Tournament: Harvard Westlake | Round: 5 | Opponent: Palo Alto FZ | Judge: Erik Legried

A Interpretation: Debaters may only have 1 conditional advocacies.
B Violation: They have 2.
C Net Benefits:
1 Advocacy skills 2 Depth
D Implication: Drop the debater on conditionality

Tournament: Harvard Westlake | Round: Octas | Opponent: Lynbrook NS | Judge: Tim Alderete, Arjun Tambe, Chris Castillo

A Interpretation: Debaters may only have 1 conditional PIC.

 
B Violation:
C Net Benefits:
1 Advocacy skills
2 Depth- education
D Implication: Drop the debater on conditional PICs—dropping the argument doesn’t make sense in this case because it just magnifies the abuse AND dropping the debater is the only way to ensure bad practices don’t spread through deterrence.====

Tournament: TOC | Round: 1 | Opponent: Christopher Columbus JN | Judge: Preston Stolte
1AC
1AC
Part 1 is Framing
THE VIOLENCE WE SEE TODAY IS ONLY THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG – our crisis of racist politics and escalating hatred will only get worse
Rowan explains noted political Journalist and cultural critic Carl T; “The Coming Race War in America A Wake-up Call,” 1996, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/comingracewar.htm
Take a look at this society's decline in terms of organized religion. Preachers preach and rabbis teach, but fewer and fewer people listen, and those who visit churches and synagogues rarely heed what they hear. Look at what the Greeks and Romans have written that they saw too late--and what we see now, everywhere in this nation: racial and religious bigotries, blind nationalisms, and myriad other injustices tolerated and even glorified by our philosophers, politicians, Presidents, the "wise men" allowing this, the greatest of societies, to be consumed in hatred. Look at the piling up of economic injustice and ask how long we can live in peace and prosperity. The January 22, 1996, issue of U.S. News and World Report carried an article about how WORKERS TAKE IT ON THE CHIN which noted: * that in 1982 dollars, U.S. workers had suffered a decline in earnings, from an average of $298 weekly in 1970 to $256 in 1994 * that during the last five years "the upper class" has gained economically by 76 percent, while the middle class has risen by 6 percent, the working class by 2 percent, and the poorest class by 6 percent * that in 1945 the top 1 percent of U.S. families held 32.4 percent of the nation's wealth, but in 1992 that top 1 percent held 42 percent of the wealth. Here was indisputable evidence that while the privileged were assailing attempts of the New Deal and the Great Society to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, the rich have been getting richer while the poor have lapsed into deeper poverty A less conservative publication would have been accused of spreading "inflammatory class warfare verbiage" or "an anti-capitalist, pinko diatribe." What we have to recognize is that we are a society stumbling into a vast darkness, because we do not really seek answers to the issues that I have raised, issues that are of concern to all of us. Instead we look for scapegoats! The result: in just the last decade we have seen some gruesome manifestations of racial and ethnic hatred in America--literally, murder in the streets, blood spilling everywhere. We have seen political fights in Congress over who should get the most of America's goodies--fights that have caused shutdowns of the federal government and mind-boggling gridlock in Washington. One senses that our nation is split irrevocably and that there is no one to bring us together again. The blame game seems to be played with every American failure. Some U.S. auto dealers blame Japan's supremacy in selling certain products on "unfair trading practices." From time to time the U.S. industrialists who feel cheated, and the politicians who deplore the trade imbalance with Japan, create almost enough hysteria to foment a trade war between Washington and Tokyo. Some American industrialists find scapegoats in the men and women of organized labor, claiming that the "exorbitant" demands of U.S. workers drive them to move plants to Taiwan, Singapore, and, yes, Mexico, where they can enjoy cheap labor. So these employers have engaged in economy-crippling wars with the organized-labor movement, which itself is struggling to emerge from a long, tragic decline. Still, it is clear that organized laborers and their pay, health care, and other demands are not the cause of the rot in industrial America. If greedy union leaders are not responsible for the disappearance of "good jobs"--of high-paying posts as computer chip makers and camera makers and even shirtmakers and shoemakers in the United States, then who is? The political flamethrowers, such as Governor Pete Wilson of California, think they see advantage in blaming our economic decline on the great influx into the United States of "illegal aliens." They are bent on making immigration the issue on which many politicians in California, Texas, Colorado, Florida, and other states will rise or fall in the 1996 elections and the remaining years of this century. The one explosive issue that may trigger the actual burning of America, and certainly exacerbates the ever-widening divisions between and among its citizens, is "affirmative action." Almost every presidential and congressional candidate now strives to convince voters that black, Hispanic, Asian, and female recipients of undeserved economic preferences are really to blame for the economic malaise that has produced so many millions of "angry white men." These simplistic blame games have already created a disrespect, even hatred, not only for the poor, but for government officials at all levels. They are seen as the ones who proposed, enacted, and protected the laws that supposedly have lowered the levels of life of white men. Others who think their plight is far worse than that of white men have also made the government their worst villain. The government is seen as the invader, controller, and circumscriber of the lives of everyone--the middle class that has lost ground, the underclass that never had sufficient chance.
ROWAN WROTE THAT 20 YEARS AGO- BUT TODAY WE SEE THE SAME ANGRY WHITE MEN AND RACIAL VIOLENCE- the question then is HOW and WHERE we can approach opposing viewpoints and navigate racism – that comes first since racism builds walls of exclusion and controls how bodies can interact with other bodies
Mendieta 04 (Eduardo, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Stony Brook University, “Plantations, ghettos, prisons: US racial geographies”,  Philosphy and Geography, Philosophy and Geography, 7:1, 43-59, February 2004, Published Online August 6th, 2006, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1090377042000196010)
It may be easily argued, without too much contrivance, that racism is a form of¶ spatial regimentation, a way to enforce not just how subjects may conform and produce¶ themselves as such, but also how they may or may not enter into interaction with certain¶ other subjects. As Ronald Sundstrom put it eloquently: “Race is not just expressed¶ spatially, but it is experienced and produced spatially. Race is place, and racial places¶ become encrusted with racial representations that become all too often materialized due¶ to racist action and neglect.”20 Racism is therefore about embodiment and social¶ geography. Racism is about how one can and cannot be in a body. Racism is a ¶ technology of embodiment, or, to use Foucault’s terminology, it is an anatomo-politics.¶ Whether we approach racism from the standpoint of the putatively scientific discourse¶ to which it appeals for its justification, or we approach it from the standpoint of a visual¶ matrix that renders geometrical and spatialized a certain abjection or approval, racism¶ has do with what space may or may not be occupied, transversed, possessed by certain¶ subjects, and, concomitantly, what it has to do with what spaces are beyond reach, and¶ are therefore unassailable, sanctified, and impenetrable. Succinctly put, racism is about¶ space, embodiment, and territory: it is about privilege and about building the walls of¶ exclusion that preserve and render invisible and acceptable that privilege and exclusion.¶ Racism is a technology of subjection and agency that is enacted through the production¶ and regimentation of bodily, social and epistemologies spaces.21 The power and truths¶ that grant legitimacy and stability to racist practices have to do with the spaces of power¶ that subjugate subjects to the alleged truths of their flesh and the power of the space in¶ which these same agents are contained and relegated. A genealogy of certain discourses¶ that elucidates their spaces of power and the power that flows from its constructed and¶ produced spaces would also, by definition, be a genealogy of racism. To put it¶ summarily, on the basis of a Foucauldian genealogy we can match the matrices that map¶ social and cognitive space with the matrices that lash the tortured flesh of agents with¶ racism. As significant and tactically indispensable as this type of analysis may be, it is¶ by no means the best that Foucault’s work can offer. In Foucault’s work we can also¶ encounter a more condemning analysis of racism.
Focus on material, lived experience is key to express the dehumanization of people of color and promote mutual recognition – race dialogue isn’t just an “interesting idea” for white people to understand
Leonardo and Porter ’10 (published online July 9th, 2010, Leonardo, Zeus and Porter, Ronald K.(2010), Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley, USA, 'Pedagogy of fear: toward a Fanonian theory of 'safety' in race dialogue', Race Ethnicity and Education, 13: 2, 139 — 157, Leonardo has a PhD in education and has published numerous articles and book chapters on critical social thought in education, Ronald Porter received his PhD in Education, Designated Emphasis in Critical Theory from UC Berkeley. He is now the Acting Director of Service Learning at Eckerd College, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2010.482898~-~-ghs//sk)
Pedagogy of fear and the intellectualization of race¶ Teaching race literacy is necessary but difficult. In addition, authentic race dialogue is elusive because over and beyond its emotional register for many educators and students, race dialogue runs into the formidable force of ideology. In mixed racial company, race dialogue is almost never for the benefit of people of color and race- conscious whites. In fact, as Nishitani Osamu (2006) observes, race dialogue in mixed-race company works to maintain the Western distinction between ‘anthropos’ (the inhuman) and ‘humanitas’ (the human). Osamu points out, ‘“anthropos” cannot escape the status of being the object of anthropological knowledge, while “humanitas” is never defined from without but rather expresses itself as the subject of all knowl- edge’ (260). Put another way, race dialogue often maintains the status of whiteness as being both natural and unchanging in the white imaginary. In other words, whiteness remains ubiquitous even if it is not named, and noticing whiteness is itself regarded as a form of transgression (hooks 1992). Whiteness is the immovable mover, unmarked marker, and unspoken speaker.¶ Although it would be interesting to focus on race discussions within a homoge- neous group, or same-race dialogues, the imagined situation we put forth is a mixed company because it projects the ideal of public integration and the educational challenges to it. Given that integration is the goal, many students of color who seek ‘safe’ race discussions in public rarely find them, having to settle for the reality that most pedagogical situations involving race are violent to them. They realize quite quickly that public race talk is not for them but for whites, or at least a white mindset. In other words, it caters to a white racial frame, a white imaginary (Leonardo 2009), which is a collective unconscious that tolerates race dialogue in small amounts. Often, as Fanon’s (1967a) critique of Sartre (1948) indicates, whites turn racism into an intel- lectualist problem, rather than a lived one (132–5).4 Following a Fanonian dialectic, at root racism is a material problem, which suggests displacing an idealist framework with a concrete one. Public race discussions are examples of white racial hegemony insofar as they represent whites’ accommodation to demands of color as long as white common sense is observed and kept intact. As a result, most race discussions benefit whites and patronize people of color; they project a white audience, both real and imagined. In this interaction, the otherwise deep and intimate understanding that people of color have to offer is forsaken in exchange for an epiphenomenal, intellec- tualist interpretation of race.¶ There are genuine fears that must be confronted when educators publicly discuss race in the classroom. Both whites and people of color face certain dangers that prevent an authentic exchange. Not only do whites fear that they will be exposed as racist; they also fear being found out as racial beings. People of color already know that whites comprise a racial group, therefore white raciality would not represent a shocking discovery for them. However, whites’ discovery of their own raciality is precisely what is at stake. Hiding behind the veil of color-blindness means that lifting it would force whites to confront their self-image, with people of color acting as the mirror. This act is not frightening for people of color but for whites. In the light of day, this fact of whiteness would have led Fanon to declare, ‘Look a white person!’ Although this pale façade is becoming more difficult to sustain, whites cultivate a color-blind mask that even Fanon would not have predicted. To be clear, color-blind- ness in a color-obsessed nation appears oxymoronic and whites would have to work hard to maintain the mask. In a race-saturated society, such as the United States, color- blind racism is accurately described as a mode of feigning an oblivion to race. In short, color-blind perspectives are attempts to observe – indeed to see – race in a way that maintains whites’ equilibrium. It is not literally a form of blindness but its precise opposite: seeing race in a selective way that makes whites acceptable, not to people of color per se, but to themselves. It would be a mistake to regard color-blindness as a non-racial move and more accurate to construct it as a particular deployment of race.¶ Authentic race discussions are violent to whites for the very reason that such discussions would expose their investment in race, their full endorsement of, rather than, flippant regard for it. It speaks to the inauthentic education that whites experi- ence. This does not suggest that their fear has no basis. In fact, it has a material basis for it represents one of the many walls that people of color have to scale as they attempt to convince whites that race matters in a manner different from whites’ under- standing of it. Some whites who are open minded enough, often feel enlightened and enlivened by discussions that confront racism, vowing their commitment to the cause. That established, whites often conceive of race talks as intellectually stimulating – as in a discovery or another topic in which they can excel – rather than a lived experience that students of color in good faith share with their white colleagues. Meanwhile, students of color walk away from the same discussions barely advancing their under- standing of race and racism, sometimes satisfied departing with their legitimacy and mindset intact. After all, these confrontations were not for their benefit; they were not meant to advance people of color. A Fanon-inspired race dialogue is not anti- intellectual, but precisely anti-intellectualist. Said another way, it is materialist.¶ Minority fears are quite different from white apprehensions concerning public race talk. Despite the countless occasions where people of color expose their intimate thoughts and hurts about racism, then followed by white dismissal (not always overt), their desire for authentic race dialogue represents their hope not only in themselves but a hope projected onto whites. It is, on one hand, naïve and a sign of wishful think- ing on the part of minorities to expect more out of whites than whites expect out of themselves. On the other hand, it is a humanizing desire and commitment to the other that prevents people of color from disengaging from whites. People of color may suspend their memory of white aggressions in order to start anew, of renewing their hope that this time it will be different. Then they are reminded of the pattern they know so well and their disappointment haunts them. They may even strike back against empire and voice their disapprobation at whites. Too often, whites interpret minority anger as a distancing move, or the confirmation of the ‘angry’ person of color arche- type, rather than its opposite: an attempt to engage the other, to be vulnerable to the other, to be recognized by the other, to be the other for the other.¶ As Freire (1993) once remarked, protestation from the oppressed is an act of love insofar as it represents an act of engagement. When the oppressed open their wounds through communication, they express the violence in their dehumanization that they want the oppressor to recognize. People of color do not only fear overt violence from whites (although this would be enough) but rather their wantonness, their lack of recognition of people of color, a certain violence of the heart rather than the fist. This is what Fanon (2004) describes as ‘violence rippling under the skin’ (31). This second- ary form of violence confirms a daily assault that often goes unnoticed. It is a double violence that fails to acknowledge the other on whom one imposes an unwelcome will. It may sound like a slave’s maneuver to desire recognition from the master but such is the relationship of bondage within a colonial relationship. It would be enough to suggest that people of color fear overt white violence in the form of physical aggres- sion. People of color have other fundamental fears in becoming invisible to whites, of becoming merely an idea to them.¶ Some minority students willingly participate in otherwise problematic race conversations because they refuse to surrender to absolute cynicism, where racism would have succeeded. They realize that participation maintains their sense of human- ity and disengagement subverts the kind of person they want to cultivate, the kind of self or student they want to be. In other words, disengagement is one of the symptoms of structural racism, which succeeds at isolating us from one another, of subverting our ability to live through the other. Still some people of color give into despair, tired as they are of educating whites from ground zero ... every time, again and again. Who can blame them? It is a survival mechanism that people of color have practiced over the years in order to prevent their anger and frustration from consuming them, of turn- ing to self-destructive forms of violence in the form of rage. Or, it is a defense against white violence – in the form of microaggressions – which strikes at the academic legitimacy of scholars and students of color when they violate the color-blind codes of conduct that regulate the classroom. People of color sometimes overlook white violence so they can get through their daily life. Like a child who has been abused, people of color avoid white violence by strategically playing along, a practice that whites, whose racial development stunts their growth, underestimate when they mistake consensus as the absence of coercion. Like abused children who do not possess the ability to consent and defend themselves against the verbal and physical power of a parent, people of color have become masters at deflection. This is how they secure safety in violent circumstances.¶ It is apparent that both whites and people of color want to avoid violence from being enacted against them. They enter race dialogue from radically different locations – intellectual for the former, lived for the latter – and an unevenness that the critical race pedagogue must accept and becomes the constitutive condition of any progressive dialogue on race. It is the risk that comes with violence but one worth taking if educa- tors plan to shift the standards of humanity. In an apparently common quest for mutual racial understanding, whites and people of color participate in a violence that becomes an integral part of the process and seeking a ‘safe space’ is itself a form of violence insofar as it fails to recognize the myth of such geography in interracial exchange. As it concerns people of color within the current regime, safe space in racial dialogue is a projection rather than a reality. This is the myth that majoritarian stories in education replay and retell in order to perpetuate an understanding of race that maintains white supremacy. Safe spaces are violent to people of color and only by enacting a different form of violence, of shifting the discourse, will race dialogue ultimately become a space of mutual recognition between whites and people of color.¶ If people of color observe the current call for safety, this process defaults to white understandings and comfort zones, which have a well-documented history of violence against people of color. It is a point of entry that is characterized by denials, evasions, and falsehoods (Frankenberg 1993; Mills 1997). Its shell is non-violent for in public most whites prize self-control. Race dialogue within a white framework is rational, if by that we mean a situation that preserves, as Angela Davis (1998) mentioned, peace and order. This procedural arrangement has much to recommend it if we want to avoid uprisings and outright violence. But its kernel is already violent to people of color because a certain irrational rationality is at work. Both parties leave the interaction relatively ‘intact’, which should not be equated with the absence of violence. Whites depart the situation with their worldview and value systems unchallenged and affirmed, and people of color remain fractured in theirs. Whites would need to experience violence if they expect to change. But this is different from a hegemonic understanding that violence is always a form of dehumanization. In our appropriation of Fanon’s dialectics of violence, we find transformative possibilities in violence depending on the political project to which it is attached. Moreover, in this framework violence is not so much a description of this or that act qualifying as a form of violence, but a theoretical prescription of a different state of affairs, a response to oppression that equals its intensity. Thus, we do not describe what violence looks like, but assess its consequences.
Thus, the role of the ballot is to vote for the debater that best materially exposes racism.  
Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.
Part 2 is The Infantilization of the University
Students fail to engage unfamiliar views and avoid discomfort in the status quo – any speech restrictions enforce an infantilizing paternalism that frames students as intolerant of being wrong
Mark J. Perry 16 , "Higher education's infantilizing paternalism, lack of intellectual diversity leaves students unprepared for reality • AEI," AEI, 11-10-2016, https://www.aei.org/publication/higher-educations-infantilizing-paternalism-lack-of-intellectual-diversity-leaves-students-unprepared-for-reality/, ghsBZ 

