Tournament: University of Houston Cougar Classic | Round: 2 | Opponent: Thomas Cameron Leavitt | Judge: Grayson, Reece
COUNTERPLAN
SUBSTANCE
Queer folk often are victims of homo and/or transphobic discourse on public school campuses. Franklin et al.
https://www.aclu.org/other/doing-math-what-numbers-say-about-harassment-gay-lesbian-bisexual-and-transgender-students?redirect=cpredirect/11826
A study of Massachusetts high school students published in the journal Pediatrics reported that nearly one-third of gay teens had been threatened in the past month with a weapon at school, compared to 7 of heterosexual students surveyed. In two separate studies, similar percentages of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth reported hearing homophobic comments in their schools. In a 1993 study by the Massachusetts Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth , 97 of students in a Boston public high school said they heard homophobic remarks on a regular basis from their peers. The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) conducted a survey of 496 lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students from 32 states. This survey found that over 90 of LGBT youth reported that they sometimes or frequently heard homophobic comments in their schools. Over one-third of youth reported that no outside party ever intervened when homophobic remarks were made in their school environment, according to GLSEN's "National School Climate Survey." The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force "National Anti-Gay/Lesbian Victimization Report," concludes from its survey:  and 45 of gay males and 20 of lesbians surveyed reported having experienced verbal harassment and/or physical violence as a result of their sexual orientation during high school. The GLSEN study measured the frequency of anti-gay harassment in schools and found: 61.1 of LGBT students reported verbal harassment 46.5 reported sexual harassment 27.6 reported physical harassment (shoving, hitting) 13.7 reported physical assault (being beaten, punched, kicked, etc) Of those who were victims of verbal harassment, almost half stated that this harassment occurred on a daily basis. The home environment can also be very unsafe for LGBT youth. In a survey of lesbians and gays in Pennsylvania, 33 of gay men and 34 of lesbians reported suffering physical violence at the hands of a family member as a result of their sexual orientation. In a psychological study of 484 students at six community colleges conducted by Dr. Karen Franklin, 18 of the men interviewed admitted that they had committed physical violence or threats against men and/or women they perceived as gay or lesbian.
Just because the evidence talks about anti-queer discourse in high schools, does not mean the problem does not exist in colleges and universities.
analytics
Threatening discourse paints a negative picture of the learning environment for queer students and harms them and their educations. Dentato et al.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297607425_Homophobia_within_schools_of_social_work_the_critical_need_for_affirming_classroom_settings_and_effective_preparation_for_service_with_the_LGBTQ_community
Homophobia and heterosexism within classroom settings and school environments can negatively impact LGBTQ student experiences. The college or university classroom is a particularly important setting in which to examine oppression, stigma, and hostility for members of the LGBTQ community. While past studies are limited because of their focus on high school students (Espelage, Aragon, Birkett, and Koenig, 2008; Jordan, Vaughan, and Woodworth, 1998; Thurlow, 2001), the prevalence of homophobia within high school classroom settings may provide a context for understanding the impact upon the continuation of such experiences for college-age students. Ultimately, LGBTQ students that experience homophobia or heterosexism may have lower self-esteem; increased likelihood for bullying, violence, and harassment; and greater fear for safety than other students (D’Augelli and Rose, 1990; Fineran, 2002; Gruber and Fineran, 2008; Jordan et al., 1998). Additionally, experiences of homophobia and heterosexism directly and violate implicit assumptions about what most LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ students expect – and do not expect – to be part of their typical positive, affirming and nurturing educational experiences across grade school, high school or college/university settings (Fisher et al., 2008; Wickens and Sandlin, 2010). Jordan and colleagues (1998) found that many LGB high school students in
The effects of anti-queer discourse on public college and university campuses ripple past   student life of the queer individual .
analytics
3. Forms of dominations are rooted in the language we use. Smith
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ916840.pdf
The social construction (Gergen, 1999) of family, gender,and sexuality, disability, and leadership, an area of research of one of this article’s authors, extols the reality-creating ability of language and, in fact, classifies language as “extremely powerful” in this arena. Language fashions our understandings, positions us to take action, and exerts an influence on our day-to-day lived realities; using it carelessly can certainly lead to oppression, injustice and violence. In particular, theorists such as Foucault (1980) demonstrated how language can be used to dominancete and control, which is echoed by liberatory education theorists like McLaren (1998), and requires that educators pay attention to the ways words, both written and spoken, impact the lives of students and the greater community.
AND cis-heteronormativity tears up the lives of queer folk, creating tangible impacts that affect their wellbeing Habarth.
https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/60664/jhabarth_1.pdf
These individual acts of hate are indicative of of a wider pattern of discrimination against the LGBTQ community. It is now recognized within public health that this discrimination causes significant health problems for the LGBTQ community. For instance, hate and discrimination can become internalized and a source of chronic stress, which in turn is a risk factor for depression. And in fact, LGBTQ populations do experience higher rates of psychological distress and depression. In addition, chronic stress can  anddisrupts normal biological functioning. This in turn can making people more susceptible to infection. Related to this, men in long term same-sex relationships were significantly more likely to die from suicide than men who were married to women or men who were never married. The lifetime rate of suicide attempts among the LGBT population is four times higher than the rate of suicide attempts for non-LGBT people. This is most likely related to long-term depression and the impacted stigma and oppression LGBT people face on a regular basis. Hate and discrimination also affect rates and progression of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV. Stigma against HIV - for instance, the perception that it is a “gay man’s disease” - still exists in our society. There is a creates a fear of being labeled as HIV positive, which causes many people to avoid testing. The result is that many people who are HIV positive do not know that they are and are therefore more likely to spread the disease. Although men who have sexual contact with other men represent about four percent of the male population, they accounted for 78 percent of new HIV infections among men in 2010, and 63 percent of all new HIV infections. Additionally, this fear of being tested for HIV often extends to a fear of being tested for other STIs. Eighty-three percent of new syphilis cases in 2014 affected men who have sexual contact with men. Homelessness is more likely to affect LGBT youth – 20-40 percent of homeless youth identifying as LGBT. and Many LGBT youth experience violent physical assault when they come out and may actually feel safer living on the streets. Homophobia and intolerance affect everyone. This includes peoples who consider themselves straight, or who may not have friends or relatives in the LBGTQ community. It limits self-expression, prevents same-sex friends from showing affection toward each other, prompts people to act aggressively toward LGBTQ individuals to “prove” they are not part of the community and causes youth to prove their sexuality by having sex before they are ready. Homophobia and intolerance make it hard to appreciate anything that is outside the realm of what is considered “normal” in our society.

