Tournament: Stanford | Round: 2 | Opponent: Blank | Judge: Blank
I negate.
First is Framing
Racism is the ultimate moral evil and must be rejected at all costs.
Memmi 94 writes: (Albert Memmi, Essayist qualified to write about the colonizer and the colonized, 2000. RACISM, pg. 165. http://books.google.com/books?id=lP8kKUKmOwACandprintsec=frontcover#v=onepageandqandf=false accessed 7/20/12)  UK
 Of course, this is debatable. There are those who think that if one is strong enough, the assault on and oppression of others is permissible. But no one is ever sure of remaining the strongest. One day, per-haps, the roles will be reversed. All unjust society contains within itself the seeds of its own death. It is probably smarter to treat others with respect so that they treat you with respect. "Recall," says the Bible, "that you were once a stranger in Egypt," which means both that you ought to respect the stranger because you were a stranger yourself and that you risk becoming one again someday. It is an ethical and a practical appeal—indeed, it is a contract, however implicit it might be. In short, the refusal of racism is the condition for all theoretical and practical morality. Because, in the end, the ethical choice commands the political choice, a just society must be a society accepted by all. If this contractual principle is not accepted, then only conflict, violence, and destruction will be our lot. If it is accepted, we can hope someday to live in peace. True, it is a wager, but the stakes are irresistible.

Rejecting racism is a prerequisite to founding a moral order. Utilitarian considerations are irrelevant when racism runs rampant in an institution because it can never be moral. Memmi 2 continues:
However, it remains true that one's moral conduct only emerges from a choice; one has to want it. It is a choice among other choices, and always debatable in its foundations and its consequences. Let us say, broadly speaking, that the choice to conduct one-self morally is the condition for the establishment of a human order, for which racism is the very negation. This is almost a redundancy. One cannot found a moral order, let alone a legislative order, on racism, because racism signifies the exclusion of the other, and his or her subjection to violence and domination. From an ethical point of view, if one can deploy a lit-tle religious language, racism is "the truly capital sin."22 It is not an accident that almost all of humani-ty's spiritual traditions counsel respect for the weak, for orphans, widows, or strangers. It is not just a question of theoretical morality and disinterested commandments. Such unanimity in the safeguarding of the other suggests the real utility of such sentiments. All things considered, we have an interest in banishing injustice, because injustice engenders violence and death. Of course, this is debatable. There are those who think that if one is strong enough, the assault on and oppression of others is permissible. But no one is ever sure of remaining the strongest. One day, per-haps, the roles will be reversed. All unjust society

We have a moral obligation to reject racism even if we do not succeed. The deontological impact is linear which means that the less racist choice is the more moral choice. The neg does not have to solve all racism to garner offense.
Brown 03 writes: (Michael K. Brown et al, Department of Politics at the University of California. 2003 Whitewashing Race: the myth of a color-blind society, “Conclusion: Facing up to Race” pg. 229. http://www.jonescollegeprep.org/ourpages/auto/2007/11/26/1196104740124/Facing20Up20To20Race.pdf accessed 7/20/12)  UK
Even if Derrick Bell is correct in his prognosis that durable racial inequality is permanent, it must be challenged. It cannot be ignored. And while we celebrate diversity and applaud cultural pluralism, we do not think that changing identities will eliminate or minimize the harsh realities of the durable racial inequality we have described in this book. Nor do we think that remedies for class inequality by themselves will over-come persistent racial stratification. In fact, if our analysis of U.S. social policies since the New Deal reveals anything, it is the folly of assuming class-specific policies will benefit all racial groups equally. 

Finally, human worth and morality cannot exist with racism. Memmi 3 concludes:
The struggle against racism will be long, difficult, without intermission, without remission, probably never achieved, yet for this very reason, it is a struggle to be undertaken without surcease and without concessions. One cannot be indulgent toward racism. One cannot even let the monster in the house, especially not in a mask. To give it merely a foothold means to augment the bestial part in us and in other people which is to diminish what is human. To accept the racist universe to the slightest degree is to endorse fear, injustice, and violence. It is to accept the persistence of the dark history in which we still largely live. It is to agree that the outsider will always be a possible victim (and which person man is not themself himself an outsider relative to someone else?).Racism illustrates in sum, the inevitable negativity of the condition of the dominated; that is it illuminates in a certain sense the entire human condition. The anti-racist struggle, difficult though it is, and always in question, is nevertheless one of the prologues to the ultimate passage from animality to humanity. In that sense, we cannot fail to rise to the racist challenge. 