1. Infantilizing Paternalism and Eternal Dependency. From today’s Wall Street Journal, a review by Daniel Schuchman (chairman of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) of the book “What’s Happened To The University?: A sociological exploration of its infantilization” by Frank Furedi (professor emeritus of sociology at the University of Kent, UK), emphasis added: Mr. Furedi argues that the ethos prevailing at many universities on both sides of the Atlantic is the culmination of an infantilizing paternalism that has defined education and child-rearing in recent decades. It is a pedagogy that from the earliest ages values, above all else, self-esteem, maximum risk avoidance and continuous emotional validation and affirmation. (Check your child’s trophy case.) Helicopter parents and teachers act as though “fragility and vulnerability are the defining characteristics of personhood.” The devastating result: Young people are raised into an “eternal dependency.” Parenting experts and educators insist that the views of all pupils must be unconditionally respected, never judged, regardless of their merit. They wield the unassailable power of a medical warning: Children, even young adults, simply can’t handle rejection of their ideas, or hearing ones that cause the slightest “discomfort,” lest they undergo “trauma.” It is not surprising to Mr. Furedi that today’s undergraduates, having grown up in such an environment, should find any serious criticism, debate or unfamiliar idea to be “an unacceptable challenge to their personas.” He cites a legion of examples from across the Western world, but one Brown University student perhaps epitomizes the psyche: During a campus debate, she fled to a sanctioned “safe space” because “I was feeling bombarded by a lot of viewpoints that really go against my dearly and closely held beliefs.” Academic freedom is not an academic matter, Mr. Furedi reminds us. It “has a vital significance for the quality of public life.” A generation of litigious college graduates, seeking protection from new ideas and afraid to take any risks, is an ominous glimpse into the future of our public life. 2. Higher Education’s Lack of Intellectual Diversity Coddles Today’s College Students, Leaves Them Unprepared for Non-Liberal Ideas. That’s the timely message from Charles Camosy (associate professor of ethics at Fordham University) writing in the Washington Post (“Trump won because college-educated Americans are out of touch“, sub-titled “Higher education is isolated, insular and liberal. Average voters aren’t.”): Higher education in the United States, after all, is woefully monolithic in its range of worldviews. In 2014, some 60 of college professors identified as either “liberal” or “far-left,” an increase from 42 identifying as such in 1990. And while liberal college professors outnumber conservatives 5-to-1, conservatives are considerably more common within the general public. The world of academia is, therefore, different in terms of political temperature than the rest of society, and what is common knowledge and conventional wisdom among America’s campus dwellers can’t be taken for granted outside the campus gates. Today’s college graduates are formed by a campus culture that leaves them unable to understand people with unfamiliar or heterodox views on guns, abortion, religion, marriage, gender and privilege. And that same culture leads such educated people to either label those with whom they disagree as bad people or reduce their stated views on these issues as actually being about something else, as in Obama’s case. Most college grads in this culture are simply never forced to engage with or seriously consider professors or texts which could provide a genuine, compelling alternative view.
   Safe spaces are a façade – any restrictions promote a culture of silence that breeds white narcissism skimps over the frustration and anger of people of color
   Leonardo and Porter ’10 (published online July 9th, 2010, Leonardo, Zeus and Porter, Ronald K.(2010), Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley, USA, 'Pedagogy of fear: toward a Fanonian theory of 'safety' in race dialogue', Race Ethnicity and Education, 13: 2, 139 — 157, Leonardo has a PhD in education and has published numerous articles and book chapters on critical social thought in education, Ronald Porter received his PhD in Education, Designated Emphasis in Critical Theory from UC Berkeley. He is now the Acting Director of Service Learning at Eckerd College, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2010.482898~-~-ghs//sk)
   The myth of safety in race dialogue for people of color¶ One of the main premises of safe-space discourse is that it provides a format for people of color and whites to come together and discuss issues of race in a matter that is not dangerous as well as inclusive. Thus, the conventional guidelines used to estab- lish a safe space – such as being mindful of how and when one is speaking, confiden- tiality, challenge by choice, and speaking from experience – are used to create an environment where fundamental issues can be broached and no one will be offended. Taken unproblematically, this trend is reasonable. However, the ironic twist is that many individuals from marginalized groups become both offended and agitated when engaging in apparently safe spaces.4 In their naiveté, many white students and educa- tors fail to appreciate the fact – a lived experience – that race dialogue is almost never safe for people of color in mixed-racial company. But before we romanticize its oppo- site, or same-race dialogues, the idea that homogeneous spaces are automatically safe for people of color is a mystification for they result precisely from a violent condition: racial segregation. That said, something has gone incredibly wrong when students of color feel immobilized and marginalized within spaces and dialogues that are supposed to undo racism. This situation should give us doubt regarding whether or not safe-space dialogue really allows for the creativity necessary to promote a humanizing discussion on race, or if it functions, in Fanon’s words, as a negotiating table that seeks peaceful compromise without engaging in the violence necessary to both explore and undo racism.¶ We want to suggest that the reason why safe-space discussions partly break down in practice, if not at least in theory, is that they assume that, by virtue of formal and procedural guidelines, safety has been designated for both white people and people of color. However, the term ‘safety’ acts as a misnomer because it often means that white individuals can be made to feel safe. Thus, a space of safety is circumvented, and instead a space of oppressive color-blindness is established. It is a managed health-care version of anti-racism, an insurance against ‘looking racist’. Fanon provides a useful counter to the inherent color-blindness of current racial pedagogy. Fanon’s arguments in both Black skin, white masks and The wretched of the earth, show sympathies with what intellectuals now call a post-racial analysis (see Leonardo in press). Fanon (1967a) warned against the inherent narcissism of white racial supe- riority found in arguments for separatism, what Appiah (1990) terms ‘extrinsic racism’, which is the inferiorization of an outer group in terms of their moral worth. Fanon stated, ‘I believe that the fact of the juxtaposition of the white and black races has created a massive psychoexistential complex. I hope by analyzing it to destroy it’ (12). In destroying the neuroses of blackness, Fanonian violence approaches post- race implications to the extent that the genesis of blackness is a source external to it: that is, whiteness (see Nayak 2006). By hoping to destroy it, Fanon suggests ending race as a neurotic relation. However, to be clear, Fanonian post-race differs from color-blindness because it seeks to destroy race and racism via a practice of full engagement as opposed to a practice of avoidance. Fanon’s methodology was phenomenological because he sought to undo racism by engaging the phenomenon itself, of going through race in order to undo it. Thus, a Fanonian post-racial gesture to pedagogy is both different and more beneficial than the color-blind stance taken up in safe-space dialogue, which is hardly blind to color. Perhaps the problem with safe space is that it willingly tries to side step the issues, as well as the educative aspects of anger and frustration, necessary for a beneficial and truly liberatory dialogue on race to take place.¶ A Fanonian approach leads us back into considerations of violence in race-based dialogue. The question we must ask is how do we go about understanding liberatory discussions on race as necessitating violence? We are not speaking of violence in the sense of a willful act to injure or abuse, but a violence that humanizes, or shifts the standards of humanity by providing space for the free expression of people’s thoughts and emotions that are not regulated by the discourse of safety. Our main criticism of safe space is that it is laced with a narcissism that designates safety for individuals in already dominant positions of power, which is not safe at all but perpetuates a system- atic relation of violence. Fanon advised against a politics of narcissism, and instead advocated a materialist politics of recognition whereby an individual allows himself to be mediated by the other, or Fanon’s appropriation of Hegel’s (1977) idealism of the other. Unfortunately, this does not happen because white narcissism is at the very center of safe space. Through the avoidance of conflict and the emphasis on personal and image management, it maintains the self-image and understanding of whiteness and reveals a refusal to change through the other. To be fair, Fanon also took to task people of color’s own narcissism, particularly as it concerns the limitations of identity politics and nationalism, what Appiah (1990) calls ‘intrinsic racism’, or the assump- tion of a family resemblance within a group necessary in the short term and usually for protection against the assaults of an outer group.5 African nationalism during decolonization is an example of the second class, whereas Nazism represents the first class; both are problematic, but they differ in purpose and outcome. White indulgence is a gross attempt to understand the self through the self rather than through the other: narcissism par excellence. In fact, Fanon warns us that the ‘other’ in the self/other dichotomy in racial dialogue may not even exist. According to Gordon (2008):¶ In the contemporary academy, much discussion of race and racism is replete with criticism of otherness. Fanon, however, argues that racism proper eliminates such a relationship. Instead of self and other, there are self, others, and non-self, non-others. In other words, there is the category of people who are neither self nor others. They are no- one. The dialectics of recognition is disrupted, and the struggle of such people becomes one of achieving such a dialectics. Put differently, they are not fighting against being others. They are fighting to become others and, in so doing, entering ethical relation- ships. This argument results in a peculiar critique of liberal political theory. Such theory presupposes ethical foundations of political life. What Fanon has shown is that political work needs to be done to make ethical life possible. That is because racism and colonial- ism derail ethical life. (italics added) A pedagogical approach that avoids safety in the interest of image and personal management makes such an ethical relationship possible.¶ If we are truly interested in racial pedagogy, then we must become comfortable with the idea that for marginalized and oppressed minorities, there is no safe space. As implied above, mainstream race dialogue in education is arguably already hostile and unsafe for many students of color whose perspectives and experiences are consistently minimized. Violence is already there. In other words, like Fanon’s under- standing of colonialism, safe space enacts violence. Those who are interested in engaging in racial pedagogy must be prepared to (1) undo the violence that is inherent to safe-space dialogue, and (2) enact a form of liberatory violence within race discus- sions to allow for a creativity that shifts the standards of humanity. In other words, anger, hostility, frustration, and pain are characteristics that are not to be avoided under the banner of safety, which only produces Freire’s (1993) ‘culture of silence’. They are attributes that are to be recognized on the part of both whites and people of color in order to engage in a process that is creative enough to establish new forms of social existence, where both parties are transformed. This is not a form of violence that is life threatening and narcissistic, but one that is life affirming through its ability to promote mutual recognition.
   Free speech promotes growth and humanizing standards for people of color by unrestricting the classroom into a place of risk – the aff deconstructs echo chambers that preserve racism and focuses on collective experience
   Leonardo and Porter ’10 (published online July 9th, 2010, Leonardo, Zeus and Porter, Ronald K.(2010), Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley, USA, 'Pedagogy of fear: toward a Fanonian theory of 'safety' in race dialogue', Race Ethnicity and Education, 13: 2, 139 — 157, Leonardo has a PhD in education and has published numerous articles and book chapters on critical social thought in education, Ronald Porter received his PhD in Education, Designated Emphasis in Critical Theory from UC Berkeley. He is now the Acting Director of Service Learning at Eckerd College, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2010.482898~-~-ghs//sk)
   A race education worth the name: shifting the ground of pedagogy¶ Given that education requires an overhaul if the ship of racism may be steered differently, then violence is warranted as a way to shift the standards. In this last section, we advance some ideas around the criteria for a more authentic dialogue around race in education. In so doing, we do not suggest that dialogue alone can turn the tide without addressing the structural changes that give racism its force. We do not harbor such illu- sions of grandeur. We offer the following thoughts on dialogue as a form of social prac- tice: dialogue as a method of violence and violence as dialogical. A critical race education requires a pedagogy of violence that transcends fear without conveniently forgetting that it structures the learning moment. Our suggestion is not to escalate the pedagogy of fear that students and people of color experience by turning the proverbial table on whites. In saying this, we want to acknowledge that fear is already in the room, not as a form of cul-de-sac or pessimistic analysis but a realistic appraisal of an existing limit situation, an act of defiance in Bell’s (1992) sense. But just as fear may be turned against itself in order to produce conditions for courage, so we suggest that fear is an emotion that does not necessarily paralyze the educator or scholar.¶ One, a race dialogue assumes already racialized participants. Therefore, safety is relational and asks the question, ‘Who feels safe and toward what ends?’ Working against the pretences of color-blindness, the race literate educator is not a post-race subject, if by that we mean achieving a position outside the universe of race. In race literacy, one works with race from within, not without (see Twine 2004; Guinier and Torres 2003). In this sense, race has no outside (Leonardo 2005). Even imagining a condition that hails ‘after race’ (which is possible), is an event within racialization for our imagination is itself racial. Fanon’s was a racial analysis with post-racial implica- tions. Therefore, race dialogues and the regulative ideals that educators establish as rational procedures that guide the discourse, are racialized ideals rather than race- neutral. As Omi and Winant (1994) have reminded us for a couple decades, procedures require a racial formation to give them meaning and significance. Discursive regulations are racial for they speak to the issue of power and who can say what to whom in the course of an exchange. They are part of a larger understanding of the self as belonging to a racial universe, not in the sense of an inherently limiting system (for all systems are limiting) but one that defines possible expressions within a given condition (see Goldberg 1993).¶ Two, a pedagogue may begin a course simply by having a meta-dialogue (dialogue about dialogue) about the assumptions of safety so pervasive in the academy when it comes to the topic of race. By redefining classroom space as a place of risk, educators encourage students to experiment with their self-understanding, and to promote the audacious notion that they may change their minds by the end of a term. We need to be clear that a place of risk does not promote hostility but growth. It does not promote discomfort for its own sake, as if learning only happens when one is uncomfortable. As we have noted, many students of color experience discomfort in public race forums, which hardly leads to new learning for them. Yes, something is learned, but discomfort is not the precondition to worthwhile learning. Against much of anti-racist writing, we do not suggest that a pedagogue’s goal is to encourage white discomfort. Rather, whites must take ownership of feeling uncomfortable in critical race dialogue. Pedagogues can encourage them to take responsibility for their feelings of inadequacy and defensiveness. When paired with clarity in purpose and solidarity with the other, where judgment is practiced but one is never judged, discomfort can be liberating because it enables whites and people of color to remove the mask. They may end up knowing each other more fully as complex human beings rather than the shell of one: whites assumed to be more superior than they are, people of color more inferior than they are. After many years of experience in the university setting, we have learned that this apostasy – of creating risk as the antidote to safety – leads to more transformative learning opportunities. It humanizes students of color because it legitimates their voice and affirms whites’ incompleteness, for it is guided by an ethic of concern for and not a desire to expose whites as simply racist. Not only does risk discourse encourage looking behind the dialogue (a hermeneutics of suspicion) but it also appre- ciates what it opens up in front (a hermeneutics of empathy). This lack of safety iron- ically produces a condition where whites are more able to empathize with people of color as both groups assume the consequences for risk, whereas people of color usually assume the burdens of a ‘safe race dialogue’. A comfortable race dialogue belies the actual structures of race, which is full of tension. It is literally out of sync with its own topic.¶ Finally, violating the discourse on safety means aiming at rigor. It opens up deeper engagements on race, both in the intellectual and practical sense as a lived reality. In an educational system that prides itself on excellence, pedagogues paradoxically aim low when it comes to race dialogue, settling instead for mediocrity. They fail to take advantage of the deep competencies that students of color have to offer and instead rely on the shallowness of whiteness. It is a pedagogy guided by the least competent students in the room, a strategy that most educators would not endorse or tolerate in any other condition. It means helping the children most left behind (and who invest in being the last one in) when it comes to race literacy: mainly, white students. They are often racially illiterate and unable to decode the fundamental racial lessons of daily life. Using a Fanonian analytics of the oppressed to drive race dialogue does not mean that the oppressed are correct most of the time even if it means they are correct more of the time. It does not focus on their individual accuracy but on their collective experiences and the perspectives born from a life of risk. For their important decisions rely on race literacy as if their life depended on it. A humanizing violence would restore their education in the proper sense. This means increasing the violence in education, of disrupting its inhumane dimensions toward new standards of humanity that liberate rather than oppress.
   Failure to understand one another is why colorblind policies like speech codes exist, rendering people of color invisible – understanding difference is especially key since status quo campus activism and growing hatred makes colleges necessary to unpack dominant ideologies
   Rod Leveque 17 , "Crossing Borders: Helping Colleges and Universities Jumpstart the Conversation on Diversity and Inclusion," Higher Education Today, 3-22-2017, https://higheredtoday.org/2017/03/22/crossing-borders-helping-college-universities-jumpstart-conversation-diversity-inclusion/, ghsBZ
   A major challenge confronting U.S. colleges and universities today is the need to disentangle the complexities of diversity, social justice and free speech. We have seen prominent examples of social activism over the past few years at colleges throughout the United States, and subsequent demands by students to make changes in campus culture to help end systemic racism. And in many ways, the problems that stem from a dearth of cross-cultural and cross-racial interactions seem to be getting worse: The Southern Poverty Law Center released a report in November that cited close to 900 separate hate and harassment incidents within the 10 days following the 2016 U.S. presidential election. These events, along with growing concern about the effect of new immigration policies on students and faculty at U.S. institutions, suggest that now is a critical time for institutions to facilitate open discourse about race to promote diversity and inclusion on their campuses. Fostering these conversations is not only good for social cohesion, but it also allows students to better realize the educational benefits of diversity. Some U.S. colleges and universities are working with an international organization to find ways to meet this need. Arnd Wächter, a German-born film producer and cross-cultural education specialist, has several years of experience conducting diversity and inclusion workshops in the United States. Through his experiences, Wächter observed that while some U.S. campuses enjoy a measure of demographic diversity, there seems to be very limited engagement among students of diverse backgrounds. This inspired him to start a nonprofit organization focused on promoting dialogue as a way to build more diversity and inclusion. Crossing Borders in U.S. Higher Education In 2003, Wächter founded Crossing Borders Education (CBE), a non-profit intercultural education organization that offers resources such as training modules and films to promote cross-cultural understanding. In December, 2016, the graduate research associates from ACE’s Center for Policy Research and Strategy had a chance to talk with Wächter via Skype about his organization and its work. Prior to the chat, we viewed his most recent film, American Textures, which he said was made in response to heightened interracial tensions in America. The film captures the complexities involved in intercultural dialogue by chronicling the interactions of six young adult Americans of black, white and Latino origin on a road trip to cities and towns in several southern states. As these individuals get to know one another, they confront and acknowledge the negative effects of racism and how cultural misunderstandings have impacted their lives, both socially and emotionally. The process of dealing with conflict and talking through differences is what ultimately brings them closer together, showing that when people actually take the time to talk, they will be more understanding of those differences. American Textures is part of an intercultural documentary trilogy designed to assist colleges and universities with facilitating intercultural dialogue by providing real-life examples of how diverse groups of strangers interact. The trilogy’s first film, Crossing Borders, brought together American and Moroccan college students in an education abroad exchange program in Morocco with the aim of deconstructing stereotypes through intercultural friendships. The second installment, The Dialogue, co-produced by Michigan State University, took place in China and focused on how American and Chinese college students developed intercultural and cross-communication skills. Wächter’s goal with American Textures is to illustrate how dialogue can be used to unlock racial, ethnic and socioeconomic tensions that might otherwise prevent the integration of perspectives among students, faculty and staff on U.S. campuses. How Campuses Can Use Accompanying Resources According to the CBE website, the trilogy of films is one among a host of resources that include travel programs and intercultural online tools, such as curricula and study abroad toolkits, that help users explore and understand the world from multiple perspectives. U.S. institutions have utilized these resources on their campuses for: 1) general education and first-year seminar courses; 2) orientations for faculty and students; 3) specific department programs such as international relations, ESL, and pre-service teacher trainings; 4) professional development programs; and 5) extra-curricular activities. Materials are flexible and can be built into various settings such as the classroom, peer-to peer interactions like student organization activities, and professional development programs for faculty and staff. The following institutions are integrating the CBE resources into their diversity and intercultural programs: Faculty at Missouri State University used it in their student dialogues called ‘Tough Talks.’ Webster University (MO) included the resources into their student development activities, including a Crossing Borders Education conference. The George Mason University (VA) School for Conflict Analysis and Research screened American Textures and and is currently creating curriculum designed around the film’s resources. During its celebration of ‘International Education Week,’ Muskegon Community College (MI) also screened the film. To date, over 300 universities have used CBE films and tools. Wächter mentioned that screening the films are only a component of the project’s aim. The purpose of the whole process is to initiate frank dialogue and invite students to share their experiences in a safe but authentic environment. “If the process is too safe and too structured, students feel that it is not real, and if it’s too real we might hurt each other unintentionally, so both realness and safety are needed,” he said. In essence, he believes that real dialogue begins with compassion and leads to deeper understanding. Embracing Dialogue on Campus Community Positive reactions at different institutions affirm that American Textures and other CBE resources are powerful—and effective. At Missouri State University, for example, an African American student opened up a conversation after the screening about the isolation she experienced on campus. She shared that the film’s screening was the first time she spoke publicly about feeling marginalized on campus, which gave her confidence to speak up in the future. “Emotion, balance and safety together with good intentions and facilitation can create powerful moments,” Wächter reflected. After screenings, faculty and staff said they felt empowered to connect with colleagues and advocate campus leadership to support diversity committees and other initiatives that would foster safe environments for students. Wächter sees campus leadership as vital for guiding complex discussions on diversity and campus climate. He believes students need experiences that allow them to make meaningful contributions to diversity and inclusion on campus at a time when some are feeling divided, isolated or scared. “I think it’s a crucial time to support students to see that the moment we are connecting, we are actually making a contribution to social peace within society by coming together,” Wächter said. “What is needed is less content, more process, less information and more emotion to allow the students to actually engage with the issues on a very personal level. That is the vision of American Textures.”
   White hegemony in the university creates the backbone of racial hierarchies throughout society – recognizing specific enactments of whiteness is key to prevent its reproduction  
   Charbeneau ’09 (Jessica M, PhD Philosophy University of Michigan, “Enactments of Whiteness in pedagogical practice: Reproducing and transforming White hegemony in the university classroom”, PhD Dissertation for Philosophy/ Sociology from University of Michigan, ProQuest, http://search.proquest.com/openview/cb6cf6118aa038da1a64878a9f25f27a/1?pq-origsite=gscholarandcbl=18750anddiss=y~-~-ghs//sk)
   Whiteness is a major organizing principle in contemporary U.S. society. It includes not only a micro-level personal racial identity but a social location and pattern of interactions in the context of macro-level political-economic structures, and cultural representations and norms (Omi and Winant, 1994). Like race itself, Whiteness is a social construction and a lived reality, a subjective experience and a set of objective power structures and relationships that protects a racial hierarchy that privileges whites and promotes the hegemony of Whiteness. Whiteness, White dominance, or White hegemony, refer to a set of social forces beyond the individual and beyond a conscious belief in White supremacy. That is not to say that the ideology of White supremacy does not play a foundational role in the establishment and maintenance of racial inequality (Gossett, 1965; Lewis, 2002; Roediger, 2005), but White supremacy and racial prejudice seldom are taught explicitly. As Bonilla-Silva (2006) argues, covert socialization into White dominance occurs rather universally while overt expressions of supremacy have become discursively more subtle and nuanced. Just because white people do not express or hold prejudicial attitudes, does not mean they are not affected by and reflect their White and privileged racial standing in their behaviors (Doane, 2003; Lewis, 2002). These normative behaviors of White privilege and assumptions rooted in White hegemony are acted on by individuals and are integrated into the policies and practices of¶ 1¶ social institutions (Feagin, 2000; Feagin and Feagin, 1986; Omi and Winant, 1994). Together, they form the binding for the structure of Whiteness and resulting racial hierarchy. I argue that identifying specific enactments of Whiteness (behaviors that signify what it means to be white in our society) is vital to exposing and challenging the hegemony of Whiteness. These enactments serve as mechanisms by which the structure of White dominance is reproduced or transformed. In this sense, the construction of Whiteness occurs in the movement between and around these processes.¶ Higher education is an institutional space where the macro structures and micro¶ interactions of race (and other power structures) come together, and without interruption¶ contribute to the reproduction of these structures in larger society (Bourdieu and Passeron,¶ l¶ 2000/1977).¶ Throughout, and especially in its higher reaches, higher education is a¶ White and male dominated system (Chesler, Lewis and Crowfoot, 2005). The reproduction¶ of Whiteness and White (and male and upper-middle-class) dominance is part of the¶ 'hidden curriculum' of higher education (Bourdieu and Passeron, 2000/1977). It is¶ manifested in faculty expectations of students, curricular choices, reading lists, classroom¶ seating patterns, ways of relating with different groups of students, curriculum¶ requirements, graduation standards, the spatial structure of campuses and classrooms, and¶ residence hall arrangements. These and other formal and informal policies and practices¶ of the institution help to reproduce White hegemonic social practices within the walls of¶ the institution (see Kincheloe, Steinberg, Rodriguez and Chennauet, 1998; Margolis and¶ 1 nd¶ In the preface of the 1990 edition of Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture, 2 ed., Bourdieu¶ makes a point of addressing the reification of education as the sole force behind the "reproduction" of power structures. He asserts that education (or the school system) "contributes to reproducing the structure of the distribution of cultural capital and, through it, the social structure itself (and this, only to the extent to which this relational structure itself, as a system of positional differences and distances, depends upon this distribution) to the ahistorical view that society reproduces itself mechanically, identical to itself, without transformation or deformation, and by excluding all individual mobility" (pp. vii-viii). This is how I use the concept here.¶ Romero, 1998). Individual faculty members' pedagogy also is shaped by and thus reflects the practices of the larger educational institution. As such, institutions of higher education are also spaces where White privilege is conferred to white students and, thus, all students are taught the norms, practices and expectations that comprise the structure of White hegemony and resulting racial inequality (Zamundio and Rios, 2006). It follows that they are also spaces where students of color, and all students, learn what constitutes being non-white within this structure. To varying degrees, white students try to avoid this classification.¶ Individuals display varied understandings of racial issues and awareness of their own racial identity. Faculty act in a variety of ways, with or without intention, which serve to either or both reinforce or challenge normative assumptions of White hegemony. White professors may know intellectually that they are white and that racism and other forms of social inequality exist, yet often do not have the experiential knowledge or desire to see and address such issues when they are present in the classroom. The reproduction of White hegemony occurs when such issues are overlooked or denied, or treated as sidebars or "extra" issues to be incorporated if time or circumstances allow. Some white faculty are aware of, desire to and know how to challenge the prevalence of White hegemony in higher education and seek to transform it through their pedagogical practice (see Mayberry, 1996; TuSmith and Reddy, 2002). While there is a literature on white students' attitudes about students of color and students' of color experiences in predominantly white classrooms and universities (see Bonilla-Silva and Forman, 2000; Chesler, Peet and Sevig, 2003), the benefit of diversity for all students during their college years and as citizens of a diverse democracy (Bernstein and Cock, 1997; Cantor 2003;¶ Checkoway, 2002; Gaurasci and Cornwell, 1997; Gay, 1997; Giroux, 1997; Gurin, 2003; Gurin, Dey, Hurtado and Gurin, 2004; Parker, 2002, 1997; Schneider, 2001), and in some cases those of faculty of color (see Turner and Myers, 2000; Vargas 2002), there has been significantly less focus on Whiteness and the actions of white faculty in higher education (see Katz, 1991; Maher and Tetreault, 2003; Mayberry, 1996; Messner, 2000; Weinstein and O'Bear, 1992) and a particular scarceness of literature looking at how Whiteness intersects with faculty members' pedagogical practices. The analysis that follows is an effort to advance this piece of the conversation.
   Part 3 is Let Them Talk
   Universities reify oppressive norms through oppressing and targeting critical studies as “anti- American” – any restrictions allow dominant empires to divide and rule through false claims of maintaining freedom for students
   Chatterjee and Maira ‘14 (Chatterjee, Piya, and Sunaina Maira. "The imperial university: Race, war, and the nation-state." The imperial university: Academic repression and scholarly dissent (2014): 1-50, --ghssk)
   State warfare and militarism have shored up deeply powerful notions of patriotism, intertwined with a politics of race, class, gender, sexuality, and religion, through the culture wars that have embroiled the U.S. academy. The fronts of “hot” and “cold” wars—military, cultural, and academic—have rested on an ideological framework that has defined the “enemy” as a threat to U.S. freedom and democracy. This enemy produced and propped up in the shifting culture wars—earlier the Communist, now the (Muslim) terrorist— has always been both external and internal. The overt policing of knowledge production, exemplified by right-wing groups such as ACTA, reveals an ideo- logical battle cry in the “culture wars” that have burgeoned in the wake of the civil rights movement—and the containment and policing demanded within the academy. Defending the civilizational integrity of the nation requires producing a national subject and citizen by regulating the boundaries of what is permissible and desirable to express in national culture—and in the university. As Readings observed, “In modernity, the University becomes the model of the social bond that ties individuals in a common relation to the idea of the nation-state.”46 Belonging is figured through the metaphor of patriotic citizenship, in the nation and in the academy, through displays of what Henry Giroux has also called “patriotic correctness”: “an ideology that privileges conformity over critical learning and that represents dissent as something akin to a terrorist act.”47¶ This is where the recent culture wars have shaped the politics of what we call academic containment. For right-wing activists, the nation must be fortified by an educational foundation that upholds, at its core, the singular superiority of Western civilization. A nation-state construed as being under attack is in a state of cultural crisis where any sign of disloyalty to the nation is an act of treachery, including acts perceived as intellectual betrayal. The culture wars have worked to uphold a powerful mythology about American democracy and the American Dream and a potent fiction about freedom of expression that in actuality contains academic dissent. This exceptionalist mythology has historically represented the U.S. nation as a beacon of indi- vidual liberty and a bulwark against the Evil Empire or Communist bloc; Third Worldist and left insurgent movements, including uprisings within the United States in the 1960s and 1970s and in Central America in the 1980s; Islamist militancy and anti-imperial movements since the 1980s; and the threat posed by all of these to the American “way of life.” The battle against Communism, anti-imperial Third Worldism, and so-called Islamofascism entailed regulating and containing movements sympathetic to these forces at home, including intellectuals with left-leaning tendencies and radical schol- ars or students—all those likely to contaminate young minds and indoctri- nate students in “subversive” or “anti-American” ideologies.¶ What does it mean, then, to contain scholars who “cross the line” in their academic work or public engagement? Academic containment can take on many modalities: stigmatizing an academic as too “political,” devaluing and marginalizing scholarship, unleashing an FBI investigation, blacklist- ing, or not granting scholars the final passport into elite citizenship in the academic nation—that is, tenure. These various modalities of containment, which are discussed by Thomas Abowd, Laura Pulido, and Steven Salaita, among others, narrow the universe of discourse around what is really per- missible, acceptable, and tolerable for scholars in the imperial university. All these modes are at work in the three important moments of ideological policing that we touch on here: World War I and the McCarthy era of the 1940s–1950s, the COINTELPRO era from the late 1950s to early 1970s, and the post-9/11 era or “new Cold War,” which is the major focus of this book.¶ Moments of social stress and open dissent about class politics in the United States during World War I and the first decades of the twentieth cen- tury make clear that containment worked in tandem with emerging defi- nitions of “academic freedom.” As the U.S. professoriate began to build its ranks at the end of the nineteenth century and a few scholars48 challenged the status quo, “academic freedom” emerged as a way to deal with these dis- senters as well as the “relative insecurity” felt by many in this new profes- sion.49 Indeed, the tumult of the turn of the century led to a pattern within the academy that has persisted—the exclusion of ideas as well as behavior that the majority did not like and an increasingly internalized notion that “advocacy for social change” was a professional risk for academics.¶ The AAUP’s Seligman Report of 1915 reveals that the notion of academic freedom was, in fact, “deeply enmeshed” with the “overall status, security, and prestige of the academic profession.”50 Setting up procedural safeguards was important, but its language regarding “appropriate scholarly behavior” and cautiousness about responding to controversial matters in the academy (by ensuring that all sides of the case were presented) suggested the limits of dissent. Academic freedom, then, is a notion that is deeply bound up with academic containment—a paradox suggested in our earlier discussion of protest and inclusion/incorporation in the academy and one that has become increasingly institutionalized since the formation of the AAUP.¶ The academic repression of the McCarthy era received its impetus from President Truman’s March 22, 1947, executive order that “established a new loyalty secrecy program for federal employees.” However, the roots of insti- tutional capitulation—by both administrators and faculty—when the state targeted academics who were communists or viewed as “sympathizers” are much deeper. It is also significant that the notion of “appropriate behavior” for faculty rested on a majoritarian academic “consensus” about “civil” and “collegial” comportment. For example, Ellen Schechter notes cases prior to the Cold War where scholars were fired not necessarily for their political affiliations per se but due to “their outspoken-ness.”51 This repression from within—not just beyond—the academy reveals the cultures of academic con- tainment where, as Pulido, Gumbs, and Rojas remind us, certain kinds of “unruliness” must be managed or excised.¶ The logic of academic containment was dramatically staged during the civil rights and antiwar struggles, when the FBI surveilled and arrested Black Power, anti-imperialist, and radical scholar-activists during the era of COINTELPRO (1956–1971). Angela Davis, most famously, was fired from UCLA by then California governor Ronald Reagan for being a member of the Communist Party. Some of these radical intellectuals went on to develop and establish programs in ethnic studies, critical race studies, and women’s studies, fields that later became embroiled in the conservative attacks that unfolded in the 1980s and 1990s against the specter of an “un-American” and “divisive” multiculturalism. Works such as Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind, Roger Kimball’s Tenured Radicals: How Politics has Corrupted Our Higher Education, and in some ways also David Hollinger’s Postethnic America: Beyond Multiculturalism generated anxieties about the presumed failure of university education to transmit an essential set of knowledges and a contentious debate about the divisiveness of multicultur- alism and movements for group rights.52¶ Right-wing hysteria and neoconservative moral panics in the culture wars were accompanied by liberal concerns that ethnic studies, and to some extent women’s studies and queer studies, were devolving into “identity politics.” Liberal-left intellectuals, such as Todd Gitlin, worried that ethnic and racial studies asserted an identitarianism that was an abandonment of a “proper” left politics. Salaita points out that Gitlin also criticized as irrespon- sible scholars who challenged the policies of the Israeli state, as have other progressive scholars open to critiques of militarism or colonialism—except in the case of Israel. In other words, the culture wars were fought not just between the right and left but within the liberal-progressive left as well.¶ In her painful—and politically revealing—experience with Chicana/o studies in California public institutions over the past twenty years, Rojas offers a glimpse “of the ways imperial projects order gender/sexual/racial politics at the public university” and the “resulting devastating violence deployed on subjects deemed dangerous to the colonial imaginary of a colo- nial, heteropatriarchal Chicano studies.” The difficult question that Rojas’s “testimonio” addresses is how to connect this hetero-masculinist logic and violence—what she calls heteropatriracialities—to the “incorporation” of ostensibly liberatory, decolonizing projects such as Chicano/a studies that were birthed through the antiwar and antiracist movements of the 1960s. We view this perverse “incorporation” of ethnic studies as the result of a dangerous “internalization” of the imperial project of the university and also as meshing well with the hetero-masculinist and classed cultures that shape the dominant, everyday practices of the imperial academy. Contain- ment is not abstract at all—it is marked decisively, and often violently, on specific kinds of bodies whose presence is definitively marked as “Other,” as evident in Abowd’s and Godrej’s chapters. If one speaks from already dan- gerous embodiments, structured historically, then that speech risks always being seen as a threat. The “natives” within the academy must be most care- ful and most civilized in their speech, as Rojas and Abowd suggest. Their queer/sexed/raced bodies mark always-possible threats. There are enough natives who perform the terms of civilization and capitulation and con- tain themselves: that is how empires have always ruled—through tokenism, exceptionalism, and divide-and-rule. When it comes from “within,” contain- ment and silencing—as Rojas shows us—can be the most devastating of all.¶ These stories of academic containment must be situated within the cul- ture wars and also within the context of what Christopher Newfield, among other critics, calls a “long counterrevolution” against the gains of the civil rights and left movements of previous decades.53 Newfield argues that right- wing movements waged a cultural offensive that targeted “progressive trends in the public universities” as an important front of “roundabout wars” on the middle class, waged through the “culture wars on higher education”: “The culture wars were economic wars” against the new, increasingly racially integrated middle class, “discrediting the cultural framework that had been empowering that group.”54 In other words, the culture wars were also class wars staged on a racial battlefield, for the corporatization and privatization of the public university, as in California, occurred as it was becoming more racially integrated.55¶ Several chapters illustrate the ways in which academic containment emerges with and though the containment of economic, racial, and cultural struggles. In Gumbs’s chapter, the class wars are situated in the racial man- agement of student of color and immigrant populations in the CUNY sys- tem in the post–civil rights era of open admissions and campus occupations by students; violent policing to enforce “law and order” accompanied rising incarceration rates of people of color. Similarly, Godrej’s chapter illuminates the ways in which protests of university privatization and nonviolent civil disobedience by students and faculty during the current budget crisis in the University of California have been met with police brutality by increas- ingly militarized campuses; casting these movements as a threat evades the structural violence of tuition hikes, exclusion, impoverishment, home fore- closures, and the “neoliberal disinvestment in the concept of education as a public good.”¶ In effect, the neoliberal structuring of the university is also a racial strat- egy of management of an increasingly diverse student population, as increas- ing numbers of minority and immigrant students have entered public higher education. Well-funded, neoconservative organizations and partisan groups, such as ACTA, David Horowitz’s Freedom Center, and Campus Watch, have placed ethnic studies, feminist and queer studies, and critical cultural studies in their bull’s-eye as the political project of leftist professors running amok in the academy and teaching biased curricula. In addition, campaigns such as Horowitz’s Academic Bill of Rights and Student Bill of Rights constructed the figure of a new victim in the culture wars: the “American student” whose freedom to challenge these partisan faculty had been suppressed.56 Accord- ing to these right-wing campaigns, “radical” scholars were force-feeding U.S. college students with anti-American views, and right-wing students were being marginalized and “discriminated” against due to their political ideol- ogy and affirmative action programs. Thus the language of marginalization and exclusion was turned on its head, as the discourse of right-wing vic- timhood and ideological discrimination was unleashed against the political movements and intellectual projects that opposed racial and class inequality.¶ In addition, the right appropriated the language of “diversity,” a key point of contradiction in the academic culture wars. For example, the “Students for Academic Freedom” campaign launched by Horowitz used the notion of “intellectual pluralism” to mask its well-orchestrated attack on the left.57 The cultural right manufactured a portrait of itself as the true advocate of intel- lectual pluralism and freedom, remaking diversity through a “free market” model based on the right to choice in the marketplace of ideas.58 The notion of choice, central to models of flexible accumulation and global economic competitiveness for proponents of neoliberal capitalism, underlies the tenet of intellectual choice. A “weak” multiculturalism and liberal notion of toler- ance thus served the right well, for they used it to argue that the problem was not simply that of “diversity,” which they apparently embraced, but that there wasn’t enough “intellectual diversity” on college campuses. Teaching, and also research, was becoming one-sided, to the detriment of those upholding “true” American values, who were increasingly marginalized in hotbeds of left indoctrination into anti-Americanism on college campuses. In addition, as Pulido’s case study demonstrates, as faculty and administrators of color— not to mention women—have made their way into the ranks of university management, academic institutions can hide behind the language of racial (and gender) representativeness and tokenist inclusion to deflect critiques of systemic problems with faculty governance.¶ The strategic co-optation of the language of pluralism for academic con- tainment is nowhere more evident than in the assault on progressive schol- arship in Middle East studies and postcolonial studies and in the intense culture wars over Islam, the War on Terror, and Israel-Palestine. The 9/11 attacks and the heightened Islamophobia they generated allowed Zionist and neoconservative groups to intensify accusations that progressive Middle East studies scholars and scholars critical of U.S. foreign policy were guilty of bias and “one-sided” partisanship, as observed in accounts of censure, suspicion, and vilification by Abowd, De Genova, and Salaita. The post-9/11 culture wars conjured up new and not-so-new phantoms of enemies—in particular, the racialized specter of the “terrorist.” This figure, and the racial panic associated with it, has been sedimented in the national imaginary as synonymous with the “Muslim” and the “Arab” since the Iranian Revo- lution of 1978–1979 and the First Intifada against Israeli occupation in the late 1980s. The War on Terror consolidated Orientalist caricatures of Mus- lim fanatics and Arab militants, but it is important to note that these also dredged up avatars of a historical logic of containment and annihilation of indigenous others.59 The native, the barbarian, and the foreigner converge in this cultural imaginary that legitimizes violence against anti-Western, unciv- ilized regions incapable of democratic self-governance and that is produced by expert knowledge of other peoples and regions. The wars in Iraq and “Af- Pak” and the global hunt for terrorists entailed an intensified suspicion and scrutiny of ideologies that supported militant resistance or “anti-American” sentiments and necessitated academic research on communities that were supposedly “breeding grounds” for terrorism.
   Speech codes are used disproportionately against black people – Great Britain’ censorship and the Michigan speech codes prove
   Strossen ’90 (Nadine, June 1990, president of the American Civil Liberties Union from February 1991 to October 2008, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law at New York Law School., “Regulating Racist Speech on Campus: A Modest Proposal?”, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1990, No. 3, Frontiers of Legal Thought II. The New First Amendment (Jun., 1990), pp. 484-573, Duke University School of Law, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1372555~-~-ghs//sk)
   First, there is no persuasive psychological evidence that punishment for name- calling changes deeply held attitudes. To the contrary, psycho-logical studies show that censored speech becomes more appealing and persuasive to many listeners merely by virtue of the censorship. Nor is there any empirical evidence, from the countries that do out-law racist speech, that censorship is an effective means to counter racism. For example, Great Britain began to prohibit racist defamation in 1965. 359 A quarter century later, this law has had no discernible adverse impact on the National Front and other neo- Nazi groups active in Brit- ain.360 As discussed above, 361 it is impossible to draw narrow regulations that precisely specify the particular words and contexts that should lead to sanctions. Fact- bound determinations are required. For this reason, authorities have great discretion in determining precisely which speakers and which words to punish. Consequently, even vicious racist epithets have gone unpunished under the British law.362 Moreover, even if actual or threatened enforcement of the law has deterred some overt racist in-sults, that enforcement has had no effect on more subtly, but nevertheless clear, signals of racism.363 Some observers believe that racism is even more pervasive in Britain that in the United States.364¶ C. Banning Racist Speech Could Aggravate Racism. For several reasons banning the symptom of racist speech may compound the underlying problem of racism. Professor Lawrence sets up a false dichotomy when he urges us to balance equality goals against free speech goals. Just as he observes that free speech concerns should be weighed on the pro- regulation, as well as the anti- regulation, side of the balance,365 he should recognize that equality concerns weigh on the anti-regulation, as well as the pro-regulation, side.366¶ The first reason that laws censoring racist speech may undermine the goal of combating racism flows from the discretion such laws inevitably vest in prosecutors, judges, and other individuals who implement them. One ironic, even tragic, result of this discretion is that members of minority groups themselves- the very people whom the law is intended to protect- are likely targets of punishment. For example, among the first individuals prosecuted under the British Race Relations Act of 1965 367 were black power leaders.368 Their overtly racist messages un-doubtedly expressed legitimate anger at real discrimination, yet the stat-ute drew no such fine lines, nor could any similar statute possibly do so. Rather than curbing speech offensive to minorities, this British law in-stead has been regularly used to curb the speech of blacks, trade union-ists, and anti- nuclear activists.369 In perhaps the ultimate irony, this statute, which was intended to restrain the neo-Nazi National Front, instead has barred expression by the Anti- Nazi League.370 ¶ The British experience is not unique. History teaches us that anti- hate speech laws regularly have been used to oppress racial and other minorities. For example, none of the anti- Semites who were responsible for arousing France against Captain Alfred Dreyfus were ever prose-cuted for group libel. But Emile Zola was prosecuted for libeling the French clergy and military in his “J’Accuse,” and he had to flee to Eng-land to escape punishment.371 Additionally, closer to home, the very doctrines that professor Lawrence invokes to justify regulating campus hate speech- for example, the fighting words doctrine, upon which he chiefly relies- are particularly threatening to the speech of racial and political minorities. ¶ The general lesson that rules banning hate speech will be used to punish minority group members has proven true in the specific context of campus hate speech regulations. In 1974, in a move aimed at the Na-tional Front, the British National Union of Students (NUS) adopted a resolution that representatives of “openly racist and fascist organiza-tions” were to be prevented from speaking on college campuses “by whatever means necessary (including disruption of the meeting).”373 A substantial motivation for the rule had been to stem an increase in cam-pus anti-Semitism. Ironically, however, following the United Nations’ cue,374 some British students deemed Zionism a form of racism beyond the bounds of permitted discussion. Accordingly, in 1975 British stu-dents invoked the NUS resolution to disrupt speeches by Israelis and Zionists, including the Israeli ambassador to England. The intended tar-get of the NUS resolution, the National Front, applauded this result. However, the NUS itself became disenchanted by this and other unin-tended consequences of its resolution and repealed it in 1977.375 ¶ The British experience under its campus anti- hate speech rule paral-lels the experience in the United States under the one such rule that has led to a judicial decision. During the approximately one year that the University of Michigan rule was in effect, there were more than twenty cases of whites charging blacks with racist speech. 376 More importantly, the only two instances in which the rule was invoked to sanction racist speech (as opposed to sexist and other forms of hate speech) involved the punishment of speech by or on behalf of black students.377 Additionally, the only student who was subjected to a full- fledged disciplinary hearing under the Michigan rule was a black student accused of homophobic and sexist expression.378 In seeking clemency from the sanctions imposed fol-lowing this hearing, the student asserted he had been singled out because of his race and his political views.379 Others who were punished for hate speech under the Michigan rule included several Jewish students accused of engaging in anti- Semitic expression380 and an Asian- American student accused of making an anti- black comment.381 Likewise, the student who recently brought a lawsuit challenging the University of Connecticut’s hate speech policy, under which she had been penalized for an allegedly homophobic remark, was Asian- American.382 She claimed that, among the other students who had engaged in similar expression, she had been singled out for punishment because of her ethnic background.383 ¶ Professor Lawrence himself recognizes that rules regulating racist speech might backfire and be invoked disproportionately against blacks and other traditionally oppressed groups. Indeed, he charges that other university rules already are used to silence anti- racist, but not racist, speakers.384 Professor Lawrence proposes to avoid this danger by ex-cluding from the rule’s protection “persons who were vilified on the basis of their membership in dominant majority groups.”385 Even putting aside the fatal first amendment flaws in such a radical departure from content- and viewpoint- neutrality principles, 386 the proposed exception would create far more problems of equality and enforceability than it would solve.387 ¶
   Policing hate speech masks racism at its roots, exacerbates backlash, and drives hate underground—we should let the true racists speak so we know who they are
   Herron ’94 (Vince, Jan 1994, runs a law firm, University of California, Los Angeles B.A., Economics, USC Gould School of Law JD, Law, “Notes: INCREASING THE SPEECH: DIVERSITY, CAMPUS SPEECH CODES, AND THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH”, 67 S. Cal. L. Rev. 407 1993-1994, Georgetown Law Library, Hein Online--ghssk)
   SPEECH CODES MAY EXACERBATE THE VERY TENSIONS THEY SEEK TO ALLEVIATE Some will argue that speech codes were never intended to solve the underlying problems of racism, sexism, and homophobia. Accord- ing to this theory, speech. codes are meant only to give minority groups respite from verbal attacks while the university employs other mechanisms to attack root problems. These proponents argue that speech codes achieve these rather temporary and modest goals. Speech codes, they will argue, improve the situation for the minority students and give the university time to defeat the ignorance and intolerance that originally necessitated the promulgation of the speech codes. But it is unlikely that speech codes are so unambitious that they envision only preventing injury without attempting to address real problems. To believe the above proposition, one must believe that university administrators, in an attempt to foster better relations on campuses, produce codes with no more in mind than the vain hope that speech codes will be a quick fix to a long-term problem. The argument then, is that because they are offered only as a quick fix to a long-term problem, speech codes in fact do succeed in their goal of injury prevention. Even if it is true that administrators are so short-sighted, there is some evidence that speech codes actually serve to exacerbate already strained tensions on campuses. Dominant groups, which consider codes to be abridgements of free expression created to solve a prob- lem reported only by minority groups (a problem whose gravity the dominant group does not recognize or understand), may struggle to accept the restrictions. Also, both dominant and minority group members alike have been.and will be sanctioned by university admin- istrators under these codes that, doubtless, "exacerbate tensions among members of these groups." 66 It has also been suggested that censoring certain expression makes the expression more, rather than less, attractive.67 This leads to increased, not decreased, use of this expression, and, therefore, more injury, not less. Speech code proponents may disagree with the proffered evi- dence and dispute that the codes actually exacerbate tensions. They may continue to assert that speech codes in fact benefit minority group members by protecting them from injurious speech. But even if this assertion is accepted, these modest gains will be short-lived and are far outweighed by what both minority group members and educa- tional environments sacrifice when speech codes are established and enforced. C Codes not only fail to end the racism, sexism, and homophobia which lead to hate speech, but may actually retard the process. Besides failing to challenge the root problems of ignorance and intol- erance, university speech codes exacerbate the problem by masking these causes of hate speech. "Suppression of expression conceals the real problems confronting a society and diverts public attention from the critical issues.''68 When ignorance and intolerance are suppressed but not eliminated, these root problems are less visible to the univer- sity community. It follows that when the university community is unable to discern the ill, they are unable to act to reverse the causes and the healing process is retarded. Speech-regulating rules may force campus members to act in a more proper and egalitarian manner when other members are watch- ing.69 However, they will not change the members' true feeling toward other groups in the campus society. Campus speech codes in fact force community members to hide their true -views to avoid sanc- tion. But this effectively forces campus members in need of rehabili- tation to mask and disguise that need. This effect in turn frustrates and impedes the university's ability to facilitate the reformation. Thus those members of the campus who hold ignorant or intolerant views may pass through the university system and into the rest of their lives with their erroneous views undetected by those who had a chance to correct them. As mentioned earlier in Part III.A, university members who are required to filter their expression through the requirements of a speech code may garner some knowledge as to their own insensitivi- ties. Members who had the potential to engage in hate speech not because they were intolerant, but because they were unaware that their speech caused injury, will be able to begin their own rehabilita- tion through self-governance. But not all speakers will be able to rehabilitate on their own. Those speakers who continue to misunder- stand their unawareness will not get the outside guidance they need to understand.Alsoitissafetoassumethattherewillbenoself-govern- ance by those who hold hateful ideas and prejudice. These speakers will, under the pressures of speech codes, feel restrained from exhibit- ing their feelings and this will effectively prevent their identification as bigots in need of rehabilitation. Suppression of the bigotry which leads to hate speech may also drive the ideas underground, allowing them to take on a life of their own unbeknownst to, and therefore unchallenged by, the rest of the university community. The rules that force these members under- ground may actually serve to strengthen and highlight their sense of grievance and even create martyrs.70 Those who are driven under- ground are able to attract new followers by holding themselves out to be an "oppressed minority" in their own right, "whose 'truths' are so powerful that they are banned by the Establishment. ' 71 These "truths" are presented to potential followers unopposed, because those who would oppose these ideologies do not know they exist, or, without any reminder of the need for opposition, have become apathetic. Sweeping the problem under the rug is not the answer and will do little to solve the problem. Keeping the problem in the public spot- light, where community members are aware of it, enables members to attack it when it surfaces. Katharine Bartlett and Jean O'Barr stated, "If there is a silver lining to the blatant, egregious forms of hateful harassment that Lawrence describes, it is that they help to make the underlying forms of prejudice undeniable."'72 The gains in injury pre- vention garnered by campus speech codes are gained at the expense of the community's ability to recognize the ideologies which originally led to these injuries and hinders the continued fight against those ideologies.
   Letting bigots express hate provides understanding of the opposition and allows strategic points of attack – targets of hate speech have a right to say nothing and instead mobilize community support in addressing bigotry
   Charles R. Calleros 95 Professor of Law at Arizona State University, “Paternalism, Counterspeech, and Campus Hate-Speech Codes: A Reply to Delgado and Yun,” 27 Ariz. St. L.J. 1249, 1280 (1995), ghsBZ
   Delgado and Yun characterize these arguments as "paternalistic" and "seriously flawed. ,49 In my reply below, I begin in part II.A with the fourth argument that more speech is the best response to offensive hate speech, and I attempt to establish that counterspeech is much more effective than Delgado and Yun are ready to concede. Within the same part, I conclude that free speech consequently can be a powerful instrument of reform benefitting minorities. In part II.B, I support the second argument against restrictions on speech with an example of a policy suppressing offensive speech that hurt a minority group on one campus and an example of a policy favoring speech and counterspeech that helped minorities on another campus. Finally, in part II.C, I support the notion that free speech allows a therapeutic venting of frustrations and provides valuable information about bigotry, but I qualify my conclusions. In the end, I favor education and counterspeech as a response to campus hate speech principally because I believe that such a response is more effective, empowering, constructive, and healing than is suppression of hateful speech. A. Speech as an Instrument of Reform: The Efficacy of Counterspeech Delgado and Yun summarize the support for the counterspeech argument by paraphrasing Nat Hentoff: "Antiracism rules teach black people to depend on whites for protection, while talking back clears the air, emphasizes self-reliance, and strengthens one's self-image as an active agent inchargeofone'sowndestiny."50 DelgadoandYunalsocitetothosewho believe that counterspeech may help educate the racist speaker by addressing 51 the ignorance and fear that lies behind hostile racial stereotyping. But they reject this speech-protective argument, stating that "it is offered blandly, virtually as an article of faith" by those "in a position of power" who "rarely offer empirical proof of their claims. _{52 The authors argue that talking back in a close confrontation could be physically dangerous, is unlikely to persuade the racist speaker to reform his views, and is impossible "when racist remarks are delivered in a cowardly fashion, by means of graffiti scrawled on a campus wall late at night or on a poster placed outside of a black student's dormitory door." 53 They also complain that "even when successful, talking back is a burden" that minority undergraduates 54 should not be forced to assume. In rejecting the counterspeech argument, however, Delgado and Yun cast the argument in its weakest possible form, creating an easy target for relatively summary dismissal. When the strategies and experiential basis for successful counterspeech are fairly stated, its value is more easily recognized. First, no responsible free speech advocate argues that a target of hate speech should directly talk back to a racist speaker in circumstances that quickly could lead to a physical altercation. If one or more hateful speakers closely confronts a member of a minority group with racial epithets or other hostile remarks in circumstances that lead the target of the speech to reasonably fear for her safety, in most circumstances she should seek assistance from campus police or other administrators before "talking back." Even staunch proponents of free speech agree that such threatening speech and conduct is subject to regulation and justifies more than a purely educative response. The same would be true of Delgado's and Yun's other examples of speech conveyed in a manner that defaces another's property or 56 When offensive or hateful speech is not threatening, damaging, or impermissibly invasive and therefore may constitute protected speech, 57 education and counterspeech often will be an appropriate response. However, proponents of free speech do not contemplate that counterspeech always, or even normally, will be in the form of an immediate exchange of views between the hateful speaker and his target. Nor do they contemplate that the target should bear the full burden of the response. Instead, effective counterspeech often takes the form of letters, discussions, or demonstrations joined in by many persons and aimed at the entire campus population or a community within it. Typically, it is designed to expose the moral bankruptcy of the hateful ideas, to demonstrate the strength of opinion and numbers of those who deplore the hateful speech, and to spur members of the campus community to take voluntary, constructive action to combat hate and to remedy its ill effects. 58 Above all, it can serve to define and underscore the community of support enjoyed by the targets of the hateful speech, faith in which may have been shaken by the hateful speech. Moreover, having triggered such a reaction with their own voices, the targets of the hateful speech may well feel a sense of empowerment to compensate for the undeniable pain of the speech. 59 One may be tempted to join Delgado and Yun in characterizing such a scenario as one "offered blandly, virtually as an article of faith" and without experiential support. 6° However, campus communities that have creatively used this approach can attest to the surprising power of counterspeech. Examples of counterspeech to hateful racist and homophobic speech at Arizona State and Stanford Universities are especially illustrative.61 In an incident that attracted national attention, the campus community at Arizona State University ("A.S.U.") constructively and constitutionally responded to a racist poster displayed on the outside of the speaker's dormitory door in February 1991. Entitled "WORK APPLICATION," it contained a number of ostensibly employment-related questions that advanced hostile and demeaning racial stereotypes of African-Americans and Mexican-Americans. Carla Washington, one of a group of African- American women who found the poster, used her own speech to persuade a resident of the offending room voluntarily to take the poster down and allow her to photocopy it. After sending a copy of the poster to the campus newspaper along with an opinion letter deploring its racist stereotypes, she demanded action from the director of her residence hall. The director organized an immediate meeting of the dormitory residents to discuss the issues. In this meeting, I explained why the poster was protected by the First Amendment, and the women who found the poster eloquently described their pain and fears. One of the women, Nichet Smith, voiced her fear that all nonminorities on campus shared the hostile stereotypes expressed in the poster.} 

