Tournament: Harvard Westlake | Round: 1 | Opponent: x | Judge: x
Activism AC
I value morality –

In the context of governments like the United States, morality must be based on citizens having the ability to consent to political authority. Otherwise that authority is coercive and illegitimate. Benhabib 94

Seyla Benhabib 94 Eugene Mayer Professor of Political Science and Philosophy at Yale University, and director of the program in Ethics, Politics, and Economics, and a well-known contemporary philosopher, “Deliberative Rationality and Models of Democratic Legitimacy”, Constellations Volume I, No/, 1994, Published by Blackwell Publishers

I define democratic legitimacy as the belief that the major institutions of a society and the decisions reached by them on behalf of the public are worthy of being obeyed and granted normative recognition. The basis of legitimacy in democratic institutions is to be traced back to the presumption that the instances which claim obligatory power for themselves do so because their decisions represent an impartial standpoint said to be equally in the interests of all. This presumption can only be fulfilled if such decisions are in principle open to appropriate public processes of deliberation.¶ The discourse model of ethics and politics is precisely such a model of practical rationality and deliberative legitimacy. The basic idea behind this model is that only those norms, i.e., general rules of action and institutional arrangements, can be said to be valid which would be agreed to by all those affected by their consequences, if such agreement were reached as a consequence of a process of deliberation which had the following features: a. participation in such deliberation is agoverned by the norms of equality and symmetry; all have the same chances to initiate speech acts, to question, to interrogate, and to open debate; b. all have the right to question the assigned topics of conversation; c. all have the right to initiate reflexive arguments about the very rules of the discourse procedure and the way in which they are applied or carried out. There are no prima facie rules limiting the agenda of the conversation, nor the identity of the participants, as long as each excluded person or group can justifiably show that they are relevantly affected by the proposed norm under question. In certain circumstances this would mean that citizens of a democratic community would have to enter into a practical discourse with non-citizens who may be residing in their countries, at their borders, or in neighboring communities if there are matters which affect them all. Ecology and environmental issues in general are a perfect example of such instances when the boundaries of discourses keep expanding because the consequences of our actions expand and impact increasingly more people.¶ The discourse model of ethics and politics formulates the most general principles and moral intuitions behind the validity claims of a deliberative model of democracy.15 But the procedural specifics of those special¶ argumentation situations called "practical discourses" are not automatically transferrable to a macro-institutional level nor is it necessary that they should be so transferrable. A theory of democracy, as opposed to a general moral theory, would have to be concerned with the question of institutional specifications about practical feasibility. Nonetheless, the procedural constraints of the discourse model can act as test cases for critically evaluating the criteria of membership, the rules for agenda setting, and for the structuring of public discussions within and among institutions.¶ According to the deliberative model, procedures of deliberation generate legitimacy as well as assuring some degree of practical rationality. What are then the claims to practical rationality of deliberative processes? Deliberative processes are essential to the rationality of collective decision- making processes for three reasons. First, as Bernard Manin has observed in an excellent article "On Legitimacy and Deliberation," deliberative processes are also processes which impart information.17 New information is imparted because in the first place no single individual can anticipate and foresee all the variety of perspectives through which matters of ethics and politics would be perceived by different individuals; in the second place, no single individual can possess all the information deemed relevant to a certain decision affecting all.18 Deliberation is a procedure for being informed.

And- we should guarantee a marketplace of ideas, which supersedes other utilitarian grounds to restrict rights. The right to speak out is valuable in itself. Dwyer 01
Susan Dwyer, philosophy at University of Maryland, 2001 (http://www.umbc.edu/philosophy/dwyer/papers/freespeech.html)
Direct Nonconsequentialism Let us return to the central topic: free speech. From the perspective just sketched, the value of a marketplace of ideas – that notion so central to the consequentialist justification of free speech – lies not so much in its long-term all-things-considered good consequences (the avoidance of dogmatism, democracy, truth, etc.) Rather, free speech is seen as a necessary condition for the realization of any human goods. Constraints on inquiry and expression are constraints on humanity itself. Echoing this thought, Nagel (1995) writes: That the expression of what one thinks and feels should be overwhelmingly one's own business, subject to restriction only when clearly necessary to prevent serious harm distinct from the expression itself, is a condition of being an independent thinking being. It is a form of moral recognition that you have a mind of your own: even if you never want to say anything to which others would object, the idea that they could stop you if they did object is in itself a violation of your integrity (96). A simple yet powerful fact both explains why speech is valuable in and of itself and justifies its stringent protection: when speech is threatened, we are threatened. Direct nonconsequentialism stands in stark contrast to consequentialist approaches which, as we have seen, make the value of speech contingent on its effects. And unlike indirect nonconsequentialism, it makes our status as language users, not our autonomy, the ground for limiting the state's attempts to interfere with our liberty. To repeat: direct nonconsequentialism asserts that speech is valuable because linguistic capacities are the expression of the essence of creatures (us) to whom we attribute the highest moral status. The way in which the direct nonconsequentialist makes explicit what is special about speech helps to make sense of a commonly experienced wariness regarding restrictions on speech we hate. We worry equally when the state seeks to prohibit the speech of sexists or Flat-Earthers. The consequentialist thinks this reaction is explained by attributing to us the belief that any state restriction of speech is the thin end of a wedge: we are discomforted by the thought of the muzzled sexist or Flat-Earther because we think our speech may be next. This may well be the right account of human psychology in these matters. But it is hardly an explanation of the prima facie wrongness of restrictions on lunatics' and sexists’ speech. Our discomfort is a moral discomfort. In bringing out the idea that speech is the expression of our essence, the direct nonconsequentialist is able to capture the true nature of our reaction to state restrictions on others' speech we do not particularly care for. Direct nonconsequentialism also gives substance to a powerful idea that some influential critics – notably, Catharine Mackinnon (1987) – find hopelessly abstract. This is the thought that “every time you strengthen free speech in one place, you strengthen it everywhere (164).” And seeing how direct nonconsequentialism does so will help illustrate some of the practical implications of this strategy for justifying free speech. Proponents of legislation designed to restrict or prohibit problematic speech and courts that rule on the constitutionality of such legislation, often reason in terms of how free speech interests are to be balanced with other interests. For example, proponents of speech codes argue that racist speech harms minorities’ interests in social and political equality; and in the United States, the constitutionality of restrictions on ‘fighting words’ is defended in light of the state’s interests in maintaining law and order. These arguments imply that the expressive rights of individual racists and troublemakers may sometimes be infringed in order to promote the good of some collective. But as the history of free speech debates reveal, once we admit that collective interests can trump individual rights, it is extremely difficult consistently to maintain the belief that a right to free speech imposes severe limits on what the state may do. The direct nonconsequentialist justification of free speech avoids this particular difficulty. Recall, we are working within the context of constitutional provisions – that is, we are thinking about rationales for stringent protections of speech, where these are understood as mechanisms for keeping the government out of some aspect of our lives. In this sense, such provisions express rights had by individuals against the state. But the direct nonconsequentialist’s account of the basis of these rights suggests that it is a mistake to think of them as radically individualistic. True, each of us has a right to free speech, but we have that right in virtue of our membership in a collective – the species H. sapiens – where every member has the same right for the same reason. Thus, in stressing that a universal feature of the species – language mastery – grounds protections on speech, the direct nonconsequentialist avoids individualizing the right to free speech in a way that makes it perpetually vulnerable to the assertion of some collective good. If we think of a person’s right to free speech as protecting just one aspect of his liberty among others, we run the risk of obscuring what is morally relevant about speech. The hatemonger and the pornographer each have a right to free speech, but this is not to be understood in terms of their being free to act on contingent desires they have. My occurrent desire to eat ice-cream holds no weight in the big scheme of things; even I would concede that it is permissible for the state to thwart my satisfying this desire, if doing so meant promoting some very important collective good. But speech is different. It is worthy of protection not because people want to say certain things, but (to repeat) because speech expresses our very nature. What someone wants to say is neither here nor there. Thus, in decoupling the value of free speech from individual desires, direct nonconsequentialism gives content to the idea that when we strengthen (protect) free speech in one place, we strengthen (protect) it everywhere.
Therefore, my value criterion is respecting democratic deliberation. This means that the judge should vote for which side best promotes discussion and dialogue.
Advantage 1 – Free press
My first contention is about freedom of the press – right now restrictions on free speech are loading up on college campuses. This is a damaging precedent for student newspapers. Schuman 12/8
(Rebecca, http://www.slate.com/articles/life/education/2016/12/student_journalists_are_under_threat.html)
Well, here’s some great news to cheer you up: The American student press is under siege! Apparently, we’ve been too busy blowing gaskets over professor watch lists and “safe spaces” to recognize the actual biggest threat to free speech on college campuses today. According to a new report by the American Association of University Professors, in conjunction with three other nonpartisan free-speech advocacy organizations, a disquieting trend of administrative censorship of student-run media has been spreading quietly across the country—quietly, of course, because according to the report, those censorship efforts have so far been successful. The report finds that recent headlines out of Mount St. Mary’s University, for example, may be “just the tip of a much larger iceberg.” Indeed, “it has become disturbingly routine for student journalists and their advisers to experience overt hostility that threatens their ability to inform the campus community and, in some instances, imperils their careers or the survival of their publications.” The report chronicles more than 20 previously unreported cases of media advisers “suffering some degree of administrative pressure to control, edit, or censor student journalistic content.” Furthermore, this pressure came “from every segment of higher education and from every institutional type: public and private, four-year and two-year, religious and secular.” It gets worse. In many of the cases in the report, administration officials “threatened retaliation against students and advisers not only for coverage critical of the administration but also for otherwise frivolous coverage that the administrators believed placed the institution in an unflattering light,” including an innocuous listicle of the best places to hook up on campus. In many cases, the student publications were subject to prior review from either an adviser who reported directly to the administration or the administration itself. Prior review means getting what’s in your newspaper signed off on by someone up top before it can be published. It is—to use the parlance of my years of professional journalistic training that began with my time as features editor of the Vassar College Miscellany News in the mid-’90s—absolute bullshit. (At public universities, it’s also illegal.) First, and most obviously, this is because a free student press is a hallmark of the American higher education system, and any threat to that freedom is on its face worrying. But there’s also this: The last thing we need right now, in the creeping shadow of American authoritarianism, is an entire generation of fledgling journalists who’ve come up thinking censorship is acceptable.

