1AC- Model Minority 1NC - Fem K Case Turns 2NR - Fem K
Sunvite
2
Opponent: Christopher Colombus DI | Judge:
1NR Mestizo Consciencess
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
Entry
Date
1AC - Academic Freedom v1
Tournament: Sunvite | Round: 2 | Opponent: Christopher Colombus DI | Judge:
Framework
I affirm Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.
The value is morality because ought means a moral obligation.
The resolution is a question of academic freedom. The present convolution around liberty has always been ambiguous and constantly challenged. In order to solve the moral problems in universities, we need to maximize academic freedom, thus the criterion is maximizing academic freedom.
Demaske 2k16 ~Demaske, Chris (2016). "Not Just A Nice Job Perk": Academic Freedom As A First Amendment Right, Democratic Communiqué, vol. 27. 2015/2016 pp. 31–53.~ Much as journalists frequently assert that they have a "right to know," scholars AND to argue for a more complex and constitutionally grounded conception of academic freedom.
Free speech is a pre-requisite to any morality- without it self-realization is impossible.
Eberle 94 Eberle, Law @ Roger Williams, 94 (Wake Forest LR, Winter) The Court's decision in R.A.V. reaffirms the preeminence of free AND Accordingly, any suspicion or evidence of governmental censorship must be vigilantly investigated.
Observation 1
Hate speech is not constitutionally protected: there are exceptions to the first amendment for harmful types of speech, I don't defend the non-restriction or protection of harmful speech
Thus if the negative says restrictions of hate speech are good, that doesn't mean anything since it is not protected speech and thus out of the purview of speech that the resolution makes me defend. They have to win that restrictions on constitutionally protected speech are good to win.
Contention 1 is Academic Freedom
Universities can crack down even on students and professors with no explanation – this destroys critical thought and expression.
Fiorillo 15 (CCP Adjunct Professor, Black Lives Matter Activist Suspended After Speaking at Rally Divya Nair to face a disciplinary hearing this week. A Change.org petition to reinstate her has over 270 signatures. BY VICTOR FIORILLO , OCTOBER 14, 2015, http://www.phillymag.com/news/2015/10/14/professor-suspended-black-lives-matter-divya-nair/) Last Thursday, at a rally initiated by the Revolutionary Student Coordinating Committee, PHL AND adjunct faculty member, and they think they can get rid of her."
Public colleges and universities almost always win their cases and thus can get whoever they want punished. Even though by definition of the first amendment, scholars are protected, the court always interprets cases to favor institutions.
UIUC Journal of Law 2k16 ~University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. "First Amendment offers scant protection for professors." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 9 May 2016. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160509191016.htm~ A new study by a University of Illinois employment law expert determined that the First AND than what it is — a laboratory of thought, experimentation and speech.".
Speech restrictions are an oppressive means to control thought production, and although they start with justified limits, admins can bend the rules to use those limits to silence any speech. Allowing for any restrictions leaves this opportunity open and we already know that the admins always win. This destroys student's potential to truly learn or create change. America has no future when colleges suppress thought.
Wogulis 9 ~Daniel Wogulis December 15, 2009, 12-15-2009, "On the Consequences of Oppressing Free Speech," FIRE, https://www.thefire.org/on-the-consequences-of-oppressing-free-speech/~~ Since its inception, the United States of America has been the site of vicious AND to freely express themselves-in all places, and at all times.
The solution is non-restriction and thus preservation of academic freedom, this is the gateway to philosophical thought and moral education itself. Only a blanket protection solves, individual instances don't get rid of the overarching idea that admins can do what they want.
Demaske 2 ~Demaske, Chris (2016). "Not Just A Nice Job Perk": Academic Freedom As A First Amendment Right, Democratic Communiqué, vol. 27. 2015/2016 pp. 31–53.~ Given the financial pressures on higher education, and the most recent U.S AND new category of speech should receive the utmost protection under the First Amendment.