Dozens of residents expressed their support and gave assurances that they did not share the hostile stereotypes, but they conceded that even the most tolerant among them knew little about the cultures of others and would benefit greatly from multicultural education. The need for multicultural education to combat intercultural ignorance and stereotyping became the theme of a press conference and public rally organized by the student African-American Coalition leader, Rossie Turman, who opted for highly visible counterspeech despite demands from some students and staff to discipline the owner of the offending poster. The result was a series of opinion letters in the campus newspaper discussing the problem of racism, numerous workshops on race relations and free speech, and overwhelming approval in the Faculty Senate of a measure to add a course on American cultural diversity to the undergraduate breadth 63 requirement. The four women who initially confronted the racist poster were empowered by the meeting at the dormitory residence and later received awards from the local chapter of the NAACP for their activism.64 Rossie Turman was rewarded for his leadership skills two years later by becoming the first African-American elected President of Associated Students of A.S.U.,65 a student body that numbered approximately 40,000 students, only Although Delgado and Yun are quite right that the African-American students should never have been burdened with the need to respond to such hateful speech, Hentoff is correct that the responses just described helped them develop a sense of self-reliance and constructive activism. Moreover, the students' counterspeech inspired a community response that lightened the students' burden and provided them with a sense of community support and empowerment. Indeed, the students received assistance from faculty and administrators, who helped organize meetings, wrote opinion letters, spoke before the Faculty Senate, or joined the students in issuing public statements at the press conference and public rally.67 Perhaps most important, campus administrators wisely refrained from disciplining the owners of the poster, thus directing public attention to the issue of racism and ensuring broad community support in denouncing the racist poster. Many members of the campus and surrounding communities might have leapt to the racist speaker's defense had the state attempted to discipline the speaker and thus had created a First Amendment issue. Instead, they remained united with the offended students because the glare of the public spotlight remained sharply focused on the racist incident without the distraction of cries of state censorship. Although the counterspeech was not aimed primarily at influencing the hearts and minds of the residents of the offending dormitory room, its vigor in fact caught the residents by surprise. 68 It prompted at least three of them to apologize publicly and to display curiosity about a civil rights movement that they were too young to have witnessed first hand. 69 This effective use of education and counterspeech is not an isolated instance at A.S.U., but has been repeated on several occasions, albeit on smaller scales.7° One year after the counterspeech at A.S.U., Stanford University responded similarly to homophobic speech. In that case, a first-year law student sought to attract disciplinary proceedings and thus gain First Amendment martyrdom by shouting hateful homophobic statements about a dormitory staff member. The dean of students stated that the speaker was not subject to discipline under Stanford's code of conduct but called on the university community to speak out on the issue, triggering an avalanche of counterspeech. Students, staff, faculty, and administrators expressed their opinions in letters to the campus newspaper, in comments on a poster board at the law school, in a published petition signed by 400 members of the law school community disassociating the law school from the speaker's epithets, and in a letter written by several law students reporting the incident to a prospective employer of the offending student.71 The purveyor of hate speech indeed had made a point about the power of speech, just not the one he had intended. He had welcomed disciplinary sanctions as a form of empowerment, but the Stanford community was alert enough to catch his verbal hardball and throw it back with ten times the force. Thus, the argument that counterspeech is preferable to state suppression of offensive speech is stronger and more fully supported by experience than is conceded by Delgado and Yun. In both of the cases described above, the targets of hateful speech were supported by a community united against bigotry. The community avoided splitting into factions because the universities eliminated the issue of censorship by quickly announcing that the hateful speakers were protected from disciplinary retaliation. Indeed, the counterspeech against the bigotry was so powerful in each case that it underscored the need for top administrators to develop standards for, and some limitations on, their participation in such partisan speech. 72 Of course, the community action in these cases was effective and empowering precisely because a community against bigotry existed. At A.S.U. and Stanford, as at most universities, the overwhelming majority of students, faculty, and staff are persons of tolerance and good will who deplore at least the clearest forms of bigotry and are ready to speak out against intolerance when it is isolated as an issue rather than diluted in muddied waters along with concerns of censorship. Just as the nonviolent demonstrations of Martin Luther King, Jr., depended partly for their success on the consciences of the national and international audiences monitoring the fire hoses and attack dogs on their television sets and in the print media,73 the empowerment of the targets of hateful speech rests partly in the hands of members of the campus community who sympathize with them. One can hope that the counterspeech and educational measures used with success at A.S.U. and Stanford stand a good chance of preserving an atmosphere of civility in intellectual inquiry at any campus community in which compassionate, open minds predominate. On the other hand, counterspeech by the targets of hate speech could be less empowering on a campus in which the majority of students, faculty, and staff approve of hostile epithets directed toward members of minority groups. One hopes that such campuses are exceedingly rare; although hostile racial stereotyping among college students in the United States increased during the last decade, those students who harbored significant hostilities (as contrasted with more pervasive but less openly hostile, subconscious racism) still represented a modest fraction of all students.74 Moreover, even in a pervasively hostile atmosphere, counterspeech might still be more effective than broad restrictions on speech. First, aside from the constitutional constraints of the First Amendment, such a heartless campus community would be exceedingly unlikely to adopt strong policies prohibiting hateful speech. Instead, the campus likely would maintain minimum policies necessary to avoid legal action enforcing guarantees of equal educational opportunities under the Fourteenth Amendment 75 or federal antidiscrimination statutes such as Title V176 or Title IX. 77 Second, counterspeech even from a minority of members of the campus community might be effective to gradually build support by winning converts from those straddling the fence or from broader regional or national audiences. Such counterspeech might be particularly effective if coupled with threats from diverse faculty, staff, and students to leave the university for more hospitable environments; even a campus with high levels of hostility likely would feel pressures to maintain its status as a minimally integrated institution.