Further, the apriori issue is racism-It makes all forms of violence inevitable. It must be rejected in every instance; Memmi 4 explains,
MEMMI Professor Emeritus of Sociology @ Unv. Of Paris Albert-; RACISM, translated by Steve Martinot, 2000; pp.163-165  UK
The struggle against racism will be long, difficult, without intermission, without remission, probably never achieved, yet for this very reason, it is a struggle to be undertaken without surcease and without concessions. One cannot be indulgent toward racism. One cannot even let the monster in the house, especially not in a mask. To give it merely a foothold means to augment the bestial part in us and in other people which is to diminish what is human. To accept the racist universe to the slightest degree is to endorse fear, injustice, and violence. It is to accept the persistence of the dark history in which we still largely live. It is to agree that the outsider will always be a possible victim (and which person man is not themself himself an outsider relative to someone else?). Racism illustrates in sum, the inevitable negativity of the condition of the dominated; that is it illuminates in a certain sense the entire human condition. The anti-racist struggle, difficult though it is, and always in question, is nevertheless one of the prologues to the ultimate passage from animality to humanity. In that sense, we cannot fail to rise to the racist challenge. However, it remains true that one’s moral conduct only emerges from a choice: one has to want it. It is a choice among other choices, and always debatable in its foundations and its consequences. Let us say, broadly speaking, that the choice to conduct oneself morally is the condition for the establishment of a human order for which racism is the very negation. This is almost a redundancy. One cannot found a moral order, let alone a legislative order, on racism because racism signifies the exclusion of the other and his or her subjection to violence and domination. From an ethical point of view, if one can deploy a little religious language, racism is “the truly capital sin.”fn22 It is not an accident that almost all of humanity’s spiritual traditions counsel respect for the weak, for orphans, widows, or strangers. It is not just a question of theoretical counsel respect for the weak, for orphans, widows or strangers. It is not just a question of theoretical morality and disinterested commandments. Such unanimity in the safeguarding of the other suggests the real utility of such sentiments. All things considered, we have an interest in banishing injustice, because injustice engenders violence and death. Of course, this is debatable. There are those who think that if one is strong enough, the assault on and oppression of others is permissible. But no one is ever sure of remaining the strongest. One day, perhaps, the roles will be reversed. All unjust society contains within itself the seeds of its own death. It is probably smarter to treat others with respect so that they treat you with respect. “Recall,” says the bible, “that you were once a stranger in Egypt,” which means both that you ought to respect the stranger because you were a stranger yourself and that you risk becoming once again someday. It is an ethical and a practical appeal – indeed, it is a contract, however implicit it might be. In short, the refusal of racism is the condition for all theoretical and practical morality. Because, in the end, the ethical choice commands the political choice. A just society must be a society accepted by all. If this contractual principle is not accepted, then only conflict, violence, and destruction will be our lot. If it is accepted, we can hope someday to live in peace. True, it is a wager, but the stakes are irresistible.

ROB
We are obliged to challenge racism whether we succeed or not–thus the role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best challenges and attacks racism. Brown 2 explains,
Michael K. Brown et al, Chair, Department of Politics, University of California @ Santa Cruz, Whitewashing Race: the myth of a color-blind society, 2003, p. 229 (HARVCL3164)
Even if Derrick Bell is correct in his prognosis that durable racial inequality is permanent, it must be challenged. It cannot be ignored. And while we celebrate diversity and applaud cultural pluralism, we do not think that changing identities will eliminate or minimize the harsh realities of the durable racial inequality by themselves will overcome persistent racial stratification. In fact, if our analysis of US social policies since the New Deal reveals anything, it is the folly of assuming class-specific policies will benefit all racial groups equally.

Second is the Links
Discourse is used to construct race
López, 96. Ian F. Haney; Professor of Law and Executive Committee Member of the Center for Social Justice at the University of California, Berkeley; White By Law: The Legal Construction of Race; p. 128.   UK
Law frees racial categories from their local settings in another, quite distinct sense, as well: it occasionally provides a new language with which to construct racial differences. LegalTerms that do not refer explicitly to race may nevertheless come to serve as racial synonyms, thus expanding in often predictable ways the form and range of racial categorization. This possibility is evident in the prerequisite cases, though it is much more relevant to the prerequisite cases, though it is much more relevant to the legal construction of race today. These prerequisite laws spawned a new vocabulary by which to mark racial difference, the phrase “alien ineligible to citizenship.”

