Tournament: Stanford | Round: 2 | Opponent: Cupertino HK | Judge: Ryan Olson
I affirm and value morality.
Part 1 is the Framing
Failure to incorporate methods of dealing with structural violence into our politics is the failure of politics all together.
Winter and Leighton 99 (Deborah DuNann Winter and Dana C. Leighton. Winter: Psychologist that specializes in Social Psych, Counseling Psych, Historical and Contemporary Issues, Peace Psychology. Leighton: PhD graduate student in the Psychology Department at the University of Arkansas. Knowledgable in the fields of social psychology, peace psychology, and ustice and intergroup responses to transgressions of justice) (Peace, conflict, and violence: Peace psychology in the 21st century.  Pg 4-5)  UK
Finally, to recognize the operation of structural violence forces us to ask questions about how and why we tolerate it, questions which often have painful answers for the privileged elite who unconsciously support it. A final question of this section is how and why we allow ourselves to be so oblivious to structural violence. Susan Opotow offers an intriguing set of answers, in her article Social Injustice. She argues that our normal perceptual/cognitive processes divide people into in-groups and out-groups. Those outside our group lie outside our scope of justice. Injustice that would be instantaneously confronted if it occurred to someone we love or know is barely noticed if it occurs to strangers or those who are invisible or irrelevant. We do not seem to be able to open our minds and our hearts to everyone, so we draw conceptual lines between those who are in and out of our moral circle. Those who fall outside are morally excluded, and become either invisible, or demeaned in some way so that we do not have to acknowledge the injustice they suffer. Moral exclusion is a human failing, but Opotow argues convincingly that it is an outcome of everyday social cognition. To reduce its nefarious effects, we must be vigilant in noticing and listening to oppressed, invisible, outsiders. Inclusionary thinking can be fostered by relationships, communication, and appreciation of diversity. Like Opotow, all the authors in this section point out that structural violence is not inevitable if we become aware of its operation, and build systematic ways to mitigate its effects. Learning about structural violence may be discouraging, overwhelming, or maddening, but these papers encourage us to step beyond guilt and anger, and begin to think about how to reduce structural violence. All the authors in this section note that And the same structures (such as global communication and normal social cognition) which feed structural violence, can also be used to empower citizens to reduce it.
Thus, the standard is minimizing oppression.
Prefer the standard for 3 reasons:

1. Debate should deal with real-world consequences—ideal theories ignore the concrete nature of the world and legitimize oppression.
   Dr. Tommy J. Curry 14, “The Cost of a Thing: A Kingian Reformulation of a Living Wage Argument in the 21st Century”, Victory Briefs, 2014,  UK
   Despite the pronouncement of debate as an activity and intellectual exercise pointing to the real world consequences of dialogue, thinking, and (personal) politics when addressing issues of racism, sexism, economic disparity, global conflicts, and death, many of the discussions concerning these ongoing challenges to humanity are fixed to a paradigm which sees the adjudication of material disparities and sociological realities as the conquest of one ideal theory over the other. In “Ideal Theory as Ideology,” Charles Mills outlines the problem contemporary theoretical-performance styles in policy debate and valueweighing in Lincoln-Douglass are confronted with in their attempts to get at the concrete problems in our societies. At the outset, Mills concedes that “ideal theory applies to moral theory as a whole (at least to normative ethics as against metaethics); since ethics deals by definition with normative/prescriptive/evaluative issues, it is set against factual/descriptive issues.” 4 At the most general level,the conceptual chasm between what emerges as actual problems in the world (e.g.: racism, sexism, poverty, disease, etc.) and how we frame such problems theoretically—the assumptions and shared ideologies we depend upon for our theoretical problems to be heard and accepted as a worthy “problem” by an audience—is the most obvious call for an anti-ethical paradigm, since such a paradigm insists on the actual as the basis of what can be considered normatively. Mills, however, describes this chasm as a problem of an ideal-as-descriptive model which argues that for any actual-empirical-observable social phenomenon (P), an ideal of (P) is necessarily a representation of that phenomenon. In the idealization of a social phenomenon (P), one “necessarily has to abstract away from certain features” of (P) that is observed before abstraction occurs.5