This justifies widespread censorship in a diverse array of cases It’s not just about the press – it’s about the way the administration justifies a choke hold on student activities.  Lukianoff 05
 (George, Samantha Harris, Foundation for Individual, Rights in Education, 2005 WL 2736313 (U.S.) (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) Supreme Court of the United States. Margaret L. HOSTY et al., Petitioners, v. Patricia CARTER, Respondent. No. 05-377. October 19, 2005. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Brief Amici Curiae of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education; The Coalition for Student and Academic Rights; Feminists for Free Expression; The First Amendment Project; Ifeminists.Net; National Association of Scholars; Accuracy in Academia; Leadership Institute; The Individual Rights Foundation; The American Council of Trustees and Alumni; and Students for Academic Freedom in Support of Petitioners)
Commentators from across the political spectrum, while often disagreeing on the source, the scale, and the cause of the chilling of free speech on campus, have described the current campus environment as one where the “marketplace of ideas” is under siege.13 Whether in the name of “ tolerance,” *17 risk management, or merely peace and quiet, hundreds (if not thousands) of universities have enacted policies and engaged in practices hostile to free and open discourse over the past few decades.14 Starting in the 1980s, colleges enacted “speech codes” under a variety of creative legal theories. Despite numerous decisions ruling these codes unconstitutional15 and this Court's decision in R.A. E v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), which indicated that viewpoint-based speech codes would be unconstitutional, the number of university speech codes actually increased through the 1990s, see Jon Gould, The Precedent that Wasn't, 35 Law and Soc'y Rev. 345 (2001). Over the past twenty years, numerous books have been written alleging an illiberal, intolerant, and/or partisan atmosphere on campus16 in which dissenting viewpoints and unpopular groups are repressed through a variety of measures. More recently, universities have adopted highly restrictive, and sometimes absurd “speech *18 zone” policies restricting speech from all but small comers of the university.17 Thus far, the law has served to protect the collegiate marketplace of ideas from overreaching administrations, requiring policies and practices in keeping with the First Amendment and academic freedom. For example, in Rosenberger, this Court granted religious student groups equal access to student fee funding. In Bait v. Shippensburg University, 280 F. Supp. 2d 357 (M.D. Pa. 2003), a federal court in Pennsylvania ruled Shippensburg University's speech code was unconstitutionally overbroad, and in Roberts v. Haragan, 346 F. Supp. 2d 853 (N.D. Tex. 2004), a federal court in Texas dismissed a speech zone policy as unconstitutionally overbroad. The Hosty decision, however, is a step in the opposite direction. College administrators have already demonstrated a tenacious will to censor even when the law clearly limited their ability to do so. The legal ambiguity that Hosty creates, the unparalleled discretion it grants college administrators, and the legal protection it provides to administrators who censor all threaten to dramatically worsen the campus free speech crisis. If allowed to stand, Hosty will have numerous, specific, predictable, and far reaching negative consequences for free speech and robust debate on America's college campuses. It is no exaggeration to say that the Hosty opinion threatens the existence of the independent collegiate media. Universities have not shown great tolerance for the free press. If there is no longer a presumption of independence or of public forum status when a public university establishes a student newspaper, *19 there should be no doubt that administrators who wish to censor will take advantage of this ambiguity. Public universities will be able to argue that any paper that receives any kind of benefit - whether financial support or simply the use of office space - from the university is subject to administrative control. If past experience is any guide, colleges will pay lip service to the importance of student press freedom, but they will quickly take advantage of any legal means available to punish or control student newspapers that anger or offend students or administrators. For example, in a memorandum to all California State University presidents written only ten days after the Hosty decision, California State University General Counsel Christine Helwick wrote that: while the Hosty decision is from another jurisdiction and, as such, does not directly impact the CSU, the case appears to signal that CSU campuses may have more latitude than previously believed to censor the content of subsidized student newspapers, provided that there is an established practice of regularized content review and approval for pedagogical purposes.18 In this same way, Hosty threatens the existence of independent student groups. If the primary question under Hosty is whether a student group is in some way “subsidized,” any group that receives any sort of benefit or student fees could be threatened with administrative control. The possibility that a court might later determine that the student group or publication was entitled to some form of public forum status would hardly protect the overwhelming majority of these groups that are neither willing nor affluent enough to mount a legal defense. *20 This case also re-opens issues relating to collegiate liability for student media and student groups formerly considered settled. It also allows administrators virtually unlimited freedom to experiment with censorship above and beyond even the broad discretion granted to them under Hosty. Finally, there is no reason to believe this holding will remain limited to public colleges - private colleges that promise free speech to their students tend to base their own speech policies on First Amendment standards.19 Hosty v. Carter will have reverberations from the community college to the Ivy League. Administrators will impose the “intellectual strait jacket” that this Court has long feared, and the consequences will be profound. As FIRE co-founder Alan Charles Kors once said, “A nation that does not educate in freedom will not survive in freedom, and will not even know when it is lost.”20
Moreover, censorship is the most important impact for student freedom. It makes students bad reporters and activists later on in their life. Free press is the most important version of free speech. Sanders 06
Chris Sanders Jd Censorship 101: Anti-Hazelwood Laws and the Preservation of Free Speech at Colleges and Universities 58 Ala. L. Rev. 159, 2006

More significantly for the realm of American collegiate press freedom, the decision marked the first time that an en banc circuit court ever explicitly applied the Hazelwood framework to an extracurricular student publication. 99 The court rejected the idea that college students' status as adults frees them from Hazelwood's grasp, noting that though age is a relevant factor as to students' maturity, it is irrelevant to other concerns expressed in Hazelwood, such as "the desire to ensure 'high standards for the student speech that is disseminated under the school's auspices'" and "the goal of dissociating the school from 'any position other than neutrality on matters of political controversy.'" 100 The court also refused to draw a bright-line distinction between curricular and extracurricular student speech, though it pointed to evidence that the Innovator reasonably could be considered a limited public forum under Hazelwood. 101 In a vigorous dissent, Circuit Judge Evans argued that the majority underestimated the significance that Hazelwood attached to students' age and that the secondary and postsecondary environments are not analogous. 102 The dissent also observed that no other post-Hazelwood case "would suggest to a reasonable person . . . that she could prohibit publication simply because she did not like the articles the paper was publishing" 103 and warned that Hosty "now gives the green light to school administrators to restrict student speech in a manner inconsistent with the First Amendment." 104¶ B. The Big Chill: How the Hazelwood Framework Could Hurt College Students' Free Speech¶ Even though the Supreme Court opted not to hear an appeal in Hosty, 105 the Seventh Circuit's controversial decision has reinvigorated the old Hazelwood debate and has raised the prospect of college students' fighting the same sort of First Amendment battles they thought they had left behind upon their high school graduations. It thus is both timely and relevant to examine the hazardous and unintended consequences that could ensue if Hazelwood goes to college. *171 ¶ 1. Say No More: Hazelwood's Dangers for College Students' Free Expression¶ Post-Hazelwood censorship disputes have not been limited to high schools; a number of colleges and universities have gotten in on the action as well. In 2003, the acting president of Hampton University in Virginia seized the entire press run of the student newspaper, Hampton Script, after it printed her letter responding to a story about a school cafeteria's health-code violations on page three, rather than on the front page as she requested. 106 An Indiana university last year briefly instituted a policy to require students to get approval from the school's marketing department before speaking with reporters. 107 In Alabama, an art student sued in late 2005 after university officials removed his artwork, which included nudity, from an on-campus exhibit that cautioned visitors before they entered that some of the works might contain nudity. 108 And a growing number of higher-education institutions have begun to test the First Amendment's boundaries by establishing "free speech zones" that limit the on-campus locations where citizens can express their grievances 109 and by instituting (frequently overbroad) "speech codes" in an attempt to combat racial and sexual harassment. 110¶ In today's atmosphere of increasing collegiate regulation of student speech, the application of the Hazelwood test to universities could unintentionally cripple college journalism. Because most colleges' student publications receive some form of financial assistance from the university -- either directly through student fee allocations or indirectly through the provision of free or low-cost office space or equipment -- the Hazelwood framework established for school-sponsored student expression potentially could apply to the vast majority of college publications. 111 Such an outcome would leave student newspaper or yearbook editors in a difficult position: Do they play nice and allow administrators to exercise prior review, which could convert their publications into little more than propaganda-laden puff pieces, or do they stick to their ethical guns and risk funding cuts or worse? Under Hazelwood, college editors would be forced to conduct a cost-benefit analysis when faced with a column that expresses an unpopular opinion or a story *172 that could make their school look bad. Inevitably, like many of their high school counterparts, some might decide to forego the hassle. 112¶ The fallout from Hazelwood's application to colleges would not be limited to newspapers and yearbooks. 113 Other forms of student expression, such as a student group's choice of speaker or performance artist, could be subject to administrative veto. Newly created publications would be especially vulnerable, as they would likely have a more difficult time demonstrating their status as a public forum than established publications. Even professors could wake up one day to discover that the academic freedom they have cherished for so long is now nothing more than "a professional courtesy that college administrators may lawfully disregard on pedagogical grounds." 114 If Hazelwood arrives on college campuses, it is difficult to see a stopping point for the wreckage it could leave in its wake.¶ 2. "Too Much Freedom": How the Extension of Hazelwood to Universities Could Endanger the Future of the First Amendment¶ Because Hazelwood, intentionally or otherwise, greatly expanded secondary school officials' powers to censor student speech on a host of topics, 115 college effectively provides many young people with their first taste of largely unfettered free speech rights. If Hazelwood follows students to universities, however, their introduction to a fully functioning free press could be delayed for years longer. This result would be disastrous for the journalism profession, which soon would find its ranks filled with freshly minted journalism school graduates will be inadequately prepared to pursue controversial stories aggressively and to endure the backlash therefrom.¶ It also likely would exacerbate what appears to be a disturbing trend in American society: the existence of a sizable plurality of citizens who do not understand the importance of free speech rights. A 2004 University of Connecticut survey of more than 112,000 high school students found that 32 of them think the press has "too much freedom" and that 36 believe *173 newspapers should clear their reporting with the government before publication. 116 Meanwhile, the 2005 State of the First Amendment survey discovered that those beliefs often do not change much once citizens reach the age of maturity; 23 of the survey's adult respondents said the First Amendment "goes too far in the rights it guarantees," down from almost 50 in 2002 (shortly after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks). 117 The extension of Hazelwood to colleges could lead an even larger number of Americans, during some of their most formative years, to become more accepting of official limitations on the content of their speech. 118 That, in turn, could pave a dangerous path toward vastly expanded federal and state speech regulation and a society in which "free" speech is nothing more than a distant memory from an earlier time.