TEXT
Thus the CounterPlan Text: Public Colleges and Universities in the United States ought to restrict constitutionally protected speech that threatens or hurts queer folk.
COMPETITION
The counterplan competes with the aff via mutual exclusivity; we can’t restrict constitutionally protected speech while also restricting some parts of it. 

ROB
Finally is framework. Supporting queer folk in the educative space plants the roots for larger social reform. Queer pedagogy shapes helps shape what we consider to be “normal” makes us more accepting of our differences.  Smith  
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ916840.pdf

Viewed through such a lens, educators are understood to be either upholding the status quo or to be defining/redefineeing what is classified as “normal” in their classrooms, and thus in the larger society as well. Continually bringing this responsibility to the attention of educators, as well as giving them the tools to begin to expanding definitions of what is and what is not considered “normal” in the realm of sexuality and gender, can go a long way towards achieving equity and, in particular, can help mitigate student’s anxiety when it comes to dealing with their own sexual orientation and gender issues. And, while the association between sexual orientation and school has progressed toward being one of tolerance and/or acceptance, it is still evident that educational contexts significantly contribute to the perpetuation of stereotypes and negative attitudes (Pascoe, 2007) towards gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and questioning students (see the 2008 study6 by GLSEN for one example). As Thus educators, we are responsible, at least in part, for helping to counter these socially unjust understandings, helping to define and redefine students’ attitudes regarding sexuality, gender, and sexual orientation
Thus, the ROB is to vote for the debater who better promotes the inclusion of queer students.

Hate speech is still constitutionally protected. Volokh
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?utm_term=.e7195ffff5f6
To be sure, there are some kinds of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. But those narrow exceptions theyhave nothing to do with “hate speech” in any conventionally used sense of the term. For instance, there is an exception for “fighting words” — face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight. But this exception isn’t limited to racial or religious insults, nor does it cover all racially or religiously offensive statements. Indeed, when the City of St. Paul tried to specifically punish bigoted fighting words, the Supreme Court held that this selective prohibition was unconstitutional (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)), even though a broad ban on all fighting words would indeed be permissible. (And, notwithstanding CNN anchor Chris Cuomo’s Tweet that “hate speech is excluded from protection,” and his later claims that by “hate speech” he means “fighting words,” the fighting words exception is not generally labeled a “hate speech” exception, and isn’t coextensive with any established definition of “hate speech” that I know of.)