   2. Without focusing on the rights of the other, the government will try to keep disposable bodies marginalized.
   Giroux 10, Hurricane Katrina and the Politics of Disposability: Floating Bodies and Expendable Populations, Henry A. Giroux, Schooling and the Politics of Disaster¶ Kenneth J. Saltman¶ Routledge, Jun 10, 2010, http://books.google.com/books?id=UerhAQAAQBAJanddq=22living+wage22+and+biopoliticsandsource=gbs_navlinks_s  UK
   Biopower in its current shape has produced a new form of biopolitics marked by a cleansed visual and social landscape in which the poor, the elderly, the infirm and criminalized populations all share a common fate of disappearance from the public view. Rendered invisible in deindustrialized communities far removed from the suburbs, barred from the tourist-laden sections of major cities, looked into understaffed nursing homes, interned in bulging prisons built remote farm communities, hidden in decaying schools in rundown neighborhoods that bear the look of third-world slums, populations of poor black and brown citizens exist outside the view of most Americans. They have become the waste product of the American Dream, if not and modernity itself. These disposable populations serve as unknown reminders that the once vaunted social state no longer exists. An apt personification of the death of the social contract in the United States, these living dead, and they having fallen through the large rents in America’s social safety nets, reflect a governmental agenda bent on attacking the poor rather than attacking poverty. That America’s disposable populations are largely poor and black undermines the nation’s commitment to color-blind ideology. Race remains the “major reason America treats its poor more harshly than any other advanced country.” One of the worst storms in our history shamed us into seeing the plight of poor blacks and other minorities. In less than 48 hours, Katrina ruptured the pristine image of America as a largely white middle-class country modeled after a Disney theme park.
   3. Resisting Structural Oppression has to come first in debate
   Tim Wise 08 (Race Relations Specialist, Activst, Orator), White Like Me, 2008   96 - 97  UK
   Until the voices of economically and racially marginalized persons are given equal weight in debate rounds with those of affluent white experts (whose expertise is only presumed because other white published what they had to say in the first place, the ideas that shape our world will continue to be those of the elite, no matter how destructive these ideas have proven to be for the vast majority of the planet’s inhabitants. Until debate is substantially diversified, so that previously ignored voices in debates will have a chance to be heard on their own terms, and in their own styles, little will change. What debate needs most is an infusion of persons who because of their life experiences are almost guaranteed to be less naïve; people who know full well that the system is anything but fair . Such persons have a right be heard, and white, upper-middle-class, and affluent debaters need to hear them. They need to know how power words, and they will never gain an understanding of that by listening over and over to the voice of others lie themselves. But debate will never change in this way unless the gatekeepers of the activity are prepared to step up and demand it, not just with their words but with their actions, their money, their judging criteria, and even their ballots. Folks of color and working-class wont join an activity if they feel their wisdom isn’t going to be taken seriously. If they wanted to be ignored, they would hardly need to get dressed up and travel to debate tournaments in a hot van to do it. They could stay home and be ignored, because they powerful ignore them every day anyway. Understand =, this is no mere ethical plea of inclusion. Continuing to ignore the voices of the marginalized carries greater risk for us all, because it is precisely who so often view the world differently and far more accurately than the privileged. As a case in point, the polls taken right before the U.S. invasions of Iraq in March 2003 indicated broad white support for going to war, but almost nonexistent support among blacks. Most white folks were convinced not only of the war’s moral legitimacy, but were sure that everything would go swimmingly, because other white people like Rumsfeld and Cheney said so. But blacks folks knew better. Those with privilege had the luxury of thinking they would be greeted as luxury of thinking they would be greeted as liberators, But blacks folks knew that invaders rarely bring true freedom-they’re been there, done that. For the sake of us all, and to slow down the rate at which blood is spilled across the globe, we desperately need to listen to those who live without the luxury of blinders. 

