Tournament: Woodward | Round: 1 | Opponent: Cambridge Latin AG | Judge: Brent Huang

Policy 1AC

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.

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 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—ghssk)
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 "~a~ntiracism 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, creates backlash, and makes racism harder to grapple with by driving 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.

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—ghssk)
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~ Giving the option of free speech is intrinsically valuable – speech as catharsis and self-expression drives value to life and moral virtues

Edward J. Eberle 94 ~Associate Professor of Law, Roger Williams University School of Law (B.A. Columbia 1978; J.D. Northwestern 1982).~, "HATE SPEECH, OFFENSIVE SPEECH, AND PUBLIC DISCOURSE IN AMERICA," WAKE FOREST LAW REVIEW ~Vol. 29, 1994, http://docs.rwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065andcontext=law_fac_fs, ghsBZ
The Court's decision in R.A.V. reaffirms the preeminence of free
AND

or (3) simply the cathartic experience of engaging in dissent.

B~ 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
AND
have effects far beyond the classic triad of deterrence, reform and retribution.

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.

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

Yan et al 12/22, 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.

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—ghssk)
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.

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.