Tournament: Harvard Westlake | Round: 2 | Opponent: x | Judge: x
Framework
V: Morality
VC: Furthering Discussion

Discourse ought to be focused on inclusion, universalized decision making, and socialization. Key to form ethics.
Gingrich’2k- Paul Gingrich is a professor in the department of sociology and social studies at the University of Regina. (Paul Gingrich. “Sociology 319. March 16 2000. Habermas”. 2000. 8 January 2017. JB)
As a result, the pursuit of rationality in this more inclusive sense would lead to "the removal of the barriers that distort communication, but more generally it means a communication system in which ideas are openly presented and defended against criticism" (Ritzer, p. 294). e. Public Sphere i. Public and Private (p. 456) Integration of private and public spheres in traditional societies, where the lifeworld and system more or less identical. Separation of public and private with development of modernity corresponds to separation of lifeworld and system. Public = collective concerns and activities of state Private = affairs not so subject to state but more concerned with personal Colonization of lifeworld could be viewed as invasion of private by the public. Social self-organization through greater participation in rational-critical discourse (middle of p. 456). ii. Exclusion and Inclusivity Women and non-property holders excluded. Issues involve not just who is excluded and who included, but the form of discourse that results. How are diverse identities included and how might the form of discourse change as more are included. This is especially relevant today when issues of multiculturalism and gender inclusiveness are considered. This might lead to questioning Habermas approach of a single public discourse. Several publics or a sphere of publics. Discourse across lines of difference. Multiple intersections among heterogeneous publics. But this creates problems as well, because nationalism and identity imply boundaries, where some are excluded. This also ties the individual to the group as "personally embodied" (bottom, p. 457). Habermas – "disinterested rational-critical public discourse" (middle, p. 458). That is, this is not bringing particular material or other interests and not negotiating as interest groups. That is, Habermas downplays specific interests and disregards status in favour of being willing to work mutually toward a rational-critical understanding. This means settling arguments on the basis of the merits of the argument, rather than the identities of the actors (top of p. 459). This is similar to liberal arguments and ignores some of the points noted earlier by Habermas, that differences can be relegated to the private sector. Calhoun notes that Habermas assumes a "private, pre-political life that enables and encourages citizens to rise above private identities and concerns" (middle, p. 459). iii. Multiplicity of Publics. Not a single public, and common membership not prior to other memberships. People are part of different public arenas and address multiple centres of power. (Folbre) Public discourse must involve discourse in multiple arenas. Power means exercising of debate in only one public. Must have it in all. eg. many seemingly private issues brought into public arena. Habermas – does not deal adequately with identity formation or culture as public activity f. Notes on "Discourse Ethics" All references in this section are to "Morality and Ethical Life: Does Hegel’s Critique of Kant Apply to Discourse Ethics?" pp. 195-215 in Habermas, 1991. For Habermas, discourse ethics is study and analysis of the possibility of "grounding moral norms in communication" (p. 195). Habermas identifies ideal speech and communicative action as arekey to developing discourse and understanding, so that these may be important for developing agreed upon norms. This is especially the case in modern society since the authority associated with traditional norms has disappeared and communicative action becomes the only basis on which common agreement can be reached, at least if coercion and power are to be avoided. In this article, Habermas approaches these from a philosophical point of view, but uses some ideas from sociology and develops some sociologically relevant implications. i. Valid Norms. Pages 196 and 197 are primarily philosophic, but the principle of moral augmentation on the middle of p. 197 states the principle that Habermas develops: "Only those norms may claim to be valid that could meet with the consent of all affected in their role as participants in a practical discourse." In society there are various norms – for example, in our society there are norms against theft, for mobility rights, and for rights to vote. While these are generally regarded as valid in our society, they might not be in other societies, or the consequences for violation of these might be treated quite differently. The criterion Habermas uses to consider whether these are something isvalid in any society or group is based on what all those affected by such norms would say if they were involved in a practical discourse, that is a discourse where everyone could participate and where the result would be decided by force of discussion and argument. If all consented, following such discussion, then this would be a valid norm. ii. Universal. But the norm might not be universal, because those in other cultures or societies might not consent to this norm. Here Habermas notes that there is a danger or fallacy in applying any norm to other groups or societies. This is because the norm might reflect the prejudices of a powerful group like upper class males who themselves are agreed on the norm, but others might not. iii. Practical Discourse. Habermas notes how his criterion or procedure differs from some other approaches. He notes that Rawls uses the criterion of contract. More relevant for this course is a comparison with Mead who uses an approach that Habermas terms "ideal role taking." From Mead he draws out the criterion that the individual put himself or herself in the position of others who would be affected by an action, and on this basis determine whether the action is appropriate. This is from Mead’s view of action involving consideration of the possible responses of others, and adjusting one’s behaviour accordingly. For Habermas, the principle is rather that of argumentation, discussion, and discourse, where "all concerned take part, freely and equally, in a cooperative search for truth, where noting coerces anyone except the force of a better argument." While Habermas notes that this is a demanding condition, it is a reasonable one, and one we often attempt to use in practice. There may be some problematic assumptions built into this, but perhaps no more so than the other criteria.

Democratic societies must have inclusive communication, that’s key to universalizability. Within an increasingly diverse society, in inclusiveness would provide perspective and generates key skills for engagement in higher education
Gingrich’2k- Paul Gingrich is a professor in the department of sociology and social studies at the University of Regina. (Paul Gingrich. “Sociology 319. March 16 2000. Habermas”. 2000. 8 January 2017. JB)
iv. Ideal Speech. Habermas grounds his arguments in the concept of ideal speech and the ideal speech situation – "a situation in which everyone would have an equal chance to argue and question, without those who are more powerful, confident, or prestigious having and unequal say. True positions would prevail under these circumstances because they are more rational" (Wallace and Wolf, p. 178). The ideal speech situation is one in which the participants are oriented toward developing a mutual understanding, and not just to achieving some specific purposive result through the interaction. As a result, his model would seem to argue against rational choice theory and even take a different direction than the more purposive models of Weber and Parsons. Habermas notes: the goal of coming to an understanding is to bring about an agreement that terminates in the intersubjective mutuality of reciprocal understanding, shared knowledge, mutual trust, and accord with one another. Agreement is based on recognition of the corresponding validity claims of comprehensibility, truth, truthfulness, and rightness. (Wallace and Wolf, p. 178, from Habermas "What is Universal Pragmatics?") This ideal speech situation is thus oriented toward developing an understanding, and when agreement is reached, this is the knowledge and truth of the situation. Several principles of the ideal speech situation are as follows (adapted from Ritzer, p. 295). Mutual Understanding. What the speaker says is understandable and comprehensible by others. Same language, structures that are understandable, topics and claims that make sense to others involved in conversation. Truthful. The speaker provides reliable knowledge in the sense that the propositions stated by the speaker are true. When specific facts and statements concerning the natural or social world are made, the speaker provides statements that he or she understands to be correct. That is, there is not deliberate misrepresentation by the speaker. Sincere Expression. The speaker is sincere or reliable in the sense that the speaker is truthful and believable. When opinions, attitudes, views, and interpretations are being provided, the speaker generally attempts to be sincere and not deliberately mislead. Right to Speak. The speaker has the right and it is proper for the speaker to speak. Individuals who have a statement to make should be allowed to do so, and their view should be listened to and seriously considered. Legitimacy. Speech acts take a position with respect to normative or legitimate social order. This may be connected to the first point, that the speech acts relate in some way to the social order of which one is part. These are five validity claims that Habermas argues must be associated with conversation and communication in order to develop and maintain communication and develop common understandings. For social interaction through communication to occur, each of these validity claims or conditions must be met. If one of them breaks down or is violated, then that distorts or limits the interactive process, and prevents consensus from emerging. This could be at the individual level, where one or more parties to a conversation do not abide by these, or where there is an unequal power situation. At the level of institutions and structures, many of these conditions may be violated. Social organization developed on the basis of these ideal speech assumptions is likely to be associated with a number of positive features – openness, fairness, democracy, and consensus. Note the relevance of these conditions for public discourse. It is often minority groups, women, and the disadvantaged or powerless who are left out in discussion. The conditions of Habermas would require their inclusion in discussion and debate. Habermas argues that communicatively competent individuals are committed to reaching understanding and a consensus. "The theory of communicative competence holds that there is at least one end (mutuality) to which we are committed in virtue of being capable of communication and that this end is prior to personal ends" (Braaten, p. 64). That is, while we each may have personal ends in mind, an encounter through communication is in some senses prior to this theoretically, in that we are committed to the communicative principles first. Habermas develops this view partly from Mead and partly by analyzing the structure of speech and communication. At one level, the conditions associated with ideal speech can be considered utopian. That is, if each of these conditions is met, there could be true discussion or discourse among those involved. There would not be power imbalances and this would provide a way of developing consensus. At the same time, the ideal speech situation can be regarded as an ideal type of the Weberian sort, and it is a useful analytical tool for considering how social interaction at the individual, small group, and societal level takes place. Further, these conditions can be regarded as the basic set of assumptions and concepts for the communicative action theory of Habermas, perhaps in with the same sort of role that the commodity and exchange plays in Marxian theory or the unit act in Parsonian theory. That is, from this basic concept of ideal speech, Habermas is able to build a comprehensive theory of social interaction, life-world, system, and public discourse. These latter ideas are examined in the following notes.

AND Racism is a decision rule
Memmi 2k (Albert, Professor Emeritus of Sociology @ U of Paris, Naiteire, Racism, Translated by Steve Martinot, p. 163-165)
The struggle against racism will be long, difficult, without intermission, without remission, probably never achieved. Yet, for this very reason, it is a struggle to be undertaken without surcease and without concessions. One cannot be indulgent toward racism; one must not even let the monster in the house, especially not in a mask. To give it merely a foothold means to augment the bestial part in us and in other people, which is to diminish what is human. To accept the racist universe to the slightest degree is to endorse fear, injustice, and violence. It is to accept the persistence of the dark history in which we still largely live. It is to agree that the outsider will always be a possible victim (and which man is not himself an outsider relative to someone else?. Racism illustrates, in sum, the inevitable negativity of the condition of the dominated that is, it illuminates in a certain sense the entire human condition. The anti-racist struggle, difficult though it is, and always in question, is nevertheless one of the prologues to the ultimate passage from animosity to humanity. In that sense, we cannot fail to rise to the racist challenge. However, it remains true that one’s moral conduit only emerges from a choice: one has to want it. It is a choice among other choices, and always debatable in its foundations and its consequences. Let us say, broadly speaking, that the choice to conduct oneself morally is the condition for the establishment of a human order, for which racism is the very negation. This is almost a redundancy. One cannot found a moral order, let alone a legislative order, on racism, because racism signifies the exclusion of the other, and his or her subjection to violence and domination. From an ethical point of view, if one can deploy a little religious language, racism is ‘the truly capital sin. It is not an accident that almost all of humanity’s spiritual traditions counsels respect for the weak, for orphans, widows, or strangers. It is not just a question of theoretical morality and disinterested commandments. Such unanimity in the safeguarding of the other suggests the real utility of such sentiments. All things considered, we have an interest in banishing injustice, because injustice engenders violence and death. Of course, this is debatable. There are those who think that if one is strong enough, the assault on and oppression of others is permissible. Bur no one is ever sure of remaining the strongest. One day, perhaps, the roles will be reversed. All unjust society contains within itself the seeds of its own death. It is probably smarter to treat others with respect so that they treat you with respect. “Recall.” says the Bible, “that you were once a stranger in Egypt,” which means both that you ought to respect the stranger because you were a stranger yourself and that you risk becoming one again someday. It is an ethical and a practical appeal—indeed, it is a contract, however implicit it might be. In short, the refusal of racism is the condition for all theoretical and practical morality because, in the end, the ethical choice commands the political choice, a just society must be a society accepted by all. If this contractual principle is not accepted, then only conflict, violence, and destruction will be our lot. If it is accepted, we can hope someday to live in peace. True, it is a wager, but the stakes are irresistible.
Thus the standard is furthering discussion.  Prefer the standard for two reasons: 

1. Furthering discussion creates universalizability which is good since we are able to create understanding and consensus and not having universalizability norms is bad because it hurts inclusiveness making discussion flawed.
   2. Habermas discourse ethics creates universalizable norms because it upholds individuals interacting in order to reach a discussion, argument, and consensus.

Util bad
a. Util promotes inequity and inherently discriminates against minority like slavery
Odell, 04 – University of Illinois is an Associate Professor of Philosophy (Jack, Ph.D., “On Consequentialist Ethics,” Wadsworth, Thomson Learning, Inc., pp. 98-103)
A classic objection to both act and rule utilitarianism has to do with inequity, and is related to the kind of objection raised by Rawls, which I will consider shortly. Suppose we have two fathers-Andy and Bob. Suppose further that they are alike in all relevant respects, both have three children, make the same salary, have the same living expenses, put aside the same amount in savings, and have left over each week fifteen dollars. Suppose that every week Andy and Bob ask themselves what they are going to do with this extra money, and Andy decides anew each week (AU) to divide it equally among his three children, or he makes a decision to always follow the rule (RU) that each child should receive an equal percentage of the total allowance money. Suppose further that each of his children receive five degrees of pleasure from this and no pain. Suppose on the other hand, that Bob, who strongly favors his oldest son, Bobby, decides anew each week (AU) to give all of the allowance money to Bobby, and nothing to the other two, and that he instructs Bobby not to tell the others, or he makes a decision to follow the rule (RU) to always give the total sum to Bobby. Suppose also that Bobby gets IS units of pleasure from his allowance and that his unsuspecting siblings feel no pain. The end result of the actions of both fathers is the same-IS units of pleasure. Most, if not all, of us would agree that although Andy's conduct is exemplary, Bob's is culpable. Nevertheless, according to both AU and RU the fathers in question are morally equal. Neither father is more or less exemplary or culpable than the other. I will refer to the objection implicit in this kind of example as (H) and state it as: ' (H) Both act and rule utilitarianism violate the principle of just distribution. What Rawls does is to elaborate objection (H). Utilitarianism, according to Rawls, fails to appreciate the importance of distributive justice, and that by doing so it makes a mockery of the concept of "justice." As I pointed out when I discussed Russell's views regarding partial goods, satisfying the interests of a majority of a given population while at the same time thwarting the interests of the minority segment of that same population (as occurs in societies that allow slavery) can maximize the general good, and do so even though the minority group may have to suffer great cruelties. Rawls argues that the utilitarian commitment to maximize the good in the world is due to its failure to ''take seriously the distinction between persons."· One person can be forced to give up far too much to insure the maximization of the good, or the total aggregate satisfaction, as was the case for those young Aztec women chosen by their society each year to be sacrificed to the Gods for the welfare of the group.