ROB

Thus, the role of the ballot is to endorse the debater who best deconstructs oppressive norms:
William Spanos 93 Professor of English at Binghamton University, The End of Education: Towards Posthumanism, 1993, p. 196.  UK
In insisting that The theoretical practice of the oppositional intellectuals ought to be a local and regional struggle aimed at revealing and undermining power, Foucault, like the critical theorists of the Frankfurt School before him (Horkheimer, Adorno, and Marcuse) locates this struggle at the site of culture in general, where by means of the discursive practices that constitute it, power is “most invisible and insidious.” I want to suggest, by way of a specifying qualification based on a curious but telling historical oversight on the part of critical theorists of the post-Vietnam decade (who shifted the focus of critique from the economy of material production to the hegemonic economy of culture), that this struggle should be waged at the site of the educational institution in general and the university in particular. As I have suggested in focusing on the student revolt in the United States, in France, in Germany, and elsewhere in the West (and Japan) in the late 1960s, it is in the operations of education more than any other cultural apparatus elaborated by modern liberal bourgeois capitalist Western societies – more than in family, church, political system, information and entertainment media – that power is “most invisible and insidious.” It is the school, in other words, that employs what I have been calling  “hegemonic discourse of deliverance” most effectively in disciplining the youth and reproducing the dominant sociopolitical order. While other ideological cultural apparatuses are situated in the material world and, as in the case of the media’s coverage of the revolutions in Eastern Europe or the American response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, partake more or less visibly in its productive operations, the school is represented fundamentally as a separate and value-free space in which the pursuit of knowledge is undertaken for the benefit of all “mankind,” if not for knowledge’s own sake.
Part 2 is the Links
First, in the status quo, constitutional speech is under attack at college campuses. Restrictions are being placed, and they are unconstitutional and oppress student’s constitutional speech.
(James Moore in 16 Social Studies Research and Practice www.socstrp.org Volume 11 Number 1 112 Spring 2016 You Cannot Say That in American Schools: Attacks on the First Amendment James R. Moore of the Cleveland State University)
The first amendment, a crucial component of American constitutional law, is under attack from various groups advocating for censorship in universities and public schools. The censors assert that restrictive speech codes preventing anyone from engaging in any expression deemed hateful, offensive, defamatory, insulting, or critical of sacred religious or political beliefs and values are necessary in a multicultural society. These speech codes restrict critical comments about race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, physical characteristics, and other traits in the name of tolerance, sensitivity, and respect. Many hate speech codes are a violation of the first amendment and have been struck down by federal and state courts. They persist in jurisdictions where they have been ruled unconstitutional; most universities and public schools have speech codes. This assault on the first amendment might be a concern to all citizens, especially university professors and social studies educators responsible for teaching students about the democratic ideals enshrined in our constitution. Teachers should resist unconstitutional speech codes and teach their students that the purpose of the first amendment is to protect radical, offensive, critical, and controversial speech. Key words: first amendment, hate speech codes, academic freedom, censorship, tolerance, social studies teachers Introduction The first amendment in the Bill of Rights, the foundation of individual freedom in the United States, protecting the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. These basic freedoms, derived from Enlightenment philosophy and codified in the world’s oldest written constitution, have been an essential characteristic of American democracy and law since 1791. This is continuity considering “between 1971 and 1990, 110 of the world’s 162 national constitutions were either written or extensively rewritten” (Haynes, Chaltain, Ferguson, Hudson, and Thomas, 2003, p. 9). The first amendment has been the conduit employed by U.S. citizens to create an increasingly free and just society based on the constitutional ideals of equality before the law, popular sovereignty, limited government, checks and balances, federalism, and individual liberties (Center for Civic Education, 2009). Advocates for the abolition of slavery and the expansion of civil rights were able, after long struggles, to achieve their goals of expanding freedom and social justice by using their natural rights to free expression and religious liberty (Dye, 2011). Since no constitutional liberty or right is absolute, American institutions continuously debate the definitions, limitations, and exceptions to these fundamental rights based on social, political, and technological changes.