Advantage 2 – Civic Engagement
My second contention is that instances of censorship will get misapplied by the state, which will in turn disempower potential activists and hurt civic engagement. Civic Engagement is crucial to solving real world problems that college students will encounter.
Government control of speech will favor the powerful and silence the powerless. Majeed, BA, 09
Majeed, Azhar. "Defying the Constitution: The Rise, Persistence, and Prevalence of Campus Speech Codes." Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy 7.2 (2009). CC
B. Impact on Campus Speech Due to their many constitutional flaws, speech codes have had, and continue to have, a severely harmful impact on campus speech. First, speech codes create a “chilling effect” on much campus speech , whereby students in many instances censor themselves or refrain from speaking altogether. Second, speech codes suppress disfavored speech. Third, speech codes invite a feeling of entitlement, or a perceived right not to be offended, among many students. Fourth, by stifling campus speech so pervasively, speech codes threaten the very vitality and functioning of America’s colleges and universities. 1. The Chilling Effect As discussed in the previous section, speech codes are often overbroad or vague or both. They typically fail to provide students with adequate notice of the categories of speech that are prohibited and the forms that remain permis- sible. Students must necessarily guess as to the scope of the speech code, and additionally, an administrator attempting to enforce the speech code in a particu- lar case must arbitrate the imprecise language and uncertain reach of the code. Under these circumstances, “members of the university community may well err on the side of caution to avoid being charged with a violation.”130 Some potential speakers may even refrain from speaking out altogether, as they become “so fearful of offending any person or group that they will effectively exercise self-censorship.”131 This chilling effect prevents many crucial forms of discussion and debate from taking place, detracting from the university cam- pus’s function as a true marketplace of ideas. Such chilling of expression is fundamentally impermissible under First Amendment law.132 The chilling effect is made even worse by the use of “implicit speech codes,” whereby universities, rather than maintain a written policy to be followed, selectively punish speech on a case-by-case basis.133 Implicit speech codes are informal mechanisms through which administrators, on an ad hoc basis, seek to censor and punish speech which they dislike. They represent a blatant attempt to evade the constitutional scrutiny attached to written speech codes.134 Whereas written speech codes, it can be argued, “at a minimum, are informative of what speech or viewpoint is prohibited even if they are overbroad,” implicit speech codes are “inherently vague because they provide no set of rules to follow.”135 This means that students “are not given adequate warning that their speech could result in sanctions.”136 As a result, “a strong likelihood exists that speech will be chilled because people will be overly cautious so as to avoid being sanctioned.”137 Therefore, the use of implicit speech codes contributes to the chilling effect on student speech, further hindering the free flow of ideas on campus.138
College in particular is a time where students need to learn how to be activists before anything else. This is prevented if their words are controlled by the state. Majeed, BA, 09
Majeed, Azhar. "Defying the Constitution: The Rise, Persistence, and Prevalence of Campus Speech Codes." Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy 7.2 (2009). CC

2. Suppression of Disfavored Topics and Viewpoints Second, speech codes suppress the discussion of disfavored topics and expres- sion of disfavored viewpoints. As previously discussed, many speech codes discriminate against expression on the basis of content or viewpoint. When universities maintain and enforce such policies, they effectively drive certain beliefs and ideas out of campus discussion. The practice of censoring and punishing speech on a selective basis leads to “intellectual pacifism,”139 whereby those with disfavored views are chilled from speaking out for fear of prosecu- tion and punishment. This results in a one-sided debate on particular issues and thus an incomplete marketplace of ideas. One commentator has labeled this phenomenon the “standardization of opin- ions and ideas” and, more directly, a form of thought control.140 Important contributions to the development and debate of ideas are essentially curtailed in the very environment where they should originate, meaning that society is ultimately deprived of many potential solutions and innovations for the fu- ture.141 After all, “the pursuit of truth requires not only an unfettered freedom of ideas, but also honesty, fidelity to reason, and respect for method and procedures.”142 Truth is discovered and knowledge is advanced through “a multitude of tongues,” not through any kind of “authoritative selection.”143 These ideals, unfortunately, are undermined by the presence of speech codes on campus. Furthermore, when campus debate is restricted to only that which is comfort- able and orthodox, those who hold those prevailing views are themselves harmed. This is due to the fact that unchallenged viewpoints tend to be poorly thought-out and weakly constructed, and therefore easily discredited.144 Con- versely, when an idea is challenged and debated thoroughly, the speaker is forced to answer those challenges and in the process strengthens and improves the idea.145 Moreover, “it is through challenging and considering disfavored ideas that a person may develop an independent mind and the opportunity to achieve social change.”146 Speech codes by and large prevent this process from taking place. The end result, then, is that the goals of debate and improvement are defeated, overtaken by “intellectual stagnation.”147 3. The Supposed Right Not to be Offended Speech codes have contributed heavily to a prevailing notion among college students that there is a general “right not to be offended,”148 giving them a sense of entitlement to be free of any speech that they find disagreeable or offensive. Far too typically, a campus speech code “purports to create a personal right to be free from involuntary exposure to any form of expression that gives certain kinds of offense.”149 This is demonstrated by the previously mentioned speech codes prohibiting “rude, disrespectful behavior,”150 any violation of “respect for personal feelings” and “freedom from indignity of any type,”151 and speech that “detains, embarrasses, or degrades” another person.152 Through the enactment and enforcement of speech codes aimed at offensive or uncivil speech, university administrators “increasingly coddle and even reward the hypersensitive and easily outraged, perversely encouraging more people to be hypersensitive and easily outraged.”153 This means that one can expect the number of complaints and instances of censorship to increase over time, not decrease, making conditions worse for free speech on campus. More- over, these speech codes encompass clearly protected expression and contra- vene longstanding jurisprudence holding that there is no exception to the First Amendment for speech which is merely offensive, prejudicial, or vile.154 Speech codes provide an institutional endorsement of the notion that students have a right not to be offended, leading students to believe they have a right to suppress any expression they may find disagreeable. This is harmful in that a modern liberal arts education requires exposure to, and tolerance of, a wide range of ideas and interactions, some of which may be disagreeable or offen- sive. The very speech curtailed by these speech codes is often what should be at the center of discussion during one’s collegiate years.155 Robert Post argues that restricting speech in this manner undermines the university goal of “critical education,” through which institutions “discover and disseminate knowledge by means of research and teaching.”156 As Post writes, “speech can be uncivil for many reasons, including the assertion of ideas that are perceived to be offen- sive, revolting, demeaning, and stigmatizing. Critical education, however, would require the toleration of all ideas, however uncivil.”157 Further, the notion that one can simply censor speech one does not like ill serves students as they transition from the relatively insulated college setting to the larger society. As they are granted this power to censor, students gain a “false sense of security unavailable outside of the college environment.”158 Instead of learning to “cope with speech they find offensive” and to “survive in the broadly diverse communities that exist on campus as well as off campus,” students are largely “turning to school officials for protection.”159 In the pro- cess, students are losing valuable life lessons about interacting with others and understanding and overcoming differences, even fundamental ones. Simply claiming offense and demanding that a university administration intervene, on the other hand, does not benefit them in the long run. Thus, the perceived right not to be offended perpetrates significant harm on the college campus. 4. The Vitality and Functioning of Our Universities By chilling much campus speech, restricting the expression of disfavored ideas and viewpoints, and contributing to a perceived right not to be offended, speech codes have caused and continue to cause tremendous cumulative harm on college campuses. As such, they threaten the very vitality and proper functioning of our nation’s colleges and universities and undermine the crucial role played by these institutions in our society. America’s universities are meant to be “bastions of free thought” which prepare students for life in the larger society.160 They traditionally “educate students not only in areas of substantive import but also, and more fundamen- tally, by training students to think and reason independently.”161 In order to fulfill their missions, universities must allow students to develop the skills of reasoning and analysis and to challenge “preconceived notions and the existing set of social and political mores.”162 Freedom of speech is a necessary prerequi- site to this objective, as it “ensures individual self-fulfillment by assisting the development of the individual character.”163 As other commentators have recog- nized, the goals of the American university are therefore “best accomplished by promoting the pursuit of knowledge and truth by the consideration of diverse opinions and the free and unfettered exchange of ideas.”164 In clear contravention of these principles, speech codes teach college students all the wrong lessons—to quickly claim offense, to censor individuals espousing views with which they disagree, to interpret expression which is even remotely controversial or offensive as “hate speech” or “politically incorrect” speech, and to stifle expression which questions and challenges the prevailing orthodoxy. Speech codes have “‘cast a pall of orthodoxy’ over university classrooms and campus life.”165 The regrettable result is that “instead of learning how to think and reason indepen- dently, students are taught that the act of questioning should be punished. . . . A univer- sity education then becomes indoctrination rather than development of the mind to challenge what is and to discover what ought to be.”166 The consequences are ultimately felt in society’s ability to develop a capable citizenry. Colleges and universities are vital parts of the educational system which “is ‘in most respects the cradle of our democracy’”167 and “essential to the maintenance of ‘our vigorous and free society.’”168 Commentators have recognized that our system of education must aim for “the creation of autono- mous citizens, capable of fully participating in the rough and tumble world of public discourse,”169 because “democratic government works better when independent-thinking individuals become active in lawmaking” and public de- bate.170 We as a society must therefore remain committed to maintaining an open atmosphere for debate, discussion, and disagreement. Deviation from this commitment will only lead to a society “composed of individuals lacking the skill or educational background to challenge governmental authority and im- prove the functioning of a free society.”171 Because speech codes “teach in- dividuals to think of government and authority with Orwellian fear,”172 they represent a significant threat to the development of capable citizens. Moreover, speech codes hinder the development of effective leaders for the future. In the Supreme Court’s words, “the Nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to the robust exchange of ideas.”173 One commentator echoes that “a limited education for the next generation will cause far-reaching problems because the leaders of tomorrow will be unable to adequately address the problems facing them,” making freedom of speech on campus “vital to the survival and success of our country and the world.”174 Rather than insulate students with speech codes and protect them from even slight offenses, we should allow them the freedom to make intelligent decisions for themselves when confronted with various viewpoints and modes of expres- sion—and to gain the sheer experience of doing so. Students “will eventually have to do this every day of their lives and protecting them from unpopular ideas through the regulation of speech will only serve to ill-prepare them for the world after graduation.”175 Speech codes have precisely this coddling effect and therefore should be eradicated from the college environment

Free speech enables counter speech, which empowers students. Calleros 95
Charles R. Calleros member of American law association, professor of law at Arizona state university, won many teaching awards such as aba’s spirit of excellence award, Paternalism, Counterspeech, and Campus Hate-Speech Codes: A Reply to Delgado and Yun, 27 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 1249 (1995). CC
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 Delgado and Yun also cite to those who 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 62 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 66 2.3 percent of them African-American. 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}

State censorship of college journalism kills civic engagement and discourages speaking about important topics. LoMonte 06
LoMonte, SPLC Exec. Director, 12-1-06 

(Frank D., http://www.splc.org/article/2016/12/college-media-threats-report-2016)
Frank D. LoMonte, executive director of the SPLC, said, “It is hypocritical for colleges to claim they support civic engagement while defunding student news organizations, removing well-qualified faculty advisers, and otherwise intimidating journalists into compliance. Colleges are more obsessed with promoting a favorable public image than ever before, but a college that retaliates against students and faculty for unflattering journalism doesn't just look bad—it is bad. We need a top-level commitment from the presidents of America's colleges and universities to support editorially independent student-run news coverage, including secure funding and retaliation protection for students and their advisers.” Joan Bertin, NCAC executive director, said, “This report exposes restrictions on press and speech freedoms on campus and exhorts college and university administrators to educate students in the operation of our constitutional system by allowing students to engage in its most critical functions: seeking information, becoming engaged and informed, and speaking out on matters of importance.” Kelley Lash, president of CMA, said, “This issue impacts millions of educators and students. College Media Association emphatically supports the First Amendment freedoms of all student media at all institutions, both public and private, and agrees that these media must be free from all forms of external interference designed to influence content. Student media participants, and their advisers, should not be threatened or punished due to the content of the student media. Their rights of free speech and free press must always be guaranteed.”