Advantages
Inherency
Currently all students have the right to free speech, however across the nation, this free speech is now being threatened
Friedersdorf’16- Conor Friedersdorf is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he focuses on politics and national affairs. (Conor Friedersdorf. “The Glaring Evidence that Free Speech is Threatened on Campus”. 2016. 5 January 2017. JB.)
At a recent Intelligence Squared debate, an audience filled an auditorium at Yale University to weigh the timely proposition, “Free speech is threatened on campus.” The debate concerned higher education generally, not just the host institution. And at the event’s conclusion, having heard arguments on both sides of the question, 66 percent of the crowd agreed: free speech is threatened. That represented a 17-point shift from a poll taken as the event began. The evidence is that persuasive. One of the losers in the debate was Professor Shaun Harper of the University of Pennsylvania, who heads its Center for the Study of Race and Equity in Education. He began by noting that “there has been a significant increase in the demand for our campus climate work” since last semester’s protests. In fact, he added, “this past December, we brought together 8,000 college presidents and other senior leaders who came to us for guidance on how to respond to racism on their campuses.” With that background, I expected Professor Harper to have a broad sense of how common speech restrictions are at American colleges and universities. And I assumed that he would offer arguments for the position that they do not threaten free speech. I was wrong on both counts. Late in the event, he declared, “I don't want anyone's speech to be suppressed in any setting.” The root of the disagreement was his belief that little speech is restricted. And earlier in his remarks, Harper declared that while colleges may ask students to voluntarily limit their speech in various ways, like not wearing offensive costumes, “I invite our opponents to present us more than a handful of written, institutional policies––where it's been put in writing that you can't say certain things. You can't wear certain costumes. Sure, students would be encouraged to do or not do something. But I, as a higher-education scholar who studied thousands of colleges and universities, have never seen a written institutional policy.” That statement is baffling. The Foundation of Individual Rights in Education keeps track of colleges that have speech restrictions, rating each institution green, yellow, or red. To receive the worst rating, a college must have at least one policy “that both clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech.” That threshold is met only when a policy “unambiguously infringes on what is or should be protected expression” in a way that is “obvious on the face of the policy and does not depend on how the policy is applied.” The University of Pennsylvania, where Harper teaches, earns the best rating from FIRE, green, for having policies that “normally protect free speech.” Institutions with “red light” ratings for policies that unambiguously impinge upon expression include the following: That is only the beginning. I trust that I needn’t run through D, E, an F colleges to hammer home the ubiquity of written rules that limit what one can express. Even if Professor Harper were to defend some of those rules, it beggars belief to think that he could run through colleges beginning with G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, and P and still fall short of his “handful of written, institutional policies” threshold, let alone his claim to have “never seen” one. What’s more, a written policy doesn’t determine if free expression is protected or violated in practice. And one needn’t search long to find widespread examples of free speech being threatened or assaulted outright. To cite just one example, since Harper brought up the matter of costume controversies: UCLA is a public institution that is bound by the First Amendment; as such, it has no written policy banning students from wearing offensive costumes. Nevertheless, administrators at the campus suspended a fraternity for holding a “Kanye Western” theme party, where attendees dressed like the famous rapper and his celebrity wife, Kim Kardashian. Later in the debate, during a back and forth with Wendy Kaminer, who was arguing that free speech is threatened on campus, Harper said: Wendy, it could be that maybe we're talking to completely different students and hearing completely different things, because quite honestly, when we have students in our studies who are talking with us about the realities of race on their campuses… when we hear students of color unpack these painful stories and these microaggressions and stereotypes and other things that have happened to them, we ask them, ‘What is it that you want the institution to do?’ Never once, not once have I heard them say anything about a speech code. I don’t doubt Harper's account of his own research. But I fail to understand how any scholar who takes the campus climate and last semester’s protests as a core focus of their research could miss student demands to punish speech. The Wall Street Journal reported on a survey of 800 college students that found 51 percent favored speech codes. Yale protestors formally demanded the removal of two professors from their jobs in residential life because they were upset by an email one of them wrote. Missouri law students passed a speech code that Above the Law called Orwellian. Amherst students called for a speech code so broad that it would’ve sanctioned students for making an “All Lives Matter” poster. At Duke, student activists demanded disciplinary sanctions for students who attend “culturally insensitive” parties, mandatory implicit-bias training for all professors, and loss of the possibility of tenure if a faculty member engages in speech “if the discriminatory attitudes behind the speech,” as determined by an unnamed adjudicator, “could potentially harm the academic achievements of students of color.” At Emory, student activists demanded that student evaluations include a field to report a faculty member’s micro aggressions to help ensure that there are repercussions or sanctions, and that the social network Yik Yak be banished from campus. Activists at Wesleyan trashed their student newspaper then pushed to get it defunded because they disagreed with an op-ed that criticized Black Lives Matter. Dartmouth University students demanded the expulsion of fraternities that throw parties deemed racist and the forced a student newspaper to change its name. Need I go on? Harper’s ally in the debate, the Yale philosophy Professor Jason Stanley, didn’t perform any better. During portions the event, he claimed that folks on the other side, who say free speech is under threat, aren’t really engaged in a debate about free speech––he said the real debate is about racism and anti-racism and about leftism. In this telling, free speech is being invoked as a cover, in service of less-sympathetic agendas. That grossly distorted the positions taken by his opponents at the Intelligence Squared debate. And the broader claim about free-speech defenders—which is lamentably common in public discourse on the subject—can be refuted a dozen different ways. Here’s one: Many college newspapers are struggling with free-speech issues that have nothing to do with race or leftism, as David Wheeler reported. Or consider another narrow area of campus expression that is under threat: the formal speech, delivered to a broad audience. We’ll restrict our “threat survey” to a single year. In 2015 alone, Robin Steinberg was disinvited from Harvard Law School, the rapper Common was disinvited from Kean University, and Suzanne Venker was disinvited from Williams College. Asra Nomani addressed Duke University only after student attempts to cancel her speech were overturned. UC Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks participated in an event on his own campus that student protestors shut down. Speakers at USC needed police to intervene to continue an event. Angela Davis was subject to a petition that attempted to prevent her from speaking at Texas Tech. The rapper Big Sean faced a student effort to get him disinvited from Princeton. Bob McCulloch faced a student effort to disinvite him from speaking at St. Louis University. William Ayers was subject to an effort to disinvite him from Dickinson School of Law. Harold Koh faced a student effort to oust him as a visiting professor at New York University Law School. That list includes speakers from the right and the left. It involves several controversies that have nothing to do with antiracism. How many examples are needed to persuade Stanley that there is a problem? Because I only stopped listing them to avoid being tedious. Those examples are a mere subset of 2015 efforts to censor speakers based on their viewpoints. There are still more from 2014. Further roundups could be written about 2013, 2012, and beyond. Speech is frequently threatened. Speeches are regularly disrupted. Some are cancelled every year. To perceive no threat is to ignore reality. Or forget big speeches and look to another example of left-leaning speech that is threatened. As Glenn Greenwald wrote at The Intercept, “One of the most dangerous threats to campus free speech has been emerging at the highest levels of the University of California system, the sprawling collection of 10 campuses that includes UCLA and UC Berkeley. The university’s governing Board of Regents, with the support of University President Janet Napolitano and egged on by the state’s legislature, has been attempting to adopt new speech codes that—in the name of combating ‘anti-Semitism’—would formally ban various forms of Israel criticism.” He continued: Under the most stringent such regulations, students found to be in violation of these codes would face suspension or expulsion. In July, it appeared that the Regents were poised to enact the most extreme version, but decided instead to push the decision off until September, when they instead would adopt non-binding guidelines to define “hate speech” and “intolerance.” One of the Regents most vocally advocating for the most stringent version of the speech code is Richard Blum, the multi-millionaire defense contractor who is married to Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California. At a Regents meeting last week, reported the Los Angeles Times, Blum expressly threatened that Feinstein would publicly denounce the university if it failed to adopt far more stringent standards than the ones it appeared to be considering, and specifically demanded they be binding and contain punishments for students found to be in violation. The San Francisco Chronicle put it this way: “Regent Dick Blum said his wife, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., ‘is prepared to be critical of this university’ unless UC not only tackles anti-Jewish bigotry but also makes clear that perpetrators will be punished.” The lawyer Ken White wrote that “Blum threatened that his wife … would interfere and make trouble if the Regents didn’t commit to punish people for prohibited speech.” As campus First Amendment lawyer Ari Cohn put it the following day, “Feinstein and her husband think college students should be expelled for protected free speech.” For now, no such speech code has been adopted. Does Stanley deny that the powerful, politically connected forces pushing for it are a threat to speech on campus? There are still more examples. Here is a Marquette professor whose tenure was threatened over a blog post. Two years ago, I wrote about the NYPD’s efforts to spy on Muslim students using undercover agents for no reason other than their religion, an effort that spanned months and produced zero leads. Anyone who doubts that this abhorrent profiling chilled the speech of an ethnic-minority group should inform themselves about their understandable reaction to discovering that government spies were in their midst. To sum up: free speech on campus is threatened from a dozen directions. It is threatened by police spies, overzealous administrators, and students who are intolerant of dissent. It is threatened by activists agitating for speech codes and sanctions for professors or classmates who disagree with them. It is threatened by people who push to disinvite speakers because of their viewpoints and those who shut down events to prevent people from speaking. Harper and Stanley were unpersuaded that free speech is under threat not because they defend speech codes or sanctions––both say outright at different times that they are for untrammeled speech––but because they are blind to the number and degree of threats to speech. And this whole discussion has been restricted to documented, overt threats to speech. Chilling effects are harder to quantify or cite, but they are real. Professors and students see those around them being punished for their viewpoints and decide to hold their tongues rather than speak their minds. Stanley denies that this is a significant problem. And yet, last semester, without looking very hard, I found and spoke to tenured and non-tenured professors and students at Yale, his own institution, who told me that their speech was chilled. They feared that their place at the school would be jeopardized if they opined honestly about campus controversies; or did not want to be targets of intolerant activists like the ones who spat on lecture attendees because the activists disagreed with words spoken at the lecture. The evidence that free speech is threatened on college campuses is overwhelming. Doubters who can’t accurately characterize the evidence should study the relevant material more thoroughly before dismissing free-speech concerns and impugning the motives of the people who raise them––especially if, like Harper and Stanley, they earnestly believe that free speech should be protected. I urge them to look again at the evidence and to join other liberals already engaged in this fight. The marginalized college students of the future will thank them.
Taking away freedom of expression ultimately harms minorities, criticism, and dissent because it makes the environment non-inclusive and unequal
Lectlaw’14- The Lectric Law Library is the internet’s finest legal resource for legal pros and laypeople alike. (The Lectric Law Library. “Freedom of Expression ACLU Briefing Paper Number 10”. 2014. 5 January 2017. JB.)
James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and the other framers of the Bill of Rights were products of the Age of Enlightenment. They eschewed the superstitions and intolerance of earlier times, believing instead in the power of reason, the search for truth, and the perfectability of human society. Freedom of inquiry and liberty of expression were clearly essential to the process of debate and discovery that they viewed as indispensable to the achievement of human progress. Questioning of authority was also a central theme of the Enlightenment era. The philosophers of the day well understood the tendency of government to perpetuate itself by enacting repressive measures to silence those opposed to its conduct. According to one libertarian thinker of the period, a citizen had the right to "say everything which his passions suggest; he may employ all his time, and all his talents...to do so, in speaking against the government matters that are false, scandalous and malicious," and yet he should be "safe within the sanctuary of the press." Speech was regarded as beyond the reach of criminal sanctions; only "overt acts" could be punished. Given the primacy that the framers assigned to the values the First Amendment embodies, it is fitting that freedom of expression should be the first freedom cited in the Bill of Rights. Why does freedom of expression play such a critical role in our constitutional system? There are four primary reasons why freedom of expression, which encompasses speech, the press, assembly and petition, is essential to a free society: First, freedom of expression is the foundation of self-fulfillment. Self- expression whichenables an individual to realize his or her full potential as a human being. The right of individuals to express their thoughts, desires, and aspirations, and to communicate freely with others, affirms the dignity and worth of each and every member of society. Thus, freedom of expression is an end in itself and should not be subordinated to any other goals of society. Second, freedom of expression is vital to the attainment and advancement of knowledge. The eminent 19th century civil libertarian, John Stuart Mill, contended that enlightened judgment is possible only if one considers all facts and ideas, from whatever source, and tests one's own conclusions against opposing views. But the right to express oneself is not conditioned on the content of one's views, which may be true or false, "good" or "bad," socially useful or harmful. All points of view should be represented in the "marketplace of ideas" so that society can benefit from debate about their worth. Third, freedom of expression is necessary to our system of self-government. If the American people are to be truly sovereign, the masters of their fate and of their elected government, they must be well-informed. They must have access to all information, ideas and points of view. The precondition for a free society is an informed and enlightened citizenry. Tyrannies thrive on mass ignorance. Fourth, freedom of expression provides a "check" against possible government corruption and excess, which seem to be permanent features of the human condition. Restrictions on freedom of speech always authorize the government to decide how, and against whom, the restrictions should apply. The more authority the government has, the more it will use that authority to suppress unpopular minorities, criticism and dissent. Because freedom of expression is so basic to a free society, the ACLU believes that it should 'never' be abridged by the government. What was the early history of the First Amendment and freedom of expression? The First Amendment's early years were not entirely auspicious. Although the early Americans enjoyed great freedom compared to citizens of other nations, even the Constitution's framers, once in power, could not resist the strong temptation to circumvent the First Amendment's clear mandate. In 1798, seen years after the First Amendment's adoption, Congress, over the objections of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, passed the Alien and Sedition Act. Ironically, this Act incorporated much of the English law of seditious libel (indeed, seditious libel remained a part of our law for the next 171 years), and was used by the dominant Federalist Party to prosecute a number of prominent Republican newspaper editors. But none of those cases reached the Supreme Court. Throughout the 19th century and much of the 20th, federal and state sedition, criminal anarchy and criminal conspiracy laws were used repeatedly to suppress expression by slavery abolitionists, religious minorities, early feminists, labor organizers, pacifists and left-wing political radicals. For example, prior to the Civil War every Southern state passed laws limiting speech in an attempt to stifle criticism of slavery. In Virginia, anyone who "by speaking or writing maintains that owners have no right of property in slaves" was subject to a one-year prison sentence. In 1929, feminist Margaret Sanger was arrested for giving a lecture on birth control. Trade union meetings were banned and courts routinely granted employers' requests for injunctions that prohibited strikes and other labor protest. Protest against U.S. entry into World War I was widely suppressed, and dissenters were jailed for their pronouncements and writings. In the early 1920s, many states outlawed the display of red or black flags, symbols of communism and anarchism. In 1923, author Upton Sinclair was arrested for trying to read the First Amendment at a union rally. Many people were arrested merely for membership in groups regarded as radical by the government. It was in response to the excesses of this period that the ACLU was born in 1920.
Not giving access to free speech creates a dehumanizing and racist culture
Freiere’68- Paulo Freiere is a Brazilian educator and philosopher who was leading expert on critical pedagogy. (Paulo Freiere. “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”. 1968. 5 January 2017. JB.)
As we attempt to analyze dialogue as a human phenomenon, we discover something which is the essence of dialogue itself: the word. But the word is more than just an instrument which makes dialogue possible; accordingly, we must seek its constitutive elements. Within the word we find two dimensions, reflection and action, in such radical interaction that if one is sacrificed—even in part—the other immediately suffers. There is no true word that is not at the same time a praxis.1Thus, to speak a true word is to transform the world.2 An unauthentic word, one which is unable to transform reality, results when dichotomy is imposed upon its constitutive elements. When a word is deprived of its dimension of action, reflection automatically suffers as well; and the word is changed into idle chatter, into verbalism, into an alienated and alienating "blah." It becomes an empty word, one which cannot denounce the world, for denunciation is impossible without a commitment to transform, and there is no transformation without action. On the other hand, if action is emphasized exclusively, to the detriment of reflection, the word is converted into activism. The latter—action for action's sake—negates the true praxis and makes dialogue impossible. Either dichotomy, by creating unauthentic forms of existence, creates also unauthentic forms of thought, which reinforce the original dichotomy. Human existence cannot be Silent, nor can it be nourished by false words, but only by true words, with which men and women transform the world. To exist, humanly, is to name the world, to change it. Once named, the world in its turn reappears to the namers as a problem and requires of them a new naming. Human beings are not built in silence,3 but in word, in work, in action-reflection. But while to say the true word—which is work, which is praxis—is to transform the world, saying that word is not the privilege of some few persons, but the right of everyone. Consequently, no one can say a true word alone—nor can she say it for another, in a prescriptive act which robs others of their words. Dialogue is the encounter between men, mediated by the world, in order to name the world. Hence, dialogue cannot occur between those who want to name the world and those who do not wish this naming—between those who deny others the right to speak their word and those whose right to speak has been denied them. Those who have been denied their primordial right to speak their word must first reclaim this right and prevent the continuation of this dehumanizing aggression. If it is in speaking their word that people, by naming the world, transform it, dialogue imposes itself as the way by which they achieve significance as human beings. Dialogue is thus an existential necessity. And since dialogue is the encounter in which the united reflection and action of the dialoguers are addressed to the world which is to be transformed and humanized, this dialogue cannot be reduced to the act of one persons "depositing" ideas in another, nor can it become a simple exchange of ideas to be "consumed" by the discussants. Nor yet is it a hostile, polemical argument between those who are committed neither to the naming of the world, nor to the search for truth, but rather to the imposition of their own truth. Because dialogue is an encounter among women and men who name the world, it must not be a situation where some name on behalf of others. It is an act of creation; it must not serve as a crafty instrument for the domination of one person by another. The domination implicit in dialogue is that of the world by the dialogues; it is conquest of the world for the liberation of humankind.
And Restricting free speech causes oppression that’s our second impact
Durden’15- Tyler Durden is a writer for Zero Hedge which shows news and editorial opinions. (Tyler Durden. “Why Only Free Speech Gives Safe Space To The Oppressed”. 2015. 9 January 2017.)
Social justice protests have been roiling American universities, even causing administrative heads to roll. To a significant degree, these campus uprisings have been characterized by an impulse to restrict speech and expression for the sake of creating “safe spaces” for marginalized groups. However, speech restriction is a double-edged sword that can just as easily injure the very people campus activists seek to help. The turmoil at the University of Missouri (Mizzou) in particular was sparked by racial incidents. And the protesters are closely aligned with the Black Lives Matter movement, which combats police brutality against black Americans. Moreover, these threats are emerging on university campuses and are being justified on “social justice” grounds. Like the cops, defenders of the Israeli occupation of Palestine are seeking to restrict speech on an “anti-hate” basis in order to insulate the occupation’s brutality and atrocities from criticism. As Nora Barrows-Friedman recently reported: “A member of the University of California’s governing body has called for the expulsion or suspension of students for expressing their views about Israel, under the guise of combating anti-Jewish bigotry. “This comes as Israel lobby groups, flush with huge new injections of cash, are stepping up their efforts to silence the Palestine solidarity movement on campuses nationwide. “During a 17 September meeting of the University of California (UC) Regents to discuss a ‘statement of principles against intolerance,’ Richard Blum also threatened to have his wife, US Senator Dianne Feinstein, publicly criticize the university if it did not enforce penalties against perceived bigotry. “Feinstein’s criticism could put the university system under federal scrutiny. “Another regent, Hadi Makarechian, agreed, according to The San Francisco Chronicle, saying that without punishment, ‘we’re just stating a lot of stuff on paper.’ “Blum and other regents, backed by Israel lobby groups, are pushing the university to adopt policies that free speech advocates warn could violate the First Amendment. “The Board of Regents had been due to vote on whether to adopt the US State Department’s definition of anti-Semitism as university policy at its meeting in July. “That definition is based on a ‘working definition’ of anti-Semitism once considered by a European Union body but later dropped. “Palestine solidarity and free speech advocates point out that the government definition conflates criticism of Israel with anti-Jewish bigotry. A key strategy of Israel advocates, they say, has been to urge university administrators to treat criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism as one and the same.” Just as the cops are blaming Black Lives Matter and viral videos for “inciting” violence against police, the hard-right Israeli government and its champions throughout the world have similarly been accusing the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, and the online dissemination of documented Israeli brutality, of being “incitement” for terrorism against Israel. They are pushing to have such “incitement” restricted. And they are succeeding. In October, France’s highest court ruled that advocacy of BDS is illegal “incitement” and “hate speech.” And as Glenn Greenwald wrote in The Intercept: “In May, CBC reported that Canadian officials threatened to prosecute BDS activists there under ‘hate speech’ laws, and after those officials denied doing so, we obtained and published the emails proving they did just that. The February Haaretz article described this troubling event in the U.K.: ‘In 2007, the British University and College Union said it would drop plans to boycott Israeli institutions after legal advisers said doing so would violate anti-discrimination laws.’ In 2013, New York City officials joined an (ultimately failed) Alan Dershowitz-led campaign to threaten the funding of Brooklyn College for the crime of hosting pro-BDS speakers.” Again, restricting speech is a double-edged sword. As the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) warned: “Free speech rights are indivisible. “Restricting the speech of one group or individual jeopardizes everyone’s rights because the same laws or regulations used to silence bigots can be used to silence you. Conversely, laws that defend free speech for bigots can be used to defend the rights of civil rights workers, anti-war protesters, lesbian and gay activists and others fighting for justice.” Many campus activists have lashed out in frustration at “free speech purism,” which they regard as misplaced in the context of institutionalized oppression. But it is extremely short-sighted to sacrifice universal principle on the altar of identity politics for the sake of marginalized groups. Once you accept the infringement of universal rights as an acceptable political weapon, it will be wielded more effectively by oppressors against the oppressed (cops against blacks, Israeli occupiers against Palestinians, etc.), and not the other way around. Authoritarian restriction is a game much better suited for the mighty than for the marginalized. If you replace the power of principle with the principle of power, it is the relatively powerless who will get the worst of it.

Thus I affirm the resolution on constitutionally protected speech
Resolved: Public Colleges and Universities in the United States ought not restrict any unconstitutionally protected speech.