Second, speech restrictions are systematically used as tools of oppression.
ACLU 16 American Civil Liberties Union, 2016, "Hate Speech on Campus," https://www.aclu.org/other/hate-speech-campus
Q: Aren't speech codes on college campuses an effective way to combat bias against people of color, women and gays? A: Historically, defamation laws or codes have proven ineffective at best and counter-productive at worst. For one thing, depending on how they're interpreted and enforced, they can actually work against the interests of the people they were ostensibly created to protect. Why? Because the ultimate power to decide what speech is offensive and to whom rests with the authorities -- the government or a college administration -- not with those who are the alleged victims of hate speech. In Great Britain, for example, a Racial Relations Act was adopted in 1965 to outlaw racist defamation. But throughout its existence, the Act has largely been used to persecute activists of color, trade unionists and anti-nuclear protesters, while the racists -- often white members of Parliament -- have gone unpunished. Similarly, under a speech code in effect at the University of Michigan for 18 months, white students in 20 cases charged black students with offensive speech. One of the cases resulted in the punishment of a black student for using the term "white trash" in conversation with a white student. The code was struck down as unconstitutional in 1989 and, to date, the ACLU has brought successful legal challenges against speech codes at the Universities of Connecticut, Michigan and Wisconsin. These examples demonstrate that speech codes don't really serve the interests of persecuted groups. The First Amendment does. As one African American educator observed: "I have always felt as a minority person that we have to protect the rights of all because if we infringe on the rights of any persons, we'll be next." Q: But don't speech codes send a strong message to campus bigots, telling them their views are unacceptable? A: Bigoted speech is symptomatic of a huge problem in our country; it is not the problem itself. Everybody, when they come to college, brings with them the values, biases and assumptions they learned while growing up in society, so it's unrealistic to think that punishing speech is going to rid campuses of the attitudes that gave rise to the speech in the first place. Banning bigoted speech won't end bigotry, even if it might chill some of the crudest expressions. The mindset that produced the speech lives on and may even reassert itself in more virulent forms. Speech codes, by simply deterring students from saying out loud what they will continue to think in private, merely drive biases underground where they can't be addressed. In 1990, when Brown University expelled a student for shouting racist epithets one night on the campus, the institution accomplished nothing in the way of exposing the bankruptcy of racist ideas.

Third, oppression by restrictions on the campus and overlimitation are inherent in SQ.
Maloney 16, October 13. (Cliff Maloney, http://time.com/4530197/college-free-speech-zone/, Time Magazine, Writer for TIME Magazine–sufficient education and has done in-depth research to back up his research.)
While the current presidential election represents polarizing wings of both the Democratic and Republican parties, we should be able to openly debate their policies and the direction in which they plan to take our country if elected. We should be able to discuss the abuse of power within our government and the consistent violations of our Bill of Rights. We should be able to participate in the free market of ideas. But our students are being silenced. University campuses are now home to a plethora of speech restrictions. From sidewalk-sized “free-speech zones” to the criminalization of microaggressions, America’s college campuses look and feel a lot more like an authoritarian dictatorship than they do the academic hubs of the modern free world. When rolling an inflated free-speech ball around campus, students at the University of Delaware were halted by campus police for their activities. A Young Americans for Liberty leader at Fairmont State University in West Virginia was confronted by security when he was attempting to speaking with other students about the ideas he believes in. A man at Clemson University was barred from praying on campus because he was outside of the free-speech zone. And a student at Blinn College in Texas abolished her campus’ free-speech zone in a lawsuit after administrators demanded she seek special permission to advocate for self-defense. How have we let this happen in America, the land of the free? It’s because of what our universities have taught a generation of Americans: If you don’t agree with someone, are uncomfortable with an idea, or don’t find a joke funny, then their speech must be suppressed. Especially if they don’t politically agree with you. Instead of actually debating ideas that span topics from the conventional to the taboo, a generation of American students don’t engage, they just get enraged. In doing so, many students believe that they have a right to literally shut other people up. This is not only a threat to the First Amendment, but also to American democracy. In their manifestation, safe spaces and free-speech zones at public universities enable prejudice against unfavorable ideologies. Guised as progressive measures to ensure inclusion, these often unconstitutional policies exclude new and competing ideas, and are antithetical to a free academia. In excluding different ideologies, supposedly progressive campus speech codes do one thing: prevent the progression of ideas. Restrictive campus speech codes are, in fact, regressive. With over 750 chapters nationwide at Young Americans for Liberty, we are fighting against public universities that stifle free speech. We've launched the national Fight for Free Speech campaign to reform unconstitutional speech codes and abolish these so-called free-speech zones on college campuses. By hosting events such as large free speech balls, YAL chapters across the country are petitioning their campuses to adopt the University of Chicago's principles on freedom of expression—the hallmark of campus speech policies. Our members have geared up with First Amendment organizations to ensure that their free speech rights on campus are protected.