Tournament: Harvard Westlake RR | Round: 1 | Opponent: Rowland Hall- St Marks KO | Judge: Adam Torson, Panny Shan

Part One- Framework

I value justice.
Structural violence is based in moral exclusion, which is fundamentally flawed because exclusion is not based on dessert but rather on arbitrarily perceived differences.

Susan Opotow 01 Susan Opotow is a social and organizational psychologist. Her work examines the intersection of conflict, justice, and identity as they give rise to moral exclusion -- seeing others as outside the scope of justice and as eligible targets of discrimination, exploitation, hate, or violence. She studies moral exclusion and moral inclusion in such everyday contexts as schooling, environmental and public policy conflict, and in more violent contexts, such as deadly wars and the post-war period. She has guest edited The Journal of Social Issues and Social Justice Research and co-edited Identity and the Natural Environment: The Psychological Significance of Nature (MIT Press, 2003). She is associate editor of Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology and Past President of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, “Social Injustice”, Peace, Conflict, and Violence: Peace Psychology for the 21st Centuryl Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 2001, BE
Both structural and direct violence results from moral justifications and rationalizations.
AND
oneself or one’s group at the expense of others (Tajfel, 1982).

The assumption that white people will change how they act is an unrealistic ideal that hinders conceptions of actual conditions of racism

  
Curry ’13 (Dr. Tommy J., 2013. ,Ph.D., Associate Professor of Philosophy, Texas A and M University, “In the Fiat of Dreams: The Delusional Allure of Hope, the Reality of Anti-Black Violence and the Demands of the Anti-Ethical.” Academia.Edu, Working Draft, Cited with Permission from the Author)
The potentiality of whiteness—the proleptic call of white anti-racist consciousness—
AND
society and seeks like their colonial foreparents to claim them as their own. 

Thus, the standard is reducing structural violence.

Part Two: Speech Codes

Speech codes are failed policies founded on good intentions, but the naivete of speech codes is that they rest their faith in institutions that are inherently anti-black

Henry Louis Gates 94, Professor and Director of the Hutchins Center for African and African American Research at Harvard University, “War of Words: Critical Race Theory and the First Amendment”, in Speaking of Race, Speaking of Sex: Hate Speech, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, New York University Press, 1994. RFK
One other paradox fissures the hate speech movement. Because these scholars wish to show
AND
The contemporary aim is not to resist power, but to enlist power.

The anti-black implementation of speech codes manifests itself in several ways.
A The evidence shows that minorities get persecuted, not white people–Great Britain’ censorship and the Michigan speech codes prove

Strossen ’90 (Nadine, June 1990, president of the American Civil Liberties Union from February 1991 to October 2008, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law at New York Law School., “Regulating Racist Speech on Campus: A Modest Proposal?”, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1990, No. 3, Frontiers of Legal Thought II. The New First Amendment (Jun., 1990), pp. 484-573, Duke University School of Law, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1372555~-~-ghs//sk)
First, there is no persuasive psychological evidence that punishment for name- calling changes
AND
far more problems of equality and enforceability than it would solve.387 ¶ 

AND- Reverse enforcement is especially likely in the case of black youth–their activism is perceived as hostile and militant and more likely to be classified as “fighting words”–only the aff prevents white fragility from silencing black protest

 
Charles R. Calleros 95 Professor of Law at Arizona State University, “Paternalism, Counterspeech, and Campus Hate-Speech Codes: A Reply to Delgado and Yun,” 27 Ariz. St. L.J. 1249, 1995. RFK
The second "paternalistic objection," that "antiracism rules will end up
AND
to view the mural critically and test the speakers' interpretations with their own.

B Policing hate speech doesn’t scrub out racism at its roots–rather it exacerbates racial tensions, create backlash, and make racism harder to grapple with by driving it under ground—we should let the true racists speak so that we know who they are

Herron ’94 (Vince, Jan 1994, runs a law firm, University of California, Los Angeles B.A., Economics, USC Gould School of Law JD, Law, “Notes: INCREASING THE SPEECH: DIVERSITY, CAMPUS SPEECH CODES, AND THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH”, 67 S. Cal. L. Rev. 407 1993-1994, Georgetown Law Library, Hein Online--ghssk)
SPEECH CODES MAY EXACERBATE THE VERY TENSIONS THEY SEEK TO ALLEVIATE Some will argue that
AND
originally led to these injuries and hinders the continued fight against those ideologies.

C Speech codes glorify white supremacists by handing them a cross to hang themselves on by pitting them against government censorship

 
Strossen ’90 (Nadine, June 1990, president of the American Civil Liberties Union from February 1991 to October 2008, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law at New York Law School., “Regulating Racist Speech on Campus: A Modest Proposal?”, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1990, No. 3, Frontiers of Legal Thought II. The New First Amendment (Jun., 1990), pp. 484-573, Duke University School of Law, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1372555~-~-ghs//sk)
A second reason why censorship of racist speech actually may sub- vert, rather
AND
it ex- presses.392 The British experience confirms this prediction.393

White nationalist Richard Spencer proves–in a speech at Texas AandM he said he knew he was going to lead a persecuted life, and his arrest in Hungary turned him into an alt-right hero and spreads the movement

Martin Gelin 14, Slate, “While Flight,” 13 November 2014, Slate.com. RFK
Spencer spent the next three days in a Budapest jail, which he didn’t seem
AND
American white supremacists connect with Europe’s far-right groups than anything else.

Part Three: Let Them Talk

My advocacy is that: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech. Silencing racists just drives their movement underground and makes them look like heroes. Rather, in the words of Henry Louis Gates, we should let them talk.
Several benefits:
A If we let racists talk NOW, it strengthens civil liberty protections for marginalized groups in the future–the ACLU Skokie case proves

Henry Louis Gates 94, Professor and Director of the Hutchins Center for African and African American Research at Harvard University, “War of Words: Critical Race Theory and the First Amendment”, in Speaking of Race, Speaking of Sex: Hate Speech, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, New York University Press, 1994. RFK
The critique of neutrality would affect not simply how we draft our ordinances, but
AND
have effects far beyond the classic triad of deterrence, reform and retribution.

B Historically free speech has been far more important for racial equality movements than hate speech regulation–that’s what we must focus on protecting

Strossen ’90 (Nadine, June 1990, president of the American Civil Liberties Union from February 1991 to October 2008, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law at New York Law School., “Regulating Racist Speech on Campus: A Modest Proposal?”, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1990, No. 3, Frontiers of Legal Thought II. The New First Amendment (Jun., 1990), pp. 484-573, Duke University School of Law, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1372555~-~-ghs//sk)
It is particularly important to devise anti-racism strategies consistent with the first amendment
AND
theme of more than rhetorical significance in egalitarian such as the women's movement.

C Letting the racists expose themselves allows for COUNTERSPEECH which spurs reform and activism – grassroots movements unite under counterspeech and expose moral bankruptcy – only public engagement empowers communities and constructs active solutions

Charles R. Calleros 95 Professor of Law at Arizona State University, “Paternalism, Counterspeech, and Campus Hate-Speech Codes: A Reply to Delgado and Yun,” 27 Ariz. St. L.J. 1249, 1280 (1995), ghsBZ
Delgado and Yun characterize these arguments as "paternalistic" and "seriously flawed.
AND
likely would feel pressures to maintain its status as a minimally integrated institution.

The critical race theory attack on content specificity turns into a useless paradox

 
Henry Louis Gates 94, Professor and Director of the Hutchins Center for African and African American Research at Harvard University, “War of Words: Critical Race Theory and the First Amendment”, in Speaking of Race, Speaking of Sex: Hate Speech, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, New York University Press, 1994. RFK
At the very least, this approach would promise a quick solution to the abuse
AND
plentiful supply; the policeman's grandmother will offer poignant firsthand testimony to that.

Tournament: Harvard Westlake RR | Round: 6 | Opponent: Harvard Westlake IP | Judge: John Scoggin, James Sanger
1AC

Part One- Framework

I value justice.
Racism builds walls of exclusion and controls how bodies can interact with other bodies

     
Mendieta (Eduardo, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Stony Brook University), Philosphy and Geography, Vol. 7, No 1, February 2004, http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/depts/sese/Mendieta.pdf
It may be easily argued, without too much contrivance, that racism is a
AND
Foucault’s work we can also¶ encounter a more condemning analysis of racism.

Particularism is good—root cause claims and focus on overarching structures ignore application to material injustice.

Gregory Fernando Pappas 16 Texas AandM University “The Pragmatists’ Approach to Injustice”, The Pluralist Volume 11, Number 1, Spring 2016, BE
The pragmatists’ approach should be distinguished from nonideal theories whose starting point seems to be
AND
in making us see aspects of injustices we would not otherwise appreciate.15

Thus, the standard is reducing institutionalized racism.

Part Two: Speech Codes

Speech codes are failed policies founded on good intentions, but the naivete of speech codes is that they rest their faith in institutions that are inherently anti-black

Henry Louis Gates 94, Professor and Director of the Hutchins Center for African and African American Research at Harvard University, “War of Words: Critical Race Theory and the First Amendment”, in Speaking of Race, Speaking of Sex: Hate Speech, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, New York University Press, 1994. RFK
One other paradox fissures the hate speech movement. Because these scholars wish to show
AND
The contemporary aim is not to resist power, but to enlist power.

The anti-black implementation of speech codes manifests itself in several ways.
A The evidence shows that minorities get persecuted, not white people–Great Britain’ censorship and the Michigan speech codes prove

 
Strossen ’90 (Nadine, June 1990, president of the American Civil Liberties Union from February 1991 to October 2008, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law at New York Law School., “Regulating Racist Speech on Campus: A Modest Proposal?”, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1990, No. 3, Frontiers of Legal Thought II. The New First Amendment (Jun., 1990), pp. 484-573, Duke University School of Law, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1372555~-~-ghs//sk)
First, there is no persuasive psychological evidence that punishment for name- calling changes
AND
far more problems of equality and enforceability than it would solve.387 ¶ 

AND- Reverse enforcement is especially likely in the case of black youth–their activism is perceived as hostile and militant and more likely to be classified as “fighting words”–only the aff prevents white fragility from silencing black protest

 
Charles R. Calleros 95 Professor of Law at Arizona State University, “Paternalism, Counterspeech, and Campus Hate-Speech Codes: A Reply to Delgado and Yun,” 27 Ariz. St. L.J. 1249, 1995. RFK
The second "paternalistic objection," that "antiracism rules will end up
AND
to view the mural critically and test the speakers' interpretations with their own.

B Policing hate speech doesn’t scrub out racism at its roots–rather it exacerbates racial tensions, create backlash, and make racism harder to grapple with by driving it under ground—we should let the true racists speak so that we know who they are

Herron ’94 (Vince, Jan 1994, runs a law firm, University of California, Los Angeles B.A., Economics, USC Gould School of Law JD, Law, “Notes: INCREASING THE SPEECH: DIVERSITY, CAMPUS SPEECH CODES, AND THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH”, 67 S. Cal. L. Rev. 407 1993-1994, Georgetown Law Library, Hein Online--ghssk)
SPEECH CODES MAY EXACERBATE THE VERY TENSIONS THEY SEEK TO ALLEVIATE Some will argue that
AND
originally led to these injuries and hinders the continued fight against those ideologies.

C Speech codes glorify white supremacists by handing them a cross to hang themselves on by pitting them against government censorship

 
Strossen ’90 (Nadine, June 1990, president of the American Civil Liberties Union from February 1991 to October 2008, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law at New York Law School., “Regulating Racist Speech on Campus: A Modest Proposal?”, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1990, No. 3, Frontiers of Legal Thought II. The New First Amendment (Jun., 1990), pp. 484-573, Duke University School of Law, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1372555~-~-ghs//sk)
A second reason why censorship of racist speech actually may sub- vert, rather
AND
it ex- presses.392 The British experience confirms this prediction.393

White nationalist Richard Spencer proves–in a speech at Texas AandM he said he knew he was going to lead a persecuted life, and his arrest in Hungary turned him into an alt-right hero and spreads the movement

Martin Gelin 14, Slate, “While Flight,” 13 November 2014, Slate.com. RFK
Spencer spent the next three days in a Budapest jail, which he didn’t seem
AND
American white supremacists connect with Europe’s far-right groups than anything else.

Part Three: Let Them Talk

My advocacy is that: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech. Silencing racists just drives their movement underground and makes them look like heroes. Rather, in the words of Henry Louis Gates, we should let them talk.
Several benefits:
A If we let racists talk NOW, it strengthens civil liberty protections for marginalized groups in the future–the ACLU Skokie case proves

 
Henry Louis Gates 94, Professor and Director of the Hutchins Center for African and African American Research at Harvard University, “War of Words: Critical Race Theory and the First Amendment”, in Speaking of Race, Speaking of Sex: Hate Speech, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, New York University Press, 1994. RFK
The critique of neutrality would affect not simply how we draft our ordinances, but
AND
have effects far beyond the classic triad of deterrence, reform and retribution.

B Historically free speech has been far more important for racial equality movements than hate speech regulation–that’s what we must focus on protecting

Strossen ’90 (Nadine, June 1990, president of the American Civil Liberties Union from February 1991 to October 2008, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law at New York Law School., “Regulating Racist Speech on Campus: A Modest Proposal?”, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1990, No. 3, Frontiers of Legal Thought II. The New First Amendment (Jun., 1990), pp. 484-573, Duke University School of Law, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1372555~-~-ghs//sk)
It is particularly important to devise anti-racism strategies consistent with the first amendment
AND
theme of more than rhetorical significance in egalitarian such as the women's movement.

C Letting the racists expose themselves allows for COUNTERSPEECH which spurs reform and activism – grassroots movements unite under counterspeech and expose moral bankruptcy – only public engagement empowers communities and constructs active solutions

Charles R. Calleros 95 Professor of Law at Arizona State University, “Paternalism, Counterspeech, and Campus Hate-Speech Codes: A Reply to Delgado and Yun,” 27 Ariz. St. L.J. 1249, 1280 (1995), ghsBZ
Delgado and Yun characterize these arguments as "paternalistic" and "seriously flawed.
AND
likely would feel pressures to maintain its status as a minimally integrated institution.

AND–the race-specific speech codes will get co-opted and turned into a useless paradox

Henry Louis Gates 94, Professor and Director of the Hutchins Center for African and African American Research at Harvard University, “War of Words: Critical Race Theory and the First Amendment”, in Speaking of Race, Speaking of Sex: Hate Speech, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, New York University Press, 1994. RFK
At the very least, this approach would promise a quick solution to the abuse
AND
plentiful supply; the policeman's grandmother will offer poignant firsthand testimony to that.

Tournament: Emory | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Lexington NB | Judge: Greg Malis, Akhil Gandra, Divyaansh Raj

Part One- Framework

I value justice.
Racism builds walls of exclusion and controls how bodies can interact with other bodies

     
Mendieta (Eduardo, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Stony Brook University), Philosphy and Geography, Vol. 7, No 1, February 2004, http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/depts/sese/Mendieta.pdf)
It may be easily argued, without too much contrivance, that racism is a
AND
Foucault’s work we can also¶ encounter a more condemning analysis of racism.

Particularism is good—root cause claims and focus on overarching structures ignore application to material injustice.

Gregory Fernando Pappas 16 Texas AandM University “The Pragmatists’ Approach to Injustice”, The Pluralist Volume 11, Number 1, Spring 2016, BE
The pragmatists’ approach should be distinguished from nonideal theories whose starting point seems to be
AND
in making us see aspects of injustices we would not otherwise appreciate.15

Thus, the standard is reducing institutionalized racism.

Part Two: Speech Codes

Speech codes are failed policies founded on good intentions, but the naivete of speech codes is that they rest their faith in institutions that are inherently anti-black

Henry Louis Gates 94, Professor and Director of the Hutchins Center for African and African American Research at Harvard University, “War of Words: Critical Race Theory and the First Amendment”, in Speaking of Race, Speaking of Sex: Hate Speech, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, New York University Press, 1994. RFK
One other paradox fissures the hate speech movement. Because these scholars wish to show
AND
The contemporary aim is not to resist power, but to enlist power.

The anti-black implementation of speech codes manifests itself in several ways.
A The evidence shows that minorities get persecuted, not white people–Great Britain’ censorship and the Michigan speech codes prove

 
Strossen ’90 (Nadine, June 1990, president of the American Civil Liberties Union from February 1991 to October 2008, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law at New York Law School., “Regulating Racist Speech on Campus: A Modest Proposal?”, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1990, No. 3, Frontiers of Legal Thought II. The New First Amendment (Jun., 1990), pp. 484-573, Duke University School of Law, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1372555~-~-ghs//sk)
First, there is no persuasive psychological evidence that punishment for name- calling changes
AND
far more problems of equality and enforceability than it would solve.387 ¶ 

AND- Reverse enforcement is especially likely in the case of black youth–their activism is perceived as hostile and militant and more likely to be classified as “fighting words”–only the aff prevents white fragility from silencing black protest

 
Charles R. Calleros 95 Professor of Law at Arizona State University, “Paternalism, Counterspeech, and Campus Hate-Speech Codes: A Reply to Delgado and Yun,” 27 Ariz. St. L.J. 1249, 1995. RFK
The second "paternalistic objection," that "antiracism rules will end up
AND
to view the mural critically and test the speakers' interpretations with their own.

B Policing hate speech doesn’t scrub out racism at its roots–rather it exacerbates racial tensions, create backlash, and make racism harder to grapple with by driving it under ground—we should let the true racists speak so that we know who they are

Herron ’94 (Vince, Jan 1994, runs a law firm, University of California, Los Angeles B.A., Economics, USC Gould School of Law JD, Law, “Notes: INCREASING THE SPEECH: DIVERSITY, CAMPUS SPEECH CODES, AND THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH”, 67 S. Cal. L. Rev. 407 1993-1994, Georgetown Law Library, Hein Online--ghssk)
SPEECH CODES MAY EXACERBATE THE VERY TENSIONS THEY SEEK TO ALLEVIATE Some will argue that
AND
originally led to these injuries and hinders the continued fight against those ideologies.

C Speech codes glorify white supremacists by handing them a cross to hang themselves on by pitting them against government censorship

 
Strossen ’90 (Nadine, June 1990, president of the American Civil Liberties Union from February 1991 to October 2008, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law at New York Law School., “Regulating Racist Speech on Campus: A Modest Proposal?”, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1990, No. 3, Frontiers of Legal Thought II. The New First Amendment (Jun., 1990), pp. 484-573, Duke University School of Law, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1372555~-~-ghs//sk)
A second reason why censorship of racist speech actually may sub- vert, rather
AND
it ex- presses.392 The British experience confirms this prediction.393

White nationalist Richard Spencer proves–in a speech at Texas AandM he said he knew he was going to lead a persecuted life, and his arrest in Hungary turned him into a white supremacist hero and spreads the movement

Martin Gelin 14, Slate, “While Flight,” 13 November 2014, Slate.com. RFK
Spencer spent the next three days in a Budapest jail, which he didn’t seem
AND
American white supremacists connect with Europe’s far-right groups than anything else.

Part Three: Let Them Talk

My advocacy is that: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech. Silencing racists just drives their movement underground and makes them look like heroes. Rather, in the words of Henry Louis Gates, we should let them talk.
Several benefits:
A If we let racists talk NOW, it strengthens civil liberty protections for marginalized groups in the future–the ACLU Skokie case proves

 
Henry Louis Gates 94, Professor and Director of the Hutchins Center for African and African American Research at Harvard University, “War of Words: Critical Race Theory and the First Amendment”, in Speaking of Race, Speaking of Sex: Hate Speech, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, New York University Press, 1994. RFK
The critique of neutrality would affect not simply how we draft our ordinances, but
AND
have effects far beyond the classic triad of deterrence, reform and retribution.

B Historically free speech has been far more important for racial equality movements than hate speech regulation–that’s what we must focus on protecting

Strossen ’90 (Nadine, June 1990, president of the American Civil Liberties Union from February 1991 to October 2008, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law at New York Law School., “Regulating Racist Speech on Campus: A Modest Proposal?”, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1990, No. 3, Frontiers of Legal Thought II. The New First Amendment (Jun., 1990), pp. 484-573, Duke University School of Law, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1372555~-~-ghs//sk)
It is particularly important to devise anti-racism strategies consistent with the first amendment
AND
theme of more than rhetorical significance in egalitarian such as the women's movement.

C Letting the racists expose themselves allows for COUNTERSPEECH which spurs reform and activism – grassroots movements unite under counterspeech and expose moral bankruptcy – only public engagement empowers communities and constructs active solutions

Charles R. Calleros 95 Professor of Law at Arizona State University, “Paternalism, Counterspeech, and Campus Hate-Speech Codes: A Reply to Delgado and Yun,” 27 Ariz. St. L.J. 1249, 1280 (1995), ghsBZ
Delgado and Yun characterize these arguments as "paternalistic" and "seriously flawed.
AND
likely would feel pressures to maintain its status as a minimally integrated institution.

AND–the race-specific speech codes will get co-opted and turned into a useless paradox

 
Henry Louis Gates 94, Professor and Director of the Hutchins Center for African and African American Research at Harvard University, “War of Words: Critical Race Theory and the First Amendment”, in Speaking of Race, Speaking of Sex: Hate Speech, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, New York University Press, 1994. RFK
At the very least, this approach would promise a quick solution to the abuse
AND
plentiful supply; the policeman's grandmother will offer poignant firsthand testimony to that.

While we’re at it – rich white donors hate censorship culture and the aff would make them donate more

Jeremy Willinger 16 Adminstrator of Heterdox Academy, apolitically diverse group of social scientists, natural scientists, humanists, and other scholars who want to improve our academic disciplines and universities. We share a concern about a growing problem: the loss or lack of “viewpoint diversity.” When nearly everyone in a field shares the same political orientation, certain ideas become orthodoxy, dissent is discouraged, and errors can go unchallenged., "Protests Rise and Donations Drop: Alumni reactions to campus trends," Heterodox Academy, 8-16-2016, http://heterodoxacademy.org/2016/08/16/protests-rise-and-donations-drop-alumni-reactions-to-campus-trends/, ghsBZ
Heterodox Academy was founded at a time during which issues of free speech and censorship
AND
an increasingly strong role as we enter the second year of student protests.