Deliberative Pedagogy
Due to the need to help save a crumbling college system, the AC offers a deliberative pedagogy as the answer:
A Deliberative Pedagogy not only stops oppression and racist culture but also shows student engagement and development
Doherty’12- Joni Doherty is the director of the New England Center for Civic Life and teaches in the American Studies program at Franklin Pierce University. (Joni Doherty. “Deliberative Pedagogy: An Education that Matters”. 2012. 10 January 2017)
Deliberation is a set of practices that foster the conditions needed to understand and address these kinds of dilemmas. Participants in deliberative forums are encouraged to consider not only statistics and expert analysis, but also the experiential and value-laden aspects. Everyone affected by the issue needs to feel both welcome and encouraged to participate in defining and addressing the problem. Public deliberation requires each person to think critically and creatively and, listen attentively, examine assumptions, value differences, engage in respectful and honest dialogue, and reach well-reasoned judgments. Deliberating together is about deepening understanding of the problem in order to craft solutions, not about winning a debate or standing your ground. Deliberation is can be understood as the cultivation of a set of capacities that can lead to a new construction of knowledge, one that comes out of the public’s work together. Higher education has long embraced the expert construction of knowledge. Although this is changing, traditionally colleges and universities have conducted research and educated students on principles guided by this assumption. For example, many instructors focus on “covering” the course material through methods that ensure the efficient “delivery” of discipline-specific knowledge. This model, in which each side has clearly designated positions, may have secured the desired outcomes in a political, social, and economic environment where roles and responsibilities were categorically and hierarchically structured and in situations where everyone shared a common set of values and experiences. However, in rapidly changing and diverse societies, things are far messier. Today, because of the overlap of private, professional, and public realms, knowledge is pluralistic and situated. Situated knowledge is context specific. “What is known to be true” depends on its relationship to other conditions present in any particular situation. Multiple understandings might exist around one event or a common understanding may emerge over time. This isn’t relativism but instead requires that we take into account the dynamic interplay of shifting contexts, diverse perspectives, and competing demands. Deliberative pedagogies call for a rethinking and restructuring of the activities of teaching and learning. Through calling on each person to engage with others in democratic, inclusive, and respectfully discursive practices, deliberative pedagogies help students better understand differing perspectives and the complexity of persistent problems that spring from ethical dilemmas. Deliberative democracy minimizes or avoids the traditional leader/follower or expert/novice structure and foregrounds teamwork, intercultural knowledge, ethical reasoning, and action. For instructors who chose to fully employ deliberative democratic pedagogies, the shifts in teaching and learning would be far-reaching. Some of these would include a restructuring of traditional hierarchies and an inter-rogation of the very nature of what we understand to be knowledge and truth. Teaching and learning based on the principles of deliberative deliberation democracy are valuable in all fields, not just those related to communication, public policy, or politics. The need to make complex decisions about matters of common concern extends across every discipline. Deliberative pedagogies provide the interdisciplinary perspective and social and communicative skills necessary for successfully navigating and engaging in a post-industrial and increasingly diverse society. Connecting discipline-specific knowledge to concrete problems that transcend disciplinary boundaries opens pathways for students to become engaged with public and professional issues both inside and outside the classroom. The primary goal isn’t civic education per se, but for students to develop the commitment, knowledge, and skills necessary for creating and maintaining equitable, diverse, and democratic spaces, whether it be in the local community, the workplace, the nation, or the world.
AC Does not claim that Deliberative Pedagogy is completely perfect, just that it’s good idea and a great first step to create change
Longo’13- Nicholas V. Longo is a professor at Providence College who completes studies in public and community service studies. (Nicholas V. Longo. “Deliberative Pedagogy in the Community: Connecting Deliberative Dialogue, Community Engagement, and Democratic Education”. 2013. 10 January 2017.)
The efficacy of public deliberation at resolving complex issues has led to its elements being incorporated into domains beyond the public policy or political sphere. One of the most prominent of these areas is education, specifically, deliberation as an integral part of pedagogy. The difference between deliberative politics and deliberative pedagogy is that the former integrates deliberative decision-making with public action (Mathews, 2012), and the latter integrates deliberative decision-making with teaching and learning. Deliberative pedagogy in the community itis a collaborative approach that melds deliberative dialogue, community engagement, and democratic education. While different, the approach is not entirely new. It draws upon the historical efforts of the Highlander Folk School during the civil rights movement that was led by pioneering educators such as Myles Horton, Septima Clark, and Bernice Robinson. Much has been written about the Highlander tradition that connects education with social change (see for instance, Adams, 1975 and Glen, 1996), but there has been little research on how the processes used at Highlander can inform the practices of deliberative pedagogy. This is especially timely as a growing number of projects are involving college students in deliberative conversations outside what can sometimes be “the bubble” of the college campus. Specifically, students are stepping outside the classroom and connecting theory with real-world community problem-solving through intergenerational “learning circles” with new immigrants, forums with community members on public issues, and multiyear civic engagement courses. Faculty and students are co-creating shared spaces for dialogue and collaborative action in the community and rethinking long-held power dynamics between the campus and the community. This effort—and others like it—is not without its challenges; however they have the potential to shift our basic understanding of the role of higher education in society. Deliberative pedagogy holds enormous promise in promoting the civic mission of higher education through more collaborative approaches to teaching and learning that respond to important and rapidly shifting contextual trends: increasing diversity, new technologies that promote transparency and collaboration, and ardent desire of young people to “make a difference” through concrete social action. It moves the academy from the more traditional “teaching-to-learning” dynamic toward a model of “collaborative engagement” in which knowledge is more genuinely co-created through reflective public action. This shift toward collaboration also helps illuminate the civic dimensions of teaching and learning that increasing numbers of students are demanding and for which the communities in which higher education institutions are located—most of which are struggling with complex problems—are asking.
If there is time go over this:
Look to the aff as a way to free people of this problem, by not restricting free speech we give those who are oppressed and dealing with racist culture a chance to become freed of these problems through deliberative pedagogy. Note that the AC understands that this road may be difficult but regardless through the use of deliberative pedagogy, we are able to help others. Our Lectlaw evidence builds upon this further through the four key reasons of why free speech is necessary, this further supports AC solvency.

Tournament: Harvard Westlake | Round: 3 | Opponent: xx | Judge: xx
ACv2
Framework
V: Morality
VC: Furthering Discussion

Discourse ought to be focused on inclusion, universalized decision making, and socialization. Key to form ethics.
Gingrich’2k- Paul Gingrich is a professor in the department of sociology and social studies at the University of Regina. (Paul Gingrich. “Sociology 319. March 16 2000. Habermas”. 2000. 8 January 2017. JB)
As a result, the pursuit of rationality in this more inclusive sense would lead to "the removal of the barriers that distort communication, but more generally it means a communication system in which ideas are openly presented and defended against criticism" (Ritzer, p. 294). e. Public Sphere i. Public and Private (p. 456) Integration of private and public spheres in traditional societies, where the lifeworld and system more or less identical. Separation of public and private with development of modernity corresponds to separation of lifeworld and system. Public = collective concerns and activities of state Private = affairs not so subject to state but more concerned with personal Colonization of lifeworld could be viewed as invasion of private by the public. Social self-organization through greater participation in rational-critical discourse (middle of p. 456). ii. Exclusion and Inclusivity Women and non-property holders excluded. Issues involve not just who is excluded and who included, but the form of discourse that results. How are diverse identities included and how might the form of discourse change as more are included. This is especially relevant today when issues of multiculturalism and gender inclusiveness are considered. This might lead to questioning Habermas approach of a single public discourse. Several publics or a sphere of publics. Discourse across lines of difference. Multiple intersections among heterogeneous publics. But this creates problems as well, because nationalism and identity imply boundaries, where some are excluded. This also ties the individual to the group as "personally embodied" (bottom, p. 457). Habermas – "disinterested rational-critical public discourse" (middle, p. 458). That is, this is not bringing particular material or other interests and not negotiating as interest groups. That is, Habermas downplays specific interests and disregards status in favour of being willing to work mutually toward a rational-critical understanding. This means settling arguments on the basis of the merits of the argument, rather than the identities of the actors (top of p. 459). This is similar to liberal arguments and ignores some of the points noted earlier by Habermas, that differences can be relegated to the private sector. Calhoun notes that Habermas assumes a "private, pre-political life that enables and encourages citizens to rise above private identities and concerns" (middle, p. 459). iii. Multiplicity of Publics. Not a single public, and common membership not prior to other memberships. People are part of different public arenas and address multiple centres of power. (Folbre) Public discourse must involve discourse in multiple arenas. Power means exercising of debate in only one public. Must have it in all. eg. many seemingly private issues brought into public arena. Habermas – does not deal adequately with identity formation or culture as public activity f. Notes on "Discourse Ethics" All references in this section are to "Morality and Ethical Life: Does Hegel’s Critique of Kant Apply to Discourse Ethics?" pp. 195-215 in Habermas, 1991. For Habermas, discourse ethics is study and analysis of the possibility of "grounding moral norms in communication" (p. 195). Habermas identifies ideal speech and communicative action as arekey to developing discourse and understanding, so that these may be important for developing agreed upon norms. This is especially the case in modern society since the authority associated with traditional norms has disappeared and communicative action becomes the only basis on which common agreement can be reached, at least if coercion and power are to be avoided. In this article, Habermas approaches these from a philosophical point of view, but uses some ideas from sociology and develops some sociologically relevant implications. i. Valid Norms. Pages 196 and 197 are primarily philosophic, but the principle of moral augmentation on the middle of p. 197 states the principle that Habermas develops: "Only those norms may claim to be valid that could meet with the consent of all affected in their role as participants in a practical discourse." In society there are various norms – for example, in our society there are norms against theft, for mobility rights, and for rights to vote. While these are generally regarded as valid in our society, they might not be in other societies, or the consequences for violation of these might be treated quite differently. The criterion Habermas uses to consider whether these are something isvalid in any society or group is based on what all those affected by such norms would say if they were involved in a practical discourse, that is a discourse where everyone could participate and where the result would be decided by force of discussion and argument. If all consented, following such discussion, then this would be a valid norm. ii. Universal. But the norm might not be universal, because those in other cultures or societies might not consent to this norm. Here Habermas notes that there is a danger or fallacy in applying any norm to other groups or societies. This is because the norm might reflect the prejudices of a powerful group like upper class males who themselves are agreed on the norm, but others might not. iii. Practical Discourse. Habermas notes how his criterion or procedure differs from some other approaches. He notes that Rawls uses the criterion of contract. More relevant for this course is a comparison with Mead who uses an approach that Habermas terms "ideal role taking." From Mead he draws out the criterion that the individual put himself or herself in the position of others who would be affected by an action, and on this basis determine whether the action is appropriate. This is from Mead’s view of action involving consideration of the possible responses of others, and adjusting one’s behaviour accordingly. For Habermas, the principle is rather that of argumentation, discussion, and discourse, where "all concerned take part, freely and equally, in a cooperative search for truth, where noting coerces anyone except the force of a better argument." While Habermas notes that this is a demanding condition, it is a reasonable one, and one we often attempt to use in practice. There may be some problematic assumptions built into this, but perhaps no more so than the other criteria.

Democratic societies must have inclusive communication, that’s key to universalizability. Within an increasingly diverse society, in inclusiveness would provide perspective and generates key skills for engagement in higher education
Gingrich’2k- Paul Gingrich is a professor in the department of sociology and social studies at the University of Regina. (Paul Gingrich. “Sociology 319. March 16 2000. Habermas”. 2000. 8 January 2017. JB)
iv. Ideal Speech. Habermas grounds his arguments in the concept of ideal speech and the ideal speech situation – "a situation in which everyone would have an equal chance to argue and question, without those who are more powerful, confident, or prestigious having and unequal say. True positions would prevail under these circumstances because they are more rational" (Wallace and Wolf, p. 178). The ideal speech situation is one in which the participants are oriented toward developing a mutual understanding, and not just to achieving some specific purposive result through the interaction. As a result, his model would seem to argue against rational choice theory and even take a different direction than the more purposive models of Weber and Parsons. Habermas notes: the goal of coming to an understanding is to bring about an agreement that terminates in the intersubjective mutuality of reciprocal understanding, shared knowledge, mutual trust, and accord with one another. Agreement is based on recognition of the corresponding validity claims of comprehensibility, truth, truthfulness, and rightness. (Wallace and Wolf, p. 178, from Habermas "What is Universal Pragmatics?") This ideal speech situation is thus oriented toward developing an understanding, and when agreement is reached, this is the knowledge and truth of the situation. Several principles of the ideal speech situation are as follows (adapted from Ritzer, p. 295). Mutual Understanding. What the speaker says is understandable and comprehensible by others. Same language, structures that are understandable, topics and claims that make sense to others involved in conversation. Truthful. The speaker provides reliable knowledge in the sense that the propositions stated by the speaker are true. When specific facts and statements concerning the natural or social world are made, the speaker provides statements that he or she understands to be correct. That is, there is not deliberate misrepresentation by the speaker. Sincere Expression. The speaker is sincere or reliable in the sense that the speaker is truthful and believable. When opinions, attitudes, views, and interpretations are being provided, the speaker generally attempts to be sincere and not deliberately mislead. Right to Speak. The speaker has the right and it is proper for the speaker to speak. Individuals who have a statement to make should be allowed to do so, and their view should be listened to and seriously considered. Legitimacy. Speech acts take a position with respect to normative or legitimate social order. This may be connected to the first point, that the speech acts relate in some way to the social order of which one is part. These are five validity claims that Habermas argues must be associated with conversation and communication in order to develop and maintain communication and develop common understandings. For social interaction through communication to occur, each of these validity claims or conditions must be met. If one of them breaks down or is violated, then that distorts or limits the interactive process, and prevents consensus from emerging. This could be at the individual level, where one or more parties to a conversation do not abide by these, or where there is an unequal power situation. At the level of institutions and structures, many of these conditions may be violated. Social organization developed on the basis of these ideal speech assumptions is likely to be associated with a number of positive features – openness, fairness, democracy, and consensus. Note the relevance of these conditions for public discourse. It is often minority groups, women, and the disadvantaged or powerless who are left out in discussion. The conditions of Habermas would require their inclusion in discussion and debate. Habermas argues that communicatively competent individuals are committed to reaching understanding and a consensus. "The theory of communicative competence holds that there is at least one end (mutuality) to which we are committed in virtue of being capable of communication and that this end is prior to personal ends" (Braaten, p. 64). That is, while we each may have personal ends in mind, an encounter through communication is in some senses prior to this theoretically, in that we are committed to the communicative principles first. Habermas develops this view partly from Mead and partly by analyzing the structure of speech and communication. At one level, the conditions associated with ideal speech can be considered utopian. That is, if each of these conditions is met, there could be true discussion or discourse among those involved. There would not be power imbalances and this would provide a way of developing consensus. At the same time, the ideal speech situation can be regarded as an ideal type of the Weberian sort, and it is a useful analytical tool for considering how social interaction at the individual, small group, and societal level takes place. Further, these conditions can be regarded as the basic set of assumptions and concepts for the communicative action theory of Habermas, perhaps in with the same sort of role that the commodity and exchange plays in Marxian theory or the unit act in Parsonian theory. That is, from this basic concept of ideal speech, Habermas is able to build a comprehensive theory of social interaction, life-world, system, and public discourse. These latter ideas are examined in the following notes.

AND Racism is a decision rule
Memmi 2k (Albert, Professor Emeritus of Sociology @ U of Paris, Naiteire, Racism, Translated by Steve Martinot, p. 163-165)
The struggle against racism will be long, difficult, without intermission, without remission, probably never achieved. Yet, for this very reason, it is a struggle to be undertaken without surcease and without concessions. One cannot be indulgent toward racism; one must not even let the monster in the house, especially not in a mask. To give it merely a foothold means to augment the bestial part in us and in other people, which is to diminish what is human. To accept the racist universe to the slightest degree is to endorse fear, injustice, and violence. It is to accept the persistence of the dark history in which we still largely live. It is to agree that the outsider will always be a possible victim (and which man is not himself an outsider relative to someone else?. Racism illustrates, in sum, the inevitable negativity of the condition of the dominated that is, it illuminates in a certain sense the entire human condition. The anti-racist struggle, difficult though it is, and always in question, is nevertheless one of the prologues to the ultimate passage from animosity to humanity. In that sense, we cannot fail to rise to the racist challenge. However, it remains true that one’s moral conduit only emerges from a choice: one has to want it. It is a choice among other choices, and always debatable in its foundations and its consequences. Let us say, broadly speaking, that the choice to conduct oneself morally is the condition for the establishment of a human order, for which racism is the very negation. This is almost a redundancy. One cannot found a moral order, let alone a legislative order, on racism, because racism signifies the exclusion of the other, and his or her subjection to violence and domination. From an ethical point of view, if one can deploy a little religious language, racism is ‘the truly capital sin. It is not an accident that almost all of humanity’s spiritual traditions counsels respect for the weak, for orphans, widows, or strangers. It is not just a question of theoretical morality and disinterested commandments. Such unanimity in the safeguarding of the other suggests the real utility of such sentiments. All things considered, we have an interest in banishing injustice, because injustice engenders violence and death. Of course, this is debatable. There are those who think that if one is strong enough, the assault on and oppression of others is permissible. Bur no one is ever sure of remaining the strongest. One day, perhaps, the roles will be reversed. All unjust society contains within itself the seeds of its own death. It is probably smarter to treat others with respect so that they treat you with respect. “Recall.” says the Bible, “that you were once a stranger in Egypt,” which means both that you ought to respect the stranger because you were a stranger yourself and that you risk becoming one again someday. It is an ethical and a practical appeal—indeed, it is a contract, however implicit it might be. In short, the refusal of racism is the condition for all theoretical and practical morality because, in the end, the ethical choice commands the political choice, a just society must be a society accepted by all. If this contractual principle is not accepted, then only conflict, violence, and destruction will be our lot. If it is accepted, we can hope someday to live in peace. True, it is a wager, but the stakes are irresistible.
Thus the standard is furthering discussion.  Prefer the standard for two reasons: 

1. Furthering discussion creates universalizability which is good since we are able to create understanding and consensus and not having universalizability norms is bad because it hurts inclusiveness making discussion flawed.
   2. Habermas discourse ethics creates universalizable norms because it upholds individuals interacting in order to reach a discussion, argument, and consensus.
   Note: The affirmative understands that there are critiques of Habermas and possible counter philosophies, however for the purposes of this debate look to habermas as the better fw because it is better for students out there who may need  help and work in the current squo. Prefer for three reasons: 
2. Inclusion-key to include others in order to help others
   2. Universalized Decisions – key to make life better for everybody who is involved and concerned, improves all key impacts
   3. Understanding – it is crucial to make an understanding in order to create any change 

Util bad
a. Util promotes inequity and inherently discriminates against minority like slavery
Odell, 04 – University of Illinois is an Associate Professor of Philosophy (Jack, Ph.D., “On Consequentialist Ethics,” Wadsworth, Thomson Learning, Inc., pp. 98-103)
A classic objection to both act and rule utilitarianism has to do with inequity, and is related to the kind of objection raised by Rawls, which I will consider shortly. Suppose we have two fathers-Andy and Bob. Suppose further that they are alike in all relevant respects, both have three children, make the same salary, have the same living expenses, put aside the same amount in savings, and have left over each week fifteen dollars. Suppose that every week Andy and Bob ask themselves what they are going to do with this extra money, and Andy decides anew each week (AU) to divide it equally among his three children, or he makes a decision to always follow the rule (RU) that each child should receive an equal percentage of the total allowance money. Suppose further that each of his children receive five degrees of pleasure from this and no pain. Suppose on the other hand, that Bob, who strongly favors his oldest son, Bobby, decides anew each week (AU) to give all of the allowance money to Bobby, and nothing to the other two, and that he instructs Bobby not to tell the others, or he makes a decision to follow the rule (RU) to always give the total sum to Bobby. Suppose also that Bobby gets IS units of pleasure from his allowance and that his unsuspecting siblings feel no pain. The end result of the actions of both fathers is the same-IS units of pleasure. Most, if not all, of us would agree that although Andy's conduct is exemplary, Bob's is culpable. Nevertheless, according to both AU and RU the fathers in question are morally equal. Neither father is more or less exemplary or culpable than the other. I will refer to the objection implicit in this kind of example as (H) and state it as: ' (H) Both act and rule utilitarianism violate the principle of just distribution. What Rawls does is to elaborate objection (H). Utilitarianism, according to Rawls, fails to appreciate the importance of distributive justice, and that by doing so it makes a mockery of the concept of "justice." As I pointed out when I discussed Russell's views regarding partial goods, satisfying the interests of a majority of a given population while at the same time thwarting the interests of the minority segment of that same population (as occurs in societies that allow slavery) can maximize the general good, and do so even though the minority group may have to suffer great cruelties. Rawls argues that the utilitarian commitment to maximize the good in the world is due to its failure to ''take seriously the distinction between persons."· One person can be forced to give up far too much to insure the maximization of the good, or the total aggregate satisfaction, as was the case for those young Aztec women chosen by their society each year to be sacrificed to the Gods for the welfare of the group.