Contention 2 is Moral Necessity
Free speech facilitates the development of moral reasoning- restrictions should be rejected on face
Dwyer 01 (Susan, Phil@Maryland, Nordic Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 2, No. 2 ® Philosophia Press 2001) Direct Nonconsequentialism Let us return to the central topic: free speech. From the AND free speech in one place, we strengthen (protect) it everywhere.
Even consequentially, Free speech is a gateway to every other impact.
Restrictions of hate speech are part of a demand for progress that does nothing productive and only anger the masses. Universities become echo chambers where only some voices are sheltered. This creates no change and only hides the reality of America while simultaneously only creating backlash from other voices.
Allowing for freedom of discussion solves better for issues of hate speech.
ACLU 16 ~American Civil Liberties Union, Hate Speech On Campus, https://www.aclu.org/other/hate-speech-campus~~ Where racist, sexist and homophobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more AND , possibly change them, and forge solidarity against the forces of intolerance.
Hate speech does not correlate to violence and hate speech restrictions actually increase hate. Telling racists to stop talking only pushes the problem out of our sight while making racists more angry.
Heinze 14 Eric Heinze, Nineteen arguments for hate speech bans – and against them, Free Speech Debate, 3/31/14, http://freespeechdebate.com/en/discuss/nineteen-arguments-for-hate-speech-bans-and-against-them Here too, within the LSPD model, no statistically reliable causation from patterns of AND as hate groups routinely tailor their responses to the existing bans and penalties.
Even if they win that restrictions are good, again that's not a reason to negate. Hate speech is not constitutionally protected since it threatens freedom and safety. Furthermore, the state shouldn't restrict speech, but rather fight back with arguments. This can actually create change whereas restricting free speech can undercut freedom itself and lead to backlash.
Tournament: TFA State | Round: 1 | Opponent: Winston Churchill xx | Judge: Plan Plan: The USFG ought to guarantee a right to housing. Fasanelli 5 is the solvency advocate Antonia Fasanelli Chair Commission on Homelessness and Poverty August 2013. American Bar Association Adopted by the House of Delegates. August 12-13. Implementing the human right to adequate housing In implementing the human right to adequate housing, the American Bar Association calls upon federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial governments to (1) Implement policies promoting the human right to adequate housing for all including veterans, people with disabilities, older persons, families, single individuals, and unaccompanied youth, which, at minimum, includes: a. Affordability, habitability, and accessibility; b. Provision of security of tenure, access to services, materials, facilities, and infrastructure; c. Location proximate to employment, health care, schools, and other social facilities; d. Provision of housing in areas that do not threaten occupants’ health; and e. Protection of cultural identity or diversity The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), which oversees implementation of the ICESCR, lists seven elements required for housing to be considered adequate including legal security of tenure; availability of services, materials, facilities, and infrastructure; affordability; habitability; accessibility; location near employment options, healthcare facilities, schools, child care centers, and other social facilities; and cultural adequacy in housing design.21 This framework recognizes that each of these elements is interdependent with each other. Adequate housing requires more than four walls and a roof; it requires adequate community resources, supportive legal and policy frameworks, effective access to justice, and a participatory and transparent democratic system to maintain all aspects of the right. It also recognizes that enjoyment of the right to housing is a standard relative to the availability of resources in a given country; here in the U.S., in what remains the wealthiest country in the world, we can and must do more.22
Advantaage 1: Eviction The problem of eviction is huge in the U.S., but current conditions disguise and push the it underground. Desmond ‘16 Desmond, Matthew. "The Eviction Epidemic." The New Yorker. The New Yorker, 8 Feb. 2016. Web. 01 Mar. 2017. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/08/forced-out. Even in the most desolate areas of American cities, forced evictions used to be rare enough to draw crowds. Eviction riots erupted during the Depression, though the number of poor families who faced eviction each year was a fraction of what it is today. In February, 1932, the Times published an account of community resistance to the eviction of three families in the Bronx, observing, “Probably because of the cold, the crowd numbered only 1,000.” These days, forced evictions are too commonplace to attract attention. There are sheriff squads whose full-time job is to carry out eviction and foreclosure orders. Some and moving companies specialize in evictions, their crews working all day long, five days a week. Hundreds of data-mining companies sell landlords tenant-screening