Hate speech increasing on campuses now – multiple incidents prove only the aff solves

Yan et al 16, Holly Yan, Kristina Sgueglia and Kylie Walker, Cnn 16 , "'Make America White Again': Hate speech and crimes post-election," CNN, 12-22-2016, http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/us/post-election-hate-crimes-and-fears-trnd/, ghsBZ
Fears of heightened bigotry and hate crimes have turned into reality for some Americans after
AND
waiting to walk her to her next class, according to campus police.

Tournament: Kandi King RR | Round: 2 | Opponent: Cambridge Rindge and Latin OS | Judge: Hertzig, Travis Fife

Part One- Framework

I value justice.
Racism builds walls of exclusion and controls how bodies can interact with other bodies

     
Mendieta (Eduardo, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Stony Brook University), Philosphy and Geography, Vol. 7, No 1, February 2004, http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/depts/sese/Mendieta.pdf)
It may be easily argued, without too much contrivance, that racism is a
AND
Foucault’s work we can also¶ encounter a more condemning analysis of racism.

Particularism is good—root cause claims and focus on overarching structures ignore application to material injustice.

Gregory Fernando Pappas 16 Texas AandM University “The Pragmatists’ Approach to Injustice”, The Pluralist Volume 11, Number 1, Spring 2016, BE
The pragmatists’ approach should be distinguished from nonideal theories whose starting point seems to be
AND
in making us see aspects of injustices we would not otherwise appreciate.15

Thus, the standard is reducing institutionalized racism.

Part Two: Speech Codes

Speech codes are failed policies founded on good intentions, but the naivete of speech codes is that they rest their faith in institutions that are inherently anti-black

Henry Louis Gates 94, Professor and Director of the Hutchins Center for African and African American Research at Harvard University, “War of Words: Critical Race Theory and the First Amendment”, in Speaking of Race, Speaking of Sex: Hate Speech, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, New York University Press, 1994. RFK
One other paradox fissures the hate speech movement. Because these scholars wish to show
AND
The contemporary aim is not to resist power, but to enlist power.

The anti-black implementation of speech codes manifests itself in several ways.

A The evidence shows that minorities get persecuted, not white people–Great Britain’ censorship and the Michigan speech codes prove

 
Strossen ’90 (Nadine, June 1990, president of the American Civil Liberties Union from February 1991 to October 2008, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law at New York Law School., “Regulating Racist Speech on Campus: A Modest Proposal?”, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1990, No. 3, Frontiers of Legal Thought II. The New First Amendment (Jun., 1990), pp. 484-573, Duke University School of Law, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1372555~-~-ghs//sk)
First, there is no persuasive psychological evidence that punishment for name- calling changes
AND
far more problems of equality and enforceability than it would solve.387 ¶ 

AND- Reverse enforcement is especially likely in the case of black youth–their activism is perceived as hostile and militant and more likely to be classified as “fighting words”–only the aff prevents white fragility from silencing black protest

 
Charles R. Calleros 95 Professor of Law at Arizona State University, “Paternalism, Counterspeech, and Campus Hate-Speech Codes: A Reply to Delgado and Yun,” 27 Ariz. St. L.J. 1249, 1995. RFK
The second "paternalistic objection," that "antiracism rules will end up
AND
to view the mural critically and test the speakers' interpretations with their own.

B Policing hate speech doesn’t scrub out racism at its roots–rather it exacerbates racial tensions, create backlash, and make racism harder to grapple with by driving it under ground—we should let the true racists speak so that we know who they are

Herron ’94 (Vince, Jan 1994, runs a law firm, University of California, Los Angeles B.A., Economics, USC Gould School of Law JD, Law, “Notes: INCREASING THE SPEECH: DIVERSITY, CAMPUS SPEECH CODES, AND THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH”, 67 S. Cal. L. Rev. 407 1993-1994, Georgetown Law Library, Hein Online--ghssk)
SPEECH CODES MAY EXACERBATE THE VERY TENSIONS THEY SEEK TO ALLEVIATE Some will argue that
AND
originally led to these injuries and hinders the continued fight against those ideologies.

C Speech codes glorify white supremacists by handing them a cross to hang themselves on by pitting them against government censorship

 
Strossen ’90 (Nadine, June 1990, president of the American Civil Liberties Union from February 1991 to October 2008, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law at New York Law School., “Regulating Racist Speech on Campus: A Modest Proposal?”, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1990, No. 3, Frontiers of Legal Thought II. The New First Amendment (Jun., 1990), pp. 484-573, Duke University School of Law, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1372555~-~-ghs//sk)
A second reason why censorship of racist speech actually may sub- vert, rather
AND
it ex- presses.392 The British experience confirms this prediction.393

White nationalist Richard Spencer proves–in a speech at Texas AandM he said he knew he was going to lead a persecuted life, and his arrest in Hungary turned him into a white supremacist hero and spreads the movement

Martin Gelin 14, Slate, “While Flight,” 13 November 2014, Slate.com. RFK
Spencer spent the next three days in a Budapest jail, which he didn’t seem
AND
American white supremacists connect with Europe’s far-right groups than anything else.

Part Three: Let Them Talk

My advocacy is that: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech. Silencing racists just drives their movement underground and makes them look like heroes. Rather, in the words of Henry Louis Gates, we should let them talk.
Several benefits:
A If we let racists talk NOW, it strengthens civil liberty protections for marginalized groups in the future–the ACLU Skokie case proves

 
Henry Louis Gates 94, Professor and Director of the Hutchins Center for African and African American Research at Harvard University, “War of Words: Critical Race Theory and the First Amendment”, in Speaking of Race, Speaking of Sex: Hate Speech, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, New York University Press, 1994. RFK
The critique of neutrality would affect not simply how we draft our ordinances, but
AND
have effects far beyond the classic triad of deterrence, reform and retribution.

B Historically free speech has been far more important for racial equality movements than hate speech regulation–that’s what we must focus on protecting

Strossen ’90 (Nadine, June 1990, president of the American Civil Liberties Union from February 1991 to October 2008, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law at New York Law School., “Regulating Racist Speech on Campus: A Modest Proposal?”, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1990, No. 3, Frontiers of Legal Thought II. The New First Amendment (Jun., 1990), pp. 484-573, Duke University School of Law, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1372555~-~-ghs//sk)
It is particularly important to devise anti-racism strategies consistent with the first amendment
AND
theme of more than rhetorical significance in egalitarian such as the women's movement.

C Letting the racists expose themselves allows for COUNTERSPEECH which spurs reform and activism – grassroots movements unite under counterspeech and expose moral bankruptcy – only public engagement empowers communities and constructs active solutions

Charles R. Calleros 95 Professor of Law at Arizona State University, “Paternalism, Counterspeech, and Campus Hate-Speech Codes: A Reply to Delgado and Yun,” 27 Ariz. St. L.J. 1249, 1280 (1995), ghsBZ
Delgado and Yun characterize these arguments as "paternalistic" and "seriously flawed.
AND
likely would feel pressures to maintain its status as a minimally integrated institution.

AND–the race-specific speech codes will get co-opted and turned into a useless paradox

 
Henry Louis Gates 94, Professor and Director of the Hutchins Center for African and African American Research at Harvard University, “War of Words: Critical Race Theory and the First Amendment”, in Speaking of Race, Speaking of Sex: Hate Speech, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, New York University Press, 1994. RFK
At the very least, this approach would promise a quick solution to the abuse
AND
plentiful supply; the policeman's grandmother will offer poignant firsthand testimony to that.

Unprecedented levels of white supremacist influence and hate is happening on campus now- it’s been at an all time high since September and got another boost after the election

 
Arriaga ’17 (Alex, March 6th, writer for Chronicle of Higher Education, citing report from ADL, “White Supremacists Target College Campuses With Unprecedented Effort”, The Chronicle of Higher Education, http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/white-supremacists-target-college-campuses-with-unprecedented-effort/117191~-~-ghs//sk)
White supremacists have held minor campaigns on college campuses in the past, but an
AND
that their president denounce the white-supremacist fliers found on their campus.

Tournament: NDCA | Round: 2 | Opponent: Harvard Westlake KK | Judge: Nadia Hussein

FW

WE ARE A NATION OF COWARDS – whether it be shutting down critical dialogue that make us uncomfortable or refusing to even hear and identify Richard Spencer’s racist viewpoints, the status quo fails to recognize that disagreement is inevitable – if Spencer and his followers will just take their bigotry to the nearby city, to the streets, or to the Internet, the question then is HOW and WHERE we can approach opposing viewpoints and deconstruct our echo chambers – Any restrictions on free speech allow dominant viewpoints to go unchallenged and censor the very people they try to protect
Thus, Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.
I value justice.
Racism builds walls of exclusion and controls how bodies can interact with other bodies

     
Mendieta (Eduardo, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Stony Brook University), Philosphy and Geography, Vol. 7, No 1, February 2004, http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/depts/sese/Mendieta.pdf)
It may be easily argued, without too much contrivance, that racism is a
AND
Foucault’s work we can also¶ encounter a more condemning analysis of racism.

Particularism is good—root cause claims and focus on overarching structures ignore application to material injustice.

Gregory Fernando Pappas 16 Texas AandM University “The Pragmatists’ Approach to Injustice”, The Pluralist Volume 11, Number 1, Spring 2016, BE
The pragmatists’ approach should be distinguished from nonideal theories whose starting point seems to be
AND
in making us see aspects of injustices we would not otherwise appreciate.15

Thus, the standard is reducing institutionalized racism.

Adv 1 – Censorship

Universities reify oppressive norms under the guise of protecting students from threats – censorship targets critical studies as “anti- American” allowing dominant empires to divide and rule – right-wing elites coopt false claims of protecting freedom to maintain oppression

 
Chatterjee and Maira ‘14 (Chatterjee, Piya, and Sunaina Maira. "The imperial university: Race, war, and the nation-state." The imperial university: Academic repression and scholarly dissent (2014): 1-50, --ghssk)
State warfare and militarism have shored up deeply powerful notions of patriotism, intertwined with
AND
academic research on communities that were supposedly “breeding grounds” for terrorism.

Speech codes are used against minorities not white people – Great Britain’ censorship and the Michigan speech codes prove

 
Strossen ’90 (Nadine, June 1990, president of the American Civil Liberties Union from February 1991 to October 2008, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law at New York Law School., “Regulating Racist Speech on Campus: A Modest Proposal?”, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1990, No. 3, Frontiers of Legal Thought II. The New First Amendment (Jun., 1990), pp. 484-573, Duke University School of Law, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1372555~-~-ghs//sk)
First, there is no persuasive psychological evidence that punishment for name- calling changes
AND
far more problems of equality and enforceability than it would solve.387 ¶ 

Reverse enforcement is especially likely in the case of black youth–their activism is perceived as hostile and militant and more likely to be classified as “fighting words”–only the aff prevents white fragility from silencing black protest

Charles R. Calleros 95 Professor of Law at Arizona State University, “Paternalism, Counterspeech, and Campus Hate-Speech Codes: A Reply to Delgado and Yun,” 27 Ariz. St. L.J. 1249, 1995. RFK
The second "paternalistic objection," that "antiracism rules will end up
AND
to view the mural critically and test the speakers' interpretations with their own.

Conflict and hate is inevitable – it’s a question of whether it occurs on the street beside campus or in a safer classroom – the aff is a creative approach to recognize difference and avoid extermination of the “other”

David Nichtern 11 , "Are Conflict And War Inevitable?," Huffington Post, 5-10-2011, span class="skimlinks-unlinked"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-nichtern/conflict-resolution_b_859372.html/span, ghsBZ
If you study history, it seems that conflict and warfare are part of the
AND
possible at the personal level and it is possible at the collective level.

Any restriction on speech creates a chilling effect and allows colleges to define what ideas are accepted according to the dominant agenda

 
Herron ’94 (Vince, Jan 1994, runs a law firm, University of California, Los Angeles
B.A., Economics, USC Gould School of Law JD, Law, “Notes: INCREASING THE SPEECH: DIVERSITY, CAMPUS SPEECH CODES, AND THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH”, 67 S. Cal. L. Rev. 407 1993-1994, Georgetown Law Library, Hein Online--ghssk)
Professor Matsuda argues that, under principles of academic freedom and free expression, "
AND
increasing the speech on university campuses. Speech codes do just the opposite. 

Restrictions lock in echo chambers that amplify polarization and suppress opposing viewpoints – engagement is key to challenge dominant narratives and recognize pluralism

Greg Lukianoff 13 , "How Colleges Create the "Expectation of Confirmation", The State of the American Mind, 10-29-2013, http://www.soamcontest.com/content/how-colleges-create-expectation-confirmation, ghsBZ
The modern disinvitation movement represents a dramatic (if gradual) shift away from the
AND
” and the “expectation of confirmation” remain a reality on campus.

Adv 2 – Let Them Talk

Letting bigots express hate provides understanding of the opposition and allows strategic points of attack – targets of hate speech have a right to say nothing and instead mobilize community support in addressing bigotry – empirically proven

Charles R. Calleros 95 Professor of Law at Arizona State University, “Paternalism, Counterspeech, and Campus Hate-Speech Codes: A Reply to Delgado and Yun,” 27 Ariz. St. L.J. 1249, 1280 (1995), ghsBZ
Delgado and Yun characterize these arguments as "paternalistic" and "seriously flawed.
AND
likely would feel pressures to maintain its status as a minimally integrated institution.

Policing hate speech doesn’t scrub out racism at its roots–it exacerbates it with backlash, and drives it underground—we should let the true racists speak so that we know who they are

Herron ’94 (Vince, Jan 1994, runs a law firm, University of California, Los Angeles B.A., Economics, USC Gould School of Law JD, Law, “Notes: INCREASING THE SPEECH: DIVERSITY, CAMPUS SPEECH CODES, AND THE PURSUIT OF TRUTH”, 67 S. Cal. L. Rev. 407 1993-1994, Georgetown Law Library, Hein Online--ghssk)
SPEECH CODES MAY EXACERBATE THE VERY TENSIONS THEY SEEK TO ALLEVIATE Some will argue that
AND
originally led to these injuries and hinders the continued fight against those ideologies.

Speech codes glorify white supremacists by handing them a cross to hang themselves on by pitting them against government censorship

Strossen ’90 (Nadine, June 1990, president of the American Civil Liberties Union from February 1991 to October 2008, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law at New York Law School., “Regulating Racist Speech on Campus: A Modest Proposal?”, Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1990, No. 3, Frontiers of Legal Thought II. The New First Amendment (Jun., 1990), pp. 484-573, Duke University School of Law, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1372555~-~-ghs//sk)
A second reason why censorship of racist speech actually may sub- vert, rather
AND
it ex- presses.392 The British experience confirms this prediction.393

White nationalist Richard Spencer proves–in a speech at Texas AandM he said he knew he was going to lead a persecuted life, and his arrest in Hungary turned him into a white supremacist hero and spreads the movement overseas

Martin Gelin 14, Slate, “While Flight,” 13 November 2014, Slate.com. RFK
Spencer spent the next three days in a Budapest jail, which he didn’t seem
AND
American white supremacists connect with Europe’s far-right groups than anything else.

If we let racists talk NOW, it strengthens civil liberty protections for marginalized groups in the future–the ACLU Skokie case and Terminiello decision proves

 
Henry Louis Gates 94, Professor and Director of the Hutchins Center for African and African American Research at Harvard University, “War of Words: Critical Race Theory and the First Amendment”, in Speaking of Race, Speaking of Sex: Hate Speech, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, New York University Press, 1994. RFK
The critique of neutrality would affect not simply how we draft our ordinances, but also how we conduct our litigation. One quickly moves from asking whether our statutes can or should be neutral to asking whether the adjudication of these statutes can or should be neutral. Indeed, many legal pragmatists, mainstream scholars and critical race theorists converge in their affirmation of the balancing approach toward the First Amendment and their corresponding skepticism toward what could be called the "Skokie school" of jurisprudence. When the American Civil Liberties Union defended the right of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, a predominantly Jewish suburb of Chicago where a number of Holocaust survivors lived, they wished to protect and to fortify the constitutional right at issue. Indeed, they may have reasoned, if a civil liberty can be tested and upheld in so odious an exercise of it, then the precedent will strengthen it for all the less obnoxious cases where it may be disputed in the future. Hard cases harden laws. The strategy of the Skokie school relies on a number of presuppositions that critical legal theorists and others regard as doubtful. Most importantly, it is premised on the neutral operation of principle in judicial decisionmaking. But what if judges really decided matters in an unprincipled and political way, and invoked principles only by way of window dressing? In cases close-run enough to require the Supreme Court to decide them, precedent and principle are elastic enough, or complex enough, that justices can often decide either way without brazenly contradicting themselves. And even if the justices want to make principled decisions, it may turn out that the facts of the case--in the real-world cases that come before them--are too various and complicated ever to be overdetermined by the rule of precedent, stare decisis. In either event, it could turn out that defending neo-Nazis was just defending neo-Nazis. Moreover, it may be that the sort of formal liberties vouchsafed by this process are not the sort of liberties that we need most. Perhaps we have been overly impressed by the frisson of defending bad people for good causes, when the good consequences are at best conjectural and the bad ones real and immediate. Perhaps, these critics conclude, it is time to give up the pursuit of abstract principles and instead defend victims against victimizers, achieving your results in the here-and-now, not in the sweet hereafter.=7F There is something to this position, but it is, like the position it is meant to rebuff, overstated. Nadine Strossen of the aclu can show, for example, that the organization's winning First Amendment defense of the racist Father Terminiello in 1949 bore Fourteenth Amendment fruit when the aclu was able to use the landmark Terminiello decision to defend the free speech rights of civil rights protesters in the '60s and '70s. Granted, this may not constitute proof, which is an elusive thing in historical argument, but such cases do provide good prima facie reason to think that the Skokie school has pragmatic justification, not just blind faith, on its side. Another problem with the abandonment of principled adjudication is what it leaves in its wake: the case-by-case balancing of interests. My point is not that "normal" First Amendment jurisprudence can completely eschew balancing, but there is a difference between employing it in background or in extremis and employing it as the first and only approach. An unfettered regime of balancing admits too much to judicial inspection. What we miss when we dwell on the rarefied workings of high court decisionmaking is the way in which laws exert their effects lower down the legal food chain. It's been pointed out that when police arrest somebody for loitering or disorderly conduct, the experience of arrest--being hauled off to the station and fingerprinted before being released--often is the punishment. And "fighting words" ordinances have lent themselves to similar abuse. Anthony D'Amato, a law professor at Northwestern, makes a crucial and often overlooked point when he argues: "In some areas of law we do not want judges to decide cases at all--not justly or any other way. In these areas, the mere possibility of judicial decisionmaking exerts a chilling effect that can undermine what we want the law to achieve." But what if that chilling effect is precisely what the law is designed for? After all, one person's chill is another person's civility. It is clear, in any event, that all manner of punitive speech regulations are meant to have effects far beyond the classic triad of deterrence, reform and retribution.

Tournament: TFA | Round: 2 | Opponent: Alief Taylor SH | Judge: Andrew Trinh

FW

I value morality because ought implies moral obligation.

Structural violence is based in moral exclusion, which is fundamentally flawed because exclusion is not based on dessert but rather on arbitrarily perceived differences.

Winter and Leighton 99 |Deborah DuNann Winter and Dana C. Leighton. Winter|~Psychologist that specializes in Social Psych, Counseling Psych, Historical and Contemporary Issues, Peace Psychology. Leighton: PhD graduate student in the Psychology Department at the University of Arkansas. Knowledgable in the fields of social psychology, peace psychology, and justice and intergroup responses to transgressions of justice~ "Peace, conflict, and violence: Peace psychology in the 21st century." Pg 4-5 ghsVA
Finally, to recognize the operation of structural violence forces us to ask questions about
AND
local cultures, will be our most surefooted path to building lasting peace.

Debate should deal with questions of real-world consequences—ideal theories ignore the concrete nature of the world and legitimize oppression.

Dr. Tommy J. Curry 14, "The Cost of a Thing: A Kingian Reformulation of a Living Wage Argument in the 21st Century", Victory Briefs, 2014, BE
Despite the pronouncement of debate as an activity and intellectual exercise pointing to the real
AND
used to currently justify the living wages in under our contemporary moral parameters.

Thus, the standard is mitigating structural violence.

Harms

Discriminatory laws force IPV survivors to choose between reporting abuse or losing their home – double-victimization creates a chilling effect that silences survivors and perpetuates violence – current policies that force the burden onto the abused cause a victim-blaming culture that frames survivors as passive and not to be trusted

LENORA M. LAPIDUS 03 ~Director, Women's Rights Project ("WRP") of the American Civil Liberties Union. B.A., summa cum laude, Cornell University,J.D., cum laude, HarvardLaw School. Ms. Lapidus litigates women's rights cases in state and federal courts throughout the United States on a range of issues, including discrimination against victims of domestic violence. Prior to becoming Director of the ACLU Women's Rights Project, she served as the Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, held the John J. Gibbons Fellowship in Public Interest and Constitutional Law, at Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger and Vecchione, in Newark, New Jersey, was a Staff Attorney Fellow at the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy in New York City, and clerked for the Honorable Richard Owen, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In addition to her litigation and public policy experience, Ms. Lapidus has also taught as an adjunct professor at Seton Hall Law School, Rutgers Law School, and Rutgers University. She is a member of various boards, task forces, bar associations and community organizations.~, "DOUBLY VICTIMIZED: HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE," JOURNAL OF GENDER, SOCIAL POLICY and THE LAW ~Vol. 11:2, 2003, ghsBZ
By viewing Ms. Alvera's eviction as part of a larger systemic problem of discrimination
AND
history checks and deny housing applications of women who have obtained protective orders."

Black women are uniquely targeted with eviction, which spurs unemployment, homelessness, and suicides – nuisance ordinances treat IPV response as a nuisance and embolden abusers

Desmond and Valdez 13 *bracketed for rhetoric Matthew Desmond ~Department of Sociology, Harvard~and Nicol Valdez ~Columbia University~, "Unpolicing the Urban Poor: Consequences of Third-Party Policing for Inner-City Women," American Sociological Review, American Sociological Association, Vol. 78, No. 1 (February 2013), pp. 117-141, ghsBZ
In recent years, third-party policing policies have spread throughout the United States
AND
their female counterparts from benefitting fully from its protective arm (Harris 1990). 

Housing discrimination against IPV survivors occurs at every level of the housing process – "criminal records" degrade survivors and create unstable housing

LENORA M. LAPIDUS 03 *bracketed for rhetoric  ~Director, Women's Rights Project ("WRP") of the American Civil Liberties Union. B.A., summa cum laude, Cornell University,J.D., cum laude, HarvardLaw School. Ms. Lapidus litigates women's rights cases in state and federal courts throughout the United States on a range of issues, including discrimination against victims of domestic violence. Prior to becoming Director of the ACLU Women's Rights Project, she served as the Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, held the John J. Gibbons Fellowship in Public Interest and Constitutional Law, at Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger and Vecchione, in Newark, New Jersey, was a Staff Attorney Fellow at the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy in New York City, and clerked for the Honorable Richard Owen, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In addition to her litigation and public policy experience, Ms. Lapidus has also taught as an adjunct professor at Seton Hall Law School, Rutgers Law School, and Rutgers University. She is a member of various boards, task forces, bar associations and community organizations.~, "DOUBLY VICTIMIZED: HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE," JOURNAL OF GENDER, SOCIAL POLICY and THE LAW ~Vol. 11:2, 2003, ghsBZ
In addition to evictions, battered women face housing discrimination in a variety of other
AND
and to develop strategies to alter current practices by housing authorities.5 '

Queer and quare people are disproportionately affected by housing discrimination and evictions

Crosby Burns and Philip Ross 11 ~~, "Gay and Transgender Discrimination Outside the Workplace – Center for American Progress," No Publication, 7-19-2011, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/reports/2011/07/19/9927/gay-and-transgender-discrimination-outside-the-workplace/, ghsBZ
Evidence and rates of discrimination in the housing and rental markets On January 24,
AND
transgender individuals and their families until uniform housing and rental protections are passed.

Longitudinal, peer-reviewed, cross-sectional analysis proves unstable housing for IPV survivors causes trans-generational psychological violence, cycles of poverty, and chronic abuse and murders

Gilroy et al 16, Heidi Gilroy ~School of Nursing, Texas Woman's University~, Judith McFarlane ~School of Nursing, Texas Woman's University~,  John Maddoux ~Office of Research and Sponsored Programs, Texas Woman's University~, Cris Sullivan ~ Research Consortium on Gender-Based Violence, Michigan State University~, "Homelessness, housing instability, intimate partner violence, mental health, and functioning: A multiyear cohort study of IPV survivors and their children," Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor and Francis Group, 12 Dec 2016, ghsBZ
This 2-year analysis of 276 women with children who report intimate partner violence
AND
support both employment and housing for women who have experienced intimate partner violence. 

Solvency

Plan text: The United States ought to guarantee the right to housing for intimate partner violence survivors.

Goldberg et al 10, *bracketed for rhetoric Columbia Human Rights Clinic: Caroline Bettinger-López ~Acting Director~, Zarizana Abdul Aziz, Esha Bhandari, Alice Izumo, Kathrin Rüegg, Kate Stinson, Columbia Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic: Suzanne Goldberg ~Director~, Harriet Antczak, Caitlin Boyce, Seung Jae Lee, Sarah Morris, "HUMAN RIGHTS and DOMESTIC VIOLENCE An Advocacy Manual," Columbia Law School, February 2010, http://www.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/legacy/files/human_rights_institute/fordham_manual_-_final_3.8.10.pdf, ghsBZ
4. Right to housing Housing is one of the main issues with which domestic
AND
resources practitioners can use to include persuasive human rights arguments in their advocacy.