Fourth, do not let them tell you that their advocacy only stops harmful speech–the restrictions spill over onto valuable speech and legitimize oppression.
Volokh 96 (Eugene, Slate, 7/19/96, “Speech and Spillover”, http://www.slate.com/articles/briefing/articles/1996/07/speech_and_spillover.html)  UK
One of the great recurring problems in free-speech law is spillover. Free speech, the Supreme Court has held, has limits: Some speech is so harmful and so lacking in redeeming value that it may be restricted. Threats, blackmail, and false advertising are obvious examples. There's no right to say, "Your money or your life" to a stranger in a dark alley; there's no right to spread intentional falsehoods about your product or your enemy's character. The Supreme Court likewise has held, rightly or wrongly, that minors have no right to see very sexually explicit material, and that people (except, perhaps, the minors' parents) have no right to distribute such material to them. Psychologists and philosophers can debate this, but as a constitutional matter, the question is settled. But it's often impossible to keep such materials from children without also denying them to adults. Bookstores can check customers' ages, but TV broadcasters, muralists, or people who post things on the Internet can't. The law can allow public display of this material, protecting adults' access but also making it available to children; or the law can prohibit public display, insulating children but also restricting adults. Either way there's spillover. Either the restriction spills over onto speech that should be free, or the freedom spills over onto speech that, in the judgment of most legislators, voters, and judges, should be restricted. This spillover problem is a recurring question in First Amendment law. The law cannot restrict all harmful, valueless speech and at the same time protect all valuable speech. A classic illustration of the spillover problem is the Communications Decency Act, passed earlier this year in an attempt to stop "indecency" on the Internet. A three-judge federal court was probably correct in striking down the CDA June 11. But the judges' opinions don't squarely face the spillover problem. Perhaps--contrary to the suggestions of some Supreme Court cases--spillover questions should always be resolved in favor of free speech. Perhaps children's increased vulnerability is a price worth paying for extra freedom for adults. But it's important to confront honestly both what's being lost and gained in the process. 