reports that list past evictions and court filings. Meanwhile, families have watched their incomes stagnate or fall as their housing costs have soared. Today, the majority of poor renting families spend more than half their income on housing, and millions of Americans are forcefully evicted every year. In Milwaukee, a city of fewer than a hundred and five thousand renter households, landlords legally evict roughly sixteen thousand adults and children each year. As the real-estate market has recovered in the wake of the foreclosure crisis and the ensuing recession, evictions have only increased. But there are other ways, cheaper and quicker than a court order, to remove a family. Some landlords pay tenants a couple of hundred dollars to leave by the end of the week. Some take off the front door. Nearly half of the forced moves of renting families in Milwaukee are “informal evictions,” which, like many rentals, involve no paperwork, and take place in the shadow of the law. Between 2009 and 2011, more than one in eight Milwaukee renters were displaced involuntarily, whether by formal or informal eviction, landlord foreclosure, or building condemnation. In 2013, nearly the same proportion of poor renting families nationwide was unable to pay all of their rent, and a similar number thought it was likely that they would be evicted soon. Additionally gentrification has caused mass displacement and forced removal of inner-city minority populations Bartlett 15, John (John Bartlett is the executive director of the Metropolitan Tenants Organization. John is a dedicated social justice advocate who has spent decades fighting to protect people's homes and environment. John's expertise and experience - from civil disobedience to landlord-tenant mediation - has proved irreplaceable in Chicago's continued fight for affordable housing.) . "Malcolm X, Gentrification and Housing as a Human Right." Truthout. N.p., 27 May 2015. Web. 24 Feb. 2017. http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/30994-malcolm-x-gentrification-and-housing-as-a-human-right. SM Every day the Metropolitan Tenants Organization works with renters who are facing the negative effects of gentrification and other economic forces that threaten their housing. Thousands of low-income renters and homeowners are displaced every year by a property law system with misplaced priorities. As a society, we all pay when people are involuntarily displaced because of increased crime, skyrocketing medical costs and a failing educational system. It is imperative that as a nation we confront this housing crisis and ensure that everyone has a home. The insights of visionary Black leader Malcolm X, who would have been 90 this year, are key to the discussion around gentrification and housing. Malcolm X championed a new vision, reframing the character of the struggle for equality from civil rights to one of human rights. He also raised the concept of self-determination as essential to any struggle for equality. I want to use the lens of human rights and self-determination to contextualize gentrification and look for solutions to the nation's housing crisis. What is gentrification? From the perspective of the community members, gentrification is the loss of community (and individual) control over the land they live on, a forced displacement of residents from their homes and their communities. It generally occurs in low-income neighborhoods in which people of color reside. Gentrification is not a haphazard process that happens by accident. It is systemic in nature and sanctioned by a faulty legal system. Gentrification is not just a modern-day occurrence. The foundation of current gentrification can be traced to the very beginning of the United States. In 1823, the US Supreme Court in Johnson v. McIntosh legitimized the concept of ownership through conquest. In Johnson, the Court held that "savages" (the Court's term for Native Americans) had no right to sell or control the land because the land was "discovered" by settlers. Only the US government could give Native people the right to sell or transfer the land. The case is important to understanding gentrification because the Court declared that the indigenous population does not have any inherent right to determine the use of their land. In this case, the Court ruled that the colonization of the continent had in fact erased the slate and thus nullified any Native people's claims to the land. It made the government the sole arbiter of sale or transfer of land. At the same time, it legitimized the government's use of force to take over the continent and gain control of indigenous people's land. Furthermore, the Court's opinion is indicative of the primary role that race plays in community development. The Court called indigenous people "savages." Intrinsic in this name-calling is the idea that Native Americans are the "other" - that European culture is superior - and that as an inferior community, they could not possibly make good decisions as to how they use their land. This inherently wrong, racist decision enshrines the legal and conceptual basis of gentrification, or what I have called ownership through conquest. If we look at what is happening today in major cities throughout the United States, the same principles and legal precepts are at work. Now, instead of military might, overpowering economic forces are pushing