Constitutional Speech is not racially neutral, and is part of a broader historical tradition that allows racism to continue virtually unchecked.
Gillborn, 09 (David Professor of Education at the University of London “Risk-Free Racism: Whiteness and So-Called ‘Free Speech.’” Wake Forest Law Review 44 Wake Forest L. Rev. 535. Summer, 2009. LexisNexis Academic)  UK
"Whiteness at various times signifies and is deployed as identity, status, and property, sometimes singularly, sometimes in tandem... . Whiteness has been characterized, not by an inherent unifying characteristic, but by the exclusion of others deemed "not *551 white.'" A key theme in critical race theory has been to document how White identity has been constituted historically by the law where (even after the formal abolition of slavery) being defined as White meant access to a wide range of freedoms and rights that were withheld from other races. In one of the most important contributions, Cheryl Harris examines the legal definition of Whiteness and argues that it is a form of property, where property is understood to include rights as well as physical "things": Although by popular usage property describes "things" owned by persons, or the rights of persons with respect to a thing ... property may "consist of rights in "things' that are intangible, or whose existence is a matter of legal definition." ... Thus, the fact that whiteness is not a "physical" entity does not remove it from the realm of property. Harris goes on to examine the different characteristics and functions of Whiteness, concluding that the most important characteristic is "the absolute right to exclude." She states that "whiteness and property share a common premise - a conceptual nucleus - of a right to exclude. This conceptual nucleus has proven to be a powerful center around which whiteness as property has taken shape." In the English call-in show, we see Whiteness' ability to set the boundaries for what counts as legitimate debate. Meanwhile, racist pseudoscience gains yet more airtime and is asserted as brave and true in a debate where White people construct a no-risk, win-win situation for themselves. First, White people remain untouched by the violence of discussions about race and intelligence that construct Black people as automatically deficient. As we saw in the call-in show, many White people see such exchanges as mere debate or discussion; at worst they become a voyeuristic spectacle of insult and assertion. But regardless of how White people experience the discussion, it remains an entirely risk-free environment for them. For example, White listeners to the radio show know that their children do not risk losing educational opportunities because of such talk. Even if teachers mistakenly buy into the nonsense of "IQist" talk, it is highly unlikely that White children will be harmed. White people can listen to debates about IQ, "stop and search," and DNA *552 profiling safe in the knowledge that they are unlikely to suffer humiliation or wrongful arrest as a result of racial disproportionality. In fact, Whites stand to directly benefit from such discussions. After all, it will be White people who gain if other Whites believe the arguments and engage in further racist stereotyping of Black people. In contrast, so-called "debates" about race and IQ can do nothing but harm to Black students: no matter how often the pseudoscience is debunked, the argument provides new fodder for those who wish to explain race inequality by looking anywhere except at the actions and beliefs of White people. And these are not mere academic debates. These processes have real and direct impacts in schools and classrooms. For example, in 2002 the British government began a concerted focus on "gifted' children, including setting up a National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth (at a cost of around £ 20 million). At the time, antiracists warned that education policies which encourage academic selection are almost always likely to institutionalize further existing inequalities of achievement between different ethnic groups and that notions of giftedness and intelligence had an especially racist past. Decades of research, on both sides of the Atlantic, show that whenever teachers are asked to assess their students' "potential" against some academic or behavioral norm, Black students are typically underrepresented in the highest ranked groups (which benefit from additional resources) and over-represented in the low-ranked groups that typically experience teaching of lower quality, cover less of the curriculum, and, in the English system of "tiered" examinations, are likely to be entered for tests where the very highest grades are simply not available because they are restricted to a "higher" paper reserved for "more able" students. *553 Despite these clear, evidence-based warnings, the British government pursued its gifted and talented initiative with no formal safeguards to ensure that familiar patterns of race inequality were not further entrenched. Indeed, the Education Department took the unusual step of issuing a public rebuttal when my own warnings were reproduced in a national newspaper. An official statement was quoted as arguing: "The gifted and talented scheme will identify children by looking at ability, rather than attainment, to capitalise on the talents of the individual child, regardless of ethnic background." Incredibly this formal rebuttal demonstrated clearly that the Education Department was working under the common, but misguided, belief that "ability" and "attainment" are somehow different, as if ability were some inner quality or potential while attainment were merely a score on a test. In fact, the American Psychological Association had already rejected precisely this view some twenty years earlier: "A distinction is drawn traditionally between intelligence and achievement tests. A naive statement of the difference is that the intelligence test measures capacity to learn and the achievement test measures what has been learned. But items in all psychological and educational tests measure acquired behavior." Contrary to popular belief, therefore, there is no test of capacity to learn or academic potential: every test so far conceived measures only what a person has learned to that point. Despite the "scientific" facade that surrounds the industry of standardized testing, we must remember that tests - all tests - measure only whether a person can perform well on that particular test at that particular time. If a student is given suitable tuition for a test, including so called "cognitive ability tests" (the preferred term for contemporary IQ tests among those constructing and selling them), *554 then on average their performance improves significantly. Previous research has clearly demonstrated that, regardless of the form of assessment used (whether relying on teachers' judgments or on formal IQ/cognitive ability tests) in selective hierarchical contexts, the odds are stacked against Black children; predictably the Education Department's confidence in their approach was ill-founded. Its assumptions were demonstrably inaccurate and, three years after the official rebuttal, the department released data that confirmed antiracists' fears. In the first national data to offer an ethnic breakdown of the "gifted and talented" figures, it emerged that White students were most likely to be identified for inclusion in the initiative: one in ten White students were selected compared with one in twenty-five students identified as "Black Caribbean" and one in fifty of their peers with family heritage identified as "Black African." Conclusion Despite the numerous critiques that have debunked a belief in general intelligence, and especially the spurious link between "race" and intelligence, in the twenty-first century it remains the case that education policy (like radio call-in shows) continues to trade in racist assumptions that place disproportionate numbers of Black students in low-ranked teaching groups where they cover less of the curriculum and achieve systematically lower results. This is true of "tracking" systems in the United States and "setting" in the United Kingdom. At the other end of the educational spectrum, on both sides of the Atlantic, measures to reward so-called "gifted" youth systematically advantage children from the majority ethnic group. Despite claims that "free speech" never hurt anyone, we can see that, as Mahoney argues, unregulated racist talk (that is, speech that systematically denigrates a "racial" group) is part of a wider network of beliefs and practices that has real-world impacts on the educational and life chances of minoritized groups in general, and Black people in particular. In this Article, I have explored the element of "risk" involved in certain forms of speech and, drawing on the traditions of critical race theory, I have shown that risk is racially structured. White people do not generally risk demonization and stereotyping as a result of criminal or other negative acts by other White individuals. *555 In addition, Whiteness operates to invest speech with different degrees of legitimacy, such that already debunked racist beliefs can enjoy repeated public airings where they are lauded as scientific and rational by many White listeners, who simultaneously define as irrational, emotional, or exaggerated the opposing views of people of color. In the call-in show that I analyzed, White callers were no more eloquent than their minoritized counterparts; rather, they were already and always in an advantaged position because of the regime of Whiteness that operates in the United Kingdom (like the United States). The fundamental problem here is not the absence or presence of a Fairness Doctrine; the problem is that genuinely free speech is an impossibility in a context where "common sense" (what is rational and irrational) is determined by, and for, White people.