Advantages
Inherency
Currently all students have the right to free speech, however across the nation, this free speech is now being threatened
Friedersdorf’16- Conor Friedersdorf is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he focuses on politics and national affairs. (Conor Friedersdorf. “The Glaring Evidence that Free Speech is Threatened on Campus”. 2016. 5 January 2017. JB.)
At a recent Intelligence Squared debate, an audience filled an auditorium at Yale University to weigh the timely proposition, “Free speech is threatened on campus.” The debate concerned higher education generally, not just the host institution. And at the event’s conclusion, having heard arguments on both sides of the question, 66 percent of the crowd agreed: free speech is threatened. That represented a 17-point shift from a poll taken as the event began. The evidence is that persuasive. One of the losers in the debate was Professor Shaun Harper of the University of Pennsylvania, who heads its Center for the Study of Race and Equity in Education. He began by noting that “there has been a significant increase in the demand for our campus climate work” since last semester’s protests. In fact, he added, “this past December, we brought together 8,000 college presidents and other senior leaders who came to us for guidance on how to respond to racism on their campuses.” With that background, I expected Professor Harper to have a broad sense of how common speech restrictions are at American colleges and universities. And I assumed that he would offer arguments for the position that they do not threaten free speech. I was wrong on both counts. Late in the event, he declared, “I don't want anyone's speech to be suppressed in any setting.” The root of the disagreement was his belief that little speech is restricted. And earlier in his remarks, Harper declared that while colleges may ask students to voluntarily limit their speech in various ways, like not wearing offensive costumes, “I invite our opponents to present us more than a handful of written, institutional policies––where it's been put in writing that you can't say certain things. You can't wear certain costumes. Sure, students would be encouraged to do or not do something. But I, as a higher-education scholar who studied thousands of colleges and universities, have never seen a written institutional policy.” That statement is baffling. The Foundation of Individual Rights in Education keeps track of colleges that have speech restrictions, rating each institution green, yellow, or red. To receive the worst rating, a college must have at least one policy “that both clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech.” That threshold is met only when a policy “unambiguously infringes on what is or should be protected expression” in a way that is “obvious on the face of the policy and does not depend on how the policy is applied.” The University of Pennsylvania, where Harper teaches, earns the best rating from FIRE, green, for having policies that “normally protect free speech.” Institutions with “red light” ratings for policies that unambiguously impinge upon expression include the following: That is only the beginning. I trust that I needn’t run through D, E, an F colleges to hammer home the ubiquity of written rules that limit what one can express. Even if Professor Harper were to defend some of those rules, it beggars belief to think that he could run through colleges beginning with G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, and P and still fall short of his “handful of written, institutional policies” threshold, let alone his claim to have “never seen” one. What’s more, a written policy doesn’t determine if free expression is protected or violated in practice. And one needn’t search long to find widespread examples of free speech being threatened or assaulted outright. To cite just one example, since Harper brought up the matter of costume controversies: UCLA is a public institution that is bound by the First Amendment; as such, it has no written policy banning students from wearing offensive costumes. Nevertheless, administrators at the campus suspended a fraternity for holding a “Kanye Western” theme party, where attendees dressed like the famous rapper and his celebrity wife, Kim Kardashian. Later in the debate, during a back and forth with Wendy Kaminer, who was arguing that free speech is threatened on campus, Harper said: Wendy, it could be that maybe we're talking to completely different students and hearing completely different things, because quite honestly, when we have students in our studies who are talking with us about the realities of race on their campuses… when we hear students of color unpack these painful stories and these microaggressions and stereotypes and other things that have happened to them, we ask them, ‘What is it that you want the institution to do?’ Never once, not once have I heard them say anything about a speech code. I don’t doubt Harper's account of his own research. But I fail to understand how any scholar who takes the campus climate and last semester’s protests as a core focus of their research could miss student demands to punish speech. The Wall Street Journal reported on a survey of 800 college students that found 51 percent favored speech codes. Yale protestors formally demanded the removal of two professors from their jobs in residential life because they were upset by an email one of them wrote. Missouri law students passed a speech code that Above the Law called Orwellian. Amherst students called for a speech code so broad that it would’ve sanctioned students for making an “All Lives Matter” poster. At Duke, student activists demanded disciplinary sanctions for students who attend “culturally insensitive” parties, mandatory implicit-bias training for all professors, and loss of the possibility of tenure if a faculty member engages in speech “if the discriminatory attitudes behind the speech,” as determined by an unnamed adjudicator, “could potentially harm the academic achievements of students of color.” At Emory, student activists demanded that student evaluations include a field to report a faculty member’s micro aggressions to help ensure that there are repercussions or sanctions, and that the social network Yik Yak be banished from campus. Activists at Wesleyan trashed their student newspaper then pushed to get it defunded because they disagreed with an op-ed that criticized Black Lives Matter. Dartmouth University students demanded the expulsion of fraternities that throw parties deemed racist and the forced a student newspaper to change its name. Need I go on? Harper’s ally in the debate, the Yale philosophy Professor Jason Stanley, didn’t perform any better. During portions the event, he claimed that folks on the other side, who say free speech is under threat, aren’t really engaged in a debate about free speech––he said the real debate is about racism and anti-racism and about leftism. In this telling, free speech is being invoked as a cover, in service of less-sympathetic agendas. That grossly distorted the positions taken by his opponents at the Intelligence Squared debate. And the broader claim about free-speech defenders—which is lamentably common in public discourse on the subject—can be refuted a dozen different ways. Here’s one: Many college newspapers are struggling with free-speech issues that have nothing to do with race or leftism, as David Wheeler reported. Or consider another narrow area of campus expression that is under threat: the formal speech, delivered to a broad audience. We’ll restrict our “threat survey” to a single year. In 2015 alone, Robin Steinberg was disinvited from Harvard Law School, the rapper Common was disinvited from Kean University, and Suzanne Venker was disinvited from Williams College. Asra Nomani addressed Duke University only after student attempts to cancel her speech were overturned. UC Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks participated in an event on his own campus that student protestors shut down. Speakers at USC needed police to intervene to continue an event. Angela Davis was subject to a petition that attempted to prevent her from speaking at Texas Tech. The rapper Big Sean faced a student effort to get him disinvited from Princeton. Bob McCulloch faced a student effort to disinvite him from speaking at St. Louis University. William Ayers was subject to an effort to disinvite him from Dickinson School of Law. Harold Koh faced a student effort to oust him as a visiting professor at New York University Law School. That list includes speakers from the right and the left. It involves several controversies that have nothing to do with antiracism. How many examples are needed to persuade Stanley that there is a problem? Because I only stopped listing them to avoid being tedious. Those examples are a mere subset of 2015 efforts to censor speakers based on their viewpoints. There are still more from 2014. Further roundups could be written about 2013, 2012, and beyond. Speech is frequently threatened. Speeches are regularly disrupted. Some are cancelled every year. To perceive no threat is to ignore reality. Or forget big speeches and look to another example of left-leaning speech that is threatened. As Glenn Greenwald wrote at The Intercept, “One of the most dangerous threats to campus free speech has been emerging at the highest levels of the University of California system, the sprawling collection of 10 campuses that includes UCLA and UC Berkeley. The university’s governing Board of Regents, with the support of University President Janet Napolitano and egged on by the state’s legislature, has been attempting to adopt new speech codes that—in the name of combating ‘anti-Semitism’—would formally ban various forms of Israel criticism.” He continued: Under the most stringent such regulations, students found to be in violation of these codes would face suspension or expulsion. In July, it appeared that the Regents were poised to enact the most extreme version, but decided instead to push the decision off until September, when they instead would adopt non-binding guidelines to define “hate speech” and “intolerance.” One of the Regents most vocally advocating for the most stringent version of the speech code is Richard Blum, the multi-millionaire defense contractor who is married to Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California. At a Regents meeting last week, reported the Los Angeles Times, Blum expressly threatened that Feinstein would publicly denounce the university if it failed to adopt far more stringent standards than the ones it appeared to be considering, and specifically demanded they be binding and contain punishments for students found to be in violation. The San Francisco Chronicle put it this way: “Regent Dick Blum said his wife, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., ‘is prepared to be critical of this university’ unless UC not only tackles anti-Jewish bigotry but also makes clear that perpetrators will be punished.” The lawyer Ken White wrote that “Blum threatened that his wife … would interfere and make trouble if the Regents didn’t commit to punish people for prohibited speech.” As campus First Amendment lawyer Ari Cohn put it the following day, “Feinstein and her husband think college students should be expelled for protected free speech.” For now, no such speech code has been adopted. Does Stanley deny that the powerful, politically connected forces pushing for it are a threat to speech on campus? There are still more examples. Here is a Marquette professor whose tenure was threatened over a blog post. Two years ago, I wrote about the NYPD’s efforts to spy on Muslim students using undercover agents for no reason other than their religion, an effort that spanned months and produced zero leads. Anyone who doubts that this abhorrent profiling chilled the speech of an ethnic-minority group should inform themselves about their understandable reaction to discovering that government spies were in their midst. To sum up: free speech on campus is threatened from a dozen directions. It is threatened by police spies, overzealous administrators, and students who are intolerant of dissent. It is threatened by activists agitating for speech codes and sanctions for professors or classmates who disagree with them. It is threatened by people who push to disinvite speakers because of their viewpoints and those who shut down events to prevent people from speaking. Harper and Stanley were unpersuaded that free speech is under threat not because they defend speech codes or sanctions––both say outright at different times that they are for untrammeled speech––but because they are blind to the number and degree of threats to speech. And this whole discussion has been restricted to documented, overt threats to speech. Chilling effects are harder to quantify or cite, but they are real. Professors and students see those around them being punished for their viewpoints and decide to hold their tongues rather than speak their minds. Stanley denies that this is a significant problem. And yet, last semester, without looking very hard, I found and spoke to tenured and non-tenured professors and students at Yale, his own institution, who told me that their speech was chilled. They feared that their place at the school would be jeopardized if they opined honestly about campus controversies; or did not want to be targets of intolerant activists like the ones who spat on lecture attendees because the activists disagreed with words spoken at the lecture. The evidence that free speech is threatened on college campuses is overwhelming. Doubters who can’t accurately characterize the evidence should study the relevant material more thoroughly before dismissing free-speech concerns and impugning the motives of the people who raise them––especially if, like Harper and Stanley, they earnestly believe that free speech should be protected. I urge them to look again at the evidence and to join other liberals already engaged in this fight. The marginalized college students of the future will thank them.
Taking away freedom of expression ultimately harms minorities, criticism, and dissent because it makes the environment non-inclusive and unequal
Lectlaw’14- The Lectric Law Library is the internet’s finest legal resource for legal pros and laypeople alike. (The Lectric Law Library. “Freedom of Expression ACLU Briefing Paper Number 10”. 2014. 5 January 2017. JB.)
James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and the other framers of the Bill of Rights were products of the Age of Enlightenment. They eschewed the superstitions and intolerance of earlier times, believing instead in the power of reason, the search for truth, and the perfectability of human society. Freedom of inquiry and liberty of expression were clearly essential to the process of debate and discovery that they viewed as indispensable to the achievement of human progress. Questioning of authority was also a central theme of the Enlightenment era. The philosophers of the day well understood the tendency of government to perpetuate itself by enacting repressive measures to silence those opposed to its conduct. According to one libertarian thinker of the period, a citizen had the right to "say everything which his passions suggest; he may employ all his time, and all his talents...to do so, in speaking against the government matters that are false, scandalous and malicious," and yet he should be "safe within the sanctuary of the press." Speech was regarded as beyond the reach of criminal sanctions; only "overt acts" could be punished. Given the primacy that the framers assigned to the values the First Amendment embodies, it is fitting that freedom of expression should be the first freedom cited in the Bill of Rights. Why does freedom of expression play such a critical role in our constitutional system? There are four primary reasons why freedom of expression, which encompasses speech, the press, assembly and petition, is essential to a free society: First, freedom of expression is the foundation of self-fulfillment. Self- expression whichenables an individual to realize his or her full potential as a human being. The right of individuals to express their thoughts, desires, and aspirations, and to communicate freely with others, affirms the dignity and worth of each and every member of society. Thus, freedom of expression is an end in itself and should not be subordinated to any other goals of society. Second, freedom of expression is vital to the attainment and advancement of knowledge. The eminent 19th century civil libertarian, John Stuart Mill, contended that enlightened judgment is possible only if one considers all facts and ideas, from whatever source, and tests one's own conclusions against opposing views. But the right to express oneself is not conditioned on the content of one's views, which may be true or false, "good" or "bad," socially useful or harmful. All points of view should be represented in the "marketplace of ideas" so that society can benefit from debate about their worth. Third, freedom of expression is necessary to our system of self-government. If the American people are to be truly sovereign, the masters of their fate and of their elected government, they must be well-informed. They must have access to all information, ideas and points of view. The precondition for a free society is an informed and enlightened citizenry. Tyrannies thrive on mass ignorance. Fourth, freedom of expression provides a "check" against possible government corruption and excess, which seem to be permanent features of the human condition. Restrictions on freedom of speech always authorize the government to decide how, and against whom, the restrictions should apply. The more authority the government has, the more it will use that authority to suppress unpopular minorities, criticism and dissent. Because freedom of expression is so basic to a free society, the ACLU believes that it should 'never' be abridged by the government. What was the early history of the First Amendment and freedom of expression? The First Amendment's early years were not entirely auspicious. Although the early Americans enjoyed great freedom compared to citizens of other nations, even the Constitution's framers, once in power, could not resist the strong temptation to circumvent the First Amendment's clear mandate. In 1798, seen years after the First Amendment's adoption, Congress, over the objections of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, passed the Alien and Sedition Act. Ironically, this Act incorporated much of the English law of seditious libel (indeed, seditious libel remained a part of our law for the next 171 years), and was used by the dominant Federalist Party to prosecute a number of prominent Republican newspaper editors. But none of those cases reached the Supreme Court. Throughout the 19th century and much of the 20th, federal and state sedition, criminal anarchy and criminal conspiracy laws were used repeatedly to suppress expression by slavery abolitionists, religious minorities, early feminists, labor organizers, pacifists and left-wing political radicals. For example, prior to the Civil War every Southern state passed laws limiting speech in an attempt to stifle criticism of slavery. In Virginia, anyone who "by speaking or writing maintains that owners have no right of property in slaves" was subject to a one-year prison sentence. In 1929, feminist Margaret Sanger was arrested for giving a lecture on birth control. Trade union meetings were banned and courts routinely granted employers' requests for injunctions that prohibited strikes and other labor protest. Protest against U.S. entry into World War I was widely suppressed, and dissenters were jailed for their pronouncements and writings. In the early 1920s, many states outlawed the display of red or black flags, symbols of communism and anarchism. In 1923, author Upton Sinclair was arrested for trying to read the First Amendment at a union rally. Many people were arrested merely for membership in groups regarded as radical by the government. It was in response to the excesses of this period that the ACLU was born in 1920.
Not giving access to free speech creates a dehumanizing and racist culture
Freiere’68- Paulo Freiere is a Brazilian educator and philosopher who was leading expert on critical pedagogy. (Paulo Freiere. “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”. 1968. 5 January 2017. JB.)
As we attempt to analyze dialogue as a human phenomenon, we discover something which is the essence of dialogue itself: the word. But the word is more than just an instrument which makes dialogue possible; accordingly, we must seek its constitutive elements. Within the word we find two dimensions, reflection and action, in such radical interaction that if one is sacrificed—even in part—the other immediately suffers. There is no true word that is not at the same time a praxis.1Thus, to speak a true word is to transform the world.2 An unauthentic word, one which is unable to transform reality, results when dichotomy is imposed upon its constitutive elements. When a word is deprived of its dimension of action, reflection automatically suffers as well; and the word is changed into idle chatter, into verbalism, into an alienated and alienating "blah." It becomes an empty word, one which cannot denounce the world, for denunciation is impossible without a commitment to transform, and there is no transformation without action. On the other hand, if action is emphasized exclusively, to the detriment of reflection, the word is converted into activism. The latter—action for action's sake—negates the true praxis and makes dialogue impossible. Either dichotomy, by creating unauthentic forms of existence, creates also unauthentic forms of thought, which reinforce the original dichotomy. Human existence cannot be Silent, nor can it be nourished by false words, but only by true words, with which men and women transform the world. To exist, humanly, is to name the world, to change it. Once named, the world in its turn reappears to the namers as a problem and requires of them a new naming. Human beings are not built in silence,3 but in word, in work, in action-reflection. But while to say the true word—which is work, which is praxis—is to transform the world, saying that word is not the privilege of some few persons, but the right of everyone. Consequently, no one can say a true word alone—nor can she say it for another, in a prescriptive act which robs others of their words. Dialogue is the encounter between men, mediated by the world, in order to name the world. Hence, dialogue cannot occur between those who want to name the world and those who do not wish this naming—between those who deny others the right to speak their word and those whose right to speak has been denied them. Those who have been denied their primordial right to speak their word must first reclaim this right and prevent the continuation of this dehumanizing aggression. If it is in speaking their word that people, by naming the world, transform it, dialogue imposes itself as the way by which they achieve significance as human beings. Dialogue is thus an existential necessity. And since dialogue is the encounter in which the united reflection and action of the dialoguers are addressed to the world which is to be transformed and humanized, this dialogue cannot be reduced to the act of one persons "depositing" ideas in another, nor can it become a simple exchange of ideas to be "consumed" by the discussants. Nor yet is it a hostile, polemical argument between those who are committed neither to the naming of the world, nor to the search for truth, but rather to the imposition of their own truth. Because dialogue is an encounter among women and men who name the world, it must not be a situation where some name on behalf of others. It is an act of creation; it must not serve as a crafty instrument for the domination of one person by another. The domination implicit in dialogue is that of the world by the dialogues; it is conquest of the world for the liberation of humankind.
And Restricting free speech causes oppression that’s our second impact
Durden’15- Tyler Durden is a writer for Zero Hedge which shows news and editorial opinions. (Tyler Durden. “Why Only Free Speech Gives Safe Space To The Oppressed”. 2015. 9 January 2017.)
Social justice protests have been roiling American universities, even causing administrative heads to roll. To a significant degree, these campus uprisings have been characterized by an impulse to restrict speech and expression for the sake of creating “safe spaces” for marginalized groups. However, speech restriction is a double-edged sword that can just as easily injure the very people campus activists seek to help. The turmoil at the University of Missouri (Mizzou) in particular was sparked by racial incidents. And the protesters are closely aligned with the Black Lives Matter movement, which combats police brutality against black Americans. Moreover, these threats are emerging on university campuses and are being justified on “social justice” grounds. Like the cops, defenders of the Israeli occupation of Palestine are seeking to restrict speech on an “anti-hate” basis in order to insulate the occupation’s brutality and atrocities from criticism. As Nora Barrows-Friedman recently reported: “A member of the University of California’s governing body has called for the expulsion or suspension of students for expressing their views about Israel, under the guise of combating anti-Jewish bigotry. “This comes as Israel lobby groups, flush with huge new injections of cash, are stepping up their efforts to silence the Palestine solidarity movement on campuses nationwide. “During a 17 September meeting of the University of California (UC) Regents to discuss a ‘statement of principles against intolerance,’ Richard Blum also threatened to have his wife, US Senator Dianne Feinstein, publicly criticize the university if it did not enforce penalties against perceived bigotry. “Feinstein’s criticism could put the university system under federal scrutiny. “Another regent, Hadi Makarechian, agreed, according to The San Francisco Chronicle, saying that without punishment, ‘we’re just stating a lot of stuff on paper.’ “Blum and other regents, backed by Israel lobby groups, are pushing the university to adopt policies that free speech advocates warn could violate the First Amendment. “The Board of Regents had been due to vote on whether to adopt the US State Department’s definition of anti-Semitism as university policy at its meeting in July. “That definition is based on a ‘working definition’ of anti-Semitism once considered by a European Union body but later dropped. “Palestine solidarity and free speech advocates point out that the government definition conflates criticism of Israel with anti-Jewish bigotry. A key strategy of Israel advocates, they say, has been to urge university administrators to treat criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism as one and the same.” Just as the cops are blaming Black Lives Matter and viral videos for “inciting” violence against police, the hard-right Israeli government and its champions throughout the world have similarly been accusing the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, and the online dissemination of documented Israeli brutality, of being “incitement” for terrorism against Israel. They are pushing to have such “incitement” restricted. And they are succeeding. In October, France’s highest court ruled that advocacy of BDS is illegal “incitement” and “hate speech.” And as Glenn Greenwald wrote in The Intercept: “In May, CBC reported that Canadian officials threatened to prosecute BDS activists there under ‘hate speech’ laws, and after those officials denied doing so, we obtained and published the emails proving they did just that. The February Haaretz article described this troubling event in the U.K.: ‘In 2007, the British University and College Union said it would drop plans to boycott Israeli institutions after legal advisers said doing so would violate anti-discrimination laws.’ In 2013, New York City officials joined an (ultimately failed) Alan Dershowitz-led campaign to threaten the funding of Brooklyn College for the crime of hosting pro-BDS speakers.” Again, restricting speech is a double-edged sword. As the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) warned: “Free speech rights are indivisible. “Restricting the speech of one group or individual jeopardizes everyone’s rights because the same laws or regulations used to silence bigots can be used to silence you. Conversely, laws that defend free speech for bigots can be used to defend the rights of civil rights workers, anti-war protesters, lesbian and gay activists and others fighting for justice.” Many campus activists have lashed out in frustration at “free speech purism,” which they regard as misplaced in the context of institutionalized oppression. But it is extremely short-sighted to sacrifice universal principle on the altar of identity politics for the sake of marginalized groups. Once you accept the infringement of universal rights as an acceptable political weapon, it will be wielded more effectively by oppressors against the oppressed (cops against blacks, Israeli occupiers against Palestinians, etc.), and not the other way around. Authoritarian restriction is a game much better suited for the mighty than for the marginalized. If you replace the power of principle with the principle of power, it is the relatively powerless who will get the worst of it.