low-income people of color out of their neighborhoods and often out of the cities and into the suburbs. This is happening because public and private investments in the downtown business core have made these areas extremely important and valuable. As the core of the city expands, the neighborhoods that abut the downtown area and those along transportation lines leading to downtown have dramatically increased in value. Investors and their partners in the public institutions have "discovered" these communities and swooped in to take control of abandoned and vacant properties, at first; but soon all properties in these neighborhoods become targets for takeover. The outside investors then develop the land to fit the needs of the downtown elite. They build new and high-cost apartments and high-rises and demolish and get rid of properties suitable for people of more modest means. Many of the first people to move into a changing neighborhood are described as "pioneers," the same term used to refer to the initial invaders of North America who imposed the White man's ways on the Native peoples. This means families who have often lived in these neighborhoods for decades are forced to relocate. Tenants in particular, because of the lack of a secure tenure, face an onslaught of economic pressures to move. Outside investors will often close buildings and evict all the tenants as they develop properties to cater to wealthier non-community members in an effort to get them to move into the community. Tenants are then forced to find and move into an ever-shrinking supply of affordable housing. At the same time, landlords are increasing the rent as the neighborhood becomes "hot." In the end, the vast majority of the tenants will be forced out. It is beyond their means to resist these economic forces on their own. For instance, in Chicago, more than 50 percent of tenants are rent burdened, meaning more than one-third of their income goes to housing costs. Obviously, when tenants are barely able to pay rent, any changes in rent, job status or medical situations will result in displacement. It is not only renters who face challenges. In the case of homeowners, many long-time residents are losing their properties to foreclosure or seeing dramatic increases in their property taxes, which once again force them out. The current gentrification of US cities is an economic conquest backed up by the courts. Many of the same racist justifications for this conquest are still at play today. Gentrification is often explained away as a needed phenomenon. The community "needs" the often White and well-to-do invaders to move into the neighborhood to improve it. In other words, the current residents are not "invested" in the neighborhood, as they are "not good enough" to develop it on their own. The local culture is destroyed as new, wealthier people flood into a community. The newcomers take over all elements of the community, bringing in their own "superior" culture, such as more expensive restaurants and entertainment venues. This escalates and expands the dislocation to include existing businesses. It is all legal, built on decades of laws based on the rights of the powerful few and not on the human rights of the many. It is for this reason that Malcolm X's vision of moving toward a struggle for human rights is so important. Housing is a basic human necessity that any individual needs in order to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Without a home, it is next to impossible to find work, to educate your children and to better your conditions. Housing needs to be made into a human right, a right protected by law. What would it mean if housing was a human right? It certainly means more than just ensuring a roof over one's head. It means making sure that everyone has decent, safe and accessible housing. It is hardly a home if that home does not have heat during the winter, or is infested with mold and other pests. Housing needs to be affordable. If housing becomes so expensive that a person needs to decide whether to eat or pay the rent, then they will always be at risk of losing their housing. Housing also needs to be stable. People should be able to choose where they live. No one should be forced to move just because someone else wants to live there. So, how can we change policies and begin moving toward a human rights framework based on community needs, as it relates to gentrification? To begin with, we could implement: Laws to end lockouts, self-help evictions outside of the legal system: No tenant or homeowner should lose their home without due process. Mandatory inspections laws: Municipalities and other government agencies need to be responsible for ensuring that all residential properties meet certain codes of health and safety. Just cause laws: A property owner should be required to have a justifiable reason to evict a resident. No one should have their tenure interrupted because of discrimination, retaliation or any other unfair reason. Laws to limit foreclosures: Banks and other agencies ought to be held accountable for their actions in creating the housing crisis. Property tax laws: Property tax laws should promote stability. Tie property taxes to the purchase price of buildings, which would help keep taxes affordable for long-term residents and in addition provide low-income residents with tax relief. Rent