Finally, Civic Engagement is the vital link to solving many real world problems. Small 06
Small 06 (Jonathan, former Americorps VISTA for the Human Services Coalition,  “Moving Forward,” The Journal for Civic Commitment,  Spring, http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/other/engagement/Journal/Issue7/Small.jsp)
What will be the challenges of the new millennium? And how should we equip young people to face these challenges? While we cannot be sure of the exact nature of the challenges, we can say unequivocally that humankind will face them together. If the end of the twentieth century marked the triumph of the capitalists, individualism, and personal responsibility, the new century will present challenges that require collective action, unity, and enlightened self-interest. Confronting global warming, depleted natural resources, global super viruses, global crime syndicates, and multinational corporations with no conscience and no accountability will require cooperation, openness, honesty, compromise, and most of all solidarity – ideals not exactly cultivated in the twentieth century. We can no longer suffer to see life through the tiny lens of our own existence. Never in the history of the world has our collective fate been so intricately interwoven. Our very existence depends upon our ability to adapt to this new paradigm, to envision a more cohesive society.  With humankind’s next great challenge comes also great opportunity. Ironically, modern individualism backed us into a corner. We have two choices, work together in solidarity or perish together in alienation. Unlike any other crisis before, the noose is truly around the neck of the whole world at once. Global super viruses will ravage rich and poor alike, developed and developing nations, white and black, woman, man, and child. Global warming and damage to the environment will affect climate change and destroy ecosystems across the globe. Air pollution will force gas masks on our faces, our depleted atmosphere will make a predator of the sun, and chemicals will invade and corrupt our water supplies. Every single day we are presented the opportunity to change our current course, to survive modernity in a manner befitting our better nature. Through zealous cooperation and radical solidarity we can alter the course of human events. Regarding the practical matter of equipping young people to face the challenges of a global, interconnected world, we need to teach cooperation, community, solidarity, balance and tolerance in schools. We need to take a holistic approach to education. Standardized test scores alone will not begin to prepare young people for the world they will inherit. The three staples of traditional education (reading, writing, and arithmetic) need to be supplemented by three cornerstones of a modern education, exposure, exposure, and more exposure. How can we teach solidarity? How can we teach community in the age of rugged individualism? How can we counterbalance crass commercialism and materialism? How can we impart the true meaning of power? These are the educational challenges we face in the new century. It will require a radical transformation of our conception of education. We’ll need to trust a bit more, control a bit less, and put our faith in the potential of youth to make sense of their world.  In addition to a declaration of the gauntlet set before educators in the twenty-first century, this paper is a proposal and a case study of sorts toward a new paradigm of social justice and civic engagement education. Unfortunately, the current pedagogical climate of public K-12 education does not lend itself well to an exploratory study and trial of holistic education. Consequently, this proposal and case study targets a higher education model. Specifically, we will look at some possibilities for a large community college in an urban setting with a diverse student body.  Our guides through this process are specifically identified by the journal Equity and Excellence in Education. The dynamic interplay between ideas of social justice, civic engagement, and service learning in education will be the lantern in the dark cave of uncertainty. As such, a simple and straightforward explanation of the three terms is helpful to direct this inquiry. Before we look at a proposal and case study and the possible consequences contained therein, this paper will draw out a clear understanding of how we should characterize these ubiquitous terms and how their relationship to each other affects our study. Social Justice, Civic Engagement, Service Learning and Other Commie Crap Social justice is often ascribed long, complicated, and convoluted definitions. In fact, one could fill a good-sized library with treatises on this subject alone. Here we do not wish to belabor the issue or argue over fine points. For our purposes, it will suffice to have a general characterization of the term, focusing instead on the dynamics of its interaction with civic engagement and service learning. Social justice refers quite simply to a community vision and a community conscience that values inclusion, fairness, tolerance, and equality. The idea of social justice in America has been around since the Revolution and is intimately linked to the idea of a social contract. The Declaration of Independence is the best example of the prominence of social contract theory in the US. It states quite emphatically that the government has a contract with its citizens, from which we get the famous lines about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Social contract theory and specifically the Declaration of Independence are concrete expressions of the spirit of social justice.  Similar clamor has been made over the appropriate definitions of civic engagement and service learning, respectively. Once again, let’s not get bogged down on subtleties. Civic engagement is a measure or degree of the interest and/or involvement an individual and a community demonstrate around community issues. There is a longstanding dispute over how to properly quantify civic engagement. Some will say that today’s youth are less involved politically and hence demonstrate a lower degree of civic engagement. Others cite high volunteer rates among the youth and claim it demonstrates a high exhibition of civic engagement. And there are about a hundred other theories put forward on the subject of civic engagement and today’s youth. But one thing is for sure; today’s youth no longer see government and politics as an effective or valuable tool for affecting positive change in the world. Instead of criticizing this judgment, perhaps we should come to sympathize and even admire it. Author Kurt Vonnegut said, “There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don’t know what can be done to fix it. This is it: only nut cases want to be president.” Maybe the youth’s rejection of American politics isn’t a shortcoming but rather a rational and appropriate response to their experience. Consequently, the term civic engagement takes on new meaning for us today. In order to foster fundamental change on the systemic level, which we have already said is necessary for our survival in the twenty-first century, we need to fundamentally change our systems. Therefore, part of our challenge becomes convincing the youth that these systems, and by systems we mean government and commerce, have the potential for positive change. Civic engagement consequently takes on a more specific and political meaning in this context.  Service learning is a methodology and a tool for teaching social justice, encouraging civic engagement, and deepening practical understanding of a subject. Since it is a relatively new field, at least in the structured sense, service learning is only beginning to define itself. Through service learning students learn by experiencing things firsthand and by exposing themselves to new points of view. Instead of merely reading about government, for instance, a student might experience it by working in a legislative office. Rather than just studying global warming out of a textbook, a student might volunteer time at an environmental group. If service learning develops and evolves into a discipline with the honest goal of making better citizens, teaching social justice, encouraging civic engagement, and most importantly, exposing students to different and alternative experiences, it could be a major feature of a modern education. Service learning is the natural counterbalance to our current overemphasis on standardized testing. Social justice, civic engagement, and service learning are caught in a symbiotic cycle. The more we have of one of them; the more we have of all of them. However, until we get momentum behind them, we are stalled. Service learning may be our best chance to jumpstart our democracy. In the rest of this paper, we will look at the beginning stages of a project that seeks to do just that.
Underview
A) Speech Codes drive hate underground and allows communities to ignore the problem. Alexander 13
(Larry, Is Freedom of Expression a Universal Right San Diego Law Review Summer, 2013 San Diego Law Review 50 San Diego L. Rev. 707)

One commentator has characterized the consequentialist considerations for freeing up some speech that might be suppressed because of two-step harms in the following way: First, being able to speak our minds makes us feel good. True, we tailor our words to civility, persuasion, kindness, or other purposes, but that is our choice. Censors claim the right to purge other people's talk - all the while insisting that it is for our own good. Second, much censorship appears irrational and alarmist in retrospect because the reasons people choose and use words are vastly more interesting than the systems designed to limit them. It's not hard to make a list of absurdities - I'm particularly fond of a rash of state laws that forbid the disparagement of agricultural products - but simplistic explanations and simple-minded responses are as dangerous as they are ditzy. In one of the few places that postmodern theory and common sense intersect, it is obvious that the meaning and perception of words regularly depend on such variables as speaker and spoken to, individual experience and shared history, and the setting, company, and spirit in which something is said. To give courts or other authorities the power to determine all this is, to put it mildly, mind-boggling. Third, censorship is inimical to democracy. Cloaking ideas and information in secrecy encourages ignorance, corruption, demagoguery, a corrosive distrust of authority, and a historical memory resembling Swiss cheese. Open discussion, on the other hand, allows verities to be examined, errors to be corrected, disagreement to be expressed, and anxieties to be put in perspective. It also forces communities to confront their problems directly, which is more likely to lead to real solutions than covering them up. Fourth, censorship backfires. Opinions, tastes, social values, and mores change over time and vary among people. Truth can be a protean thing. The earth's rotation, its shape, the origins of humankind, and the nature of matter were all once widely understood to be something different *719 from what we know today, yet those who challenged the prevailing faith were mocked and punished for their apostasy. Banning ideas in an attempt to make the world safe from doubt, disaffection, or disorder is limiting, especially for people whose lives are routinely limited, since the poor and politically weak are the censor's first targets. Finally, censorship doesn't work. It doesn't get rid of bad ideas or bad behavior. It usually doesn't even get rid of bad words, and history has shown repeatedly that banning the unpalatable merely drives it underground. It could be argued that that's just fine, that vitriolic or subversive speech, for example, shouldn't dare to speak its name. But hateful ideas by another name - disguised as disinterested intellectual inquiry, or given a nose job like Ku Klux Klansman David Duke before he ran for governor of Louisiana - are probably more insidious than those that are clearly marginal. n22 Let me close with a couple of examples. So-called hate speech - speech that disparages ethnic, racial, or religious groups - is generally prohibited in most Western countries but not in the United States, where it is constitutionally protected as a matter of freedom of speech. If we leave aside the one-step harm of offense and focus on the two-step harms of inciting others to violence or to discrimination against members of the disparaged groups, we can understand why some countries, given their history and culture, would be quite fearful of the effects hate speech might have. For example, think of Germany and anti-Semitic speech. On the other hand, in the twenty-first-century United States, the dangers of hate speech pale in comparison to the dangers of suppressing it. Suppression drives haters underground, where they may be more dangerous than if they were more visible. Suppression is frequently not evenhanded: disparagement of some favored groups is punished, but disparagement of other groups is not. Frequently, suppression of hate speech is an expression of power wielded by some groups over other groups rather than an expression of concern about violence or discrimination. Sometimes, suppression of hate speech is just partisan politics. In the United States, some groups have tried to label messages such as opposition to racial preferences as racist hate speech. And political correctness surely infects enforcement of hate speech laws. Consider the prosecution of Mark Steyn in British Columbia because of his book expressing political concerns over *720 the ever-increasing percentage of Muslims in Europe. n23 So whether hate speech laws are a good or bad thing will undoubtedly vary with the country, its history, its culture, and its politics. The same point can be made with respect to restrictions on culture-coarsening expression - pornography, violent video games, public profanity, and so forth. Culture coarsening is a real harm, and its baleful effects may even prove catastrophic. On the other hand, whether legal restrictions on expression that contributes to coarsening is a good idea will vary with the place, the time, the institutions, the current state of the culture, and so forth. Governments are generally pretty ham-fisted when it comes to defining culture-coarsening messages. The history in the United States of attempts to ban pornography is not reassuring. Other countries with other institutions may do a better job.