The aff prevents authorities from discriminating against IPV survivors – negative obligations are an inherent part of the right to housing

Marc UHRY 16 ~Coordinator for european affairs~, "HOUSING-RELATED BINDING OBLIGATIONS ON STATES FROM EUROPEAN AND INTERNATIONAL CASE LAW," Foundation Abbe Piere and FEANTSA, FROM EUROPEAN AND INTERNATIONAL CASE LAW, June 2016, http://www.fondation-abbe-pierre.fr/sites/default/files/content-files/files/housing-related_binding_obligations_on_states.pdf, ghsBZ
What minimum norms do public authorities have to respect when effectively implementing fundamental social rights
AND
Human Rights - Airey, C. vs Ireland, 7 October 1979). 

Guaranteeing the right to housing protects IPV survivors from forced evictions and harassment

Giulia Paglione 06 *bracketed for rhetoric, "Domestic Violence and Housing Rights: A Reinterpretation of the Right to Housing," The Johns Hopkins University Press, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Feb., 2006), pp. 120-147, ghsBZ
The biased and male-oriented interpretation of the right to housing is likewise visible
AND
lacking such protection, in genuine consultation with affected persons and groups."32

Recognizing the right to housing for IPV survivors provides legal empowerment and reparations – rights-based perspective key to state enforcement and inherent protections

Giulia Paglione 2, "Domestic Violence and Housing Rights: A Reinterpretation of the Right to Housing," The Johns Hopkins University Press, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Feb., 2006), pp. 120-147, ghsBZ
Recognizing that domestic violence victims are subject to forced evictions is not simply an intellectual
AND
, as the governments did not live up to their international legal obligations.

Crystallizing the rights of IPV survivors provides collective identity and empowers the abused individual – the aff provides the first step for systemic reform and challenging gender subordination

LENORA M. LAPIDUS 03 *bracketed for rhetoric ~Director, Women's Rights Project ("WRP") of the American Civil Liberties Union. B.A., summa cum laude, Cornell University,J.D., cum laude, HarvardLaw School. Ms. Lapidus litigates women's rights cases in state and federal courts throughout the United States on a range of issues, including discrimination against victims of domestic violence. Prior to becoming Director of the ACLU Women's Rights Project, she served as the Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, held the John J. Gibbons Fellowship in Public Interest and Constitutional Law, at Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger and Vecchione, in Newark, New Jersey, was a Staff Attorney Fellow at the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy in New York City, and clerked for the Honorable Richard Owen, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In addition to her litigation and public policy experience, Ms. Lapidus has also taught as an adjunct professor at Seton Hall Law School, Rutgers Law School, and Rutgers University. She is a member of various boards, task forces, bar associations and community organizations.~, "DOUBLY VICTIMIZED: HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE," JOURNAL OF GENDER, SOCIAL POLICY and THE LAW ~Vol. 11:2, 2003, ghsBZ
These responses to housing discrimination against victims of domestic violence all derive from a deep
AND
victimization and to protect battered women from discrimination in housing and other contexts.

Rights-based approaches recognize inherent dignity and create counter-hierarchies that removes stigmatization

Fitzpatrick and Suzanne 08, Fitzpatrick ~School of the Built Environment, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK;~ and Beth Watts ~Centre for Housing Policy, University of York, England, UK~, "'The Right to Housing' for Homeless People," Homelessness Research in Europe, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.456.1897andrep=rep1andtype=pdf, ghsBZ
There are some obvious reasons why enforceable legal rights to housing may be viewed as
AND
in poverty and using welfare services such as housing (Lister, 2004).

Generic discussions of the right to housing focuses exclusively on the male perspective, ignoring and legitimizing incidences of intimate partner violence – gender-sensitive focus key to deconstruct androcentric policies

Giulia Paglione 3, "Domestic Violence and Housing Rights: A Reinterpretation of the Right to Housing," The Johns Hopkins University Press, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Feb., 2006), pp. 120-147, ghsBZ bracketed for ableist language
The right to housing is considered a component of the broader human right to an
AND
interpretation of the right to housing needs to be brought to the surface.

The aff is a form of institutional ethnography that deconstructs seemingly gender-neutral laws and disrupts power relations

Arnold and Slusser 15*bracketed for rhetoric, Gretchen Arnold and Megan Slusser, "Silencing Women's Voices: Nuisance Property Laws and Battered Women," Law and Social Inquiry Volume 00, Issue 00, 00–00, Summer 2015, http://www.nhlp.org/files/001.20Silencing20Women's20Voices-20Nuisance20Property20Laws20and20Battered20Women20-20G20Arnold20and20M20Slusser.pdf, ghsBZ
Theoretical Implications This study has implications for understanding not only how professionals can reach such
AND
more sophisticated understanding of how institutional and social processes reproduce relations of domination.

Tournament: Apple Valley | Round: 2 | Opponent: Scarsdale AC | Judge: Victor Rivas Umana

Framework

I value justice.
Structural violence and oppression is based in moral exclusion, which is fundamentally flawed because exclusion is not based on dessert but rather on arbitrarily perceived differences.

Susan Opotow 01 Susan Opotow is a social and organizational psychologist. Her work examines the intersection of conflict, justice, and identity as they give rise to moral exclusion -- seeing others as outside the scope of justice and as eligible targets of discrimination, exploitation, hate, or violence. She studies moral exclusion and moral inclusion in such everyday contexts as schooling, environmental and public policy conflict, and in more violent contexts, such as deadly wars and the post-war period. She has guest edited The Journal of Social Issues and Social Justice Research and co-edited Identity and the Natural Environment: The Psychological Significance of Nature (MIT Press, 2003). She is associate editor of Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology and Past President of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, “Social Injustice”, Peace, Conflict, and Violence: Peace Psychology for the 21st Centuryl Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 2001, BE
Both structural and direct violence results from moral justifications and rationalizations.
AND
oneself or one’s group at the expense of others (Tajfel, 1982).

Particularism is good—root cause claims and focus on overarching structures ignore application to material injustice.

Gregory Fernando Pappas 16 Texas AandM University “The Pragmatists’ Approach to Injustice”, The Pluralist Volume 11, Number 1, Spring 2016, BE
The pragmatists’ approach should be distinguished from nonideal theories whose starting point seems to be
AND
in making us see aspects of injustices we would not otherwise appreciate.15

Thus, the standard is reducing structural violence.

Harms

Blue on black violence is structural and legally justified–police routinely violate the Fourth Amendment to use excessive force against black bodies

 
Drew Carbado 16, Honorable Harry Pregerson Professor of Law, UCLA, “Blue-on-Black Violence: A Provisional Model of Some of the Causes,” Georgetown Law Journal Vo. 104, 2016. RFK
No single model can fully explain African-American vulnerability to police violence. At
AND
"a pattern of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. 2

The law is currently a means by which police brutality becomes justified–qualified immunity lets officers escape accountability
Two warrants:
First, the “clearly established” clause and the merits-sequencing precedent set by Pearson v Callahan means courts can avoid the question of whether the officer’s conduct violated the Constitution if the right isn’t already CLEARLY ESTABLISHED–creates a vicious cycle where the greater the uncertainty about the law, the easier it is to argue that the right was not “clearly established”–leaves black bodies in a state of legal flux

Drew Carbado 16, Honorable Harry Pregerson Professor of Law, UCLA, “Blue-on-Black Violence: A Provisional Model of Some of the Causes,” Georgetown Law Journal Vo. 104, 2016. RFK
A similar dynamic is at play in the civil process as well. Here,
AND
, courts will likely grant qualified immunity in cases involving such arrests.20 

2- the “clearly established” standard as presently interpreted virtually guarantees qualified immunity so officers are almost never indicted

Drew Carbado 16, Honorable Harry Pregerson Professor of Law, UCLA, “Blue-on-Black Violence: A Provisional Model of Some of the Causes,” Georgetown Law Journal Vo. 104, 2016. RFK
4 A second problem with the "clearly established" doctrine pertains to how courts
AND
a significant doctrinal hurdle to holding police officers accountable for acts of violence.

Qualified immunity doesn’t just mean that victims go without compensation–the “clearly established” right clause means courts can continue to avoid clarifying the scope of the law which prevents the law from ever becoming clearly established

Alan K. Chen 15, professor of law at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, “Qualified Immunity Limiting Access to Justice and Impeding Development of the Law,” Human Rights Magazine Vol. 41, 2015.
Critics of qualified immunity point out that the breadth of the doctrine’s protection means that
AND
F. App’x 852, 852–53 (4th Cir. 2009).

Qualified immunity’s focus on technicalities DISGUISES institutional racism and makes civil rights litigation about INDIVIDUAL CASES instead of structural problems and encourages acceptance of the status quo—we have to break down the illusion that our CJS allows for redress

Diana Hassel 99, Associate Professor, Roger Williams University School of Law, “Living a Lie: The Cost of Qualified Immunity,” Missouri Law Review Vol. 64, 1999.
The problem with qualified immunity is not so much that the outcomes are sometimes unfair
AND
of an open debate concerning which civil rights should be protected and how.

Thus the plan: The United States Supreme Court ought to limit qualified immunity for police officers by changing the “clearly established right” clause to asking whether the defendant’s conduct was “clearly unconstitutional”, and also implementing a four-part inquiry for cases in which the defendant’s actions were not obviously unconstitutional.

 
Michael S. Catlett 05, JD, University of Arizona College of Law,  “Clearly Not Established: Decisional Law and the Qualified Immunity Doctrine,” Arizona Law Review Vol. 47, 2005. RFK
In trying to decide whether a constitutional right is "clearly established," courts should
AND
case?; 197 (4) How recently was the constitutional right pronounced?

Solvency

Asking whether the defendant’s actions were “clearly unconstitutional” as opposed to violating “clearly established rights” avoids legal technicalities that excuse egregious behavior and shifts the focus to common social duty

 
John C. Jeffries 10, Professor, University of Virginia School of Law, Jr. “What’s Wrong with Qualified Immunity,” Florida Law Review, Vol. 62, September 2010. RFK
A second suggestion would be to change the doctrinal formula for qualified immunity. Rather
AND
would not be irrelevant in determining whether conduct is "clearly unconstitutional." 84

The four-part inquiry establishes a uniform standard for settling constitutional merits–resolves the legal quagmire that unfairly protects the police

 
Michael S. Catlett 05, JD, University of Arizona College of Law,  “Clearly Not Established: Decisional Law and the Qualified Immunity Doctrine,” Arizona Law Review Vol. 47, 2005. RFK
The obvious benefits of the proposed standard are that it would provide uniformity, help
AND
and the common-sensical or difficult nature of the legal issues involved."

AND—civil lawsuits good because they spur systemic reform through investigations and public outcry–also, even if there’s indemnity that doesn’t answer our offense because victims still get REPARATIONS and RECOMPENSE

Mary M. Cheh 96,Professor of Law, George Washington University “Are Lawsuits an Answer to Police Brutality?” in William A. Geller and Hans Toch, “Police Violence: Understanding and Controlling Police Abuse of Force,” Yale University Press, 1996. RFK
By contrast, the civil law, because of its greater flexibility and scope,
AND
but to reform so that the harm is not likely to be repeated.

We don’t claim legal reform solves everything, just that it’s a good idea–even if institutions are racist oppressed groups have to carve out anti-racist pockets in the Constitution and write themselves into the law as a pragmatic political strategy to break down the incoherence of the dominant ideology

 
Kimberle Williams Crenshaw 88, Acting Professor of Law, UCLA; JD, Harvard Law School, “Race, Reform and Retrenchment: Transformation and Legitimation in Antidiscrimination Law,” Harvard Law Review Vol. 101, May 1988. RFK
Rights have been important. They may have legitimated racial inequality, but they have
AND
meaningful change depends on skillful use of the liberating potential of dominant ideology.

Tournament: Apple Valley | Round: Semis | Opponent: Mission San Jose LS | Judge: Devane Murphy, Isis Davis- Marks, Demarcus Powell

Framework

I value justice.
Structural violence and oppression is based in moral exclusion, which is fundamentally flawed because exclusion is not based on dessert but rather on arbitrarily perceived differences.

Susan Opotow 01 Susan Opotow is a social and organizational psychologist. Her work examines the intersection of conflict, justice, and identity as they give rise to moral exclusion -- seeing others as outside the scope of justice and as eligible targets of discrimination, exploitation, hate, or violence. She studies moral exclusion and moral inclusion in such everyday contexts as schooling, environmental and public policy conflict, and in more violent contexts, such as deadly wars and the post-war period. She has guest edited The Journal of Social Issues and Social Justice Research and co-edited Identity and the Natural Environment: The Psychological Significance of Nature (MIT Press, 2003). She is associate editor of Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology and Past President of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, “Social Injustice”, Peace, Conflict, and Violence: Peace Psychology for the 21st Centuryl Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 2001, BE
Both structural and direct violence results from moral justifications and rationalizations.
AND
oneself or one’s group at the expense of others (Tajfel, 1982).

Particularism is good—root cause claims and focus on overarching structures ignore application to material injustice.

Gregory Fernando Pappas 16 Texas AandM University “The Pragmatists’ Approach to Injustice”, The Pluralist Volume 11, Number 1, Spring 2016, BE
The pragmatists’ approach should be distinguished from nonideal theories whose starting point seems to be
AND
in making us see aspects of injustices we would not otherwise appreciate.15

Thus, the standard is reducing structural violence.

Harms

Blue on black violence is structural and legally justified–police routinely violate the Fourth Amendment to use excessive force against black bodies

 
Drew Carbado 16, Honorable Harry Pregerson Professor of Law, UCLA, “Blue-on-Black Violence: A Provisional Model of Some of the Causes,” Georgetown Law Journal Vo. 104, 2016. RFK
No single model can fully explain African-American vulnerability to police violence. At
AND
"a pattern of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. 2

The law is currently a means by which police brutality becomes justified–qualified immunity lets officers escape accountability
Two warrants:
First, the “clearly established” clause and the merits-sequencing precedent set by Pearson v Callahan means courts can avoid the question of whether the officer’s conduct violated the Constitution if the right isn’t already CLEARLY ESTABLISHED–creates a vicious cycle where the greater the uncertainty about the law, the easier it is to argue that the right was not “clearly established”–leaves black bodies in a state of legal flux

 
Drew Carbado 16, Honorable Harry Pregerson Professor of Law, UCLA, “Blue-on-Black Violence: A Provisional Model of Some of the Causes,” Georgetown Law Journal Vo. 104, 2016. RFK
A similar dynamic is at play in the civil process as well. Here,
AND
, courts will likely grant qualified immunity in cases involving such arrests.20 

2- the “clearly established” standard as presently interpreted virtually guarantees qualified immunity so officers are almost never indicted

Drew Carbado 16, Honorable Harry Pregerson Professor of Law, UCLA, “Blue-on-Black Violence: A Provisional Model of Some of the Causes,” Georgetown Law Journal Vo. 104, 2016. RFK
4 A second problem with the "clearly established" doctrine pertains to how courts
AND
a significant doctrinal hurdle to holding police officers accountable for acts of violence.

Qualified immunity doesn’t just mean that victims go without compensation–the “clearly established” right clause means courts can continue to avoid clarifying the scope of the law which prevents the law from ever becoming clearly established

Alan K. Chen 15, professor of law at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, “Qualified Immunity Limiting Access to Justice and Impeding Development of the Law,” Human Rights Magazine Vol. 41, 2015.
Critics of qualified immunity point out that the breadth of the doctrine’s protection means that
AND
F. App’x 852, 852–53 (4th Cir. 2009).

Qualified immunity’s focus on technicalities DISGUISES institutional racism and makes civil rights litigation about INDIVIDUAL CASES instead of structural problems and encourages acceptance of the status quo—we have to break down the illusion that our CJS allows for redress

 
Diana Hassel 99, Associate Professor, Roger Williams University School of Law, “Living a Lie: The Cost of Qualified Immunity,” Missouri Law Review Vol. 64, 1999.
The problem with qualified immunity is not so much that the outcomes are sometimes unfair
AND
of an open debate concerning which civil rights should be protected and how.

Thus the plan: The United States federal government ought to limit qualified immunity for police officers by changing the “clearly established right” clause to “clearly unconstitutional” and implementing a three-part inquiry for cases in which the defendant’s actions were not clearly unconstitutional.

  
Michael S. Catlett 05, JD, University of Arizona College of Law,  “Clearly Not Established: Decisional Law and the Qualified Immunity Doctrine,” Arizona Law Review Vol. 47, 2005. RFK
In trying to decide whether a constitutional right is "clearly established," courts should
AND
case?; 197 (4) How recently was the constitutional right pronounced?

Solvency

Asking whether the defendant’s actions were “clearly unconstitutional” as opposed to violating “clearly established rights” avoids legal technicalities that excuse egregious behavior and shifts the focus to common social duty

 
John C. Jeffries 10, Professor, University of Virginia School of Law, Jr. “What’s Wrong with Qualified Immunity,” Florida Law Review, Vol. 62, September 2010. RFK
A second suggestion would be to change the doctrinal formula for qualified immunity. Rather
AND
would not be irrelevant in determining whether conduct is "clearly unconstitutional." 84

The four-part inquiry establishes a uniform standard for settling constitutional merits–resolves the legal quagmire that unfairly protects the police

 
Michael S. Catlett 05, JD, University of Arizona College of Law,  “Clearly Not Established: Decisional Law and the Qualified Immunity Doctrine,” Arizona Law Review Vol. 47, 2005. RFK
The obvious benefits of the proposed standard are that it would provide uniformity, help
AND
and the common-sensical or difficult nature of the legal issues involved."

AND—civil lawsuits good because they spur systemic reform through investigations and public outcry–also, even if there’s indemnity that doesn’t answer our offense because victims still get REPARATIONS and RECOMPENSE

Mary M. Cheh 96,Professor of Law, George Washington University “Are Lawsuits an Answer to Police Brutality?” in William A. Geller and Hans Toch, “Police Violence: Understanding and Controlling Police Abuse of Force,” Yale University Press, 1996. RFK
By contrast, the civil law, because of its greater flexibility and scope,
AND
but to reform so that the harm is not likely to be repeated.

We don’t claim legal reform solves everything, just that it’s a good idea–even if institutions are racist oppressed groups have to carve out anti-racist pockets in the Constitution and write themselves into the law as a pragmatic political strategy to break down the incoherence of the dominant ideology

 
Kimberle Williams Crenshaw 88, Acting Professor of Law, UCLA; JD, Harvard Law School, “Race, Reform and Retrenchment: Transformation and Legitimation in Antidiscrimination Law,” Harvard Law Review Vol. 101, May 1988. RFK
Rights have been important. They may have legitimated racial inequality, but they have
AND
meaningful change depends on skillful use of the liberating potential of dominant ideology.

AND–only struggles within the legal system solve–pessimism is a solipsistic retreat that moots smaller points of attack on white supremacy

Vincent W. Lloyd 16, Associate Professor of Theology and Religious Studies, Villanova University, “Conclusion: Against Pessimism” in Black Natural Law, Oxford University Press, 2016. RFK
This apparent impasse between the scope of the problem and the deliberateness of the strategy
AND
hold more than a million of our black brothers and sisters in cages.

Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Phoenix Country Day PW | Judge: Hertzig, Kim Hsun, Akhil Gandra

Framework

I value justice.
Structural violence and oppression is based in moral exclusion, which is fundamentally flawed because exclusion is not based on dessert but rather on arbitrarily perceived differences.

Susan Opotow 01 Susan Opotow is a social and organizational psychologist. Her work examines the intersection of conflict, justice, and identity as they give rise to moral exclusion -- seeing others as outside the scope of justice and as eligible targets of discrimination, exploitation, hate, or violence. She studies moral exclusion and moral inclusion in such everyday contexts as schooling, environmental and public policy conflict, and in more violent contexts, such as deadly wars and the post-war period. She has guest edited The Journal of Social Issues and Social Justice Research and co-edited Identity and the Natural Environment: The Psychological Significance of Nature (MIT Press, 2003). She is associate editor of Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology and Past President of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, “Social Injustice”, Peace, Conflict, and Violence: Peace Psychology for the 21st Centuryl Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 2001, BE
Both structural and direct violence results from moral justifications and rationalizations.
AND
oneself or one’s group at the expense of others (Tajfel, 1982).

Particularism is good—root cause claims and focus on overarching structures ignore application to material injustice.

Gregory Fernando Pappas 16 Texas AandM University “The Pragmatists’ Approach to Injustice”, The Pluralist Volume 11, Number 1, Spring 2016, BE
The pragmatists’ approach should be distinguished from nonideal theories whose starting point seems to be
AND
in making us see aspects of injustices we would not otherwise appreciate.15

Thus, the standard is reducing structural violence.

Harms

Blue on black violence is structural and legally justified–police routinely violate the Fourth Amendment to use excessive force against black bodies

 
Drew Carbado 16, Honorable Harry Pregerson Professor of Law, UCLA, “Blue-on-Black Violence: A Provisional Model of Some of the Causes,” Georgetown Law Journal Vo. 104, 2016. RFK
No single model can fully explain African-American vulnerability to police violence. At
AND
"a pattern of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. 2

The law is currently a means by which police brutality becomes justified–qualified immunity lets officers escape accountability
Two warrants:
First, the “clearly established” clause and the merits-sequencing precedent set by Pearson v Callahan means courts can avoid the question of whether the officer’s conduct violated the Constitution if the right isn’t already CLEARLY ESTABLISHED–creates a vicious cycle where the greater the uncertainty about the law, the easier it is to argue that the right was not “clearly established”–leaves black bodies in a state of legal flux

Drew Carbado 16, Honorable Harry Pregerson Professor of Law, UCLA, “Blue-on-Black Violence: A Provisional Model of Some of the Causes,” Georgetown Law Journal Vo. 104, 2016. RFK
A similar dynamic is at play in the civil process as well. Here,
AND
, courts will likely grant qualified immunity in cases involving such arrests.20 

2- the “clearly established” standard as presently interpreted virtually guarantees qualified immunity so officers are almost never indicted

Drew Carbado 16, Honorable Harry Pregerson Professor of Law, UCLA, “Blue-on-Black Violence: A Provisional Model of Some of the Causes,” Georgetown Law Journal Vo. 104, 2016. RFK
4 A second problem with the "clearly established" doctrine pertains to how courts
AND
a significant doctrinal hurdle to holding police officers accountable for acts of violence.

Qualified immunity doesn’t just mean that victims go without compensation–the “clearly established” right clause means courts can continue to avoid clarifying the scope of the law which prevents the law from ever becoming clearly established

Alan K. Chen 15, professor of law at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, “Qualified Immunity Limiting Access to Justice and Impeding Development of the Law,” Human Rights Magazine Vol. 41, 2015. RFK
Critics of qualified immunity point out that the breadth of the doctrine’s protection means that
AND
F. App’x 852, 852–53 (4th Cir. 2009).

Qualified immunity’s focus on technicalities DISGUISES institutional racism and makes civil rights litigation about INDIVIDUAL TECHNICALITIES instead of structural problems and encourages acceptance of the status quo—we have to break down the illusion that our CJS allows for redress

Diana Hassel 99, Associate Professor, Roger Williams University School of Law, “Living a Lie: The Cost of Qualified Immunity,” Missouri Law Review Vol. 64, 1999. RFK
The problem with qualified immunity is not so much that the outcomes are sometimes unfair
AND
of an open debate concerning which civil rights should be protected and how.

Thus the plan: The United States federal government ought to limit qualified immunity for police officers by requiring the “clearly established right” clause to first determine whether the official’s actions were “clearly unconstitutional” and implementing a three-part inquiry for cases in which the defendant’s actions were not clearly unconstitutional.

Michael S. Catlett 05, JD, University of Arizona College of Law,  “Clearly Not Established: Decisional Law and the Qualified Immunity Doctrine,” Arizona Law Review Vol. 47, 2005. RFK
In trying to decide whether a constitutional right is "clearly established," courts should
AND
case?; 197 (4) How recently was the constitutional right pronounced?

Solvency

Asking whether the defendant’s actions were “clearly unconstitutional” as opposed to violating “clearly established rights” avoids legal technicalities that excuse egregious behavior and shifts the focus to common social duty

John C. Jeffries 10, Professor, University of Virginia School of Law, Jr. “What’s Wrong with Qualified Immunity,” Florida Law Review, Vol. 62, September 2010. RFK
A second suggestion would be to change the doctrinal formula for qualified immunity. Rather
AND
would not be irrelevant in determining whether conduct is "clearly unconstitutional." 84

AND—civil lawsuits good because they spur systemic reform through investigations and public outcry–also, even if there’s indemnity that doesn’t answer our offense because victims still get REPARATIONS and RECOMPENSE

Mary M. Cheh 96,Professor of Law, George Washington University “Are Lawsuits an Answer to Police Brutality?” in William A. Geller and Hans Toch, “Police Violence: Understanding and Controlling Police Abuse of Force,” Yale University Press, 1996. RFK
By contrast, the civil law, because of its greater flexibility and scope,
AND
but to reform so that the harm is not likely to be repeated.

Increasing accountability would revitalize the entire legal system by promoting constitutional rights

Lindsey De Stefan 16 J.D. Candidate 2017, Seton Hall University School of Law; B.A., Ramapo College of New Jersey, "'No Man is Above the Law and No Man is Below it:' How Qualified Immunity Reform Could Create Accountability and Curb Widespread Police Misconduct," Law School Student Scholarship, Seton Hall Law, draft version, will be fully published in 2017, GUMM
Altering the qualified immunity doctrine is an excellent way to begin the path to restoring
AND
be a¶ long path to rebuilding the trust that is so crucial.

We don’t claim legal reform solves everything, just that it’s a good idea–even if institutions are racist oppressed groups have to carve out anti-racist pockets in the Constitution and write themselves into the law as a pragmatic political strategy to break down the incoherence of the dominant ideology

 
Kimberle Williams Crenshaw 88, Acting Professor of Law, UCLA; JD, Harvard Law School, “Race, Reform and Retrenchment: Transformation and Legitimation in Antidiscrimination Law,” Harvard Law Review Vol. 101, May 1988. RFK
Rights have been important. They may have legitimated racial inequality, but they have
AND
meaningful change depends on skillful use of the liberating potential of dominant ideology.