Thus I affirm the resolution on constitutionally protected speech
Resolved: Public Colleges and Universities in the United States ought not restrict any unconstitutionally protected speech.

Deliberative Pedagogy
Due to the need to help save a crumbling college system, the AC offers a deliberative pedagogy as the answer:
A Deliberative Pedagogy not only stops oppression and racist culture but also shows student engagement and development
Doherty’12- Joni Doherty is the director of the New England Center for Civic Life and teaches in the American Studies program at Franklin Pierce University. (Joni Doherty. “Deliberative Pedagogy: An Education that Matters”. 2012. 10 January 2017)
Deliberation is a set of practices that foster the conditions needed to understand and address these kinds of dilemmas. Participants in deliberative forums are encouraged to consider not only statistics and expert analysis, but also the experiential and value-laden aspects. Everyone affected by the issue needs to feel both welcome and encouraged to participate in defining and addressing the problem. Public deliberation requires each person to think critically and creatively and, listen attentively, examine assumptions, value differences, engage in respectful and honest dialogue, and reach well-reasoned judgments. Deliberating together is about deepening understanding of the problem in order to craft solutions, not about winning a debate or standing your ground. Deliberation is can be understood as the cultivation of a set of capacities that can lead to a new construction of knowledge, one that comes out of the public’s work together. Higher education has long embraced the expert construction of knowledge. Although this is changing, traditionally colleges and universities have conducted research and educated students on principles guided by this assumption. For example, many instructors focus on “covering” the course material through methods that ensure the efficient “delivery” of discipline-specific knowledge. This model, in which each side has clearly designated positions, may have secured the desired outcomes in a political, social, and economic environment where roles and responsibilities were categorically and hierarchically structured and in situations where everyone shared a common set of values and experiences. However, in rapidly changing and diverse societies, things are far messier. Today, because of the overlap of private, professional, and public realms, knowledge is pluralistic and situated. Situated knowledge is context specific. “What is known to be true” depends on its relationship to other conditions present in any particular situation. Multiple understandings might exist around one event or a common understanding may emerge over time. This isn’t relativism but instead requires that we take into account the dynamic interplay of shifting contexts, diverse perspectives, and competing demands. Deliberative pedagogies call for a rethinking and restructuring of the activities of teaching and learning. Through calling on each person to engage with others in democratic, inclusive, and respectfully discursive practices, deliberative pedagogies help students better understand differing perspectives and the complexity of persistent problems that spring from ethical dilemmas. Deliberative democracy minimizes or avoids the traditional leader/follower or expert/novice structure and foregrounds teamwork, intercultural knowledge, ethical reasoning, and action. For instructors who chose to fully employ deliberative democratic pedagogies, the shifts in teaching and learning would be far-reaching. Some of these would include a restructuring of traditional hierarchies and an inter-rogation of the very nature of what we understand to be knowledge and truth. Teaching and learning based on the principles of deliberative deliberation democracy are valuable in all fields, not just those related to communication, public policy, or politics. The need to make complex decisions about matters of common concern extends across every discipline. Deliberative pedagogies provide the interdisciplinary perspective and social and communicative skills necessary for successfully navigating and engaging in a post-industrial and increasingly diverse society. Connecting discipline-specific knowledge to concrete problems that transcend disciplinary boundaries opens pathways for students to become engaged with public and professional issues both inside and outside the classroom. The primary goal isn’t civic education per se, but for students to develop the commitment, knowledge, and skills necessary for creating and maintaining equitable, diverse, and democratic spaces, whether it be in the local community, the workplace, the nation, or the world.
AC Does not claim that Deliberative Pedagogy is completely perfect, just that it’s good idea and a great first step to create change
Longo’13- Nicholas V. Longo is a professor at Providence College who completes studies in public and community service studies. (Nicholas V. Longo. “Deliberative Pedagogy in the Community: Connecting Deliberative Dialogue, Community Engagement, and Democratic Education”. 2013. 10 January 2017.)
The efficacy of public deliberation at resolving complex issues has led to its elements being incorporated into domains beyond the public policy or political sphere. One of the most prominent of these areas is education, specifically, deliberation as an integral part of pedagogy. The difference between deliberative politics and deliberative pedagogy is that the former integrates deliberative decision-making with public action (Mathews, 2012), and the latter integrates deliberative decision-making with teaching and learning. Deliberative pedagogy in the community itis a collaborative approach that melds deliberative dialogue, community engagement, and democratic education. While different, the approach is not entirely new. It draws upon the historical efforts of the Highlander Folk School during the civil rights movement that was led by pioneering educators such as Myles Horton, Septima Clark, and Bernice Robinson. Much has been written about the Highlander tradition that connects education with social change (see for instance, Adams, 1975 and Glen, 1996), but there has been little research on how the processes used at Highlander can inform the practices of deliberative pedagogy. This is especially timely as a growing number of projects are involving college students in deliberative conversations outside what can sometimes be “the bubble” of the college campus. Specifically, students are stepping outside the classroom and connecting theory with real-world community problem-solving through intergenerational “learning circles” with new immigrants, forums with community members on public issues, and multiyear civic engagement courses. Faculty and students are co-creating shared spaces for dialogue and collaborative action in the community and rethinking long-held power dynamics between the campus and the community. This effort—and others like it—is not without its challenges; however they have the potential to shift our basic understanding of the role of higher education in society. Deliberative pedagogy holds enormous promise in promoting the civic mission of higher education through more collaborative approaches to teaching and learning that respond to important and rapidly shifting contextual trends: increasing diversity, new technologies that promote transparency and collaboration, and ardent desire of young people to “make a difference” through concrete social action. It moves the academy from the more traditional “teaching-to-learning” dynamic toward a model of “collaborative engagement” in which knowledge is more genuinely co-created through reflective public action. This shift toward collaboration also helps illuminate the civic dimensions of teaching and learning that increasing numbers of students are demanding and for which the communities in which higher education institutions are located—most of which are struggling with complex problems—are asking.
If there is time go over this:
Look to the aff as a way to free people of this problem, by not restricting free speech we give those who are oppressed and dealing with racist culture a chance to become freed of these problems through deliberative pedagogy. Note that the AC understands that this road may be difficult but regardless through the use of deliberative pedagogy, we are able to help others. Our Lectlaw evidence builds upon this further through the four key reasons of why free speech is necessary, this further supports AC solvency.
Underview
a. Ought means that it is important for us to affirm, there is a moral and legal obligation
Dictionary.com’ no date
Ought- used to express duty or moral obligation, used to express justice, moral rightness, or the like  
This is key because it provides ground for both sides of the round and we can explore all types of framework in the debate. This also allows for discussion of all parts of the topic which is key to education in the round. The direct legal obligation for the affirmative is the key legal problems that are happening in the squo such as prohibition of student free speech and innate harm. Our justification for that is self-defense and creating inclusiveness. Think of it like with self-defense against a murder, the aff provides self-defense against hate speech problems by giving free speech to all.  
b. Aff gets RVIs if I prove I’m reasonable, I win an I meet, or I win a counter interp under competing interps. Prefer because: 

1. Time skew means the Aff needs RVIs to have a fair shot of winning round due to inherent structural disadvantage in LD. 

c. Theory should only be read if there is actual abuse occurring in the round, if there is actual abuse then call us on it and we’ll discuss it. If not and it is frivolous, I ask that all decisions be made through the framework and subst

Tournament: all | Round: 1 | Opponent: x | Judge: x
If you have questions email me at: jbat195@gmail.com