B) Hate speech restrictions serve opposite purpose – can undermine equality
Strossen, Former President of the ACLU, 00
Strossen, Nadine. "Incitement to hatred: Should there be a limit." S. Ill. ULJ 25 (2000): 243. CC
B. Censoring Hate Speech May Do More Harm Than Good For Equality Rights The authorities I have cited so far summarize some of the many reasons why censoring hate speech may well do more harm than good in terms of countering bias and discrimination. Let me list the most important such reasons now: * Censoring hate speech increases attention to, and sympathy for, bigots. * It drives bigoted expression and ideas underground, thus making response more difficult. * It is inevitably enforced disproportionately against speech by and on behalf of members of minority groups. • It reinforces paternalistic stereotypes about members of minority groups, suggesting that they need special protection from offensive speech. " It increases resentment against members of minority groups, the presumed beneficiaries of the censorship. • Censoring hate speech undermines a mainstay of equal rights movements, which have always been especially dependent on a robust concept of free speech. • An anti-hate-speech policy curbs candid intergroup dialogue concerning racism and other forms of bias, which is an essential precondition for reducing discrimination. " Positive intergroup relations will more likely result from education, free discussion, and the airing of misunderstandings and insensitivity, rather than from legal battles; in contrast, anti-hate-speech rules will continue to generate litigation and other forms of controversy that increase intergroup tensions. " Last but far from least, censorship is diversionary, making it easier to avoid coming to grips with less convenient and more expensive, but ultimately more meaningful, strategies for combating discrimination. Censoring discriminatory expression diverts us from the essential goals of eradicating discriminatory attitudes and conduct. I will now expand on three of the most important of the foregoing reasons for concluding that censoring hate speech would be as inimical to equality rights as to free speech rights.

Tournament: Harvard Westlake | Round: 1 | Opponent: x | Judge: x
Hate Speech Counter Advocacy
Shell
Public Universities and colleges should establish restrictions on hate speech consistent with Byrne’s proposal. This includes restrictions on otherwise protected free speech. They will remove all other restrictions on protected free speech.  Byrne 91

Byrne, J. Peter. Associate Professor, Georgetown University Law Center. "Racial Insults and Free Speech Within the University." Geo. LJ 79 (1990): 399.

This article examines the constitutionality of university prohibitions of¶ public expression that insults members of the academic community by directing¶ hatred or contempt toward them on account of their race. I Several¶ thoughtful scholars have examined generally whether the government can¶ penalize citizens for racist slurs under the first amendment, but to the limited¶ extent that they have discussed university disciplinary codes they have assumed¶ that the state university is merely a government instrumentality subject¶ to the same constitutional limitations as, for example, the legislature or¶ the police. 2 In contrast, I argue that the university has a fundamentally dif ferent relationship to the speech of its members than does the state to the speech of its citizens. On campus, general rights of free speech should be qualified by the intellectual values of academic discourse. I conclude that the protection of these academic values, which themselves enjoy constitutional protection, permits state universities lawfully to bar racially abusive speech, even if the state legislature could not constitutionally prohibit such speech throughout society at large. At the same time, however, I assert that the first amendment renders state universities powerless to punish speakers for advocating any idea in a reasoned manner. It is necessary at the outset to choose a working definition of a racial insult. This definition, however, is necessarily provisional; any such definition implies the writer's views on the boundaries of constitutionally protected offensive speech, and the reader cannot be expected to swallow the definition until she has had the opportunity to inspect the writer's constitutional premises. Having offered such a caution, I define a racial insult as a verbal or symbolic expression by a member of one ethnic group that describes another ethnic group or an individual member of another group in terms conventionally derogatory, that offends members of the target group, and that a reasonable and unbiased observer, who understands the meaning of the words and the context of their use, would conclude was purposefully or recklessly abusive. Excluded from this definition are expressions that convey rational but offensive propositions that can be disputed by argument and evidence. An insult, so conceived, refers to a manner of speech that seeks to demean rather than to criticize, and to appeal to irrational fears and prejudices rather than to respect for others and informed judgment. 3

The counterplan establishes checks on reverse enforcement, chilling effect, and slippery slope. 

Byrne, J. Peter. Associate Professor, Georgetown University Law Center. "Racial Insults and Free Speech Within the University." Geo. LJ 79 (1990): 399.

