prejudice and advance equality fails to recognize that censorship actually leads to dangerous and counterproductive outcomes. Legal commentators have recognized that free speech serves a “safety valve” function in that it “encourages expression of feelings of frustration and thereby decreases resort to violence.”277 This can also be thought of as the “emotive function of speech,” whereby “free speech is a necessary emotional outlet.”278 Very often, the “release” of engaging in free speech “reduces the speaker’s need to verbally or physically ‘vent’ on others in a confrontational manner.”279 Thus, when universities use speech codes to suppress and punish various forms of protected expression, they take away these crucial benefits of free speech. As a consequence, when students are not allowed to engage in free speech, there are several undesirable results. One is that those students holding beliefs the expression of which is restricted “may feel persecuted by the university’s edict forbidding those beliefs, or at least, their expression, and may therefore cling more tightly to them than if they had been permitted to voice their opinion.”280 Such hardening of views and perpetuation of stubborn thinking is extremely counterproductive and, moreover, fundamentally at odds with the university’s marketplace of ideas ideal. These students may also feel increased resentment towards groups on campus they perceive to be receiving preferential treatment in the form of protective speech codes.281 This, too, is to be avoided if one wishes to promote inter-group dialogue and understanding. The second counterproductive result of censorship is that it drives much “thought and expression underground, where it will be more difficult to respond to such speech and the underlying attitudes it expresses.”282 Once again, this is contrary to the university’s function as a marketplace of ideas; the ideal of rigorous and open debate is defeated when some views never enter the marketplace and students are deprived of an opportunity to learn from, and respond to, these views. Moreover, “revealing prejudicial attitudes, rather than forcing them underground, is the best path to eventually eliminating them through education and discussion.”283 When students holding prejudicial and hateful views simply respond to censorship by voicing them through alternative means and in alternative forums, those views essentially go unchallenged, allowing ignorance and bias to survive. The third and final dangerous outcome of censorship is that it may increase the likelihood of dangerously disruptive or even violent outbursts on campus. Perhaps owing to the frustration felt by some students due to perceived persecution by the university administration for their beliefs, as well as resentment felt by those students towards particular groups on campus, censorship often creates optimal conditions for violent behavior. One commentator therefore asserts that censorship can lead to “physical, potentially violent expressions that would otherwise be verbal.”284 Another similarly observes, “Regulation of speech serves only to silence the verbal cacophony of ignorance. The vapid thoughts of hatred will only be submerged temporarily, festering and multiplying, preparing to erupt as actions and deeds much worse than mere words and language.”285 Thus, on at least some occasions the devastating result of censorship may be campus violence. This is obviously a result to be avoided at great costs, as it does an immeasurable amount of harm to the lives of the students involved, to the state of inter-group relations on campus, and to the overall reputation and stature of the university. 3. Counterspeech is the Most Effective Response In addition to the fact that censorship of prejudicial speech fails to address the underlying beliefs and actually leads to counterproductive outcomes, there is a third flaw with this justification for speech codes: it ignores the fact that counterspeech is the more effective method of responding to the expression of hateful views. As I discussed in the previous section with respect to the rationale of protecting minority students from injurious speech, there are significant benefits to combating hateful speech with counterspeech rather than with censorship.286 One theorist argues, “The fallacy of the speech code arguments is the assertion that equality and an end to oppression will be achieved through unilateral speech regulation. Instead, the answer to the scurrilous problems of bigotry and hatred must be more speech and better speech. The force of speech and counter speech in the push for social change cannot be underestimated.”287 Another commentator similarly notes that “to eliminate intolerance and hatred we must expose the falsehoods and inconsistencies of those arguments supporting hatred,” because these views “will fall out of favor and become increasingly unacceptable to all of society as a result of the public being exposed to and recognizing the problems and weak foundations of the hate speech argument.”288 By contrast, “speech codes are an unprincipled way out, and actually contribute to the dilemma by stifling healthy debate.”289 The use of speech codes “stultifies the candid intergroup dialogue concerning racism and other forms of bias that constitutes an essential precondition for reducing discrimination.”290 Therefore, universities should recognize that whereas censorship does nothing to address the underlying problems of prejudice and hate, counterspeech can actually change some people’s thinking and in the process create meaningful progress. This holds true even if prejudicial viewpoints initially survive and linger in the marketplace of ideas, because it reflects the unfortunate reality that some individuals are ignorant about other people and cultures.291 Ultimately, counterspeech can successfully make a difference in people’s views and thereby combat the existence of intolerance and hatred in society. Speech codes, conversely, are ill-equipped for this purpose. Consequently, the existence of speech codes on the college campus cannot be justified under the rationale of eliminating societal prejudice and advancing equality.