Tournament: Golden Desert | Round: 1 | Opponent: x | Judge: x
Framing (2:05)
V: Morality
VC: Minimizing oppression
We have an ethical obligation to stop oppression because it devalues other human beings
Cudd’98- Ann E. Cudd is the dean of college arts and sciences at Boston University. (Ann E. Cudd. “Strikes, Housework, and the Moral Obligation to Resist”. 1998. 24 January 2017)
Is resistance ever morally required? If so, then should we hold blameworthy at least some of those victims of oppression who don‟t choose resistance? For example, we might agree with the judgment of the strikers who call those who cross picket lines and continue to work “scabs.” Whether we actually want to apply social sanctions to persons who fail to resist is another separate moral issue, and one that I will avoid in this paper. (Surely those responsible for the initial oppression have no moral authority to do so.) I shall take these two questions in turn. 10 It is implausible to suggest that resistance to oppression by the oppressed is morally required at all times with respect to all forms of oppression. I say this for two basic reasons. First, the oppressed may well not understand the oppression they suffer, for it is often a part of their oppression that it is hidden from them under the guises of tradition or divine command or the natural order of things. It would therefore be even more difficult for them to judge what actions are required of them to resist their oppression. Second, oppression is such a pervasive condition of one‟s life that it would be impossible to struggle against all of it at once. The slave could resist by escaping, for instance, only when the timing is right, but nearly always there is some other way that he could resist. He could refuse to work, try to kill his master, refuse to eat, and so on. But these actions are most likely mutually exclusive. Returning to work or refusing to eat, for example, puts the master on guard with that slave so that he will not have the opportunity to perform the other acts of resistance. Or, in gathering strength to escape or to revolt the slave might need to eat and appear to acquiesce for a time. Resistance to oppression doesn‟t seem to fit the duty model, for two reasons. First, the situation that would obligate is coercive. That is, the oppressed are unfairly and unavoidably put in their situation, and coercion normally mitigates moral obligation or responsibility. Of course, it is not true that one is never obligated in an unfair or unavoidable situation. For instance, we have duties to our parents in most cases even though their being our parents is unavoidable (for us), and the duties may be somehow unfair (say one‟s siblings refuse to take their turns in helping them out when they are incapacitated). The second reason that resistance to oppression does not seem to fit the duty model has to do with the forms of resistance open to oppressed persons. Sometimes the only way to resist is in concerted effort with others, and if the others will not act, then one‟s own action might fail to constitute resistance at all. If you are the only worker at the plant who is willing to strike, then it cannot be a duty for you to strike, since your action will likely be ineffective even in sending a message of revolt (e.g., if you just look like a shirker). And if striking (when others strike) is the only course of resistance in this case, then it cannot be a duty to resist.21 If resistance to oppression is not a duty, perhaps resistance goes beyond duty and is best judged as morally heroic or supererogatory. David Heyd (1982) presents a reasonable model of supererogation that goes as follows. An action is supererogatory if and only if all of the following conditions hold. (1) The action is neither obligatory nor forbidden. (2) Its omission is not wrong and does not deserve sanction. (3) It is morally good.22 (4) It is done voluntarily for the sake of someone else‟s good. One might object that resistance to oppression doesn‟t fit this model because it is aimed at reducing one‟s own suffering. I think that this should cause us to rethink the model to allow for supererogatory actions that are aimed at oneself. But even if we take the model as it is, resistance to oppression by choice is often aimed at the elimination of oppression for the whole group, and we could restrict the heroic actions to those that aim at ending the oppression of a group or some members of an oppressed group other than oneself. 11 If I was right in the discussion of how resistance to oppression is not strictly a duty, then resistance to oppression is not obligatory, and surely it is also not forbidden, so condition (1) is satisfied. Condition (3) is also satisfied, since to count as a case of resistance to oppression it has to be intended to reduce oppression, that is, to lessen undeserved harm. However, resistance to oppression does not meet condition (2) in the kinds of cases I am discussing here, namely oppression by choice. (Resistance to other kinds of oppression would meet condition (2) and so arguably be supererogatory.23) In oppression by choice the alternative to resistance is participation in the oppressive institution. But by participating in an oppressive institution, one lends some strength and stability to it, perhaps even legitimates it to some degree.24 This point is crucial and deserves some elaboration. Institutions are (among other things) coordinated actions of individual people. Part of what makes institutions so effective at coordinating is they embody the common knowledge of what people will do in certain types of situations, and this in turn narrows down the range of choices of actions one is to perform to a managable number. This common knowledge becomes stronger and more stable the more times that the expected actions are performed. So if an oppressive institution requiring the actions of the oppressed to be of a certain sort (e.g., female housecleaning, male shirking) is effective in so coordinating actions in a given case, then it becomes an even greater expectation on the part of others that they will perform the required actions, as well. One has only two options in such cases: resist or strengthen the unjust institution. Thus in cases of oppression by choice not resisting harms others. We are left with the situation where one must do harm whether one resists or not, and there is no duty other than the general duty to avoid doing (undeserved) harm. The solution, I argue, is to do the least undeserved harm. That is, one must weigh the harm of resisting against the harm produced by not resisting. In many cases the harm of not resisting is distributive, though the harm of resisting is felt fully by the individual involved. In calculating these harms one has to also consider the self-esteem that is lost by harming others through one‟s own failure to resist oppression. In some cases one ought only resist with some sort of symbolic resistance or protest, which causes one less harm than another form of resistance.25 On my view, then, a duty to resist may be uncommon though not inconceivable.26 One might object that insisting that the oppressed have a duty to resist their oppression is a case of blaming the victim, in the pejorative sense. In a recent article, J. Harvey (1995) categorizes the ways in which victims can be blamed in morally objectionable ways. There are three categories that Harvey mentions that might be relevant to this analysis of the morality of resistance: Category 4 There was in fact moral harm, but then it is claimed that in accounting for it, we must look at some crucial contribution from the victim involving some moral or nonmoral failing. Category 5: There was in fact moral harm and the crucial responsibility of the actual agent is acknowledged, but then it is claimed that some contribution from the victim makes the harm more serious than it would otherwise have been, and that that contribution involves some moral or nonmoral fault of the victim. 12 Category 6: There was some harm, and any responsibility for it by an agent is acknowledged (including how serious it is), but once the harm has occurred, then it is claimed that something untoward in the victim‟s response makes the ultimate outcome worse than it would otherwise have been, and that that response involves some moral or nonmoral fault of the victim. (Harvey, 1995, pp.49-51, emphasis mine) While I admit that I am victim-blaming in these senses, I think that whether it is wrong to “blame the victim” in these senses depends first on whether the “claim” in the italicized phrases in each category is true. That is, Harvey says it is victim-blaming to claim that the victim either made some contribution to the harm or responded in some untoward way that made the outcome worse than it otherwise would have been. If the claim is false, then these kinds of victim-blaming are mere rationalizations of the victimization. But if the claim is true, then the victim may, depending on the relative contributions of the actions to the harm, shoulder some of the blame for the harm that came about. Just because one is a victim one is not thereby absolved of all responsibility for the outcome of the situation. For example, suppose someone superficially cuts you while carelessly using a sharp scissors in your vicinity. You are a victim. But that doesn‟t mean that if you now refuse to wash the cut or take care of it in any way you can blame the person who cut you when you lose your hand to gangrene. You are to blame for some of the harm, even though you are a victim. If the claim is true, there is another way that one could still objectionably victim-blame: by focusing on the victims‟ faults out of all proportion to their relative contribution to the harm. I take this to be a serious concern, and a caution to be heeded. But one must not therefore shrink from an honest assessment of the full causal and moral situation.
Util is impossible if a certain minority is valued and not equal to others. AC impacts come first since free speech is the gateway to every impact.
Heard’97- Andrew Heard is (Andrew Heard. “Human Rights: Chimeras in Sheep’s Clothing: The Challenges of Utilitarianism and Relativism”. 1997. 2017)
Utilitarian challenges to the enjoyment of human rights need not occur only in such extraordinary circumstances. Imprisonment may be justified because there is thought to be a greater good for society that an individual be completely denied their freedom of movement and locked away. Utilitarian calculations may also resolve disputes that arise with conflicts between different rights or the enjoyment of the same right by different individuals. The decision faced by any government to balance the needs of health care, education, welfare payments, and the justice system leads to tough choices about the relative proportion of the state's budget that should be dedicated to each social program. The distribution of state resources among these services will in the end depend on the government's perception of the greatest good provided for that society. Also, even within one area of spending the government will have to decide on distributing the benefits in a particular way. For instance, there may be a need to balance expensive hospital equipment, such as CAT scanners, against paying for nurses and hospital beds for patients undergoing general surgery. In the education system, governments need to balance the amount spent on primary, secondary, vocational, and higher learning. Different societies distribute their resources according their vision of the greatest good arising from the particular needs of that society. One can respond in various ways to these challenges that utilitarianism pose to human rights. A simple way would be just to assert human rights provide a guide to how societies must try and re-order their priorities. Human rights are needed precisely because utilitarian calculations are widely made, often at the expense of some minority interest. This response is motivated as much by an aversion to the perceived consequences of utilitarianism as by a commitment to human rights. Indeed, one's commitment to human rights may be motivated by a fear for a world where utility guides public policy. As R.G. Frey wrote, with classical utilitarianism "...there is no person who in principle is beyond the scope of utilitarian sacrifice". (9) If utilitarian decisions are dedicated to promoting the greatest happiness for the greatest number, then it is conceivable that individuals or minority groups may pay a heavy price for the happiness of others in their community. Indeed, a time-worn objection to utilitarianism is that slavery could be justified in a society, if it produced sufficient good for the master class. Another objection is based on the view that individuals are not important and only have value in their contribution to the aggregate happiness of all members of the society taken together. However, these criticisms are based on an unbridled form of utilitarianism that has rarely been advocated since Bentham first posed the theory. (10) Indeed, Mill's later development of utilitarianism contained inherent constraints; for example, he argued that such rights as freedom of expression were essential to determining utility. (11) Much of the objections aimed at utilitarianism are fostered by an obliviousness to different types of utilitarianism. While each author who writes on the subject seems to develop his or her own variety, two basic strands may be identified. The classic model is a kind of act utilitarianism that focuses on the utility produced by each separate action. Whatever act produces the greatest happiness is the alternative that should be followed. The other approach is rule utilitarianism, which essentially accepts that the greatest good is promoted in the long run by observing certain rules of behaviour even if a particular observance of a rule does not directly result in happiness. For example, it may be agreed that society is generally much better if people are honest and open about their mistakes and that they admit them to those who may have been harmed. In a given situation, I may have knowingly said unkind things about some friends that later led to their losing a business contract. If I confess to them that I was responsible, they would likely be very hurt and even end our friendship, but without regaining their lost contract. So, a confession in these circumstances leads to harm rather than happiness. While act utilitarianism would lead to a decision not to tell, rule utilitarianism would require me to confess despite the harm because society in general is better off if wrongs are admitted. Some theorists have pursued rule utilitarianism as a way to reconcile human rights and utilitarianism. (12) In this light, human rights become values that society believes must be consistently respected. Overall happiness is advanced for any given society if human rights are accepted as rules that structure policy-making and behaviour. Michael Freeden has argued that a constrained utilitarianism is perfectly compatible with human rights. (13) Another avenue opened by Richard Brandt involves adapting the notion of `rights' to utilitarian calculations. Brandt appears especially skeptical of the absolute nature of rights. He suggests that the nature of the obligation flowing from claim-rights is not absolute, but rather "not over-rideable by marginal or even substantial but only by extreme demands of welfare". (14) With this view, human rights would normally be respected but may be set aside if other extremely important demands arise. For instance, a real threat of invasion would justify restricting political rights and diverting resources from social programs to national defence. There are substantive difficulties, however, with these attempts to accommodate human rights and utilitarianism. James Fishkin has objected that a fundamental obstacle arises with the identification of the benefits to be protected as human rights. (15) He argues that utility may underlie any attempt to select one set of human rights values over another. Furthermore, there can be little guarantee to safeguard against one of utilitarianism's perceived weaknesses: the benefits protected by rights may be distributed unevenly among the population in order to maximize society's collective gain. Perhaps the most telling critique of attempts to reconcile utilitarianism with human rights is that the solutions proposed may end up leading not to universal human rights but to cultural relativism. Whether one refers to constrained utilitarianism or rule utilitarianism, the basic premise is that certain fundamental norms are said to frame utilitarian calculations, and these norms may be human rights. Utilitarianism is, in my view, a society-centred notion of policy choices - in another words the calculations for Canadians can only be made by Canadians, or for Fijians by Fijians. In order to accommodate universal human rights, one has to assert that each society must logically deduce that human rights benefits are as essential to their own. Thus, universalism might only be ascribed to human rights if each society recognizes their inherent value, or if they are necessary to the functioning of a complex human society. John Stuart Mill laid the groundwork for such a possibility, in his arguments that certain basic rights or liberties are essential for utilitarianism to function; freedom of expression and representative government, for example, are necessary for a society to debate and determine what the greatest happiness for the greatest number entails. However, this position is debatable, and one could argue that a benign sovereign may determine the greatest happiness without the trappings of representative democracy; traditional societies and even Marxist societies in the transitional socialist phase might be viewed in this light. Moreover, there still remains the nagging question of what norms each society will end up adopting as the rules that must be considered. The very real possibility exists that societies will differ on just what benefits their citizens should enjoy in order to enhance the greatest happiness. Notions of equality will be expressed in very different benefits and circumstances for citizens of a non-theistic, liberal society than they will be in a traditional Islamic or Hindu society. In the end, rule or constrained utilitarianism may simply lead one down the path to cultural relativism, where each society determines for itself what basic norms must be protected and what sort of benefits may or may not be traded off in determining the greatest good for that society.
There is a history of exclusion of dialogue from minority groups - the judge must act as an ethical actor and prefer our framework
Cohen and Zelnik’02 – Robert Cohen is a professor at NYU. Reginald E. Zelnik is a professor at UC Berkeley. (Robert Cohen and Reginald E. Zelnik. “The Free Speech Movement: Reflections on Berkeley in the 1960s”. 2002. 28 January 2017.)
What is lacking in these scholarly discussions is an adequate understanding of the larger context of the Black Freedom Struggle of the local as well as the national level. That context encompasses two realities. The first is the intrinsic interconnectedness of various progressive movements for social change, including movements for civil rights, civil liberties, human rights (both international and national), and economic rights. Typically, the fundamental issue tying these struggles together was deep-seated commitment to the expansive and empowering notion of American democracy. Put another way, the work of realizing American freedom, equality, and justice- in often different ways- animated these related movements. Nowhere is the interrelationship among progressive social movements better glimpsed than in the triangulation across the southern and Bay Area civil rights movements and the FSM. The powerful impact of the FSM and the Black Freedom struggle in both its national and local phases demonstrated the inherent linkages of civil liberties and civil rights, political liberty and political speech, student rights and human rights. Mario Savio’s activism personified and illuminated these linkages. The second, closely related reality I would point to is the vital instance of the Black Freedom Struggle in representing the nature and direction of social change. In 1964 Michael Rossman noted that because of its utter seriousness and its searing impact on national consciousness, “the Civil Rights struggle interlocks with and binds together the whole spectrum of new student activity.” The increasingly successful black struggle to destroy Jim Crow emboldened white youth to envision that they too could join movements to change the surrounding world. Undeniably, the engine pushing the progressive social movement agenda forward in the 1950s was the Black Freedom Struggle, highlighted by the Montgomery Bus Boycott(1955-1956) and the black college student sit-in movement emanating out of Greensboro, National Carolina, after February 1, 1960. African Americans themselves were tackling head-on America’s seemingly intractable racial dilemma and, in the process, demanded the white Americans like Savio do likewise. The crucial point is that whites like Savio listened to African Americans, learned from them and, followed African American leadership and in the process were forever transformed, the African American benefited from the sacrifices of those like Savio who gave so unstintingly to the Black Freedom Struggle, especially that summer, goes without saying. Both races gained immeasurably from the experience, and it ultimately redounded to the benefit of the nation as well as American race relations. Mississippi Summer allowed whites like Savio to confront ‘up close and personal’ the antiblack racism of themselves and others. As a result, they were able to grapple with and get beyond white racism in ways most white Americans can hardly begin to fathom. This extraordinary empathy made Savio and even more impressive leader. It was clear to partisans of the black liberation insurgency that race was the key division keeping the American nation from realizing its better self. White and black partisans of the Black Freedom Struggle came to see that the struggle was as much if not more about the meanings and prerogatives of whiteness as it was about black self-determination. The Black Freedom Struggle was not just a recent and short-term racial liberation movement; it represented the continuation of an ongoing African freedom struggle dating back to the arrival of the first Africans on those shores. Thus, even though the American revolutionary movement of the late eighteenth century slighted the contemporaneous black freedom struggle, in time the inseparability of the two would help empower the black struggle. Building upon that understanding, Savio, like so many of his comrades came to see the revolutionary nature of black freedom claims. His intense involvement in the black liberation insurgency that momentous summer only intensified this evolving awareness of the profound reach and power of the Black Freedom Struggle. He now understood that the insurgency was not just about black freedom, or white freedom, but American freedom. 

AND Racism is a decision rule, value racism as the greatest impact in the round as a just society must be a society accepted by all
Memmi 2k (Albert, Professor Emeritus of Sociology @ U of Paris, Naiteire, Racism, Translated by Steve Martinot, p. 163-165)
The struggle against racism will be long, difficult, without intermission, without remission, probably never achieved. Yet, for this very reason, it is a struggle to be undertaken without surcease and without concessions. One cannot be indulgent toward racism; one must not even let the monster in the house, especially not in a mask. To give it merely a foothold means to augment the bestial part in us and in other people, which is to diminish what is human. To accept the racist universe to the slightest degree is to endorse fear, injustice, and violence. It is to accept the persistence of the dark history in which we still largely live. It is to agree that the outsider will always be a possible victim (and which man is not himself an outsider relative to someone else?. Racism illustrates, in sum, the inevitable negativity of the condition of the dominated that is, it illuminates in a certain sense the entire human condition. The anti-racist struggle, difficult though it is, and always in question, is nevertheless one of the prologues to the ultimate passage from animosity to humanity. In that sense, we cannot fail to rise to the racist challenge. However, it remains true that one’s moral conduit only emerges from a choice: one has to want it. It is a choice among other choices, and always debatable in its foundations and its consequences. Let us say, broadly speaking, that the choice to conduct oneself morally is the condition for the establishment of a human order, for which racism is the very negation. This is almost a redundancy. One cannot found a moral order, let alone a legislative order, on racism, because racism signifies the exclusion of the other, and his or her subjection to violence and domination. From an ethical point of view, if one can deploy a little religious language, racism is ‘the truly capital sin. It is not an accident that almost all of humanity’s spiritual traditions counsels respect for the weak, for orphans, widows, or strangers. It is not just a question of theoretical morality and disinterested commandments. Such unanimity in the safeguarding of the other suggests the real utility of such sentiments. All things considered, we have an interest in banishing injustice, because injustice engenders violence and death. Of course, this is debatable. There are those who think that if one is strong enough, the assault on and oppression of others is permissible. Bur no one is ever sure of remaining the strongest. One day, perhaps, the roles will be reversed. All unjust society contains within itself the seeds of its own death. It is probably smarter to treat others with respect so that they treat you with respect. “Recall.” says the Bible, “that you were once a stranger in Egypt,” which means both that you ought to respect the stranger because you were a stranger yourself and that you risk becoming one again someday. It is an ethical and a practical appeal—indeed, it is a contract, however implicit it might be. In short, the refusal of racism is the condition for all theoretical and practical morality because, in the end, the ethical choice commands the political choice, a just society must be a society accepted by all. If this contractual principle is not accepted, then only conflict, violence, and destruction will be our lot. If it is accepted, we can hope someday to live in peace. True, it is a wager, but the stakes are irresistible.
Thus the standard is minimizing oppression.
The 1AC agrees that the state is bad, but we use it as a heuristic claim meaning we believe that the state should be questioned and use government resistance
Zannoti’13 -Laura, associate professor of Political Science at Virginia Tech., Ph.D. from the University of Washington in 2008 and joined the Purdue University faculty in 2009. “Governmentality, Ontology, Methodology: Re-thinking Political Agency in the Global World”, originally published online 30 December 2013, DOI: 10.1177/0304375413512098, P. Sage Publications
By questioning substantialist representations of power and subjects, inquiries on the possibilities of political agency are reframed in a way that focuses on power and subjects’ relational character and the contingent processes of their (trans)formation in the context of agonic relations. Options for resistance to governmental scripts are not limited to ‘‘rejection,’’ ‘‘revolution,’’ or ‘‘dispossession’’ to regain a pristine ‘‘freedom from all constraints’’ or an immanent ideal social order. It is found instead in multifarious and contingent struggles that are constituted within the scripts of governmental rationalities and at the same time exceed and transform them. This approach questions oversimplifications of the complexities of liberal political rationalities and of their interactions with non-liberal political players and nurtures a radical skepticism about identifying universally good or bad actors or abstract solutions to political problems. International power interacts in complex ways with diverse political spaces and within these spaces it is appropriated, hybridized, redescribed, hijacked, and tinkered with. Governmentality as a heuristic focuses on performing complex diagnostics of events. It invites historically situated explorations and careful differentiations rather than overarching demonizations of ‘‘power,’’ romanticizations of the ‘‘rebel’’ or the ‘‘the local.’’ More broadly, theoretical formulations that conceive the subject in non-substantialist terms and focus on processes of subjectification, on the ambiguity of power discourses, and on hybridization as the terrain for political transformation, open ways for reconsidering political agency beyond the dichotomy of oppression/rebellion. These alternative formulations also foster an ethics of political engagement, to be continuously taken up through plural and uncertain practices, that demand continuous attention to ‘‘what happens’’ instead of fixations on ‘‘what ought to be.’’83 Such ethics of engagement would not await the revolution to come or hope for a pristine ‘‘freedom’’ to be regained. Instead, it would constantly attempt to twist the working of power by playing with whatever cards are available and would require intense processes of reflexivity on the consequences of political choices. To conclude with a famous phrase by Michel Foucault ‘‘my point is not that everything is bad, but that everything is dangerous, which is not exactly the same as bad. If everything is dangerous, then we always have something to do. So my position leads not to apathy but to hyper- and pessimistic activism

Plan: Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States, ought not restrict constitutionally protected speech.
Note:Once completed public colleges and universities should complete institutional reform to a deliberative pedagogy. 