Disciplinary rules are the least effective way that a university can enhance¶ the quality of speech or foster racial tolerance among its members. The educational¶ program must celebrate and instruct its students in the beauty and¶ usefulness of graceful and accurate speech and writing; a liberal education¶ should leave students intolerant of propaganda and commercial manipulation,¶ and competent to directly and forcefully express coherent views as citizens.¶ Such teaching is not amoral; the graduate ought freely to prefer the¶ exercise of skill, reflective perception, and an abiding curiosity to desires for acquisition, consumption, and domination. Without the university's consistent¶ action on a commitment to reasoned discourse as central to its mission,¶ the university's attempt to prohibit insulting or lewd speech may seem a hypocritical¶ denial of its own failings.¶ Similarly, prohibiting racial insults will advance racial harmony on a campus¶ only when the university has effectively committed itself to educate lovingly¶ the members of every ethnic group. Although nearly every university¶ admits minority students using criteria that aspire in good faith to be fair,¶ many have failed to transform themselves into truly multi-ethnic institutions.¶ Not to have succeeded at this daunting task does not merit reproach; the¶ university's origins and traditions are explicitly European, growth and accommodation¶ to the extent required to create a multi-ethnic community¶ must take time and witness false steps. However, not to have made plain¶ that blacks, hispanics, Asians, Indians, and others who have been excluded in¶ the past are not only now welcome, but are requested to collaborate in shaping¶ new university structures and mores so that the benefits of advanced education¶ will be available without regard to birth and so that the university can¶ continue to spawn for a changing society a cosmopolitan culture based on¶ reason and reflection standing above tribal fears and blind desires, not to¶ have begun this work in earnest merits regret and will provoke anger. Universities¶ that pass rules against racial insults which are not part of a comprehensive¶ commitment to ethnic integration will serve only to exacerbate racial¶ tensions.¶ Schools that adopt prohibitions on racially offensive speech ought to enforce¶ them with restraint. Certainly, when students have sought to intimidate¶ or frighten other students with racial insults, the school should treat this¶ behavior as a fundamental breach of university standards meriting the¶ strongest punitive measures. But often insulting expressions will result from¶ insensitivity or ignorance; complaints about such behavior should be seen as¶ opportunities for teaching, and creative informal measures that make the offenders¶ aware of the harmful consequences and injustice of their behavior¶ should be pursued. The school should also provide succor to the victim¶ whose hurt and anger must be acknowledged and meliorated. But severely¶ punishing ignorant young people for expressions inherited from their parents¶ or neighborhoods may serve to harden. and focus their sense of grievance,¶ create martyrs, and prolong racial animosity. Deans who administer such¶ rules must overcome their personal repugnance at racist speech and enforce¶ the rules for the benefit of the entire community. Controversial interpretative¶ application of the rules should be placed in the hands of faculty and¶ students representative of the entire institution, and the accused, the victim,¶ and the dean should have an opportunity to express their perspectives.¶ A recurrent concern regarding rules against racial insults is their vague-ness and overbreadth. These, of course, were the bases upon which the University¶ of Michigan's policy was declared unconstitutional, although the¶ demonstrated propensity of the school to apply the policy to presumptively¶ protected speech appears to have steered the Court's conclusions on these¶ issues.17 6 In general, university disciplinary rules rarely are struck down for¶ vagueness; courts usually permit universities to regulate student conduct on¶ the basis of generally stated norms, so long as they give fair notice of the¶ behavior proscribed. 177 Courts generally are more strict regarding vagueness¶ in rules that affect speech, in no small part because of the distrust of the¶ competence and motives of the government censor.178¶ A central argument of this article has been that the university can be¶ trusted to administer rules prohibiting racial insults because it has the proper¶ moral basis and adequate expertise to do so. It is not surprising, therefore,¶ that I believe that vagueness concerns about such university rules are largely¶ misplaced. This is not to deny that a university should adopt safeguards to¶ protect accused students from the concerns that the courts have highlighted.¶ First, the rules should state explicitly that no one may be disciplined for the¶ good faith statement of any proposition susceptible to reasoned response, no¶ matter how offensive. The possibility that punishment is precluded by this¶ limitation should be addressed at every stage of the disciplinary process. Second,¶ some response between punishment and acquittal should be available¶ when the university concludes that the speaker was subjectively unaware of¶ the offensive character of his speech; these cases seem to present mainly educational¶ concerns. Third, all controversial issues of interpretation of the¶ rules should be entrusted to a panel of faculty and students who are representative¶ of the institution. Rules furthering primarily academic concerns about¶ the quality of speech and the development of students should be given meaning¶ by those most directly concerned with the academic enterprise rather¶ than by administrators who may register more precisely external political¶ pressures on the university. Given these safeguards and a comprehensible¶ definition of an unacceptable insult, such as the one ventured in the introduction¶ to this article,179 a court which accepts the underlying proposition that a¶ university has the constitutional authority to regulate racial insults should¶ not be troubled independently by vagueness.¶ A difficult prudential consideration is whether a university should decline¶ to regulate insults because of public criticism that censorship demeans the very intellectual virtues towards which the university strives, such as the superiority¶ of persuasion over compulsion. Obviously, the adoption of such¶ regulation has brought forth sincere and bitter criticism from many friends of¶ higher education-the Economist, for example, went so far as to call such¶ regulations "disgraceful."'' 80 To some extent these criticisms stem from misunderstanding¶ about the character of academic speech and the goals of¶ prohibitions on racial insult, but universities should admit that turning to¶ regulation marks a sad failure in civility. A failure already has occurred,¶ however, when students scurrilously demean other students because of their¶ race. The university at this point can only choose among evils. It would not¶ be true to its traditions if it did not come down on the side of protecting the¶ educational environment for blameless students against wanton and hurtful¶ ranting.
Hate speech degrades minorities, locking in the squo and ensuring their failure. Delgado 2k
Richard Delgado - Charles Inglis Thomson Professor of Law, University of Colorado. J.D., U. California-Berkeley, 1974. “TOWARD A LEGAL REALIST VIEW OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.” Harvard Law Review. January 2000. JJN
B. Hate Speech as a Concerted Harm Another realist observation concerns what some call the “social construction of reality” thesis. FN39 Hate speech never occurs in isolation; it picks as its target individuals who have been exposed to racist hate speech before and are likely to experience its sting again in the future. *788 Like salt rubbed into a wound, hate speech digs at its victims' sensibilities, reminding them that they are different and that the source of that difference causes others to regard them as beneath the speaker in standing and human worth. FN40 Like water dripping on stone, hate speech harms by virtue of its incessancy--victims hear it again and again throughout their entire lives. FN41 The messages conveyed in hate speech sink in, so that over time the victims of those damaging messages begin to doubt their self-worth. This aspect of hate speech is what proponents of regulation have in mind when they write that hate speech contributes to a social order that falls far short of our national ideals. FN42 But these messages also alter the environment for individuals of the majority race, including those who aspire to be nonracist and would never utter hate speech themselves. They hear others doing so and see images of minorities in demeaning or limited roles on television, in the movies, and in newspapers. FN43 Who would blame them if, after time, they began secretly to wonder whether the prevailing stereotypes of persons of color did not have a small grain of truth to them? And, an insidious form of reinforcement known as “stereotype threat” validates those suspicions, as test-takers from groups subject to demeaning stereotypes perform poorly precisely because they fear that their performance will confirm the stereotype. FN44 Claude Steele and a co-investigator coined this term when they found that black test-takers who were told that a fairly difficult paper-and-pencil test would measure their cognitive ability performed poorly compared to a control *789 group whose members were told that the test was aimed only at helping researchers to understand problem-solving behavior. FN45 Media and other messages broadcasting the inferiority of minorities may be a prime means of perpetuating stereotype threat. These broader consequences of hate speech can easily escape scholars. Seeing the harm of hate speech as affecting dignity only, they end up weighing short-term, individual consequences--wounded feelings--against the broad, systemic benefits that we derive as a society from our system of free expression. FN46 Even Shiffrin succumbs to this temptation at times, yet how fair is it to frame the problem in these terms? Suppose that a supporter of hate speech regulation urged that the legal system weigh the speaker's “momentary discomfort” in reining in his or her thoughts against the massive gains that society reaps from enforcing antidiscrimination norms. A realist approach would regard both individual and social costs and benefits as duly weighing in the balance. It would deal with both the effects of hate speech on the life of a single individual as well as its impact across large groups.
And hate speech primes society for genocide – multiple empirical examples prove. Tsesis 09
Tsesis, Alexander Loyola University Chicago School of Law. "Dignity and speech: The regulation of hate speech in a democracy." (2009).
Permitting persons or organizations to spread ideology touting a¶ system of discriminatory laws or enlisting vigilante group violence¶ erodes democracy. So it was in the Weimar Republic, where the¶ repeated anti-Semitic propaganda of vulgar ideologues like Julius¶ Streicher, who published perverse attacks against Jews in Der¶ Stiirmer, chipped away at the post-World War I German democratic¶ experiment.6¶ ' Avowedly influenced by nineteenth century antiSemitism,¶ his weekly stories of Jewish ritual murder and sexual¶ exploitation were a crude way of antagonizing the victims and¶ gaining support for widespread prejudice against Jews." It is truly¶ eerie, now, looking at photographs relating the effectiveness of Nazi¶ propaganda: respectable looking adults in suits and dresses¶ listening to long lectures on Jewish inferiority; children, barely able¶ to stand on their two feet, raising their right arm in a Nazi salute.¶ Nazi propaganda incorporated numerous well-known¶ nineteenth century slogans. To take one example, Streicher, who¶ was later sentenced to death by the Nuremberg War Crimes¶ Tribunal, 64 used an inflammatory slogan, "The Jews are our misfortune!" on his newspaper masthead.and At one point over¶ 130,000 copies of his publication were sold and displayed on public¶ message boards throughout the country.66 The phrase also became¶ prominently featured on posters throughout the Third Reich.67¶ This slogan was taken verbatim from an 1879 article by¶ Professor Heinrich von Treitschke, arguably the greatest German¶ historian of the nineteenth century.68 Its visibility in pre-World War¶ II German society helped legitimize anti-Semitism there in¶ intellectual circles.69¶ A gradual process of incitement also occurred elsewhere. In¶ many American colonies, authors and legal institutions had been¶ degrading blacks since the seventeenth century.70 By national¶ independence, in 1776, the colonies of South Carolina and Georgia¶ had long-standing commitments to retaining slavery despite the oftrepeated¶ mantra of universal natural rights. In 1787, those two states refused to endorse the proposed Constitution without¶ provisions protecting that undemocratic institution."72¶ Senator John Calhoun, Congressman Henry Wise, and other¶ powerful racist orators misled the public about the supposedly¶ benevolent slave owner, feeding his slaves and treating them like¶ his own children. 3 The repeated inculcation of supremacism proved¶ effective in misrepresenting blacks as moveable property.¶ Abolitionists like Theodore Weld, Angelina and Sarah Grimk6,¶ Frederick Douglass, and William Lloyd Garrison were unable to win¶ over the country to their abolitionist views.74 To the contrary,¶ proslavery thought monopolized the Southern marketplace of¶ ideas.' Slavery came to an end after a bloody Civil War, not¶ through articulate or even heated debate.6¶ Because intimidating hate speech has so often inflamed¶ dangerous attitudes, the value of such expression should be¶ balanced against the likelihood that it will cause harm. The risks¶ are greater when hate propaganda incorporates symbolism, like¶ swastikas, that demagogues have historically displayed to rally¶ supporters to action. Robert Post is undoubtedly correct that speech¶ is valuable because it provides a breeding ground for "collective selfdetermination."7¶ 7 The more difficult question is how self-expression¶ should be treated when it conflicts with the safety of its target.¶ As much as self-expression is fundamental to democratic¶ institutions, it can, nevertheless, be balanced against the social¶ interest in safeguarding a pluralistic culture by preventing the¶ instigation of demagogic threats. Placing no limits on speech-not¶ even on expressions blatantly intended to make life miserable for¶ minorities-preserves the rights of speakers at the expense of¶ targeted groups. Defamation statutes, zoning regulations, and¶ obscenity laws indicate that the freedom of speech is not shielded¶ where it undermines other individuals' legitimate interests. 7 Hate speech regulation undoubtedly inhibits some opportunities for selfexpression;¶ more importantly, it prevents instigative communication¶ from undermining its targets' ability to live unaccosted by¶ harassment.¶ In the many historic examples when destructive messages¶ proved to be effective in instigating violence, they caused enormous¶ social turmoil. Just like shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater,¶ which can be prohibited without violating the First Amendment,79¶ hate speech can cause a stampede. Take Spain, for instance, which¶ expelled its Jewish population in 1492.80 The expulsion came after¶ years of Inquisition propaganda and hurt both the exiled Jews and¶ the remaining Spanish population. 1 Teachings by zealous¶ preachers like Vincent Ferrer, a later-canonized Dominican monk,¶ in the late fifteenth century brought on a nationwide anti-Jewish¶ hysteria that opposed the free practice of Judaism while decrying¶ overt violence.82 Pursuant to his instigation, a Castilian decree¶ discriminated against Jews in employment, dress, and criminal¶ punishments.83 Historian Heinrich Graetz explained the connection¶ between anti-Jewish preaching and draconian edicts: the populace¶ was "inflamed by the passionate eloquence of the preacher and¶ emphasized his teaching by violent assaults on the Jews." 4 Another¶ historian explained that:¶ For centuries, Christians had been encouraged to hate the¶ Jews. With preachers telling them, Sunday after Sunday, that¶ Jews were perverted and guilty of complicity in the death of¶ Christ, the faithful ended up by detesting them with a hatred 815 that was bound one day to express itself in violence .¶ Once unleashed, the expulsion of Jews from Spain followed¶ naturally from the verbal spread of hatred during the Inquisition.8 6¶ The economic consequences were grave. Many commercial enterprises in Seville and Barcelona, for instance, were ruined .¶ "Spain lost an incalculable treasure by the exodus of Jewish...¶ merchants, craftsmen, scholars, physicians, and scientists," wrote¶ the encyclopedic Will Durant, "and the nations that received them¶ benefitted economically and intellectually."88 Anti-Jewish preaching¶ in parts of Spain influenced a wide social segment of the population,¶ and the result was devastating both for the Jews who fled and for¶ the country that renounced them on dogmatic grounds. Elsewhere¶ in the ancient world, as historian Ben Kiernan has compellingly¶ documented, periodic mass massacres perpetrated against segments¶ of the native populations in Ireland, North and South America, and¶ Australia were likewise influenced by widely disseminated¶ dehumanizing statements. 9¶ The spread of ethnic and racial hatred continues to elicit¶ violence throughout the modern world. The dissemination of¶ ethnically incitable messages has precipitated tribal clashes in¶ Kenya.90 In Rwanda, ethnic stereotyping and repeated media calls¶ for the extermination of Tutsi led to a massive genocide perpetrated¶ against that group.9¶ '¶ Arab racial hate propaganda in the Sudan has catalyzed a¶ government-sponsored attempt to "cleanse" black Africans in¶ Darfur, Sudan." Likewise, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo¶ the government has relied on the incitement of ethnic hatred,¶ creating a culture where ethnic murder is a routine militia¶ practice. In the Arab world, terror organizations like Hamas and¶ Hizballah spread hatred against Jews without any interference from several governments, including Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi¶ Arabia. 94 School texts that are "written and produced by Saudi¶ government" teach children to kill Jews and to hate Christians and¶ Jews.95¶ Hate propaganda in these countries is far more virulent than it¶ is in the United States; nevertheless, a democracy committed to the¶ protection of individual rights does not run afoul of free speech¶ principles by criminalizing group incitement that has so globally¶ proven to influence harmful social movements.¶ A First Amendment theory, as the Supreme Court made clear in¶ Virginia v. Black, must examine whether there are historical¶ reasons to believe that offensive expression against an identifiable¶ group is likely to intimidate reasonable audiences. Robert Post's¶ argument about the undemocratic nature of hate speech regulation¶ regards "the function of public discourse" to be the reconciliation of¶ "the will of individuals with the general will. Public discourse is¶ thus ultimately grounded upon a respect for individuals seen as 'free¶ and equal persons."'97 He emphasizes democracy's central obligation¶ to protect private "autonomous wills."9" His insightful¶ characterization, however, captures only part of the raison d'etre of¶ democracy; on a more community-oriented level, that system of¶ governance serves to protect the overall well-being of the polity¶ against the wanton call for discriminatory conduct or violence. And¶ Black explicitly sanctions states' use of historical records to identify¶ symbolism that is likely to terrorize the populace and, therefore,¶ detract from the common good.99 This development in First¶ Amendment jurisprudence indicates that there is more to democracy¶ than self-determination.¶ Post's most recent statement on hate speech does not address¶ Black, even though the chapter was written after the Court¶ rendered its decision. 100 He connects the expression of hate to¶ "'extreme' intolerance and 'extreme' dislike."' °¶ ' This description,¶ while correct, does not account for the connection between hate¶ speech and extreme conduct. While the Constitution does not¶ authorize laws against negative emotions, speech that is¶ substantially likely to cause discriminatory harm, especially violence, can be regulated without infringing on the fundamental¶ principles of democracy.
DA Shell
Title IX investigations are increasing. Kingiade 16.
Tyler Kingkade. “There Are Far More Title IX Investigations Of Colleges Than Most People Know”. Huffington Post. June 16, 2016. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/title-ix-investigations-sexual-harassment_us_575f4b0ee4b053d433061b3d AGM
The growing backlog of federal Title IX investigations into colleges and universities has now topped 300, but many people, including students at the schools under scrutiny, aren’t aware of those reviews. As of Wednesday, there were 246 ongoing investigations by the U.S. Department of Education into how 195 colleges and universities handle sexual assault reports under the gender equity law. A Freedom of Information Act request by The Huffington Post revealed another 68 Title IX investigations into how 61 colleges handle sexual harassment cases. This puts the total number of Title IX investigations officially dealing with sexual harassment at 315. (Under civil rights statutes, sexual assault is defined as an extreme form of sexual harassment.) But dozens of those Title IX reviews receive no publicity because they don’t specifically deal with sexual assault. If a school is being investigated for allegedly mishandling harassment cases, but not reports of assault, it doesn’t appear on the list regularly given to reporters by the Education Department. Major educational institutions — including New York University, the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, Georgia State University, Florida AandM University, Rutgers University, Howard University, the University of Oklahoma, Kent State University and the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse — have escaped public scrutiny because Title IX investigations into their actions haven’t been highlighted by the government or the schools themselves.SUNY Broome Community College is under three investigations that haven’t been previously disclosed.  The Education Department has no plans to regularly issue a list of cases involving sexual harassment only, an official told HuffPost.