controls: This can take two forms. Rent increases could be regulated by law to give current tenants the opportunity to continue to live in their homes. Or secondly, current residents could receive a rental subsidy to make up for the increase in rent due to gentrification. Create community-based zoning boards: These boards can regulate zoning changes and give communities control over development. Create eviction-free zones: Activists and legal services providers work to prevent any eviction in these areas of gentrification to slow down the development process and challenge the investor-invaders' assumption that they can do what they want. All these potential policies and actions can begin to ameliorate the effects of gentrification and provide communities with a legal and moral basis to fight gentrification and promote housing stability. No one should be forced to move from their home against their will. Adopting a human rights framework can provide individuals and communities with new tools and perspectives that offer the hope of ensuring that everyone has the right to secure safe, decent and accessible housing that is affordable. Defining housing as a human right allows for an expansive outlook that goes beyond viewing housing as merely a roof over one's head or a commodity for sale. A human rights framework will benefit the majority and move society onto a path of social equity. As Malcolm X said, "I'm for truth, no matter who tells it. I'm for justice, no matter who it is for or against. I'm a human being, first and foremost, and as such I'm for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole."
Eviction controls the largest internal link to poverty- traps families into cycles of violence with schools, jobs, and neighborhood Desmond 15, Matthew (Matthew Desmond is an American sociologist. He is the John L. Loeb Associate Professor of the Social Sciences at Harvard University.12 He was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship in 2015 and a Harvey Fellowship in 2006). "Unaffordable America: Poverty, housing, and eviction." Fast Focus, Institute for Research on Poverty 22 (2015): 1-6. SM The consequences of eviction are many and multidimensional. Eviction is a leading cause of homelessness, especially for families with children.15 It also is directly linked to high rates of residential mobility among low-income households—so much so, in fact, that after accounting for forced moves, poor renters do not exhibit higher mobility rates than other renters. Residential instability often brings about other forms of instability—in families, schools, communities— compromising the life chances of adults and children.16 An effective way to decrease it residential instability among poor families would be to lower the incidence of eviction. Additionally, involuntary displacement is linked to substandard housing conditions. An analysis of the Milwaukee Area Renters Study data revealed that renters whose previous move was involuntary were almost 25 percent more likely to experience long-term housing problems than matched renters who did not experience a recent forced move.17 One explanation for why some poor families live in substandard housing conditions—which among other things harms children’s health—is that they are compelled to do so in the aftermath of an eviction. Another study found that even after conditioning on a host of important factors, experiencing an eviction is associated with over a third of a standard deviation increase in neighborhood poverty and crime rates, relative to voluntary moves.18 Families involuntarily displaced from their homes often end up in worse neighborhoods. Tenants evicted through the court system carry the judgment on their record. Owing to open record laws, in many states this information is easily accessible and free online. An eviction judgment makes it difficult to secure decent housing in a safe neighborhood, as many landlords reject anyone with a recent eviction.19 Many people think that job loss leads to eviction, but eviction can also lead to job loss. An eviction not only can. consume renters’ time, causing them to miss work, it also can consume their thoughts and cause them to make mistakes on the job, and also result in their relocating farther away from their worksite, increasing their likelihood of tardiness and absenteeism. Results from the Milwaukee Area Renters Study found that workers who involuntarily lost their housing were roughly 20 percent more likely subsequently lose their jobs, compared to similar workers who did not.20 These results imply that initiatives promoting housing stability could promote employment stability. Eviction is also negatively associated with mental health. Drawing on the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study—a national, longitudinal survey that follows a birth cohort of about 4,900 new parents and their children living in 20 large cities—one study found that the year following an eviction, mothers are 20 percent more likely to report depression than their peers. Moreover, at least two years after their eviction, mothers still experienced significantly higher rates of depression than their peers.21 The same study also documented a large and robust relationship between a recent eviction and increased material hardship.22 Mothers who experienced an eviction in the last year report around one standard