Hate speech leads to racism and violence against minorities.
Greenblatt 15 (Jonathan Greenblatt, When Hateful Speech Leads to Hate Crimes: Taking Bigotry Out of the Immigration Debate, Huffington Post, 8/21/15, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-greenblatt/when-hateful-speech-leads_b_8022966.html)  UK
When police arrived at the scene in Boston, they found a Latino man shaking on the ground, his face apparently soaked in urine, with a broken nose. His arms and chest had been beaten. One of the two brothers arrested and charged with the hate crime reportedly told police, “Donald Trump was right — all these illegals need to be deported.” The victim, a homeless man, was apparently sleeping outside of a subway station in Dorchester when the perpetrators attacked. His only offense was being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The brothers reportedly attacked him for who he was — simply because he was Latino. In recent weeks anti-immigrant — and by extension anti-Latino — rhetoric has reached a fever pitch. Immigrants have been smeared as “killers” and “rapists.” They have been accused of bringing drugs and crime. A radio talk show host in Iowa has called for enslavement of undocumented immigrants if they do not leave within 60 days. There have been calls to repeal the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of citizenship to people born in the United States, with allegations that people come here to have so-called “anchor babies.” And the terms “illegal aliens” and “illegals” — which many mainstream news sources wisely rejected years ago because they dehumanize and stigmatize people — have resurged. The words used on the campaign trail, in on the floors of Congress, and in the news, and in all our living rooms have consequences. They directly impact our ability to sustain a society that ensures dignity and equality for all. Bigoted rhetoric and words laced with prejudice are building blocks for the pyramid of hate. Biased behaviors build on one another, becoming ever more threatening and dangerous towards the top. At the base is bias, which includes stereotyping and insensitive remarks. It sets the foundation for a second, more complex and more damaging layer: individual acts of prejudice, including bullying, slurs and dehumanization. Next is discrimination, which in turn supports bias-motivated violence, including apparent hate crimes like the tragic one in Boston. And in the most extreme cases if left unchecked, the top of the pyramid of hate is genocide. Just like a pyramid, the lower levels support the upper levels. Bias, prejudice and discrimination — particularly touted by those with a loud megaphone and cheering crowd — all contribute to an atmosphere that enabling hate crimes and other hate-fueled violence. The most recent hate crime in Boston is just one of too many. In fact, there is a hate crime roughly every 90 minutes in the United States today. That is why last week ADL announced a new initiative, #50StatesAgainstHate, to strengthen hate crimes laws around the country and safeguard communities vulnerable to hate-fueled attacks. We are working with a broad coalition of partners to get the ball rolling.
Since the rejection of racism is the criterion, and discourse is used to shape race into racist means, the only way to achieve morality is through the reduction of racial discourse. We must stop racist and hateful rhetoric, which the affirmative promotes.