Fifth, speech restrictions we currently have are vague and overly broad about what speech is restricted–their overbreadth gives way to oppression on good speech
Majeed ’10 Azhar(Azhar Majeed is the Associate Director of Legal and Public Advocacy, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). B.A., University of Michigan, 2004; J.D., University of Michigan, 2007.) Putting Their Money Where Their Mouth is: The Case for Denying Qualified Immunity to University Administrators for Violating Students’ Speech Rights, September 29,2010, Cardozo Public Law, Policy, and Ethics Journal, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2010, Date Accessed 12/4/16 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1690730
Speech codes are “university regulations prohibiting expression that would be constitutionally protected in society at large,”51 or “any campus regulations that punishes, forbids, heavily regulates, or restricts a substantial amount of protected speech.”52 In other words, by their very terms, they infringe upon the right of university students to engage in constitutionally protected expression.53 Courts have repeatedly found them to be doctrinally flawed under the First Amendment owing to their vagueness,54 overbreadth,55 or both. Speech codes abound at colleges and universities, and just a few examples are illustrative of the problems they present. One policy at Johns Hopkins University prohibits any and all “rude, disrespectful behavior,”56 thus covering much protected speech, moreover, in patently vague language. Similarly, Texas AandM and University maintains a policy on “Student Rights and Obligations” which prohibits students from violat- ing others’ rights to “respect for personal feelings” and “freedom from indignity of any type.”57 San Jose State University’s policy on “Harassment and/or Assault” bans “verbal remarks,” “publicly telling offensive jokes,” and even “practical jokes and pranks,”58 presenting fundamental vagueness and over-breadth concerns. Still other examples are revealing. New York University’s “Anti- Harassment Policy” expressly prohibits “insulting, teasing, mocking, de- grading or ridiculing” another individual, as well as “inappropriate . . . jokes.”59 Murray State University in Kentucky lists “telling sexual jokes or stories,” “looking a person up and down (elevator eyes),” and even “displaying sexual and/or derogatory comments about men/wo- men on coffee mugs” as examples of sexual harassment.60 Lastly, North- eastern University bans students from using the school’s information systems or facilities to “transmit or make accessible material, which in the sole judgment of the University” is “offensive” or “annoying.”61 These and other existing speech codes suffer from the same First Amendment flaws found in previously challenged speech codes, and as a result continue to impinge upon student speech rights.

Part 3 is the Impact
Free speech is a means through which we educate ourselves. Only with free speech can we educate ourselves, and cause change in the world. Education is an important impact for many reasons.
Robert Zimmer, Robert J. August 26, 2016(President of University of Chicago, Wrote an article for  Wall Street Journal)   UK http://www.wsj.com/articles/free-speech-is-the-basis-of-a-true-education-1472164801
Yet what is the value of a university education should without encountering, reflecting on and debating ideas that differ from the ones that students brought with them to college?The purpose of a university education is to provide the critical pathway by which students can fulfill their potential, change the trajectory of their families, and build healthier and more inclusive societies. Students learn not only through the acquisition of specific knowledge, but also through the attainment of intellectual skills that serve them their entire life. Students come to appreciate context, trade-offs and data. They master how to recognize complexity, to argue effectively for their positions and to reconsider and challenge their own beliefs. Students discover, too, that seemingly straightforward phenomena can have complicated cultural, historical and situational contexts that are critical to understanding their meaning. They realize that actions inevitably have multiple implications and that many decisions involve not simply choosing between “good” or “bad” but evaluating a set of consequences and uncertainties, both desired and undesired. Students grasp the complexity of collecting, analyzing, interpreting and deriving meaning from evidence of multiple forms. They learn to imagine alternatives, to test their hypotheses and to question the accepted wisdom. A good education gives students the intellectual skills and approaches essential to success in much of human endeavor. One word summarizes the process by which universities impart these skills: is questioning. Productive and informed questioning involves challenging assumptions, arguments and conclusions. It calls for multiple and diverse perspectives and listening to the views of others. It requires understanding the power and limitations of arguments. More fundamentally, the process of questioning demands an ability to rethink one’s own assumptions, often the most difficult task of all.
This means we can only be educated if we use free speech to question and reflect on our learned ideas.

1) The magnitude of this impact is enormous–economic slowdown, wage decrease, impeding infrastructure, and less technical innovation.