deviation higher rates of material hardship than mothers who were matched along many other characteristics but had not experienced eviction. As with depression, mothers’ material hardship may also be affected in the long-term, as significant differences were detected at least two years after the event.23 If material hardship is a measure of the lived experience of scarcity— assessing, say, hunger or sickness because food or medical care was financially out of reach—then these findings suggest that eviction is a driver of poverty Poverty outweighs—its yearly death toll is greater than even a nuclear war, and magnitude focused calculation only serves to obscure its operation in society Gilligan 96 James, Professor of Psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School, Director of the Center for the Study of Violence, and a member of the Academic Advisory Council of the National Campaign Against Youth Violence, “Violence: Our Deadly Epidemic and its Causes”, p. 191-196 The deadliest form of violence is poverty. You cannot work for one day with the violent people who fill our prisons and mental hospitals for the criminally insane without being forcible and constantly reminded of the extreme poverty and discrimination that characterizes their lives. Hearing about their lives, and about their families and friends, you are forced to recognize the truth in Gandhi’s observation that the deadliest form of violence is poverty. Not a day goes by without realizing that trying to understand them and their violent behavior in purely individual terms is impossible and wrong-headed. Any theory of violence, especially a psychological theory, that evolves from the experience of men in maximum security prisons and hospitals for the criminally insane must begin with the recognition that these institutions are only microcosms. They are not where the major violence in our society takes place, and the perpetrators who fill them are far from being the main causes of most violent deaths. Any approach to a theory of violence needs to begin with a look at the structural violence in this country. Focusing merely on those relatively few men who commit what we define as murder could distract us from examining and learning from those structural causes of violent death that are for more significant from a numerical or public health, or human, standpoint. By “structural violence” I mean the increased rates of death, and disability suffered by those who occupy the bottom rungs of society, as contrasted with the relatively low death rates experienced by those who are above them. Those excess deaths (or at least a demonstrably large proportion of them) are a function of class structure; and that structure itself is a product of society’s collective human choices, concerning how to distribute the collective wealth of the society. These are not acts of God. I am contrasting “structural” with “behavioral violence,” by which I mean the non-natural deaths and injuries that are caused by specific behavioral actions of individuals against individuals, such as the deaths we attribute to homicide, suicide, soldiers in warfare, capital punishment, and so on. Structural violence differs from behavior violence in at least three major respects. *The lethal effects of structural violence operate continuously, rather than sporadically, whereas murders, suicides, executions, wars, and other forms of behavior violence occur one at a time. *Structural violence operates more or less independently of individual acts; independent of individuals and groups (politicians, political parties, voters) whose decisions may nevertheless have lethal consequences for others. *Structural violence is normally invisible, because it may appear to have had other (natural or violent) causes. CONTINUED The finding that structural violence causes far more deaths than behavioral violence does is not limited to this country. Kohler and Alcock attempted to arrive at the number of excess deaths caused by socioeconomic inequities on a worldwide basis. Sweden was their model of the nation that had come closest to eliminating structural violence. It had the least inequity in income and living standards, and the lowest discrepancies in death rates and life expectancy; and the highest overall life expectancy of the world. When they compared the life expectancies of those living in the other socioeconomic systems against Sweden, they found that 18 million deaths a year could be attributed to the “structural violence” to which the citizens of all the other nations were being subjected. During the past decade, the discrepancies between the rich and poor nations have increased dramatically and alarmingly. The 14 to 19 million deaths a year caused by structural violence compare with about 100,000 deaths per year from armed conflict. Comparing this frequency of deaths from structural violence to the frequency of those caused by major military and political violence, such as World War II (an estimated 49 million military and civilian deaths, including those by genocide – or about eight million per year, 1939-1945), the Indonesian massacre of 1965-66 (perhaps 575,000 deaths), the Vietnam war (possibly two million, 1954-1973), and even a hypothetical nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. (232 million), it was clear that even war cannot being to compare with structural