Tournament: Woodward | Round: 1 | Opponent: idk | Judge: idk

Functional Morality AC

1. My value is morality, as implied by the word Ought in the resolution. Ought is "Context Sensitive" – meaning that whether we Ought to do something depends upon the context of that sentence. The context of the resolution is the university system – whether colleges ought to restrict speech can only be answered from within the context of that system.

Wedgwood, 2006 – Prof of philosophy at USC ~Ralph. "The Meaning of 'Ought'" ed. Russ Shafer-Landau http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~~wedgwood/meaningofought.htm~~
5. The context-sensitivity of 'ought' So far, I have only
AND
negation of that proposition does not follow from any such correct contingency plan.

2. My criteria is Functional morality – promoting the legitimacy of a system by fulfilling its function. This is the only system of ethics that can effectively compare and contrast different positions. It is particularly relevant to the Resolution, which asks what colleges and universities ought do. Promoting the legitimacy of the university system requires us to define the objectives Of that system. A system can only be legitimate if people believe that it achieves the goals it sets out to achieve and applies those goals consistently.

3. For example, a good watch is one that tells time well, because that is the function of a watch. A different watch – one that bakes cookies, may be awesome, but it is not a great Watch, because it doesn't tell time.  The morality of an object or actor is defined by its ability to carry out its function.

4. In order to answer the question "What ought public colleges and universities do?" we have to first determine – What is the Function of public colleges and universities? The Purpose is to promote Academic Freedom.

Jeltema, 2004 - Senior Staff Member, American University Law Review ~Laura October, 54 Am. U.L. Rev. 215 Legislators In The Classroom: Why State Legislatures Cannot Decide Higher Education Curricula Lexis~
Institutions of higher education are not like other governmental institutions, whose objectives include carrying
AND
strong arguments exist that the normal rules for legislative control do not apply.

The fundamental function of universities is promote academic 'marketplaces of ideas'.

Jeltema, 2004 - Senior Staff Member, American University Law Review ~Laura October, 54 Am. U.L. Rev. 215 Legislators In The Classroom: Why State Legislatures Cannot Decide Higher Education Curricula Lexis~
In addition to the Supreme Court's recognition that universities are unique institutions, the Court
AND
law in its opinions, n111 lends additional support to this argument. n112

Therefore, the two burdens of the affirmative are that I must prove that the purpose of colleges is promote academic freedom, and that the plan upholds that purpose. The negative can win by disproving either of these claims.

I affirm: At the next available test case, the United States Supreme Court ought to establish an academic exemption to the first prong of the free speech limitation from Garcetti v. Ceballos.

My Contention– The Plan upholds Academic Freedom

In the Garcetti v Ceballos decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the government could punish public employees for expressing their opinions, because the government is the employer for public employees. They established a test – Was the Employee speaking in their capacity as a government employee? If so, then the government could regulate their speech. However, this did not take into account that all professors at public colleges and universities are public employees – the Court did not make an Academic Exemption for Garcetti. This makes it possible for the government to regulate what professors say in their curriculums, their research and their classrooms.

1. Garcetti specifically declined to establish an exemption for academic officials. Lower courts have been reluctant to create one without Court guidance.

Tran, 2011 - Editor-in-Chief, Akron Law Review ~Carol Akron Law Review 45 Akron L. Rev. 945 Recognizing An Academic Freedom Exception To The Garcetti Limitation On The First Amendment Right To Free Speech Lexis~
This additional limitation imposed by Garcetti does not effectuate a large change to the traditional
AND
exception did exist, it would not apply in their particular scenario. n123

3. The Garcetti decision undermines academic freedom – it strips university faculty of their free speech rights because they are employees of the state. This creates a chilling effect felt throughout the profession.

Rosborough, 2009 - J.D. candidate at Albany Law School ~Robert Albany Law Review 72 Alb. L. Rev. 565 A "Great" Day For Academic Freedom: The Threat Posed To Academic Freedom By The Supreme Court's Decision In Garcetti V. Ceballos Lexis~
A. Garcetti's Potential Implications After Garcetti, any speech by a public employee pursuant
AND
speech by public university professors on matters of particular concern to the public.

4. The Court should establish an academic exception to Garcetti v. Ceballos, recognizing a constitutional right to academic speech for university faculty.

Tran, 2011 - Editor-in-Chief, Akron Law Review ~Carol Akron Law Review 45 Akron L. Rev. 945 Recognizing An Academic Freedom Exception To The Garcetti Limitation On The First Amendment Right To Free Speech Lexis~
In the United States, academic freedom is generally understood to be the idea that
AND
as a guiding point for future free speech cases in the academic workplace.