Third is the advocacy
I contend that solely hate speech should be restricted to stop the proliferation of racism.
The Memmi 4 card explain. The apriori issue is to reject racism, so whoever stops racism shall get the ballot. But the Brown card proves that the impact is linear, so whoever mitigates the most racism should win–the neg cannot be expected to stop all racism to access the ballot.

College restrictions will work to mitigate hate and racist speech.
Tsesis 10
ALEXANDER TSESIS*, prof @ Loyola Chicago Law, Burning Crosses on Campus: University Hate Speech Codes, HeinOnline -- 43 Conn. L. Rev. 619 2010-2011, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c4c2/a881ffd558d28d2b0d0a738981c7211d85e4.pdf
In formulating a university hate speech code, it is important to distinguish between disciplinary measures available to administrators and punishments connected to criminal convictions. Educational penalties are designed to negatively impact a student's or faculty member's record, while criminal punishment is more onerous because it involves the curtailment of liberty and greater social stigma. Educators can assess student penalties without following any rules of criminal procedure. The "beyonda-reasonable-doubt" standard is meant to prevent mistaken deprivations of liberty, something that is unconnected to college sanctions. Recognizing this contrast is important because the standard of proof for a criminal hate speech law, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt, is significantly more rigorous than what would be required for the censure of student hate speech,. The O'Connor plurality's requirement in Black applies within the context of criminal liability, not civil penalties. If a college hate speech code prohibits the use of a prima facie presumption of a hate speaker's mental state, requiring a clear showing of intent, the regulation would have no problem passing the plurality requirement. College administrators are likely to have more latitude , however, because this standard of proof applies to criminal cases, not to place administrative codes like those that to govern college campuses' activities

Hate Speech codes are effective at stopping hate speech
Richard Delgado. Campus Anti-Racism Rules Rev. 34 371-75 (1991),https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2104287 Charles Inglis Thomson Professor of Law, University of Colorado School of Law. J.D. 1974, U-C Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall).
Unlike with racism's etiology,there is relative agreement on the part of social scientistson how to control its expression. Much prejudice is situational-individuals express it because the environment encourages or tolerates it. The attitude may be relatively constant, but most of us express it selectively-at times we hold it in check, at other times we feel freer to express it in action. 265 The main inhibiter of prejudice is the certainty that it will be remarked and punished. This "confrontation theory" 266 for controlling racism holds that most individuals are ambivalent in matters of race. We realize that the national values-those enshrined in the "American Creed"-call for fair and respectful treatment of all. But the fair-mindedness of our public norms is not always matched by our private behavior. 267 During moments of intimacy we feel much freer to tell or laugh at an ethnic joke, to make a racist or sexist remark. 268 Rules, formalities, and other environmental  reminders put us on notice that the occasion requires the higher formal values of our culture. The existence of rules forbidding certain types of racist acts causes us not to be inclined to carry them out. Moreover, threat of public notice and disapproval operates as a reinforcer-the potential racist refrains from acting, out of fear of notice and sanction. The confrontation theory is probably today the majority view among social scientists on how to control racism. Most who subscribe to this approach hold that laws and rules play a vital role in controlling racism. According to Allport, they "create a public conscience and a standard for expected behavior that check overt signs of prejudice. ' 269 Nor is the change merely cosmetic. In time, rules are internalized, and the impulse to engage in racist behavior weakens. 270 The current understanding of racial prejudice thus lends some support to campus antiracism rules. The mere existence of such rules will often cause members of the campus community to behave in a more egalitarian way, particularly when others may be watching. Even in private settings, some people will refrain from acting because the law has set an example. 

We see here that codes on hate speech have been effective, and could be effective on colleges and universities. We see toward the bottom of the card on how these codes can in some cases change racist mindsets. It’s crucial that we solve for hate speech to give minorities equal education opportunities.

Thus you negate.