Substance(1:30)
The current way institutions work has created a chilling effect on free speech, this has allowed for restrictions on a necessary human right.
Stanley’16- John Stanley is a professor of philosophy at Yale University. (John Stanley. “The Fallacy of Free Speech”. 2016. January 21, 2017)
On February 3, Jasbir Puar presented a paper at Vassar College critiquing Israeli policy toward Palestinians. Puar, an associate professor of women and gender studies at Rutgers University, is an influential intellectual. Her 2007 book, Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times, has been cited over 1,700 times, a level of impact few academics achieve in a lifetime. Puar is controversial. She is also an agenda-setting scholar: Her lecture was sponsored by eight different departments. On February 17, The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed about Puar’s lecture, titled "Majoring in Anti-Semitism at Vassar." It was written by Mark G. Yudof, former president of the University of California, and Ken Waltzer, professor emeritus of history at Michigan State University. The article attributes to Puar the claim that Israel allows Palestinians only the bare minimum needed to survive, and that Israel mines the organs of dead Palestinians for scientific research, evidence used to accuse her of reviving the "blood libel" against Jews. The authors conclude by urging "faculty and administrators … to confront this wave of anti-Semitism with the primary tools at their disposal: free speech and rigorous academic inquiry. This is what a university is for, after all." A central purpose of the university is to allow disputes about significant moral and political issues to take place in the classroom instead of on the battlefield. Free speech is essential to that mission. According to Yudof and Waltzer, it is not the policies of Israel that explain its lack of support on campus, but leftist ideology, which it urges those in positions of authority to condemn. Israel’s standing on campus may be a result of leftist ideology, or it may be a response to Israeli policies (or some combination of both, or neither). It’s a contentious political issue, just the sort that a commitment to free speech requires we leave to open debate. But an institution controlled by people who condemn one of the positions in advance lacks an atmosphere conducive to open debate. Indeed, it’s hard to avoid reading Yudof and Waltzer as advocating this anti-free-speech message when they write "hatred of Israel and Jews should not implicitly be characterized as merely another perspective to be debated." A university controlled by people who condemn one of the positions in advance lacks an atmosphere conducive to open debate. Yudof’s and Waltzer’s rhetorical excesses ("hatred of Jews," "medieval blood libel") have predictably led to a wave of violent threats against Puar, which of course strongly discourages other academics from taking similar positions in public. Their argument is presented as a defense of the ideal of free speech against a campus culture hostile to it. But its explicit recommendations and easily foreseeable effects would in fact erode that very ideal. The article’s portrayal of left-wing social justice as a threat to free speech continues a theme dating back to the fall, when nationwide campus protests calling for racial justice were represented as threats to free speech. Yet it has traditionally been left-leaning students and faculty who lead campus protests in support of social justice and free speech. To understand this paradox, we must look to those scholars who have been central in framing recent campus debates. Well before the events of the fall, this group produced a body of work that underlies the narrative that academe suffers from a leftist ideological uniformity that conflicts with free speech. The New York University psychologist Jonathan Haidt is a key figure here. Haidt’s article in The Atlantic, "The Coddling of the American Mind," written with Greg Lukianoff of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, was the most prominent summation of this view. But it follows the work of many others. In September, the Heterodox Academy was formed. Its stated mission is to promote "viewpoint diversity" in academe as a way to encourage objectivity, free speech, and better research. In a much-discussed article published in Brain and Behavioral Sciences, six members of Heterodox Academy argued that a "liberal progress narrative" dominates academe. They describe it as the belief that traditional societies suffered from unjust inequality, such as exclusion of women from higher education, but were then overcome by modern, liberal democratic-welfare societies. According to this narrative, the dominance of leftist ideology results in a left-wing "moral matrix," which creates an "environment of intolerance for diversity of ideas and dissent." Haidt, a founder of the Heterodox Academy, describes "left-leaning" institutions as are"cut off" from the moral vocabulary required to defend freedom of speech, and led by social-justice concerns that chill free speech. John McWhorter, a linguist at Columbia University and Heterodox Academy member, gives anti-racism as an example, arguing that "antiracism is now a religion…. Certain questions are not to be asked, or if asked, only politely." The goal of the Heterodox Academy is to persuade universities to hire scholars who question this narrative, thereby restoring free speech. What, exactly, is the tension between antiracism and free speech? If I tell you that you shouldn’t say racist things, am I really denying you the right to say those things? I told my mother the other day that she shouldn’t tell me that I am overweight. Was I challenging her freedom of speech? I tell students in my mathematical logic class they shouldn’t make certain errors. Is my class a hotbed of illiberalism? Is free speech really imperiled when activists argue that a football team shouldn’t be called "the Redskins"? The political diversity at issue in the writings of Heterodox Academy members is the narrow spectrum between liberals and conservatives. These categories are occasionally used as if they naturally corresponded to "Democrat" and "Republican." This bizarrely narrow view of political diversity conveniently fits into an argument to hire conservatives, but not Marxists or critical race theorists. "Liberal" and "leftist" are used interchangeably throughout their writings, as if there isn’t a feminist critique of liberalism. Where are the Marxists or feminists in economics, a discipline that is, according to Haidt, "the only social science that has some real diversity"? In a 2014 paper published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, a Heterodox Academy member and professor of law at Georgetown University, decries liberal overrepresentation in law schools. But again, most feminists, Marxists, and critical race theorists do not identify as liberals, and law schools notoriously lack advocates of these standard leftist positions. This failing of political diversity is rendered invisible by the partisan setup of this research program. Heterodox Academy members trumpet their narrow notion of political diversity as a boon to objectivity and better research. In 2006 Steven Pinker, a Heterodox Academy member and Harvard psychologist, lamented the lack of investigation into certain "dangerous ideas." An example he gives: "Would damage from terrorism be reduced if the police could torture suspects in special circumstances?" But what about the absent questions he doesn’t mourn? Haidt has written off the field of anthropology on the grounds that it takes seriously the question of whether the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement against Israel is justifiable. So we need "political diversity" to seriously consider whether we should employ torture, but there is no legitimate political perspective, even one which many of us reject, that could make sense of an analogy between apartheid South Africa and Israel? In Haidt’s tweet linking Yudof’s and Waltzer’s Wall Street Journal op-ed, he declared Puar’s talk a threat to the safety of Jewish students, laying responsibility on the campus culture. He mentions nothing about Puar’s free-speech rights. I must confess failure to see in any of this the vaunted payoff of objectivity. Recent campus protests were an opportunity to test out the Heterodox Academy’s specious narrative. Students have voiced opposition to racial bias. The most common complaints concern the persistent lack of faculty of color, and damaging racial stereotypes. But what does this have to do with free speech? Students are right to be upset when they raise genuine concerns and are met with evasion. Of course, being told that merely taking seriously their concerns is a threat to free speech would be even more upsetting, though that is in fact the official position of the Heterodox Academy, whose members argue that social-justice concerns, which explicitly include, as we have seen, antiracism, are threats to free speech. All year, the charge of imperiling free speech has been used to silence oppressed and marginalized groups and to push back against their interests. Shockingly, this misuse of free speech is defended, explicitly and repeatedly, by absurd arguments that place freedom of speech in opposition to social justice, activism, and even liberalism. Students subjected to this misshapen conception of freedom of speech would be well within their rights to resist, on grounds of basic plausibility. Or knowledge of history. The journalist A.H. Raskin, describing the Berkeley campus unrest in the 1960s, writes: The proudly immoderate zealots … pursue an activist creed — that only commitment can strip life of its emptiness, its absence of meaning in a great "knowledge factory" like Berkeley. And who were these activist "zealots," burning with a commitment to social justice? They were students advocating for open political discussion. From the vantage point of the current debate, it is ironic that they became known as the Free Speech Movement.
Free Speech is necessary to challenge institutions. The impact of restricting free speech is racism and oppression.  
Zimmerman’16- Jonathan Zimmerman is a professor of the history of education at the University of Pennsylvania. (Jonathan Zimmerman. “Racism Was Served by Silence. Justice Requires Free Speech for All”. 2016. January 21, 2017)
In 1986, the Senate Judiciary Committee turned down Jeff Sessions for a federal judgeship after reports surfaced that he had called the NAACP "un-American" and "Communist-inspired." That decision is back in the news now that President-elect Donald Trump has nominated Sessions to be U.S. attorney general. His remark recalls the long history of racist hostility against the NAACP, which was harassed and persecuted across the South. Law-enforcement officials spied on its members, and at least three states — including Sessions’s native Alabama — prohibited the group from organizing within their borders. But Sessions’s comment should also make us look anew at campaigns to restrict speech on campus, which have been stepped up since Trump’s victory. A few days after the election, for example, students at my own institution asked for an "anonymous system" for reporting faculty members who made people of color feel "unsafe." Who will collect this information, and how will they know if it’s credible? What will happen to the professors it cites? And how long will it take before white students complain that faculty of color have made them feel unsafe? Actually, it’s already happened. In 2013, three white students at Minneapolis Community and Technical College said an African-American professor had made them feel uncomfortable by teaching them about structural racism. The college later reprimanded her for creating a "hostile learning environment." When Americans restrict speech, in fact, it’s usually minorities who lose out. That’s why just about every great fighter for racial equality in our history was also a warrior for free speech. Start with Frederick Douglass, who railed against efforts to silence his fellow abolitionists. Southern states outlawed the publication of antislavery tracts and even their delivery by mail. In Congress, meanwhile, Southern representatives and their Northern allies pushed through a "gag rule" that automatically tabled antislavery petitions. "To chain the slave, these parties have said we must fetter the free!" Douglass told an 1852 audience in Ithaca, N.Y. "To make tyranny safe, we must endanger the liberties of the nation, by destroying the palladium of all liberty and progress — the freedom of speech." Eight years later, after a mob broke up an antislavery meeting in Boston’s Music Hall, Douglass returned to the same location to deliver his most famous testament to free speech. Boston had been the fount of the American Revolution, which established freedom of speech as is "the great moral renovator of society and government," he noted. If Americans turned their backs on this tradition, he warned, they would also close themselves off to collective growth and improvement. "To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker," Douglass thundered. "It is just as criminal to rob a man of his right to speak and hear as it would be to rob him of his money." In 1905, when W.E.B. Du Bois and 28 others met at Niagara Falls, Ontario — because hotels on the American side wouldn’t serve blacks — they demanded not just equal access to public facilities and the ballot box but also freedom of speech. And when Du Bois helped launch the NAACP, four years after that, he insisted that African-Americans could never gain civil rights so long as they were prevented from speaking their minds. After World War II, Du Bois was indicted for failing to register as a member of an antinuclear organization that the government deemed "subversive." Although he was acquitted, he continued to campaign for the freedom of others who were persecuted or muzzled during the Cold War. "It is clear still today that freedom of speech and of thinking can be attacked in the United States without the intellectual and moral leaders of this land raising a hand or saying a word in protest or defense," he wrote in 1952. "Than this fateful silence there is on earth no greater menace to present civilization." The NAACP was listed as a subversive organization in several states, too, which helps explain why Jeff Sessions thought it was Communist-inspired. Therefore members had to either keep their affiliation hidden — in violation of the law — or register with the government, which subjected them to still further harassment. And when students at South Carolina State College for Negroes protested the interrogation of NAACP members on campus, the students were investigated themselves. In short, if you didn’t have freedom of speech, you couldn’t counter any other injustice. That’s a lesson that some of today’s student activists — and some college administrators — seem to have forgotten. Although courts have consistently found campus speech codes unconstitutional, hundreds of colleges continue to discipline students for saying the wrong thing. Faculty members, too, have come under fire. During the wave of protests that swept campuses last fall, students at Duke University called for the dismissal of professors who "perpetuate hate speech that threatens the safety of students of color." At Emory University, students demanded "repercussions or sanctions for racist actions performed by professors." Let me be clear: If students think a faculty member is racist, they have every right to say so. But nobody has a right to limit someone else’s speech, via institutional prohibitions or star chambers or anything else. That’s precisely what white America tried to do to the NAACP and other African-Americans. We insult their memories when we silence one another in the name of racial justice, which will never be served by the restriction of free speech.
This entails other impacts:
a. Psychological oppression due to the dominance of others in the institutional realm
Prilleltensky and Gonick’96- Issac Prilleltensky is an award winning community psychologist. Lev Gonick is a writer on JSTOR. (Issac Prilleltensky and Lev Gonick. “Polities Change, Oppression Remains: On the Psychology and Politics of Oppression”. 2017. 26 January 2017.)
According to our definition of psychological oppression, the main feature of this state is the internalization of negative conceptions of the self. The intrapersonal level refers to dynamics operating within the single individual. Beginning at this level, we identify a number of psychological processes contributing to this situation. Among them, learned helplessness, surplus powerlessness, obedience to authority, and internalizationf images of inferiority. These are well-documented mechanisms that psychologically affect the individual experiencing domination. In effect, these are the product of the oppressing forces of other people, social groups, and state agencies. Following exposure to innumerable devaluing encounters, people internalize the negative images projected onto them by dominating forces.
b. Racism justifies infinite violence meaning structural violence that causes death
Famer’04 – Paul Farmer is an American Anthropologist and Physician. (Paul Farmer. “An Anthropology of Structural Violence”. 2004. 26 January 2017)
By “materialist” I do not mean “economic” as if economic structures were not socially constructed. I do not mean “biological” as if biology were likewise somehow immune from social construction. I am not trying to establish a bedrock category of reality or engage wornout or false debates—for example, trying to persuade oldschool materialists that social life matters or to convince hard-line culturalists that the material (from the corporeal to modes of economic production) is the very stuff of social construction. To push the metaphor, any social project requires construction materials, while the building process is itself inevitably social and thus cultural. The adverse outcomes associated with structural violence—death, injury, illness, subjugation, stigmatization, and even psychological terror—come to have their “final common pathway” in the material. Structural violence is embodied as adverse events if what we study, as anthropologists, is the experience of people who live in poverty or are marginalized by racism, gender inequality, or a noxious mix of all of the above. The adverse events to be discussed here include epidemic disease, violations of human rights, and genocide.
c. Suppressing Free Speech results in oppression- this is a disadvantage to any Neg position
Hansen’17 – Steve Hansen is a Lodi writer. (Steve Hansen. “Those who suppress free speech will end up victims”. 2017. 25 January 2017.)
Years ago when I was a counselor at Lodi High, a parent came into my office demanding that her son be removed from a biology class. “What’s the problem?” I asked. “They are teaching the theory of evolution in this class,” she said. “I don’t want my kid exposed to that kind of secular nonsense. We are Christians, and we believe in creationism.” It had been a long day. Through the office window, I could see a typical depressing Valley winter. I was not interested in hanging around for a “get-nowhere” debate. So I made this statement and asked the following questions: “It’s obvious you have taken sides on the issue and I commend you for having a valid opinion shared by many.” “Thank you,” she replied. “But I have a question: What are your goals with your son regarding this debate? Do you want him to influence others with a belief in creationism?” “Well, yes,” was the answer after she had carefully contemplated the situation. “Then here’s the key,” I continued. “Do you think anyone will listen to him if he does not have a thorough grasp of both sides of the argument?” There was a pause, and I could see the wheels turning. The anxious mother gave the following response: “You know, you’re right. I had not thought of it in that way before. No thoughtful person listens to anyone who does not understand both sides of an issue. You can leave him in biology.” This happened a number of years ago, and the woman obviously had a sense of logic. She could put her emotions aside and look at the sensible progression of goals and objectives for her children. Now looking at the nightly news and what is happening on many college campuses, I’m not so sure this same conversation could take place today. Emotions and mob rule seem to control much of our present thinking. Whoever can shout the loudest, generate the most imaginary facts, express repugnant personal insults or shut down opposing points of view often are acceptable methods to dominate the direction of a debate. For most of human history, these tactics usually signal a precursor to a totalitarian society. On the other hand, free speech has not been the norm for most civilizations. Even today, the United States is just about the only country left in the world that has this right truly protected by a constitutional guarantee. However, that right is under constant assault. The fact that many millennials don’t understand the value of a free-speech society is most concerning. When asked, too many college students see no point in debating different points of view from a singular position taught to them in class. Those who have a need for suppression, however, only demonstrate their fears of fallibility for one side of an argument. More than 50 years ago, The college Free Speech Movement began with Mario Savio on the UC Berkeley campus. Yet it’s ironic that today’s school “speech codes” are designed to do just the opposite and amazingly, are accompanied by little student opposition. But reality will always win in the end and leave those who believe in oppression of free speech as victims, themselves. I have not forgotten that parent who came into my office years ago. She realized that respecting different views on an issue are important factors for human understanding and unity. Otherwise, people simply spin their wheels in hatred and isolation, which only have the effect of hardening preconceived ideologies. In the end, impermeable constructs of human thought generally remain stagnant and ultimately change nothing.
Substance Part 2 (1:00)
Currently a marketplace of ideas exists in college and free speech is an necessary part of its functioning.
Golding’00- Martin Phillip Golding is an author on discourse. (Martin Phillip Golding. Free Speech on Campus. 2000. 27 January 2017)
Colleges and universities vary in many ways: some are public, others are private; some are denominational, others are not; some have professional schools, others do not; some have big-time athletic programs, others do not. Furthermore, some emphasize research and others, especially four-year colleges and junior colleges, emphasize teaching. They also differ in their academic offerings: some emphasize the sciences and other feature the humanities with extensive program options. While we should celebrate this variety, these differences do not diminish the importance of campus free speech.  That importance derives from a fundamental idea, namely, that the university is an institution that exists for the dissemination and advancement of knowledge: teaching, learning, scholarship, and inquiry; in a phrase, the pursuit of knowledge by students and faculty. A speech code or other restriction on academic freedom would give notice to applicants and to faculty about the academic environment they can expect to find, just as special programs do. A denominational school that has doctrinal restrictions on academic freedom, for instance, gives such notice. Despite the variety, the university (colleges are included in the term) as a kind of institution is a ‘special purpose’ institution; it serves various social functions, functions that are not served by other institutions or are not served by other institutions in the same way. As a special purpose institution it has an implicit constitution of which ha free speech provision is a vital element. The provision’s underlying rationale or justification is rendered by the notion of the university as a marketplace of ideas; however, because of its distinctive characteristics, the university is significantly different from the public marketplace of ideas. This phrase, ‘marketplace of ideas,’ derives from an opinion in an important Supreme Court case in 1919.
Restricting free speech causes discrimination and inequality on campus
Parker’15- Dennis Parker is a writer for the ACLU. (Dennis Parker. “Racial Justice and Free Speech Are Not Mutually Exclusive”. 2013. 27 January 2017.)
The recent wave of college demonstrations starting at the University of Missouri and Yale and spreading to Ithaca and other campuses across the nation have sparked outraged commentary. The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed called “Yale’s Little Robespierres,” and in National Review, David French described campus protestors as “revolutionaries, and the revolution they seek is nothing less than the overthrow of our constitutional republic, beginning with our universities.” Largely missing from the outcry has been a discussion of the underlying issues that prompted the demonstrations in the first place. Instead, the demonstrations are caricatured in the media, conventional and social alike, as the result of hypersensitive, thin-skinned students of color, many of them highly privileged students, protesting minor provocations insisting that schools respond to their every whim. Stories about Jonathon Butler, the hunger striker supported by members of the University of Missouri’s football ball, focused on the fact that the graduate student came from a wealthy family, raising the question of whether you have to be black and poor to complain about entrenched racism. Missing from the discussions is a willingness to confront the very real complaints of those students. Those complaints include the fact that too often those schools, many of them segregated by law or practice until very recently in their histories, have failed to address the persistent reminders to students of color that they are not fully members of the college communities. Complaints that black students, in some instances, can expect to be subjected to emotional or physical harm because of their race or ethnicity, as evidenced by the death threats received by protesting students at the University of Missouri and elsewhere. Far from being defenses of academic integrity and openness, those who dismiss the students only perpetuate a sad history of refusal to confront the continued existence of discrimination and inequality on campus. Recent articles, such as “The Coddling of the American Mind” in The Atlantic and other media, have described professors and students feeling so afraid that they will offend someone in class that they feel that the school has ceased to be a marketplace of ideas. Undoubtedly, some students are overly sensitive, but to equate this to the hurt and fear experienced by students and faculty called “nigger” at their colleges, or feeling that their presence is only reluctantly tolerated as shown by their small numbers and the sense that they don’t belong belittles the legitimate hurt which has its roots in the country’s long, sorry history of deliberate exclusion and subordination. Ironically, the phrase “political correctness,” ostensibly invoked to promote free expression, is often actually the protest of being called to task for the first time for the consequences of previously unchallenged statements and conduct. Its purpose and effect is to belittle and demean the call for other people to recognize the humanity and feelings of others. Putting aside the too often forgotten fact that the First Amendment protects against state suppression of speech and assembly and not interactions between private citizens, the fact that you have the right to say something doesn’t mean you should. Sometimes healthy doses of humility and empathy are called for, values academic institutions should also foster. For instance, one of the things that brought the situation to a boil at Yale was a reaction to a college e-mail urging that students to think before dressing up in possibly racist or offensive costumes. That call for consideration and civility was challenged as an unfair trammeling of the rights of students, as if the most fundamental request for decency was somehow a constitutional violation. Yale, let’s remember, is a private institution. It would be tragic if the current discussion of the demonstrations failed to include a discussion of the underlying issues of discrimination and exclusion which remain rampant in our country. I applaud those who speak in favor of speech that makes people uncomfortable, but I would remind them to remember that what is good for the goose applies equally to the gander. Let’s be willing to make the people who are most privileged and powerful uncomfortable. Let’s remember a fact wholly missing from the dialogue, which is that the law requires that students cannot be denied the opportunity to an education because of a hostile environment and consider that when we are discussing campus communities. Let’s try to find a way to educate that includes everyone, and not just those who have been the historic beneficiaries of educational opportunities historically denied others. 