Berger and Fisher (Noah, Peter) 22 August 2013 http://www.epi.org/publication/states-education-productivity-growth-foundations/
What can state governments do to boost the economic well-being of their people? That is the central question of state economic policy. Incomes and wages can increase across an economy when productivity—production per capita—increases. States have many tools in their arsenal to increase productivity, including investments in public infrastructure, in technological by innovation at public universities and other institutions, and in in workers through the education and training systems. But many states have been retreating from their responsibility to ensure state economic growth that benefits all residents in favor of a short-sighted approach to economic development. In these states, the focus is on luring employers from other states with strategies that do not lead to rising incomes because they do not make the workforce more productive. Even worse, the focus drains resources from the most important, proven, path to increasing productivity: investments in education. Major findings of this report include the following: Major findings of this report include the following: Overwhelmingly, high-wage states are states withhave a well-educated workforce. There is a clear and strong correlation between the educational attainment of a state’s workforce and median wages of the workforce in the state. States have can build a strong foundation for economic success and shared prosperity by when investing in education. Providing expanded access to high quality education will not only expand economic opportunity for residents, but also likely do more to strengthen the overall state economy than anything else a state government can do. Cutting taxes to capture private investment from other states is a race-to-the-bottom state economic development strategy that undermines the ability to invest in education. States can increase the strength of their economies and their ability to grow and attract high-wage employers by investing in education and increasing the number of well-educated workers. Investing in education is also good for state budgets in the long run, since workers with higher incomes contribute more through taxes over the course of their lifetimes.

Part 4 is the advocacy
The plan is that public colleges and universities in the United States will not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.
I reserve the right to clarify.

If we allow total constitutional speech on college campuses, then hate speech can be prevented. A study at Cal Poly confirms this.
Davidson 16 The Freedom of Speech in Public Forums on College Campuses: A Single-Site Case Study on Pushing the Boundaries of the Freedom of Speech A Senior Project presented to The Faculty of the Journalism Department California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Bachelor of Science in Journalism By Alexander Davidson June 2016  UK
All experts agreed that When negative speech creates awareness that surroundings a certain topic, They all noted that “ good speech” surfaces to combat the “bad speech.” Humphrey notes that, “We have seen a lot of students stand up and say that hate speech this isn’t welcome in this community. It galvanized a movement that said we need to do better” (Appendix A). Den Otter notes something very similar, stating that, “I think any time that there’s some kind 51 of racist incident on campus, people start talking about it. They’re made more aware of it” (Appendix B). And Loving advocates for people to not just stand idly while hate speech is taking place around them, that, “If racial slurs were met with more conversation, evil councils being remedied by good councils, then how long would that atmosphere remain on campus?” (Appendix C). The research shows that these suggestions and statements are true, if history is used as an indicator. Various incidents that have occurred, such as the California Polytechnic State University College Republicans Free Speech Wall, the Crops House Incidents and the Charlie Hebdo and Attacks Hate speech hasve created movements against the negative speech that took place. Many times when “bad hate speech” arises shows its face, there are people who use “good free speech” to combat it the issue.
Prefer this evidence because it is a case study at a university–means it simulates the real world, and is the most accurate prediction.

On an analytical level, the students band together to attack the hate speech.
ACLU 16 (American Civil Liberties Union, 2016, “Hate Speech on Campus”, https://www.aclu.org/other/hate-speech-campus)  UK
Many universities, under pressure to respond to the concerns of those who are the objects of hate, have adopted codes or policies prohibiting speech that offends any group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. That's the wrong response, well-meaning or not. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Speech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU believes that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles because academic freedom is a bedrock of education in a free society. How much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible: When one of us is denied this right, all of us are denied. Since its founding in 1920, the ACLU has fought for the free expression of all ideas, popular or unpopular. That's the constitutional mandate. Where racist, sexist and homophobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more speech -- not less -- is the best answer. revenge. This is particularly true at universities, whose mission is to facilitate learning through open debate and study, and to enlighten. Speech codes are not the way to go on campuses, where all views are entitled to be heard, explored, supported or refuted. Besides, when hate is out in the open, people can see the problem. Then they University students can organize effectively to counter bad attitudes, possibly change them, and forge solidarity against this behavior e forces of intolerance. College administrators may find speech codes attractive as a quick fix, but as one critic put it: "Verbal purity is not social change." Codes that punish bigoted speech treat only the symptom: The problem itself is bigotry. The ACLU believes that instead of opting for gestures that only appear to cure the disease, universities have to do the hard work of recruitment to increase faculty and student diversity; counseling to raise awareness about bigotry and its history, and changing curricula to institutionalize more inclusive approaches to all subject matter

Part 5 is the Underview
*Spikes*