AND–only struggles within the legal system solve–pessimism is a solipsistic retreat that moots smaller points of attack on white supremacy

Vincent W. Lloyd 16, Associate Professor of Theology and Religious Studies, Villanova University, “Conclusion: Against Pessimism” in Black Natural Law, Oxford University Press, 2016. RFK
This apparent impasse between the scope of the problem and the deliberateness of the strategy
AND
hold more than a million of our black brothers and sisters in cages.

Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: Octas | Opponent: Harvard Westlake EE | Judge: Alderete, Alston, Akhil Gandra

Part 1: Framework

I value justice.
Racism builds walls of exclusion and controls how bodies can interact with other bodies

    
Mendieta (Eduardo, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Stony Brook University), Philosphy and Geography, Vol. 7, No 1, February 2004, http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/depts/sese/Mendieta.pdf
It may be easily argued, without too much contrivance, that racism is a
AND
Foucault’s work we can also¶ encounter a more condemning analysis of racism.

Particularism is good—root cause claims and focus on overarching structures ignore application to material injustice.

Gregory Fernando Pappas 16 Texas AandM University “The Pragmatists’ Approach to Injustice”, The Pluralist Volume 11, Number 1, Spring 2016, BE
The pragmatists’ approach should be distinguished from nonideal theories whose starting point seems to be
AND
in making us see aspects of injustices we would not otherwise appreciate.15

Thus, the standard is reducing institutionalized racism.

Part 2: The War Against Free Expression

In 1988 the legendary group NWA created an anthem for change for many communities with their song “F THE POLICE”. Sadly, in 2016, almost 3 decades later, the wake of violence against marginalized populations is increasing. Police have even criminalized the form of nonviolent expression of free speech of “flipping the bird”, “shooting the middle finger”, “making police read between the lines”, instead of the legitimate expression of free speech that it is.  Today, we take a stand against this obvious violation of expression.
That said, court is now in session. Judges Alston, Alderete and Gandra presiding.
You know how sometimes you’re doing 80 in a 40 zone and you get pulled over and you just give the cop the bird? Well, turns out if they beat you up for that, they can get qualified immunity! Because that is bad, I affirm.
Flipping the police off is vital expression of government criticism–police retaliation is unconstitutional

 
Samantha Orovitz 12, JD, Emory School of Law, “Free Bird: No Right to Qualified Immunity for Police Who Retaliate Against the Middle Finger Gesture,” Journal of Law and Social Deviance, Vol. 3, 2012. RFK
The evocativeness of the middle finger gesture is evident in the story of Robert Ekas
AND
against citizens exercising this right should not be entitled to qualified immunity. 20

BUT–police officers routinely get qualified immunity for retaliating against individuals who shoot them the bird by invoking the disorderly conduct and breach of peace ordinances–those are vague and disingenuous which creates a massive abuse on power

 
Samantha Orovitz 12, JD, Emory School of Law, “Free Bird: No Right to Qualified Immunity for Police Who Retaliate Against the Middle Finger Gesture,” Journal of Law and Social Deviance, Vol. 3, 2012. RFK
Application of Qualified Immunity Doctrine to the Middle Finger and Its Effect on Police Retaliation
AND
.237 In this context, qualified immunity induces abuse of power.23

The middle finger is worth fighting for–protecting First Amendment rights key to checking back a police state by reminding officers they are not above the law

 
Samantha Orovitz 12, JD, Emory School of Law, “Free Bird: No Right to Qualified Immunity for Police Who Retaliate Against the Middle Finger Gesture,” Journal of Law and Social Deviance, Vol. 3, 2012. RFK
Just because you can legally give a police officer the middle finger does not mean
AND
form, because it is a manifestation of the public's feelings and attitudes.

Provocative speech forces government to remain responsive to the will of the people–the squo gives police unfettered power to punish people who irritate them but we should be able to flip the police off without consequence

 
Samantha Orovitz 12, JD, Emory School of Law, “Free Bird: No Right to Qualified Immunity for Police Who Retaliate Against the Middle Finger Gesture,” Journal of Law and Social Deviance, Vol. 3, 2012. RFK
Transforming the Bird into a Dove: First Amendment Speech Expresses the Will of the
AND
being granted qualified immunity for unlawfully arresting an individual who exercises this right.

And–giving the middle finger is a symbol of black masculinity that becomes criminalized by paranoid White America–photo coverage of Trayvon Martin proves – the aff checks back violent police aggression against racialized criminality

Lisa Lebduska 14 Wheaton College, “Racist Visual Rhetoric and Images of Trayvon Martin,” Present Tense, Vol 3, 2014. RFK
Other People photos, which were also circulated on the Internet, featured a smiling
AND
to associate images of blacks with violence and those of whites with peace. 

Part 3: Solvency

Thus the plan: The United States federal government ought to limit qualified immunity for police officers who arrest an individual who directs the middle finger gesture at the officers.

Samantha Orovitz 12, JD, Emory School of Law, “Free Bird: No Right to Qualified Immunity for Police Who Retaliate Against the Middle Finger Gesture,” Journal of Law and Social Deviance, Vol. 3, 2012. RFK
To ensure police officers are not omnipotent in quashing free speech, courts should not
AND
the court will not tolerate an officer's infringement on individuals' free speech rights.

The aff is more consistent with EXISTING SUPREME COURT RULINGS ON FLIPPING THE BIRD–it just prevents police from exploiting ordinances

 
Samantha Orovitz 12, JD, Emory School of Law, “Free Bird: No Right to Qualified Immunity for Police Who Retaliate Against the Middle Finger Gesture,” Journal of Law and Social Deviance, Vol. 3, 2012. RFK
FIRST AMENDMENT STATUS OF "THE BIRD": WHY THE MIDDLE FINGER GESTURE IS NOT
AND
qualified immunity in an effort to protect themselves from liability for acting unconstitutionally.

And–aff spills over–resolves court clog by reducing appeal on First Amendment grounds and prevents chilling effect on free speech

Samantha Orovitz 12, JD, Emory School of Law, “Free Bird: No Right to Qualified Immunity for Police Who Retaliate Against the Middle Finger Gesture,” Journal of Law and Social Deviance, Vol. 3, 2012. RFK
This issue's resolution is crucial for three reasons. First, the underlying cases drain
AND
, even if the individuals know this speech is within their constitutional rights.

Even if civilians don't win compensation- lawsuits create reform and police know their behavior will be watched

Schwartz ‘11 (Joanna, "What Police Learn from Lawsuits." Cardozo L. Rev. 33 (2011): 841. Joanna Schwartz is a Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law. She teaches Civil Procedure, the Civil Rights Litigation Clinic)
Lawsuits are widely recognized to compensate and deter; this Article shows suits can also
AND
to create multiple, new, and even redundant sources of information.”253

And- if officers know they’re now liable they’ll worry about relations—our aff also compensates plaintiffs who flipped off the police which is the BIGGEST f you to the law

 
Schwartz ‘14 Schwartz, Joanna C. “Police Indemnification” Assistant Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law. New York University Law Review. 2014
Others will argue that, despite indemnification, police officers are still in danger of
AND
pays settle- ments and judgments against officers out of a general fund.

Tournament: Meadows | Round: Octas | Opponent: Harvard Westlake VC | Judge: Erik Legried, Liz Letak, Adam Torson

Part 1: Framework

I value justice.
Structural violence and oppression is based in moral exclusion, which is fundamentally flawed because exclusion is not based on dessert but rather on arbitrarily perceived differences.

Susan Opotow 01 Susan Opotow is a social and organizational psychologist. Her work examines the intersection of conflict, justice, and identity as they give rise to moral exclusion -- seeing others as outside the scope of justice and as eligible targets of discrimination, exploitation, hate, or violence. She studies moral exclusion and moral inclusion in such everyday contexts as schooling, environmental and public policy conflict, and in more violent contexts, such as deadly wars and the post-war period. She has guest edited The Journal of Social Issues and Social Justice Research and co-edited Identity and the Natural Environment: The Psychological Significance of Nature (MIT Press, 2003). She is associate editor of Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology and Past President of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, “Social Injustice”, Peace, Conflict, and Violence: Peace Psychology for the 21st Centuryl Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 2001, BE
Both structural and direct violence results from moral justifications and rationalizations.
AND
oneself or one’s group at the expense of others (Tajfel, 1982).

Recognizing moral exclusion and the structural inequality it causes is a prior question to institutional reform

 
Laxer ’14 (Michael, Nov 10th, lives in Toronto where he runs a bookstore with his partner Natalie. Michael has a Degree in History from Glendon College of York University. He is a political activist, a two-time former candidate and former election organizer for the NDP, is a socialist candidate for Toronto City Council in 2014, and is on the executive of the Socialist Party of Ontario., “Part of the problem: Talking about systemic oppression”, Feminist Current, http://www.feministcurrent.com/2014/11/10/part-of-the-problem-talking-about-systemic-oppression/~-~-ghs//sk)
Systemic oppressions result in very real violence and human degradation. Systemic misogyny, patriarchy
AND
see how our society and civilization can ever begin to move past it.

Particularism is good—root cause claims and focus on overarching structures ignore application to material injustice.

Gregory Fernando Pappas 16 Texas AandM University “The Pragmatists’ Approach to Injustice”, The Pluralist Volume 11, Number 1, Spring 2016, BE
The pragmatists’ approach should be distinguished from nonideal theories whose starting point seems to be
AND
in making us see aspects of injustices we would not otherwise appreciate.15

Thus, the standard is reducing structural violence.

Part 2: Imposing Nuclear Apartheid

Though South Africa is the only African country with nuclear power, the whole continent is trying to develop it.

Luke ‘15: Luke, Ronke. Contributor, Oil Price “Africa Banking On Nuclear Power.” Oil Price, October 2015. RP
It’s no secret that Africa’s economic development has been stifled by the shortage of electricity
AND
strategic partnerships. China has started training South Africans in nuclear plant operations.

Russia is pressuring South Africa to increase NP production, encouraging corruption.

Winkler ‘15: Winkler, Hartmut Professor of Physics, University of Johannesburg “Why South Africa should not build eight new nuclear power stations.” The Conversation, November 2015. RP
But in late 2014 the government took an about-turn in its approach to
AND
the preferred site for a 4000 MW nuclear plant dubbed “Nuclear 1”. 

The goal of nuclear expansion in Africa is rooted in colonialism: Western elites initially pressured South Africa to “join the nuclear club.”

  
Adam ‘11: Adam, Ferrial. Contributor, Greenpeace “The True Cost of Nuclear Power in South Africa.” Greenpeace, August 2011. RP
South Africa might be on the tip of Africa, but its mineral wealth has
AND
programme, six months after the apartheid National Party government came to power. 

And colonialism continues: the West perpetuates false needs, convincing other countries they need to participate in global capitalism.

Marcuse ‘64: Marcuse, Herbert. German philosopher, Frankfurt School One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Beacon, 1964. RP
I should like to add a few remarks on the often-heard opinion that
AND
colonialism, or to a more or less terroristic system of primary accumulation. 

The result is a system of modern-day apartheid and environmental racism.

Chen ‘11: Chen, Michelle. Contributor, Colorlines “The Radioactive Racism Behind Nuclear Energy.” Colorlines, March 2011. RP
One would think that the South African government would pause for a moment, in
AND
smokescreen, in a way, for arming apartheid during the Cold War. 

She adds:

When the apocalyptic cloud erupted over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world woke up to
AND
"effectively an 'up yours' response to the citizens of our country". 

Thus, the Plan:

The countries of the African continent ought to prohibit the production of nuclear power.

WISE ’12 explains Greenpeace’s advocacy: WISE Amsterdam. “Stop Nuclear Power in Africa.” Wiseinternational.org, June 15, 2012. CH
Article On May 29, Greenpeace Africa activists dressed in nuclear emergency suits dumped marked
AND
as a nuclear nightmare and should stop now before it is too late.”

Part 3: Renewable Freedom

Banning nuclear power is key to South Africa and other states to access sovereignty. A shift to renewables is the likely outcome.

 
Winkler ‘15: Winkler, Hartmut. Professor of Physics, University of Johannesburg “Why South Africa Should Not Build Eight New Nuclear Power Stations.” The Conversation, November 2015. RP
The expansion of South Africa’s power generating capacity is a necessary condition for economic growth
AND
a er 2025 (and for lower demand not until at earliest 2035). 

In fact, banning nuclear is a necessary first step to growing renewables. Money spent on nuclear power is money wasted.

Adam ‘11 Adam, Ferrial. Contributor, Greenpeace “The True Cost of Nuclear Power in South Africa.” Greenpeace, August 2011. RP
South Africa spent 13 years pursuing the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor, wasting billions of
AND
expensive and unreliable, blighted by power cuts and the infamous ‘load shedding’

Yet banning NP leads African states to use the renewables already available.

Adam ‘11 Adam, Ferrial. Contributor, Greenpeace “The True Cost of Nuclear Power in South Africa.” Greenpeace, August 2011. RP
South Africa has massive renewable energy sources, from wind and biomass to some of
AND
risk future, through a just transition towards a renewableenergy-based society. 

Nothing short of a ban solves – regulations won’t work and are empirically circumvented.

 
Adam ’11 Adam, Ferrial. Contributor, Greenpeace “The True Cost of Nuclear Power in South Africa.” Greenpeace, August 2011. RP
Every country with a nuclear energy programme should have an independent regulatory body ensuring that
AND
other departments and state bodies like the Department of Water and Environment.115 

South Africa will switch to wind – more profitable than coal now.

Barbee ‘15: Barbee, Jeffrey Contributor, The Guardian “How renewable energy in South Africa is quietly stealing a march on coal.” The Guardian, June 2015. RP
The howling wind drives the turbines, their blades bent back from the force as
AND
in time. This will happen sooner than people think,” he said.

Tournament: Grapevine | Round: 1 | Opponent: Colleyville Heritage AS | Judge: Hank Stolte

Part 1: Framework

I value morality.
Policymakers use util

Robert Goodin 90, professor of philosophy at the Australian National University college of arts and social sciences, “The Utilitarian Response,” pgs 141-142—ghssk)
My larger argument turns on the proposition that there is something special about the situation
AND
want to use it at all – to choose general rules or conduct.

Utilitarianism is the only way to access morality. Sacrifice in the name of preserving rights destroys any hope of future generations attaining other values.

                                                                                                                              
Nye ‘86  (Joseph S. 1986; Phd Political Science Harvard. University; Served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs; “Nuclear Ethics” pg. 45-47)
Is there any end that could justify a nuclear war that threatens the survival of
AND
of that risk is a justifiable topic of both prudential and moral reasoning. 

Utilitarianism inevitable even in deontological frameworks

Green ’02 (Assistant Professor Department of Psychology Harvard University, Joshua, November 2002 "The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Truth About Morality And What To Do About It", 314—)
Some people who talk of balancing rights may think there is an algorithm for deciding
AND
represents is either dogmatic in an esoteric sort of way or covertly consequentialist.

AND–no act omission distinction for state actors–if governments refuse to protect people by not enforcing regulations then that’s an active choice¬

Sunstein and Vermuele ’05 (Cass and Adrian, March, Sunstein: American legal scholar, particularly in the fields of constitutional law, administrative law, environmental law, and law and behavioral economics, who was the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration from 2009 to 2012.2 For 27 years, Sunstein taught at the University of Chicago Law School.3 Sunstein is the Robert Walmsley University Professor4 at Harvard Law School, Vermuele: American legal scholar , Graduate of Harvard College  and Law school, professor of law at Harvard Law School in 2006, was named John H. Watson Professor of Law in 2008, and was named Ralph S. Tyler Professor of Constitutional Law in 2016. He was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, “Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? The Relevance of Life‐Life Tradeoffs”, THE LAW SCHOOL, THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, JOHN M. OLIN LAW and ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER NO. 239, http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/239.crs-av.capital-punishment.pdf~-~-ghs//sk)
In our view, both the argument from causation and the argument from intention go
AND

it is the allocation to factory A of property right to pollute.

–and even if there is an act omission distinction, continuing to support nuclear weapons programs is a state action so you should can still evaluate all aff impacts as rights violations
Thus the standard is maximizing wellbeing.

Part 2: The Myth of Nukes

The nuclear energy industry survives thanks to an aggressive campaign of misinformation created by governments with entrenched economic and military interests

Stoett ’03 (Peter, February 2003, main areas of expertise include international relations and law, global environmental politics, and human rights.  Prior to joining Concordia University in 1998 taught at the University of British Columbia, Simon Fraser University, the University of Guelph, and the University of Waterloo, written, co-written, and co-edited over ten books and over 50 peer reviewed articles, chapters in edited books, and occasional papers. He has conducted research in Europe (including the Balkans), eastern, southern and western Africa, central America, and Asia. From April to July 2013 he was an Erasmus Fellow and taught at the International Institute for Social Studies at the Hague, Netherlands. From January-June, 2012 he was the Fulbright Visiting Research Chair in Canadian-American Relations at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars’ Canada Institute, in Washington, D.C., He is also a Senior Research Fellow with the Europe-based Earth Systems Governance Project of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change, PhD from Queen’s University, “Toward Renewed Legitimacy? Nuclear Power, Global Warming, and Security”, Global Environmental Politics, Volume 3, Number 1, February 2003, pp. 99-116 (Article), Published by The MIT Press, Project Muse ghssk)
Despite the neoliberal agenda’s commitment to “free market” enterprise, we see that
AND
and the survival of a troubled, and highly subsidised, nuclear industry.

AND–despite its problems nuclear power continues to enjoy heavy state subsidies because governments view nuclear power as critical to security legitimacy

Stoett ’03 (Peter, February 2003, main areas of expertise include international relations and law, global environmental politics, and human rights.  Prior to joining Concordia University in 1998 taught at the University of British Columbia, Simon Fraser University, the University of Guelph, and the University of Waterloo, written, co-written, and co-edited over ten books and over 50 peer reviewed articles, chapters in edited books, and occasional papers. He has conducted research in Europe (including the Balkans), eastern, southern and western Africa, central America, and Asia. From April to July 2013 he was an Erasmus Fellow and taught at the International Institute for Social Studies at the Hague, Netherlands. From January-June, 2012 he was the Fulbright Visiting Research Chair in Canadian-American Relations at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars’ Canada Institute, in Washington, D.C., He is also a Senior Research Fellow with the Europe-based Earth Systems Governance Project of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change, PhD from Queen’s University, “Toward Renewed Legitimacy? Nuclear Power, Global Warming, and Security”, Global Environmental Politics, Volume 3, Number 1, February 2003, pp. 99-116 (Article), Published by The MIT Press, Project Muse ghssk)
In the United States and elsewhere, periodic renewals in the hopes for nu-
AND
is intended largely to provide the necessary background for such a research project.

AND– the state is obsessed with nuclear power because of the military industrial complex– means that renewables always get overlooked for more costly nuclear alternative

Shrader- Frechette ’08 (Kristin, June 23rd, O'Neill Family Professor, Department of Biological Sciences and Department of Philosophy, at the University of Notre Dame. She has previously held senior professorships at the University of California and the University of Florida. Most of Shrader-Frechette's research work analyzes the ethical problems in risk assessment, public health, or environmental justice - especially those related to radiological, ecological, and energy-related risks.1 Shrader-Frechette has received the Global Citizenship Award, and the Catholic Digest named her one of 12 "Heroes for the US and the World", published more than 380 articles and 16 books/monographs, “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy”, America Magazine, http://americamagazine.org/issue/660/article/five-myths-about-nuclear-energy~-~-ghs//sk)
If atomic energy is really so risky and expensive, why did the United States
AND
virtually all of its support to a riskier, more costly nuclear alternative?

A couple of impacts:
A) the nuclear industry profits from and re-entrenches environmental racism- need to shift to renewables now

Chen ’11 (Michelle, March 23rd, Colorlines' Global Justice columnist. She is a regular contributor on labor issues at In These Times, as well as a member of the magazine's Board of Editors. Michelle's reporting has appeared in Ms. Magazine, AirAmerica, Alternet, Newsday, the Progressive Media Project, and her old zine, cain. Prior to joining Colorlines, she wrote for the independent news collective The NewStandard, “The Radioactive Racism Behind Nuclear Energy”, Colorlines, http://www.colorlines.com/articles/radioactive-racism-behind-nuclear-energy~-~-ghs//sk)
When the apocalyptic cloud erupted over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world woke up to
AND
temptations of nuclear power may continue to eclipse fears of its global consequences.

B) Nuclear accidents are likely

David Lochbaum 16 Nuclear Safety Engineer; Staff on the Union of Concerned Scientists; Directs the Union of Concerned Scientists' Nuclear Safety Project; Monitors safety issues at US nuclear power plants; has worked in nuclear power plants for 17 years, "Nuclear Power in the Future: Risks of a Lifetime," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, February 24, 2016, GUMM
The chance of one reactor experiencing a meltdown among a fleet of 100 reactors operating
AND
over time, but also because refurbishment and replacement sometimes have unanticipated consequences.

C) ====Renewable energy is better and will fill in, nuke power grows too slowly and distracts from this development====
Parenti ’12 (Christian, April 4th, Christian Parenti is the author of "The Freedom: Shadows and Hallucinations in Occupied Iraq" (New Press) and a visiting fellow at CUNY's Center for Place, Culture and Politics., “Why Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer to Global Warming”, AlterNet, http://www.alternet.org/story/154854/why_nuclear_power_is_not_the_answer_to_global_warming?page=2~-~-ghs//sk)
An authoritative study by the investment bank Lazard Ltd. found that wind beat nuclear
AND
Atomic power is the fuel of the future”—and always will be.

AND–err on the side of aff evidence on warming–the nuclear industry and by extension the government fabricate studies to bury the disads of nuclear power

Shrader- Frechette ’13 (*brackets in original text, Kristin, Spring 2013 , O'Neill Family Professor, Department of Biological Sciences and Department of Philosophy, at the University of Notre Dame. She has previously held senior professorships at the University of California and the University of Florida. Most of Shrader-Frechette's research work analyzes the ethical problems in risk assessment, public health, or environmental justice - especially those related to radiological, ecological, and energy-related risks.1 Shrader-Frechette has received the Global Citizenship Award, and the Catholic Digest named her one of 12 "Heroes for the US and the World", published more than 380 articles and 16 books/monographs, “Answering Scientific Attacks on Ethical Imperatives”, Ethics and the Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, Spring 2013, pg 1-17, Published by Indiana University Press, Project Muse ghssk)
Why have so many nations begun and used fission if it is such an expensive
AND
like the United States, continue to subsidize nuclear power more than renewables?

Warming is a global catastrophe- causes extreme damage to ecosystems, world hunger, water shortages, and disease

Shrader- Frechette ’11 (Kristin, Jun 1st, O'Neill Family Professor, Department of Biological Sciences and Department of Philosophy, at the University of Notre Dame. She has previously held senior professorships at the University of California and the University of Florida. Most of Shrader-Frechette's research work analyzes the ethical problems in risk assessment, public health, or environmental justice - especially those related to radiological, ecological, and energy-related risks.1 Shrader-Frechette has received the Global Citizenship Award, and the Catholic Digest named her one of 12 "Heroes for the US and the World", published more than 380 articles and 16 books/monographs, “What Will Work: Fighting Climate Change with Renewable Energy, Not Nuclear Power”, Oxford University Press, https://books.google.com/books?id=bbZoAgAAQBAJanddq=shrader-frechette+nuclearandlr=andsource=gbs_navlinks_s~-~-ghs//sk)
Energy problem (4), CC, presents a possible global catastrophe because GHG emissions
AND
that are consistent with the 2009 US National Academy of Sciences’ report. 31

Thus the plan: The United States federal government ought to prohibit the production of nuclear power.

Part 3: Solvency

Shutdown of nuclear power creates a shift to renewables–they’re cheaper EVEN GIVEN SUBSIDES, more efficient, and don’t have intermittency problems

Shrader- Frechette ’13 (*brackets in original text, Kristin, Spring 2013 , O'Neill Family Professor, Department of Biological Sciences and Department of Philosophy, at the University of Notre Dame. She has previously held senior professorships at the University of California and the University of Florida. Most of Shrader-Frechette's research work analyzes the ethical problems in risk assessment, public health, or environmental justice - especially those related to radiological, ecological, and energy-related risks.1 Shrader-Frechette has received the Global Citizenship Award, and the Catholic Digest named her one of 12 "Heroes for the US and the World", published more than 380 articles and 16 books/monographs, “Answering Scientific Attacks on Ethical Imperatives”, Ethics and the Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, Spring 2013, pg 1-17, Published by Indiana University Press, Project Muse ghssk)
Nuclear proponents like Forsberg (2011), however, disagree. They say that because
AND
intermittency is not a roadblock to the ethical imperative to use renewable energy.

AND–renewables comparatively solve warming better–my evidence is golden–independent, objective university and NGO studies that are peer-reviewed and NOT FUNDED BY NUCLEAR INDUSTRY conclude nuke power produces more emissions than renewables

AND PREFER MY EVIDENCE–MAJOR NUCLEAR EMISSIONS ASSESSMENTS TRIM THE DATA TO ONLY COUNT CARBON EMISSIONS FROM ONE STAGE OF FOURTEEN STAGES
Shrader- Frechette ’13 (Kristin, Spring 2013 , O'Neill Family Professor, Department of Biological Sciences and Department of Philosophy, at the University of Notre Dame. She has previously held senior professorships at the University of California and the University of Florida. Most of Shrader-Frechette's research work analyzes the ethical problems in risk assessment, public health, or environmental justice - especially those related to radiological, ecological, and energy-related risks.1 Shrader-Frechette has received the Global Citizenship Award, and the Catholic Digest named her one of 12 "Heroes for the US and the World", published more than 380 articles and 16 books/monographs, “Answering Scientific Attacks on Ethical Imperatives”, Ethics and the Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, Spring 2013, pg 1-17, Published by Indiana University Press, Project Muse ghssk)
Why do many people mistakenly believe fission is a low-carbon technology? Of
AND
in favor of atomic energy over renewables like wind and solar-PV.