	39	+Advantage 2 is Sexual Assault
	40	+Scenario 1 – Rape Law
	41	+Teachers are dissuaded from teaching rape law due to a culture of fear surrounding liberal speech codes.
	42	+Fisher 2 (Anthony L. Fisher, Dec 13, 2016, “Opposition to “offensive” speech on campuses will ultimately burn dissidents”, http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/12/13/13931524/free-speech-pen-america-campus-censorship)
	43	+PEN America, the literary and human rights association that lists as one of its core principles a commitment to "protect open expression in the United States and worldwide," set out to explore the state of free speech on the nation’s campuses — re-examining several high-profile incidents and controversies. While not comprehensive, the report, published this fall, is impressively thorough, treating much of its content as teachable case studies, rather than a set of self-affirming anecdotes. Some press coverage, however, suggested that the PEN America report — titled “And Campus For All: Diversity, Inclusion, and Freedom of Speech at U.S. Universities" — had exonerated campuses from the charge that they insufficiently protect free speech, and that it sided with students who think "cries of ‘free speech’ are too often used as a cudgel against them,” as the New York Times put it. The report itself contributes in a small way to this confused take, largely due to a single line in its conclusion which (improbably) asserts that there is no “pervasive ‘crisis’ for free speech on campus.” But that same report exhaustively details dozens of cases where certain speech was inappropriately muted on campus. More examples: Skidmore College’s Bias Response Group determined that the posting of Donald Trump's official campaign motto "Make America Great Again" in classrooms where women and people of color worked constituted "racialized, targeted attacks." A tenured associate professor at Louisiana State University, Teresa Buchanan, was dismissed for the offenses of using off-color language (including "fuck no”) in class, and off campus (where she said “pussy” in a conversation with another teacher). Like the University of Colorado’s Adler, Buchanan was deemed to have created a "hostile learning environment." The authors write of the "chilling effect" such administrative actions have on professors who fear reprisals for unintentional offense, and as a result, will avoid certain subjects, including rape law and even some aspects of Greek mythology, out of an abundance of caution.
	44	+Lack of rape law education hurts survivors of sexual assault – they won’t win court cases
	45	+Soave 14 (Robby Soave, Dec. 16, 2014, “Profs Have Stopped Teaching Rape Law Now That Everything 'Triggers' Students”, http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/16/profs-have-stopped-teaching-rape-law-now)
	46	+Students seem more anxious about classroom discussion, and about approaching the law of sexual violence in particular, than they have ever been in my eight years as a law professor. Student organizations representing women’s interests now routinely advise students that they should not feel pressured to attend or participate in class sessions that focus on the law of sexual violence, and which might therefore be traumatic. These organizations also ask criminal-law teachers to warn their classes that the rape-law unit might “trigger” traumatic memories. Individual students often ask teachers not to include the law of rape on exams for fear that the material would cause them to perform less well. One teacher I know was recently asked by a student not to use the word “violate” in class—as in “Does this conduct violate the law?”—because the word was triggering. Some students have even suggested that rape law should not be taught because of its potential to cause distress. Suk—who is one of the signatories on this statement of opposition to Harvard's illiberal sexual assault policy—goes on to note that the very real, terrible consequence of not teaching rape law will be the proliferation of lawyers ill-equipped to deal with such matters. Victims of sexual assault deserve competent legal representation; the legal system needs prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges who have vigorously studied the nuances of rape adjudication. Social progress on all these fronts will be rolled back if law professors stop educating students about rape. That would be a travesty of justice.
	47	+Scenario 2 – Student Journalism
	48	+Universities continuously abuse legislation to hide sexual violence by denying information to reporters, redacting information about the perpetrator, and suing students who disclose reports – Student Journalism is key to sexual assault justice.
	49	+Saul 12-2-16 Stephanie Saul is a reporter for The New York Times and a recipient of the Pulitzer Prize in journalism. Saul attended public schools in New Albany, where she showed an early interest in journalism as editor of the high school newspaper. At Ole Miss, Saul was on the staff of the Daily Mississippian and the yearbook. She was a member of Phi Kappa Phi, the academic honor society, and Kappa Delta social sorority. After graduating in 1975 with a B.A. in journalism, Saul joined The Clarion-Ledgeras a reporter, covering Mississippi government and the state legislature. A succession of reporting jobs at other newspapers led her to The New York Timesin 2005, where she is currently a member of the newspaper’s investigative reporting team. "Campus Press vs. Colleges: Kentucky Suit Highlights Free-Speech Fight,". 12-2-2016. New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/02/us/kentucky-student-journalism-free-speech.html//roman