AFF guts effectiveness of Title IX – it causes first amendment opportunism. Schauer 04
Schauer, Frederick David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law. "The boundaries of the First Amendment: A preliminary exploration of constitutional salience." Harvard Law Review (2004): 1765-1809.
In addition to the properties of First Amendment claims that may¶ make them less likely to appear legally frivolous, the First Amend-¶ ment's magnetism may assist in ensuring that those claims will not¶ arise in isolation. There will often be multiple lawyers, multiple liti-¶ gants, and multiple public actors who perceive the virtues of the same¶ opportunistic strategy at roughly the same time, or who even may be¶ in active coordination with each other - as with the multiple chal-¶ lenges to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, the proliferation of First¶ Amendment rhetoric surrounding legal arguments regarding computer¶ source code, and the panoply of parallel claims about First Amend-¶ ment limitations on copyright. When this is the case, the multiplicity¶ of individually tenuous claims may produce a cascade effect160 such¶ that the claims no longer appear tenuous. The combination of, say,¶ four scarcely plausible but simultaneous court challenges and twenty¶ scarcely plausible public claims of a First Amendment problem could make all these individually implausible claims seem more credible¶ than they actually are.161 From the standpoint of an interest group¶ seeking to achieve change and to mobilize public support or the sup-¶ port of other interest groups,162 winning is better than losing publicly,¶ but losing publicly is perhaps still preferable to being ignored.¶ Once the claim or argument achieves a critical mass of plausibility,¶ the game may be over. Even if individual courts reject the claim, the¶ multiplicity of now-plausible claims may give the issue what is re-¶ ferred to in inside-the-Beltway political jargon as "traction" and in¶ newsroom jargon as "legs." Interestingly, this phenomenon sometimes¶ survives even authoritative rejection of the claim. With respect to the¶ argument that hostile-environment sexual harassment enforcement has¶ serious First Amendment implications, for example, neither the Su-¶ preme Court's rejection of this argument in dicta in R.A. V v. City of¶ St. Paul163 nor the Court's silent dismissal of the same claim in Harris¶ v. Forklift Systems, Inc.164 has slowed the momentum of those who¶ would wage serious First Amendment battle against hostile-¶ environment sexual harassment law.'65 Similarly, decades of judicial¶ rejection of the argument that copyright law must be substantially re-¶ stricted by the commands of the First Amendment have scarcely dis-¶ couraged those who urge otherwise; and in some respects the Supreme¶ Court's recent decision in Eldred v. Ashcroftl66 can be considered not a¶ defeat, but rather one further step toward the entry of copyright into¶ the domain of the First Amendment: the Supreme Court did grant cer-¶ tiorari, in part to determine "whether ... the extension of existing and¶ future copyrights violates the First Amendment;"'67 and the seven-¶ Justice majority, as well as Justice Breyer in dissent,'68 acknowledged¶ that the First Amendment was not totally irrelevant.
Title IX is currently effective against harassment – this dramatically increases access to higher education.  Musil 07

Caryn Musil, Scaling the Ivory Towers, MS Magazine Fall 2007: The Triumphs of Title IX, http://www.feminist.org/education/TriumphsOfTitleIX.pdf.  NS

The contrast between her academic landscape and mine could not be more dramatic. And Title IX is the primary cause for the seismic shifts. The law’s impact has been elemental. Not only has it helped eliminate blatant discriminatory practices across educational institutions, but it has helped root out subtler methods of holding women back by closing the gap between men’s and women’s financial aid packages, improving housing opportunities for women students (a lack of women’s dorms was once used to restrict women’s admissions) and combating sexual harassment. Just before Title IX was signed into law, women were underrepresented as undergraduates, at just over 40 percent of all students. And it wasn’t that easy for them to get into those ivied halls. Young women typically had to make higher grades and SAT scores than young men to gain college admission, and often faced quotas limiting the number of women admitted. Once they got on campus, there were few women role models—less than one in five faculty members were women, and a mere 3 percent of college presidents. In some fields, even the women students were barely visible: About 1 percent of master’s degrees in engineering, 1 percent of doctoral dental degrees, and under 2 percent of master’s degrees in mathematics were awarded to women in 1970. The barriers were formidable, and sex discrimination unashamedly open and normative. In the years since Title IX, however, all of those numbers have risen tremendously. Take college enrollment, for starters: By 2005, women students comprised almost three out of five undergraduates, with some of this growth due to increased access for women of color (who have more than doubled their share of degrees since 1977, when they earned just over 10 per- cent). Women have not simply in- creased their numbers in academia, though: They have also moved into fields formerly dominated by men, particularly business and the sciences (see chart on page 45). These are the sorts of fields that lead women into higher-paying jobs after graduation. Bucking the rising trend, however, are computer and information sci- ence, where numbers peaked in 1984 before declining, and engineering and engineering technologies, in which the numbers of women grew and then leveled off. Certain fields have continued to be women-dominant from 1980 until 2005—health professions other than physicians and related inical sciences (currently more than 86 percent women) and education (about 79 percent women), but this isn’t the best news for economic equity, since wages tend to stay low in fields with few men. In graduate and professional schools, too, young women have enjoyed far greater access thanks to Title IX. In 1970, women earned only 14 percent of doctoral degrees, but today earn nearly half. Yet women’s doctorates are still not distributed evenly across disciplines: They range from a low of about 19 percent in engineering and engineering technologies to a high of about 71 per- cent in psychology. The most dramatic gains are in the professional schools. In 1971, just about 1 of 100 dental school graduates were women, while in 2005 that number grew nearly fortyfold. In medical schools the numbers jumped from less than 10 percent to nearly 50 percent, and law school numbers from about 7 percent to nearly 49 percent. There’s been quite a psychological benefit, too. As my older daughter, Rebecca, says of her experience at New York University Law School, “Women were more than half of the students, so sex discrimination was not something we ever worried about. ... It’s not that we don’t think about equality, but that we don’t have to think about it as much because of what’s already been done.” Armed with their professional degrees in medicine and law, women have entered those professions at steadily increasing rates. Yet their numbers—and in law firms, their advancement—still lag behind. In 2006, women made up 33 percent of lawyers but just 16 percent of partners in law firms. Similarly, in medicine only 27 percent of doctors are women, and they’re unevenly spread across specialties, the top three choices being internal medicine, pediatrics and general family medicine. The news is also mixed about women in academic leadership. By 1986 the number of women college presidents had tripled from 1970 to almost 10 percent, and by 2006 reached 23 percent, with a large proportion serving as presi- dents of community colleges. But most of the progress occurred between 1986 and 2001 and now has slowed considerably. Furthermore, today’s presidents re- main much less diverse by race, gender and ethnicity than the students, faculty or administrators who report to them: Only 4 percent of the respondents in a recent survey of college presidents identified as “minority women.” Women also tend to be more qualified and make more sacrifices than men in order to gain leadership; they’re far less likely than men presidents to be married and have children, and significantly more likely to hold an advanced degree. On faculties, women have increased across every rank but continue to move up more slowly than men. In 2006 they accounted for nearly 40 percent of full- time faculty and nearly 50 percent of part-timers. Young women benefit extraordinarily from all these women role models. As my daughter Emily says, “Women professors looked out for me the whole time ... and that is where I got my career counseling.” But women professors are not employed equally across institutional types—they’re just over half the faculty at institutions offering associate degrees, but only 34 percent at doctoral institutions. While women are increasing their numbers in tenure-track positions (nearly 45 percent), they still face the accumulated disad-vantages of sex discrimination over time and represent only about 31 per- cent of currently tenured faculty. “People change faster and more easily than institutions,” explains Yolanda T. Moses, associate vice chancellor for diversity at the University of California, Riverside. While the most blatant violations have been eliminated, Moses argues that the next level of work is even more complicated: “Systems can undermine progress ... and we need to unearth those behaviors that sabotage even our best intentions.” A search committee in physics or engineering, for example, may profess to be seeking more women, but make no efforts to break out of all-men, frequently all- white, networks to identify strong women candidates. These are the sorts of challenges that still remain, yet Title IX has gone a long way toward making campuses more hospitable. By offering legal protection from hostile work and learning environments, it helped draw attention to sexism in the classroom and opened the door for change. The fields of science, tech- nology, engineering and math were among the most chilly toward women, so Title IX helped usher in a period of serious self-study that has led to the adoption of more women-friendly teaching practices and programs, and thus a rise in women taking courses formerly dominated by men.

Gender equality in higher education and the workforce is key to climate science and innovation.  Gender Summit 13

Gender Summit 3 — North America, Diversity Fueling Excellence in Research and Innovation:
Conference Report, 11/13/13, https://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/activities/gendersummit/GS3-ConfReport.pdf.  NS