Tournament: Grapevine | Round: 5 | Opponent: LC Anderson JT | Judge: Chris Vincent

Part 1: Framework

I value justice.
Structural violence and oppression is based in moral exclusion, which is fundamentally flawed because exclusion is not based on dessert but rather on arbitrarily perceived differences.

Susan Opotow 01 Susan Opotow is a social and organizational psychologist. Her work examines the intersection of conflict, justice, and identity as they give rise to moral exclusion -- seeing others as outside the scope of justice and as eligible targets of discrimination, exploitation, hate, or violence. She studies moral exclusion and moral inclusion in such everyday contexts as schooling, environmental and public policy conflict, and in more violent contexts, such as deadly wars and the post-war period. She has guest edited The Journal of Social Issues and Social Justice Research and co-edited Identity and the Natural Environment: The Psychological Significance of Nature (MIT Press, 2003). She is associate editor of Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology and Past President of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, “Social Injustice”, Peace, Conflict, and Violence: Peace Psychology for the 21st Centuryl Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 2001, BE
Both structural and direct violence results from moral justifications and rationalizations.
AND
oneself or one’s group at the expense of others (Tajfel, 1982).

Recognizing moral exclusion and the structural inequality it causes is a prior question to institutional reform

 
Laxer ’14 (Michael, Nov 10th, lives in Toronto where he runs a bookstore with his partner Natalie. Michael has a Degree in History from Glendon College of York University. He is a political activist, a two-time former candidate and former election organizer for the NDP, is a socialist candidate for Toronto City Council in 2014, and is on the executive of the Socialist Party of Ontario., “Part of the problem: Talking about systemic oppression”, Feminist Current, http://www.feministcurrent.com/2014/11/10/part-of-the-problem-talking-about-systemic-oppression/~-~-ghs//sk)
Systemic oppressions result in very real violence and human degradation. Systemic misogyny, patriarchy
AND
see how our society and civilization can ever begin to move past it.

Ideal theory is unattainable and evades issues of reality, failing to solve actual injustice

Mills ‘09 (Mills, Charles. W, May 22nd 2009, department of philosophy and Northwestern, ”Rawls on Race/Race in Rawls.” The Southern Journal of Philosophy, http://havenscenter.wisc.edu/files/Mills-Rawls20on20Race.pdf~-~-ghs//sk)
Now how can this ideal ideal—a society not merely without a past history
AND
to have been of much help when and if it ever did arrive.

Thus, the standard is reducing structural violence.

Part 2: The Myth of Nukes

The nuclear energy industry survives thanks to an aggressive campaign of misinformation created by governments with entrenched economic and military interests

Stoett ’03 (Peter, February 2003, main areas of expertise include international relations and law, global environmental politics, and human rights.  Prior to joining Concordia University in 1998 taught at the University of British Columbia, Simon Fraser University, the University of Guelph, and the University of Waterloo, written, co-written, and co-edited over ten books and over 50 peer reviewed articles, chapters in edited books, and occasional papers. He has conducted research in Europe (including the Balkans), eastern, southern and western Africa, central America, and Asia. From April to July 2013 he was an Erasmus Fellow and taught at the International Institute for Social Studies at the Hague, Netherlands. From January-June, 2012 he was the Fulbright Visiting Research Chair in Canadian-American Relations at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars’ Canada Institute, in Washington, D.C., He is also a Senior Research Fellow with the Europe-based Earth Systems Governance Project of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change, PhD from Queen’s University, “Toward Renewed Legitimacy? Nuclear Power, Global Warming, and Security”, Global Environmental Politics, Volume 3, Number 1, February 2003, pp. 99-116 (Article), Published by The MIT Press, Project Muse ghssk)
Despite the neoliberal agenda’s commitment to “free market” enterprise, we see that
AND
and the survival of a troubled, and highly subsidised, nuclear industry.

AND–despite its problems nuclear power continues to enjoy heavy state subsidies because governments view nuclear power as critical to security legitimacy

Stoett ’03 (Peter, February 2003, main areas of expertise include international relations and law, global environmental politics, and human rights.  Prior to joining Concordia University in 1998 taught at the University of British Columbia, Simon Fraser University, the University of Guelph, and the University of Waterloo, written, co-written, and co-edited over ten books and over 50 peer reviewed articles, chapters in edited books, and occasional papers. He has conducted research in Europe (including the Balkans), eastern, southern and western Africa, central America, and Asia. From April to July 2013 he was an Erasmus Fellow and taught at the International Institute for Social Studies at the Hague, Netherlands. From January-June, 2012 he was the Fulbright Visiting Research Chair in Canadian-American Relations at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars’ Canada Institute, in Washington, D.C., He is also a Senior Research Fellow with the Europe-based Earth Systems Governance Project of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change, PhD from Queen’s University, “Toward Renewed Legitimacy? Nuclear Power, Global Warming, and Security”, Global Environmental Politics, Volume 3, Number 1, February 2003, pp. 99-116 (Article), Published by The MIT Press, Project Muse ghssk)
In the United States and elsewhere, periodic renewals in the hopes for nu-
AND
is intended largely to provide the necessary background for such a research project.

AND– the state is obsessed with nuclear power because of the military industrial complex– means that renewables always get overlooked for more costly nuclear alternative

Shrader- Frechette ’08 (Kristin, June 23rd, O'Neill Family Professor, Department of Biological Sciences and Department of Philosophy, at the University of Notre Dame. She has previously held senior professorships at the University of California and the University of Florida. Most of Shrader-Frechette's research work analyzes the ethical problems in risk assessment, public health, or environmental justice - especially those related to radiological, ecological, and energy-related risks.1 Shrader-Frechette has received the Global Citizenship Award, and the Catholic Digest named her one of 12 "Heroes for the US and the World", published more than 380 articles and 16 books/monographs, “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy”, America Magazine, http://americamagazine.org/issue/660/article/five-myths-about-nuclear-energy~-~-ghs//sk)
If atomic energy is really so risky and expensive, why did the United States
AND
virtually all of its support to a riskier, more costly nuclear alternative?

A couple of impacts:
The nuclear industry profits from and re-entrenches environmental racism- need to shift to renewables now

Chen ’11 (Michelle, March 23rd, Colorlines' Global Justice columnist. She is a regular contributor on labor issues at In These Times, as well as a member of the magazine's Board of Editors. Michelle's reporting has appeared in Ms. Magazine, AirAmerica, Alternet, Newsday, the Progressive Media Project, and her old zine, cain. Prior to joining Colorlines, she wrote for the independent news collective The NewStandard, “The Radioactive Racism Behind Nuclear Energy”, Colorlines, http://www.colorlines.com/articles/radioactive-racism-behind-nuclear-energy~-~-ghs//sk)
When the apocalyptic cloud erupted over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world woke up to
AND
temptations of nuclear power may continue to eclipse fears of its global consequences.

Nuclear plants exploit poor migrant labor and deem workers expendable – colonialism manifests itself through governments taking land from local farmers and maintaining closed contracts that doom vulnerable populations

Biswas 14, Shampa Biswas Paul Garrett Professor of Political Science at Whitman College, Ph.D., Political Science, University of Minnesota, 1999, M.A., International Relations, Maxwell School of Citizenship, Syracuse University, 1990, M.A., Economics, Dehli School of Economics, University of Dehli, 1988, “Nuclear Desire: Power and the Postcolonial Nuclear Order,” Chapter: Costly Weapons: The Political Economy of Nuclear Power, University of Minnesota Press, 2014, ghsBZ
It should not surprise us, then, as we are learning with the nuclear
AND
conditions of their making lays bare the severe e ects of nuclear nonuse. 

Renewable energy is better and will fill in, nuke power grows too slowly and distracts from this development

Parenti ’12 (Christian, April 4th, Christian Parenti is the author of "The Freedom: Shadows and Hallucinations in Occupied Iraq" (New Press) and a visiting fellow at CUNY's Center for Place, Culture and Politics., “Why Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer to Global Warming”, AlterNet, http://www.alternet.org/story/154854/why_nuclear_power_is_not_the_answer_to_global_warming?page=2~-~-ghs//sk)
An authoritative study by the investment bank Lazard Ltd. found that wind beat nuclear
AND
Atomic power is the fuel of the future”—and always will be.

AND- err on the side of aff evidence on warming–the nuclear industry and by extension the government fabricate studies to bury the disads of nuclear power

 
Shrader- Frechette ’13 (*brackets in original text, Kristin, Spring 2013 , O'Neill Family Professor, Department of Biological Sciences and Department of Philosophy, at the University of Notre Dame. She has previously held senior professorships at the University of California and the University of Florida. Most of Shrader-Frechette's research work analyzes the ethical problems in risk assessment, public health, or environmental justice - especially those related to radiological, ecological, and energy-related risks.1 Shrader-Frechette has received the Global Citizenship Award, and the Catholic Digest named her one of 12 "Heroes for the US and the World", published more than 380 articles and 16 books/monographs, “Answering Scientific Attacks on Ethical Imperatives”, Ethics and the Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, Spring 2013, pg 1-17, Published by Indiana University Press, Project Muse ghssk)
Why have so many nations begun and used fission if it is such an expensive
AND
like the United States, continue to subsidize nuclear power more than renewables?

Warming causes racism, sexism, and oppression.

David Naguib Pellow 12, Ph.D. Professor, Don Martindale Endowed Chair – University of Minnesota, “Climate Disruption in the Global South and in African American Communities: Key Issues, Frameworks, and Possibilities for Climate Justice,” February 2012, http://www.jointcenter.org/sites/default/files/upload/research/files/White_Paper_Climate_Disruption_final.pdf
It is now known unequivocally that significant warming of the  atmosphere is occurring, coinciding
AND
must reduce our emissions  and consumption here at home in the global North.

Thus the plan: The United States federal government ought to prohibit the production of nuclear power.

Part 3: Solvency

Shutdown of nuclear power creates a shift to renewables–they’re cheaper EVEN GIVEN SUBSIDES, more efficient, and don’t have intermittency problems
Shrader- Frechette ’13 (*brackets in original text, Kristin, Spring 2013 , O'Neill Family Professor, Department of Biological Sciences and Department of Philosophy, at the University of Notre Dame. She has previously held senior professorships at the University of California and the University of Florida. Most of Shrader-Frechette's research work analyzes the ethical problems in risk assessment, public health, or environmental justice - especially those related to radiological, ecological, and energy-related risks.1 Shrader-Frechette has received the Global Citizenship Award, and the Catholic Digest named her one of 12 "Heroes for the US and the World", published more than 380 articles and 16 books/monographs, “Answering Scientific Attacks on Ethical Imperatives”, Ethics and the Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, Spring 2013, pg 1-17, Published by Indiana University Press, Project Muse ghssk)
Nuclear proponents like Forsberg (2011), however, disagree. They say that because
AND
intermittency is not a roadblock to the ethical imperative to use renewable energy.

AND–renewables comparatively solve warming better–my evidence is golden–independent, objective university and NGO studies that are peer-reviewed and NOT FUNDED BY NUCLEAR INDUSTRY conclude nuke power produces more emissions than renewables

AND PREFER MY EVIDENCE–MAJOR NUCLEAR EMISSIONS ASSESSMENTS TRIM THE DATA TO ONLY COUNT CARBON EMISSIONS FROM ONE STAGE OF FOURTEEN STAGES
Shrader- Frechette ’13 (Kristin, Spring 2013 , O'Neill Family Professor, Department of Biological Sciences and Department of Philosophy, at the University of Notre Dame. She has previously held senior professorships at the University of California and the University of Florida. Most of Shrader-Frechette's research work analyzes the ethical problems in risk assessment, public health, or environmental justice - especially those related to radiological, ecological, and energy-related risks.1 Shrader-Frechette has received the Global Citizenship Award, and the Catholic Digest named her one of 12 "Heroes for the US and the World", published more than 380 articles and 16 books/monographs, “Answering Scientific Attacks on Ethical Imperatives”, Ethics and the Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, Spring 2013, pg 1-17, Published by Indiana University Press, Project Muse ghssk)
Why do many people mistakenly believe fission is a low-carbon technology? Of
AND
in favor of atomic energy over renewables like wind and solar-PV.

Tournament: St Marks | Round: Octas | Opponent: Winston Churchill BW | Judge: Lawrence Zhou, Scott Phillips, Demarcus Powell

Part 1: Framework

I value morality.
Structural violence and oppression is based in moral exclusion, which is fundamentally flawed because exclusion is not based on dessert but rather on arbitrarily perceived differences.

Susan Opotow 01 Susan Opotow is a social and organizational psychologist. Her work examines the intersection of conflict, justice, and identity as they give rise to moral exclusion -- seeing others as outside the scope of justice and as eligible targets of discrimination, exploitation, hate, or violence. She studies moral exclusion and moral inclusion in such everyday contexts as schooling, environmental and public policy conflict, and in more violent contexts, such as deadly wars and the post-war period. She has guest edited The Journal of Social Issues and Social Justice Research and co-edited Identity and the Natural Environment: The Psychological Significance of Nature (MIT Press, 2003). She is associate editor of Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology and Past President of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, “Social Injustice”, Peace, Conflict, and Violence: Peace Psychology for the 21st Centuryl Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 2001, BE
Both structural and direct violence results from moral justifications and rationalizations.
AND
oneself or one’s group at the expense of others (Tajfel, 1982).

Recognizing moral exclusion and the structural inequality it causes is a prior question to institutional reform

Laxer ’14 (Michael, Nov 10th, lives in Toronto where he runs a bookstore with his partner Natalie. Michael has a Degree in History from Glendon College of York University. He is a political activist, a two-time former candidate and former election organizer for the NDP, is a socialist candidate for Toronto City Council in 2014, and is on the executive of the Socialist Party of Ontario., “Part of the problem: Talking about systemic oppression”, Feminist Current, http://www.feministcurrent.com/2014/11/10/part-of-the-problem-talking-about-systemic-oppression/~-~-ghs//sk)
Systemic oppressions result in very real violence and human degradation. Systemic misogyny, patriarchy
AND
see how our society and civilization can ever begin to move past it.

Ideal theory is unattainable and evades issues of reality, failing to solve actual injustice

Mills ‘09 (Mills, Charles. W, May 22nd 2009, department of philosophy and Northwestern, ”Rawls on Race/Race in Rawls.” The Southern Journal of Philosophy, http://havenscenter.wisc.edu/files/Mills-Rawls20on20Race.pdf~-~-ghs//sk)
Now how can this ideal ideal—a society not merely without a past history
AND
to have been of much help when and if it ever did arrive.

Thus, the standard is reducing structural violence.

Part 2: The Myth of Nukes

The nuclear energy industry survives thanks to an aggressive campaign of misinformation created by governments with entrenched economic and military interests

Stoett ’03 (Peter, February 2003, main areas of expertise include international relations and law, global environmental politics, and human rights.  Prior to joining Concordia University in 1998 taught at the University of British Columbia, Simon Fraser University, the University of Guelph, and the University of Waterloo, written, co-written, and co-edited over ten books and over 50 peer reviewed articles, chapters in edited books, and occasional papers. He has conducted research in Europe (including the Balkans), eastern, southern and western Africa, central America, and Asia. From April to July 2013 he was an Erasmus Fellow and taught at the International Institute for Social Studies at the Hague, Netherlands. From January-June, 2012 he was the Fulbright Visiting Research Chair in Canadian-American Relations at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars’ Canada Institute, in Washington, D.C., He is also a Senior Research Fellow with the Europe-based Earth Systems Governance Project of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change, PhD from Queen’s University, “Toward Renewed Legitimacy? Nuclear Power, Global Warming, and Security”, Global Environmental Politics, Volume 3, Number 1, February 2003, pp. 99-116 (Article), Published by The MIT Press, Project Muse ghssk)
Despite the neoliberal agenda’s commitment to “free market” enterprise, we see that
AND
and the survival of a troubled, and highly subsidised, nuclear industry.

AND–despite its problems nuclear power continues to enjoy heavy state subsidies because governments view nuclear power as critical to security legitimacy

 
Stoett ’03 (Peter, February 2003, main areas of expertise include international relations and law, global environmental politics, and human rights.  Prior to joining Concordia University in 1998 taught at the University of British Columbia, Simon Fraser University, the University of Guelph, and the University of Waterloo, written, co-written, and co-edited over ten books and over 50 peer reviewed articles, chapters in edited books, and occasional papers. He has conducted research in Europe (including the Balkans), eastern, southern and western Africa, central America, and Asia. From April to July 2013 he was an Erasmus Fellow and taught at the International Institute for Social Studies at the Hague, Netherlands. From January-June, 2012 he was the Fulbright Visiting Research Chair in Canadian-American Relations at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars’ Canada Institute, in Washington, D.C., He is also a Senior Research Fellow with the Europe-based Earth Systems Governance Project of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change, PhD from Queen’s University, “Toward Renewed Legitimacy? Nuclear Power, Global Warming, and Security”, Global Environmental Politics, Volume 3, Number 1, February 2003, pp. 99-116 (Article), Published by The MIT Press, Project Muse ghssk)
In the United States and elsewhere, periodic renewals in the hopes for nu-
AND
is intended largely to provide the necessary background for such a research project.

AND– the state is obsessed with nuclear power because of the military industrial complex– means that renewables always get overlooked for more costly nuclear alternative

Shrader- Frechette ’08 (Kristin, June 23rd, O'Neill Family Professor, Department of Biological Sciences and Department of Philosophy, at the University of Notre Dame. She has previously held senior professorships at the University of California and the University of Florida. Most of Shrader-Frechette's research work analyzes the ethical problems in risk assessment, public health, or environmental justice - especially those related to radiological, ecological, and energy-related risks.1 Shrader-Frechette has received the Global Citizenship Award, and the Catholic Digest named her one of 12 "Heroes for the US and the World", published more than 380 articles and 16 books/monographs, “Five Myths About Nuclear Energy”, America Magazine, http://americamagazine.org/issue/660/article/five-myths-about-nuclear-energy~-~-ghs//sk)
If atomic energy is really so risky and expensive, why did the United States
AND
virtually all of its support to a riskier, more costly nuclear alternative?

A couple of impacts:
The nuclear industry profits from and re-entrenches environmental racism- need to shift to renewables now

 
Chen ’11 (Michelle, March 23rd, Colorlines' Global Justice columnist. She is a regular contributor on labor issues at In These Times, as well as a member of the magazine's Board of Editors. Michelle's reporting has appeared in Ms. Magazine, AirAmerica, Alternet, Newsday, the Progressive Media Project, and her old zine, cain. Prior to joining Colorlines, she wrote for the independent news collective The NewStandard, “The Radioactive Racism Behind Nuclear Energy”, Colorlines, http://www.colorlines.com/articles/radioactive-racism-behind-nuclear-energy~-~-ghs//sk)
When the apocalyptic cloud erupted over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world woke up to
AND
temptations of nuclear power may continue to eclipse fears of its global consequences.

Nuclear plants exploit poor migrant labor and deem workers expendable – colonialism manifests itself through governments taking land from local farmers and maintaining closed contracts that doom vulnerable populations

Biswas 14, Shampa Biswas Paul Garrett Professor of Political Science at Whitman College, Ph.D., Political Science, University of Minnesota, 1999, M.A., International Relations, Maxwell School of Citizenship, Syracuse University, 1990, M.A., Economics, Dehli School of Economics, University of Dehli, 1988, “Nuclear Desire: Power and the Postcolonial Nuclear Order,” Chapter: Costly Weapons: The Political Economy of Nuclear Power, University of Minnesota Press, 2014, ghsBZ
It should not surprise us, then, as we are learning with the nuclear
AND
conditions of their making lays bare the severe e ects of nuclear nonuse. 

Renewable energy is better and will fill in, nuke power grows too slowly and distracts from this development

 
Parenti ’12 (Christian, April 4th, Christian Parenti is the author of "The Freedom: Shadows and Hallucinations in Occupied Iraq" (New Press) and a visiting fellow at CUNY's Center for Place, Culture and Politics., “Why Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer to Global Warming”, AlterNet, http://www.alternet.org/story/154854/why_nuclear_power_is_not_the_answer_to_global_warming?page=2~-~-ghs//sk)
An authoritative study by the investment bank Lazard Ltd. found that wind beat nuclear
AND
Atomic power is the fuel of the future”—and always will be.

AND- err on the side of aff evidence on warming–the nuclear industry and by extension the government fabricate studies to bury the disads of nuclear power

Shrader- Frechette ’13 (*brackets in original text, Kristin, Spring 2013 , O'Neill Family Professor, Department of Biological Sciences and Department of Philosophy, at the University of Notre Dame. She has previously held senior professorships at the University of California and the University of Florida. Most of Shrader-Frechette's research work analyzes the ethical problems in risk assessment, public health, or environmental justice - especially those related to radiological, ecological, and energy-related risks.1 Shrader-Frechette has received the Global Citizenship Award, and the Catholic Digest named her one of 12 "Heroes for the US and the World", published more than 380 articles and 16 books/monographs, “Answering Scientific Attacks on Ethical Imperatives”, Ethics and the Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, Spring 2013, pg 1-17, Published by Indiana University Press, Project Muse ghssk)
Why have so many nations begun and used fission if it is such an expensive
AND
like the United States, continue to subsidize nuclear power more than renewables?

Warming causes racism, sexism, and oppression.

 
David Naguib Pellow 12, Ph.D. Professor, Don Martindale Endowed Chair – University of Minnesota, “Climate Disruption in the Global South and in African American Communities: Key Issues, Frameworks, and Possibilities for Climate Justice,” February 2012, http://www.jointcenter.org/sites/default/files/upload/research/files/White_Paper_Climate_Disruption_final.pdf
It is now known unequivocally that significant warming of the  atmosphere is occurring, coinciding
AND
must reduce our emissions  and consumption here at home in the global North.

Nuclear power production in Puerto Rico bad

ANS16: American Nuclear Society a not-for-profit, international, scientific and educational organization. It was established by a group of individuals who recognized the need to unify the professional activities within the various fields of nuclear science and technology., "Nuclear Energy for Puerto Rico," All Things Nuclear Cafe, April 14, 2016, GUMM
Puerto Rico, as an island nation, was interested in nuclear energy because of
AND
Energy (as successor to the AEC for plant ownership) continues regularly.

Thus the plan: The United States federal government and the Government of Puerto Rico ought to prohibit the production of nuclear power.

Part 3: Solvency

Shutdown of nuclear power creates a shift to renewables –they’re cheaper EVEN GIVEN SUBSIDES, more efficient, and don’t have intermittency problems

 
Shrader- Frechette ’13 (*brackets in original text, Kristin, Spring 2013 , O'Neill Family Professor, Department of Biological Sciences and Department of Philosophy, at the University of Notre Dame. She has previously held senior professorships at the University of California and the University of Florida. Most of Shrader-Frechette's research work analyzes the ethical problems in risk assessment, public health, or environmental justice - especially those related to radiological, ecological, and energy-related risks.1 Shrader-Frechette has received the Global Citizenship Award, and the Catholic Digest named her one of 12 "Heroes for the US and the World", published more than 380 articles and 16 books/monographs, “Answering Scientific Attacks on Ethical Imperatives”, Ethics and the Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, Spring 2013, pg 1-17, Published by Indiana University Press, Project Muse ghssk)
Nuclear proponents like Forsberg (2011), however, disagree. They say that because
AND
intermittency is not a roadblock to the ethical imperative to use renewable energy.

AND–renewables comparatively solve warming better–my evidence is golden–independent, objective university and NGO studies that are peer-reviewed and NOT FUNDED BY NUCLEAR INDUSTRY conclude nuke power produces more emissions than renewables

 
AND PREFER MY EVIDENCE–MAJOR NUCLEAR EMISSIONS ASSESSMENTS TRIM THE DATA TO ONLY COUNT CARBON EMISSIONS FROM ONE STAGE OF FOURTEEN STAGES
Shrader- Frechette ’13 (Kristin, Spring 2013 , O'Neill Family Professor, Department of Biological Sciences and Department of Philosophy, at the University of Notre Dame. She has previously held senior professorships at the University of California and the University of Florida. Most of Shrader-Frechette's research work analyzes the ethical problems in risk assessment, public health, or environmental justice - especially those related to radiological, ecological, and energy-related risks.1 Shrader-Frechette has received the Global Citizenship Award, and the Catholic Digest named her one of 12 "Heroes for the US and the World", published more than 380 articles and 16 books/monographs, “Answering Scientific Attacks on Ethical Imperatives”, Ethics and the Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, Spring 2013, pg 1-17, Published by Indiana University Press, Project Muse ghssk)
Why do many people mistakenly believe fission is a low-carbon technology? Of
AND
in favor of atomic energy over renewables like wind and solar-PV.

AND–renewables are ready–Germany Spain and India prove

 
Shrader- Frechette ’13 (Kristin, Spring 2013 , O'Neill Family Professor, Department of Biological Sciences and Department of Philosophy, at the University of Notre Dame. She has previously held senior professorships at the University of California and the University of Florida. Most of Shrader-Frechette's research work analyzes the ethical problems in risk assessment, public health, or environmental justice - especially those related to radiological, ecological, and energy-related risks.1 Shrader-Frechette has received the Global Citizenship Award, and the Catholic Digest named her one of 12 "Heroes for the US and the World", published more than 380 articles and 16 books/monographs, “Answering Scientific Attacks on Ethical Imperatives”, Ethics and the Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, Spring 2013, pg 1-17, Published by Indiana University Press, Project Muse ghssk)
However, nuclear proponents often say renewable-energy technology is not yet ready,
AND
of renewables should hinder implementation of the ethical imperative to use renewable energy.