	50	+The confidential informant had an explosive tip for the University of Kentucky's campus newspaper: An associate professor of entomologv had been accused of groping students, and the college, after an investigation, had permitted him to leave quietly. On the trail of a hot story, the paper, The Kentucky Kernel, requested files from the university. Officials turned over some documents, but they contained few details. Months later, though, in August, a 122-page dossier about the accusations was leaked to the newspaper, which reported the specifics, including one woman's claim that the professor had grabbed her buttocks, crotch and breast during an off-campus conference in 2013. Now The Kernel is being sued by the university in a continuing battle over whether records in the case should be disclosed. And it is just one of several disputes between universities and student newspapers, which are pushing administrations to become more transparent about sexual assault, a defining issue on campuses around the country. With cuts at traditional news organizations, student journalists see their role as increasingly important in shedding light on the subject and are becoming more dogged in ferreting out information about sexual assault cases, particularly when faculty or student perpetrators could simply find other jobs or transfer to another university. Some are demanding that the student body be given details when a college confirms wrongdoing, particularly of a violent nature, by students, faculty or staff members. Universities, though, often invoke privacy concerns in refusing to make details of inquiries public. "The critical question is whether we are able to continue protecting the confidentiality and privacy of victim-survivors who courageously come forward to report details of their victimization, " wrote the University of Kentucky's president, Eli Capilouto, in a university wide email. "The protection of victim-survivor privacy, " the email continued, requires more than the redaction of names. It requires the redaction of any information that might reasonably lead to the identification of victim-survivors as well as the intimate details of the sexual assault. " Frank LoMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, a nonprofit organization, sees it another way. With state funding reductions and increasing competition for top students, colleges are more motivated than ever, he suggested, to maintain their reputations. "The stakes have increased for colleges to keep secrets, " Mr. LoMonte said. "They're getting more aggressive." His group has helped student journalists fight to get documents and other information, and has worked to fend off funding cuts that students believe were in retaliation for controversial articles. At Brandeis University, in Waltham, Mass. three staff members on The Justice, the student newspaper, were notified in February that they would be called to a university meeting — the first step in a disciplinary process — because the newspaper had audiotaped a public rally in 2015 at which students criticized the university's handling of sexual assault cases. Someone had complained that the rally was recorded without permission, which the complainant viewed as possibly violating state law and college rules. The Justice had used the recordings for an article about the rally. No formal charges were filed, the university said, because it concluded that student journalists covering public events were within their rights to use recording devices. "We were very concerned that the student press at Brandeis was being targeted unfairly," said Ari Cohn, a lawyer with the nonprofit Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which aided the students. "The public relations issues around sexual assault on campus are massive right now. There's definitely a desire by universities to be out in front of those issues and to show they're taking this seriously. In some cases, like this one, that causes an overreaction. The Daily Tar Heel, an independent publication at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, sued the university on Nov. 21 after officials refused to release details about sexual assault cases there. In a statement, the vice chancellor for communications, Joel Curran, said the university had a "profound responsibility to protect and vigorously defend the privacy of sexual assault victims and all students, including witnesses, who may be involved." But Jane Wester, The Daily Tar Heel's editor, said, "Once someone has been found responsible for a violent offense, the university is under no obligation to keep that information private." At Indiana University, the independent Indiana Daily Student has been battling since September to obtain a 13-page report on the school's inquiry into sexual assault accusations against a former ballet instructor, Guoping Wang, who was and charged with sexual battery of a student. The criminal case is pending. Hannah Alani, the investigations editor for The Indiana Daily Student, said the university's refusal to release its report — partly on grounds that it is part of Mr. Wang's personnel file — fits a pattern in which the university has repeatedly declined requests related to sexual assault, prompting it to seek legal advice. "Indiana University insists it takes sexual assault serious ly," said Ms. Alani, whose newspaper has been aggressively covering campus sexual assault. "But when pressed for transparency on student and faculty cases, the university tells the public very little." An Indiana spokeswoman, Margie Smith-Simmons, said the documents requested by the paper were not "public records," and therefore could not be released. The Kernel, which is partly financed by the University of Kentucky, has won numerous journalism awards. The university itself is home to a First Amendment Center endowed by the venerable Scripps Howard broadcasting and newspaper chain.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-01-07 06:01:26.185

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Zachary Zertuche

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Clear Brook AS

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+11

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Westwood Shhah Aff

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+JF - 1AC - Stock

Tournament

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