Ms. Jarrett noted that gender equality in STEM is not just a women's issue, but one that affects all scientists and researchers. The incorporation of the gender dimension into research and innovation benefits everyone. Diversity in STEM brings innovation; it drives science forward and benefits society as a whole. She pointed out that GS3 is more than just about women: it is about our societies and tapping into the power of women to unlock the full potential of global communities. If we truly want to champion innovation and expand the capacity for discovery, everyone has to be involved. President Obama’s administration is committed to ensuring that our women and girls are in a position to lead in the future. The President has been quoted as saying, "When women succeed, nations are safer, more secure and more prosperous.”  Ralph Cicerone, PhD President, US National Academy of Sciences and Chair, National Research Council, USA emphasized (a) the importance of utilizing the full capacity of creative, talented and dedicated people; (b) the collective responsibility for ensuring that women scientists and engineers flourish and that they are supported and encouraged; and (c) the need to confront existing obstacles along their career paths. He stated that the Academy remains committed to enhancing gender inclusion by supporting the creation of networks around the world, including Africa, Latin America and Europe. Establishing these networks and collaborations promotes the creation of goals and strategies for implementation and an awareness of the efforts of others that can bring value to our own. To underscore the importance of gender incorporation within global research and development, former NSF Director Subra Suresh, PhD President, Carnegie Mellon University, USA stated that diversity in education and the workplace accelerates innovation because people have different life experiences that allow them to address the same issue from different vantage points. Diversity fostering global research is becoming more popular. In May 2012 the Global Research Council was established at NSF as a virtual organization to collectively engage in the development of principles governing scientific merit review, research integrity, pathways for open access to publications and data and mobility of researchers. Nearly 100 countries participated in the most recent meeting where the topics included the mobility of researchers, as well as a discussion of strategic planning for collective action in the near future. Wanda E. Ward, PhD Head, Office of International and Integrative Activities, National Science Foundation, USA posited that North America stood ready to further integrate and leverage the gender dimension in forging new and transformative discoveries and in fostering a diverse and inclusive scientific community. Importantly, the greater inclusion of biological sex and gender considerations in disciplinary and interdisciplinary frameworks is significant as all nations increase their investments in science and technology. Working collaboratively to ensure that scientific research is beneficial to women and men is a transformative moment for the shifting landscape of the scientific enterprise. This time of collective commitment for gender considerations in science and engineering will be beneficial to society at large as North America embraces the new opportunities of the shifting landscape of science innovation marked by emerging fields of science and the demographic changes of the scientific workforce. Attention was given to the fact that the more than 650 registrants comprised a diverse group of women and men interested in women’s issues, as well as diversity within the group of women who represent every stage of STEM workforce development, advancement and success. Dr. Ward’s presentation highlighted the NSF’s gender considerations in research design and analysis, as well as the Foundation’s emphasis on gender equity in the STEM workforce. This Summit was considered exemplary for engaging women of all backgrounds in imagining future work at the frontiers of science and in realizing their full potential in the scientific enterprise. Additionally, pending the availability of funding, NSF is pursuing four major areas for multinational collaboration: o discovery/frontier research for knowledge generation and translation, o human capacity/talent development and advancement, o institutional transformation in higher education systems and practices and o equity in stewardship activities, such as the merit review process, evaluation and assessment. Across the participating partners, there are compelling examples of individual contributions of women in basic research, as well as in the advancement of applied research within a gender- focused context. There are also success stories of policy changes and transformative practices emanating from the leadership, mentoring and advocacy roles of well-known women scientists and engineers. The shared commitment for framing a multi-national strategy was continued with input from the European Commission, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the National Council on Science and Technology of Mexico, and the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa. Europe is working aggressively to change the workforce environment by encouraging more females to study science and engineering and to go on to research careers.  MarieGeoghegan-Quinn Commissioner of Research, Innovation and Science, European Commission stressed that because gender issues are not unique to Europe, it is important to tackle issues jointly. She stated that we need all of our talented scientists working toward research and innovative efforts and that there is no tradeoff between promoting gender equity and excellence in science. She expressed much interest in collaborating with North America. She stressed that it is logical, for both scientific and economic reasons, to work collaboratively to tackle common challenges. She also highlighted Horizon 2020, Europe’s new research funding program, which will champion gender equality in three ways: integrating the gender dimension into funded programs, encouraging balanced participation of men and women on funded research teams and ensuring gender balance in advisory groups and in teams that evaluate applications for funding.  Oldřich Vlasák Vice-President of the European Parliament stressed the importance of (a) research and development in future economic growth and (b) investing effectively, given the frequent scarcity of financial and human resources to support research. He stated that both the US and Europe need to invest more and do a better job with regard to human capital: “we can’t afford to waste research talent, which means we should not discourage any part of the population from participating in research and innovation.” Quoting U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, he said that “no team can ever win if half of its players are on the bench.” Measures to ensure gender equality should be considered an investment in future economic growth, rather than a cost. He stated that “what we pay today will generate returns for the economy as a whole in the medium- and long-term by reducing the ineffectiveness associated with inequality.” The gender imbalances are not a self-correcting phenomenon, and Vlasák encouraged discussions during the third Gender Summit to view these issues as a matter of research potential and social justice. Remarks by Dominique Ristori Director General, European Commission Directorate General Joint Research Council focused on the importance of science and society, the latest developments in Europe’s gender equality policy and the European interest in a gender focused multi-national collaboration. He described the motivation and challenges for global research and innovation in the context of climate change, clean energy and the improved health and well-being of all citizens. Ensuring gender balance is a necessary condition for the achievement of the objective of Europe’s 2020 strategy for 75 employment, an objective that cannot be reached without strong commitment to gender equality, he stated.

Climate innovations are the primary key to solve warming.  Moniz 15

Ernest Moniz (U.S. Secretary of Energy), Interviewed by David Biello, Accelerated Innovation Is the Ultimate Solution to Climate Change, Scientific American, 12/11/15, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/accelerated-innovation-is-the-ultimate-solution-to-climate-change/.  NS

PARIS—From "clean coal" evangelists to solar power enthusiasts, most experts at the U.N. climate talks here agree that solving climate change means transforming how the world produces and uses energy—and as quickly as possible. Such a transformation would be unprecedented. It would require enormous investments. To help make it happen, the U.S. Department of Energy, which for decades has spent billions of dollars to develop and deploy advanced energy technologies (not always clean), will play a major role in the new "Mission Innovation." The initiative is an effort announced by 20 major countries at the COP 21 negotiations here to significantly accelerate clean-energy improvements. On December 9, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz sat down with Scientific American to explain how innovation and transformation might be sped up to meet the climate challenge, which requires a world without carbon dioxide pollution, soon. An edited transcript of the interview follows. How do we get to 80 percent cuts in CO2 emissions in 35 years, the Obama administration's long-term goal? And beyond that, to meet a Paris deal that might even require "zero carbon" by then. Obviously, innovation is going to be central. We're very pleased that our French hosts put innovation on the front burner: having Innovation Day, following Energy Day. And of course, the announcement on the very first day by 20 countries, including Pres. Obama, French Pres. Hollande, India Prime Minister Modi and others, of Mission Innovation. Then the Bill Gates announcement on the parallel Breakthrough Energy Coalition initiative. There is no question that the world now understands that innovation is the core to meet the INDCs national climate action plans, known as "intended nationally determined contributions". We've had a lot of cost reduction and innovation and deployment increases. That virtuous cycle has put us in a pretty good spot to meet a 10-year horizon, maybe a 15-year horizon. For sure, as we go to the longer time periods and extraordinarily low levels of greenhouse gas emissions being discussed, we're going to have to keep that going. I just came from a meeting of the Mission Innovation countries. There is a tremendous amount of enthusiasm. The resonance of the Mission Innovation agenda was so great because it largely fits with the directions that so many countries were going in. It's crystallized that—given that a very explicit framework. We are the dog that caught the car. And now we're laughs figuring out what to do with the car. Some people argue that we can meet the goal with the technology we already have, whether it be CO2 capture and storage for fossil fuels and nuclear power or more renewables or all of the above, to use a phrase. Others say we really need a breakthrough. You're on the breakthrough side? In some sense, the answer is yes. What we're talking about is this cycle of innovation, deployment, cost reduction. They all go hand in hand. We have seen that explicitly in the last six years. Continued cost reduction in clean technologies is going to be important. And new enabling technologies are going to be important. So, for example, with wind and solar, we still are not at the point where we can have a large scale-up of energy storage. We are still not at the stage where we really have incorporated information technology, like computers and the Internet extensively into the energy infrastructure in the way we're going to need. We also have qualitatively new directions to go in. One is the Makani flying wind turbines. Or now the Google X flying wind turbine; it’s so novel that we don't understand exactly how it could have a big, major transformative impact. But it sure looks like it would if it became a widespread technology.
Warming leads to extinction – multiple scenarios prove. Roberts ‘13
David Roberts - staff writer for Grist. “If you aren’t alarmed about climate, you aren’t paying attention.” Grist. January 10, 2013. http://grist.org/climate-energy/climate-alarmism-the-idea-is-surreal/ JJN
There was recently another one of those (numbingly familiar) internet tizzies wherein someone trolls environmentalists for being “alarmist” and environmentalists get mad and the troll says “why are you being so defensive?” and everybody clicks, clicks, clicks. I have no desire to dance that dismal do-si-do again. But it is worth noting that I find the notion of “alarmism” in regard to climate change almost surreal. I barely know what to make of it. So in the name of getting our bearings, let’s review a few things we know. We know we’ve raised global average temperatures around 0.8 degrees C so far. We know that 2 degrees C is where most scientists predict catastrophic and irreversible impacts. And we know that we are currently on a trajectory that will push temperatures up 4 degrees or more by the end of the century. What would 4 degrees look like? A recent World Bank review of the science reminds us. First, it’ll get hot: Projections for a 4°C world show a dramatic increase in the intensity and frequency of high-temperature extremes. Recent extreme heat waves such as in Russia in 2010 are likely to become the new normal summer in a 4°C world. Tropical South America, central Africa, and all tropical islands in the Pacific are likely to regularly experience heat waves of unprecedented magnitude and duration. In this new high-temperature climate regime, the coolest months are likely to be substantially warmer than the warmest months at the end of the 20th century. In regions such as the Mediterranean, North Africa, the Middle East, and the Tibetan plateau, almost all summer months are likely to be warmer than the most extreme heat waves presently experienced. For example, the warmest July in the Mediterranean region could be 9°C warmer than today’s warmest July. Extreme heat waves in recent years have had severe impacts, causing heat-related deaths, forest fires, and harvest losses. The impacts of the extreme heat waves projected for a 4°C world have not been evaluated, but they could be expected to vastly exceed the consequences experienced to date and potentially exceed the adaptive capacities of many societies and natural systems. my emphasis Warming to 4 degrees would also lead to “an increase of about 150 percent in acidity of the ocean,” leading to levels of acidity “unparalleled in Earth’s history.” That’s bad news for, say, coral reefs: The combination of thermally induced bleaching events, ocean acidification, and sea-level rise threatens large fractions of coral reefs even at 1.5°C global warming. The regional extinction of entire coral reef ecosystems, which could occur well before 4°C is reached, would have profound consequences for their dependent species and for the people who depend on them for food, income, tourism, and shoreline protection. It will also “likely lead to a sea-level rise of 0.5 to 1 meter, and possibly more, by 2100, with several meters more to be realized in the coming centuries.” That rise won’t be spread evenly, even within regions and countries — regions close to the equator will see even higher seas. There are also indications that it would “significantly exacerbate existing water scarcity in many regions, particularly northern and eastern Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia, while additional countries in Africa would be newly confronted with water scarcity on a national scale due to population growth.” Also, more extreme weather events: Ecosystems will be affected by more frequent extreme weather events, such as forest loss due to droughts and wildfire exacerbated by land use and agricultural expansion. In Amazonia, forest fires could as much as double by 2050 with warming of approximately 1.5°C to 2°C above preindustrial levels. Changes would be expected to be even more severe in a 4°C world. Also loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services: In a 4°C world, climate change seems likely to become the dominant driver of ecosystem shifts, surpassing habitat destruction as the greatest threat to biodiversity. Recent research suggests that large-scale loss of biodiversity is likely to occur in a 4°C world, with climate change and high CO2 concentration driving a transition of the Earth’s ecosystems into a state unknown in human experience. Ecosystem damage would be expected to dramatically reduce the provision of ecosystem services on which society depends (for example, fisheries and protection of coastline afforded by coral reefs and mangroves.) New research also indicates a “rapidly rising risk of crop yield reductions as the world warms.” So food will be tough. All this will add up to “large-scale displacement of populations and have adverse consequences for human security and economic and trade systems.” Given the uncertainties and long-tail risks involved, “there is no certainty that adaptation to a 4°C world is possible.” There’s a small but non-trivial chance of advanced civilization breaking down entirely. Now ponder the fact that some scenarios show us going up to 6 degrees by the end of the century, a level of devastation we have not studied and barely know how to conceive. Ponder the fact that somewhere along the line, though we don’t know exactly where, enough self-reinforcing feedback loops will be running to make climate change unstoppable and irreversible for centuries to come. That would mean handing our grandchildren and their grandchildren not only a burned, chaotic, denuded world, but a world that is inexorably more inhospitable with every passing decade. Take all that in, sit with it for a while, and then tell me what it could mean to be an “alarmist” in this context. What level of alarm is adequate?