This entails other impacts:
a. Harm to the Marketplace- the idea of the marketplace is to improve and protect ideas and allow them to be exchanged regardless of differences and alternative perspectives. We need to allow all parts of the market to be employed, failing to do so results in lies and little progress forward. Double bind for the neg: a. except the marketplace for what it is knowing that it is crucial to development and to stop oppression or b. take the disadvantage of oppression and little progress
b. Right Violations- Free speech is an intrinsic human right that is stated on the First Amendment. Taking away this right makes it impossible to protect the oppressed from harm. This allows for the continuation of discrimination and exclusion, something that must be ended. Aff impacts should outweigh because: A. we answer the question of who we should be helping, B. we protect the current system of rights for everyone.
Deliberative Pedagogy(:55)
A Deliberative Pedagogy shows student engagement and development
Doherty’12- Joni Doherty is the director of the New England Center for Civic Life and teaches in the American Studies program at Franklin Pierce University. (Joni Doherty. “Deliberative Pedagogy: An Education that Matters”. 2012. 10 January 2017)
Deliberation is a set of practices that foster the conditions needed to understand and address these kinds of dilemmas. Participants in deliberative forums are encouraged to consider not only statistics and expert analysis, but also the experiential and value-laden aspects. Everyone affected by the issue needs to feel both welcome and encouraged to participate in defining and addressing the problem. Public deliberation requires each person to think critically and creatively and, listen attentively, examine assumptions, value differences, engage in respectful and honest dialogue, and reach well-reasoned judgments. Deliberating together is about deepening understanding of the problem in order to craft solutions, not about winning a debate or standing your ground. Deliberation is can be understood as the cultivation of a set of capacities that can lead to a new construction of knowledge, one that comes out of the public’s work together. Higher education has long embraced the expert construction of knowledge. Although this is changing, traditionally colleges and universities have conducted research and educated students on principles guided by this assumption. For example, many instructors focus on “covering” the course material through methods that ensure the efficient “delivery” of discipline-specific knowledge. This model, in which each side has clearly designated positions, may have secured the desired outcomes in a political, social, and economic environment where roles and responsibilities were categorically and hierarchically structured and in situations where everyone shared a common set of values and experiences. However, in rapidly changing and diverse societies, things are far messier. Today, because of the overlap of private, professional, and public realms, knowledge is pluralistic and situated. Situated knowledge is context specific. “What is known to be true” depends on its relationship to other conditions present in any particular situation. Multiple understandings might exist around one event or a common understanding may emerge over time. This isn’t relativism but instead requires that we take into account the dynamic interplay of shifting contexts, diverse perspectives, and competing demands. Deliberative pedagogies call for a rethinking and restructuring of the activities of teaching and learning. Through calling on each person to engage with others in democratic, inclusive, and respectfully discursive practices, deliberative pedagogies help students better understand differing perspectives and the complexity of persistent problems that spring from ethical dilemmas. Deliberative democracy minimizes or avoids the traditional leader/follower or expert/novice structure and foregrounds teamwork, intercultural knowledge, ethical reasoning, and action. For instructors who chose to fully employ deliberative democratic pedagogies, the shifts in teaching and learning would be far-reaching. Some of these would include a restructuring of traditional hierarchies and an inter-rogation of the very nature of what we understand to be knowledge and truth. Teaching and learning based on the principles of deliberative deliberation democracy are valuable in all fields, not just those related to communication, public policy, or politics. The need to make complex decisions about matters of common concern extends across every discipline. Deliberative pedagogies provide the interdisciplinary perspective and social and communicative skills necessary for successfully navigating and engaging in a post-industrial and increasingly diverse society. Connecting discipline-specific knowledge to concrete problems that transcend disciplinary boundaries opens pathways for students to become engaged with public and professional issues both inside and outside the classroom. The primary goal isn’t civic education per se, but for students to develop the commitment, knowledge, and skills necessary for creating and maintaining equitable, diverse, and democratic spaces, whether it be in the local community, the workplace, the nation, or the world.
AC Does not claim that Deliberative Pedagogy is completely perfect, just that it’s good idea and a great first step to create change
Longo’13- Nicholas V. Longo is a professor at Providence College who completes studies in public and community service studies. (Nicholas V. Longo. “Deliberative Pedagogy in the Community: Connecting Deliberative Dialogue, Community Engagement, and Democratic Education”. 2013. 10 January 2017.)
The efficacy of public deliberation at resolving complex issues has led to its elements being incorporated into domains beyond the public policy or political sphere. One of the most prominent of these areas is education, specifically, deliberation as an integral part of pedagogy. The difference between deliberative politics and deliberative pedagogy is that the former integrates deliberative decision-making with public action (Mathews, 2012), and the latter integrates deliberative decision-making with teaching and learning. Deliberative pedagogy in the community itis a collaborative approach that melds deliberative dialogue, community engagement, and democratic education. While different, the approach is not entirely new. It draws upon the historical efforts of the Highlander Folk School during the civil rights movement that was led by pioneering educators such as Myles Horton, Septima Clark, and Bernice Robinson. Much has been written about the Highlander tradition that connects education with social change (see for instance, Adams, 1975 and Glen, 1996), but there has been little research on how the processes used at Highlander can inform the practices of deliberative pedagogy. This is especially timely as a growing number of projects are involving college students in deliberative conversations outside what can sometimes be “the bubble” of the college campus. Specifically, students are stepping outside the classroom and connecting theory with real-world community problem-solving through intergenerational “learning circles” with new immigrants, forums with community members on public issues, and multiyear civic engagement courses. Faculty and students are co-creating shared spaces for dialogue and collaborative action in the community and rethinking long-held power dynamics between the campus and the community. This effort—and others like it—is not without its challenges; however they have the potential to shift our basic understanding of the role of higher education in society. Deliberative pedagogy holds enormous promise in promoting the civic mission of higher education through more collaborative approaches to teaching and learning that respond to important and rapidly shifting contextual trends: increasing diversity, new technologies that promote transparency and collaboration, and ardent desire of young people to “make a difference” through concrete social action. It moves the academy from the more traditional “teaching-to-learning” dynamic toward a model of “collaborative engagement” in which knowledge is more genuinely co-created through reflective public action. This shift toward collaboration also helps illuminate the civic dimensions of teaching and learning that increasing numbers of students are demanding and for which the communities in which higher education institutions are located—most of which are struggling with complex problems—are asking.
Free expression is key to civil rights for racial minorities, women, and LGBT folks – it leads to other rights like equal education
Harris and Ray 14 Vincent T Harris has an M. Ed. degree and is a doctoral student @ LSU, Darrell C. Ray is a prof @ LSU, HATE SPEECH and THE COLLEGE CAMPUS: CONSIDERATIONS FOR ENTRY LEVEL STUDENT AFFAIRS PRACTITIONERS, Race, Gender and Class 21.1/2 (2014): 185-194. ProQuest. Premier

Down and Cowan (2012) note that Americans who notice the importance of free expression believe, it benefits more than just the oppressor, but aids in the advancement of the minority group. For example, historical movements such as the civil rights movement, the women's movement, and the gay liberation movement were advanced due to freedom of speech, expression, and ideas (Down and Cowan, 2012). This advancement has granted many minority groups the ability to experience various prohibited privileges such as, the right to attain an equal education. As campuses strive to become more inclusive and respectful communities there is a critical need to identify the spaces and ways in which students feel free to express themselves and their views.

Tournament: Loyola | Round: 4 | Opponent: Harvard Westlake IP | Judge: Rashed Islam

Native Reservations 1AC

Framework

V: Morality

VC: Endorsing a Native American epistemology

Role of the Ballot- Vote for the debater that best decolonizes spheres of education or the debater with the best survival strategy for decolonial epistemologies:

Unique discussion because it not commonly discussed. We impact turn fairness because the question we should asking is fairness for who.

Default to Native American Epistemology because alternatives are drowned in bias and create a flawed understanding of the world

Hester and Cheney'01 – Lee Hester and Jim Cheney are philosophical researchers that have looked into indigenous peoples and Native Americans. (Lee Hester and Jim Cheney. "Truth and Native American epistemology" 2001. 14 August 2016.) 
In a series of articles,6 Vine Deloria, Jr has given us a
AND
into the patterns that have so far emerged in one's observations of nature.

Our indigenous orientation of attentiveness is try or die for the environment

Hester and Cheney'01 – Lee Hester and Jim Cheney are philosophical researchers that have looked into indigenous peoples and Native Americans. (Lee Hester and Jim Cheney. "Truth and Native American epistemology" 2001. 14 August 2016.) 
Making use of J. L. Austin's notion of the performative function of language
AND
that the explicitly ethical projects we set ourselves within these worlds will fail.

Native American epistemologies connect to the individual and the environment.

Zimmerman' 04-Mary Jane Zimmerman is a Ph.D. at Southern Oregon University. She has studied Native American epistemologies. (Mary Jane Zimmerman. "Being Nature's Mind: Indigenous Ways of Knowing and Planetary Consciousness", www.delvingdeeper.com, 22 March 2004. 14 August 2016.)
In this section I will describe three models of ways of knowing from the Diné
AND
thus the mountain is consciousness and consciousness is the mountain" (297).

Utilitarianism disregards respect for the individual and perpetuates societal inequality by evaluating utility as a whole

Freeman 94 – Avalon Professor in the Humanities at the University of Pennsylvania, Ph.D. Harvard University, J.D. University of North Carolina (Samuel, "Utilitarianism, Deontology, and the Priority of Right," Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 23, No. 4, Autumn, pp. 313-349, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2265463)
The inclusion of all sentient beings in the calculation of interests severely undermines the force
AND
In no sense do utilitarians seek to give persons equal concern and respect.

Utilitarianism promotes inequity and inherently discriminates against minority like slavery

Odell, 04 – University of Illinois is an Associate Professor of Philosophy (Jack, Ph.D., "On Consequentialist Ethics," Wadsworth, Thomson Learning, Inc., pp. 98-103)
A classic objection to both act and rule utilitarianism has to do with inequity,
AND
year to be sacrificed to the Gods for the welfare of the group.

The only way to preserve individualism is to allow all persons to have the right to own themselves regardless of any negative consequentialist impacts

Schroeder 86 – Professor of Law at Duke (Christopher H., Prof of Law at Duke, "Rights Against Risks,", April,  Columbia Law Review, pp. 495-562, http://www.jstor.org/pss/1122636)
2. Liberal Theories in the "Rights" Tradition. A second group of
AND
to be the place to look to secure the status of the individual. 

Plan- Countries should prohibit Nuclear Energy Power plants that are built upon Native Reservations of Indigenous Peoples.

Governments using Native Land for Nuclear Power dumps have caused environmental problems and environmental racism for indigenous peoples

Kamps'01 – Kevin Kamps is a writer for the Nuclear Information and Resource Center. He is also a nuclear waste specialist. (Kevin Kamps. "Environmental Racism, Tribal Sovereignty and Nuclear Waste" 15 February 2001. 13 August 2016.)
Nevadans and Utahans living downwind and downstream from nuclear weapons testing, uranium mining,
AND
that struggle for Native American environmental justice against corporate greed and environmental racism.

Multiple countries show the plan solves native lands by stopping harms to the environment. The result of not doing the plan, is genocide.

Broze'16- Derrick Broze is an activist and journalist. He has a reputation for being an honest and focused journalist.
Obama also opted to end funding for the project in 2009, setting off an
AND
the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide."

The current status quo of nuclear power and weapon testing proves colonial domination over Native Americans and has caused societal oppression

MRGI'09- The Minority Rights Group International focuses on helping minorities that are oppressed and need help in society.  (Minority Rights Group International. "United States of America-Native Americans". April 2009. 18 April 2016)
Reservations are used as dumping grounds for toxic or nuclear waste. Lead poisoning,
AND
for Peltier would be a major step forward in USA-Native relations.

Decolonizing academia is good. We have to discuss Native Epistemology in comparison to Western Epistemology.

Gill'99 – Jerry H. Gill is author and editor of over twenty books. He was originally a professor of philosophy at the College of Saint Rose, Albany, New York, he now teaches philosophy at Pima Community College in Tuscan. "Knowledge, Power, and Freedom: Native and Western Epistemological Paradigms" 1999. 18 August 2016.)
The traditional Western definition of knowledge is well focused in Francis Bacon's famous words "
AND
at all. Refinement of the issues can only follow such a beginning.

Only the aff focuses on Indigenous Peoples

Carjuzaa and Ruff'10 – Jioanna Carjuzaa is a Ph.D. in Multicultural, Social and Billingual Foundations at Montana State University.  William G. Ruff also works at the University of Montana. (Jioanna Carjuzza and William G. Ruff. "When western epistemology and an indigenous worldview meet: Culturally responsive assessment in practice" January 2010. 18 August 2016.) 
Most students accomplished this standard by writing in a Socratic, direct, concise manner
AND
done, whereas in the Eastern communication style priority is given to relationships.

Decol comes first

Waziyatawin and Yellow Bird'13- Waziyatawin is a Dakota professor and author. Michael Yellow Bird is a professor in Sociology and Anthropology at North Dakota State University. (Waziyatawin and Michael Yellow Bird. "Unsettling America Decolonization in Theory and Practice" 8 May 2013. 19 August 2016)
As an event, decolonization concerns reaching a level of critical consciousness, an active
AND
staggering increase in the toxicity of the lands, waters, and air.

Decol key for challenging all oppression

Smith'10- Andrea Lee Smith is an American academic, activist against violence and feminist. Her work focuses on issues of violence against Women of Color, mostly Native American Women. (Andrea Lee Smith. "Native Evangelicalism and the Rearticulation of Mission". 2010. 19 August 2016.)
In Native studies, many scholars propose 'decolonization' as a guiding principle for Native
AND
well- we must "indigenize the academy" and "decolonize methodologies". 

The U.S. government is key to stop Native American Oppression

Charbonneau'12- Louis Charbonneau is a journalist for Reuters. (Louis Charbonneau. "U.S. must heal native peoples' wounds, return lands: U.N." 4 May 2013. 19 August 2016.)
The United States must do more to heal the wounds of indigenous peoples caused by
AND
recommendations on these and other issues in a full report later this year.

Tournament: Loyola | Round: 1 | Opponent: Peninsula DJ | Judge: Shania Hunt

Native Reservations 1AC

Framework

V: Morality

VC: Endorsing a Native American epistemology

Role of the Ballot- Vote for the debater that best decolonizes spheres of education or the debater with the best survival strategy for decolonial epistemologies:

Unique discussion because it not commonly discussed. We impact turn fairness because the question we should asking is fairness for who.

Default to Native American Epistemology because alternatives are drowned in bias and create a flawed understanding of the world

Hester and Cheney'01 – Lee Hester and Jim Cheney are philosophical researchers that have looked into indigenous peoples and Native Americans. (Lee Hester and Jim Cheney. "Truth and Native American epistemology" 2001. 14 August 2016.) 
In a series of articles,6 Vine Deloria, Jr has given us a
AND
into the patterns that have so far emerged in one's observations of nature.

Our indigenous orientation of attentiveness is try or die for the environment

Hester and Cheney'01 – Lee Hester and Jim Cheney are philosophical researchers that have looked into indigenous peoples and Native Americans. (Lee Hester and Jim Cheney. "Truth and Native American epistemology" 2001. 14 August 2016.) 
Making use of J. L. Austin's notion of the performative function of language
AND
that the explicitly ethical projects we set ourselves within these worlds will fail.

Native American epistemologies connect to the individual and the environment.

Zimmerman' 04-Mary Jane Zimmerman is a Ph.D. at Southern Oregon University. She has studied Native American epistemologies. (Mary Jane Zimmerman. "Being Nature's Mind: Indigenous Ways of Knowing and Planetary Consciousness", www.delvingdeeper.com, 22 March 2004. 14 August 2016.)
In this section I will describe three models of ways of knowing from the Diné
AND
thus the mountain is consciousness and consciousness is the mountain" (297).

Utilitarianism disregards respect for the individual and perpetuates societal inequality by evaluating utility as a whole

Freeman 94 – Avalon Professor in the Humanities at the University of Pennsylvania, Ph.D. Harvard University, J.D. University of North Carolina (Samuel, "Utilitarianism, Deontology, and the Priority of Right," Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 23, No. 4, Autumn, pp. 313-349, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2265463)
The inclusion of all sentient beings in the calculation of interests severely undermines the force
AND
In no sense do utilitarians seek to give persons equal concern and respect.

Utilitarianism promotes inequity and inherently discriminates against minority like slavery

Odell, 04 – University of Illinois is an Associate Professor of Philosophy (Jack, Ph.D., "On Consequentialist Ethics," Wadsworth, Thomson Learning, Inc., pp. 98-103)
A classic objection to both act and rule utilitarianism has to do with inequity,
AND
year to be sacrificed to the Gods for the welfare of the group.

The only way to preserve individualism is to allow all persons to have the right to own themselves regardless of any negative consequentialist impacts

Schroeder 86 – Professor of Law at Duke (Christopher H., Prof of Law at Duke, "Rights Against Risks,", April,  Columbia Law Review, pp. 495-562, http://www.jstor.org/pss/1122636)
2. Liberal Theories in the "Rights" Tradition. A second group of
AND
to be the place to look to secure the status of the individual. 

Plan- Countries should prohibit Nuclear Energy Power plants that are built upon Native Reservations of Indigenous Peoples.

Governments using Native Land for Nuclear Power dumps have caused environmental problems and environmental racism for indigenous peoples

Kamps'01 – Kevin Kamps is a writer for the Nuclear Information and Resource Center. He is also a nuclear waste specialist. (Kevin Kamps. "Environmental Racism, Tribal Sovereignty and Nuclear Waste" 15 February 2001. 13 August 2016.)
Nevadans and Utahans living downwind and downstream from nuclear weapons testing, uranium mining,
AND
that struggle for Native American environmental justice against corporate greed and environmental racism.

Multiple countries show the plan solves native lands by stopping harms to the environment. The result of not doing the plan, is genocide.

Broze'16- Derrick Broze is an activist and journalist. He has a reputation for being an honest and focused journalist.
Obama also opted to end funding for the project in 2009, setting off an
AND
the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide."

The current status quo of nuclear power and weapon testing proves colonial domination over Native Americans and has caused societal oppression

MRGI'09- The Minority Rights Group International focuses on helping minorities that are oppressed and need help in society.  (Minority Rights Group International. "United States of America-Native Americans". April 2009. 18 April 2016)
Reservations are used as dumping grounds for toxic or nuclear waste. Lead poisoning,
AND
for Peltier would be a major step forward in USA-Native relations.

Decolonizing academia is good. We have to discuss Native Epistemology in comparison to Western Epistemology.

Gill'99 – Jerry H. Gill is author and editor of over twenty books. He was originally a professor of philosophy at the College of Saint Rose, Albany, New York, he now teaches philosophy at Pima Community College in Tuscan. "Knowledge, Power, and Freedom: Native and Western Epistemological Paradigms" 1999. 18 August 2016.)
The traditional Western definition of knowledge is well focused in Francis Bacon's famous words "
AND
at all. Refinement of the issues can only follow such a beginning.

Only the aff focuses on Indigenous Peoples

Carjuzaa and Ruff'10 – Jioanna Carjuzaa is a Ph.D. in Multicultural, Social and Billingual Foundations at Montana State University.  William G. Ruff also works at the University of Montana. (Jioanna Carjuzza and William G. Ruff. "When western epistemology and an indigenous worldview meet: Culturally responsive assessment in practice" January 2010. 18 August 2016.) 
Most students accomplished this standard by writing in a Socratic, direct, concise manner
AND
done, whereas in the Eastern communication style priority is given to relationships.

Decol comes first

Waziyatawin and Yellow Bird'13- Waziyatawin is a Dakota professor and author. Michael Yellow Bird is a professor in Sociology and Anthropology at North Dakota State University. (Waziyatawin and Michael Yellow Bird. "Unsettling America Decolonization in Theory and Practice" 8 May 2013. 19 August 2016)
As an event, decolonization concerns reaching a level of critical consciousness, an active
AND
staggering increase in the toxicity of the lands, waters, and air.

Decol key for challenging all oppression

Smith'10- Andrea Lee Smith is an American academic, activist against violence and feminist. Her work focuses on issues of violence against Women of Color, mostly Native American Women. (Andrea Lee Smith. "Native Evangelicalism and the Rearticulation of Mission". 2010. 19 August 2016.)
In Native studies, many scholars propose 'decolonization' as a guiding principle for Native
AND
well- we must "indigenize the academy" and "decolonize methodologies". 

The U.S. government is key to stop Native American Oppression

Charbonneau'12- Louis Charbonneau is a journalist for Reuters. (Louis Charbonneau. "U.S. must heal native peoples' wounds, return lands: U.N." 4 May 2013. 19 August 2016.)
The United States must do more to heal the wounds of indigenous peoples caused by
AND
recommendations on these and other issues in a full report later this year.