violence, which continues year after year. In other words, every fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide, perpetrated on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world. Structural violence is also the main cause of behavioral violence on a socially and epidemiologically significant scale (from homicide and suicide to war and genocide). The question as to which of the two forms of violence – structural or behavioral – is more important, dangerous, or lethal is moot, for they are inextricably related to eachother, as cause to effect. Advantage 2: Housing Discrimination Housing discrimination persists despite the Fair Housing Act because of lax government regulation and ignorance of segregation following the Civil Rights Movement Demby 13, Gene (Gene Demby is the lead blogger for NPR's Code Switch team. Before coming to NPR, he served as the managing editor for Huffington Post's BlackVoices following its launch. He later covered politics. Prior to that role he spent six years in various positions at The New York Times. While working for the Times in 2007, he started a blog about race, culture, politics and media called PostBourgie, which won the 2009 Black Weblog Award for Best News/Politics Site. ). "A Battle For Fair Housing Still Raging, But Mostly Forgotten." NPR. NPR, 02 Dec. 2013. Web. 24 Feb. 2017. http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/12/01/248039354/a-battle-for-fair-housing-still-raging-but-mostly-forgotten. SM Since property taxes fund local services, places with high property values tend to have much better school systems and public amenities. What the TAL episode expertly illustrated was the many ways that those property values have been deliberately racialized. Beginning in the 1930s, the federal government actually refused to back loans if black people lived nearby, and builders actively and openly prohibited black people from moving to new suburban developments. The net effect was that black people of all incomes were clustered in poorer urban centers, where they also received egregiously inferior public services, and where there was downward pressure on their abilities to create wealth. But this kind of discrimination isn't some practice from a darker, bygone era — it just looks different today. According to a study we wrote about recently, when white folks and people of color went to inquire about buying or renting homes, they got different treatment. Whites were shown more units and were offered lower rent. Everyone said they were treated courteously. There were no "Negroes Need Not Apply" signs on the doors. No real estate agents slammed doors in brown folks' faces. They simply offered people of color them fewer choices at higher prices. Hannah-Jones' reporting on the Fair Housing Act, which was meant to correct this kind of discrimination, found that it had been mostly toothless and ineffective since it went into effect and that there's little political momentum behind bolstering it. (Here's a recent report from Hannah-Jones on the moves that have been made over the past year.) We invited Hannah-Jones to chat with us about the TAL story and why the issue still remains so under-covered. GENE DEMBY: What surprised you most when you started reporting on this issue? NIKOLE HANNAH-JONES: Like most Americans, I knew very little about fair housing law and the history of the 1968 Fair Housing Act when I first began reporting this story. I knew housing discrimination was illegal, but that's about it. So, many things surprised me along the way, but two facts surprised me most. One, it was kind of unbelievable how egregiously little the governments — federal on down — have done to enforce this landmark civil rights law. I discovered governments have largely spent the last 45 years going about their business as if this law didn't exist , and in fact, were often taking actions that came out on the wrong side of the law. Two, I was literally taken aback by the fact that this law not only called for an end to housing discrimination, but that it mandated that the federal government wield its considerable powers to take affirmative steps to break down that housing segregation it created. Wow. That was powerful. The TAL story notes that we've known about these issues for a long time, but there's not a whole lot of momentum toward ameliorating these things. Are there any small-scale solutions on the horizon in places? Are there jurisdictions we should be looking to and learning from? Honestly, very, very few. Housing segregation is one of those an entrenched social issues that no one — progressive or conservative — really wants to touch. One of the biggest fair housing fights in recent memory is taking place in the liberal New York City suburb of Westchester County. This county overwhelmingly voted for President Obama and is home to liberal lions such as the Clintons, Andrew Cuomo and even some of the Kennedys. Yet not one of them has spoken out on the fight for open housing for black and Latino residents there. But we don't want to appear hopeless, so let me point to a few places that show intentional efforts can have an effect. One is Montgomery County, Md., which in the '70s adopted one of the nation's first inclusionary zoning ordinances. The ordinance mandates affordable housing be placed in an sizable development built in the county, and the county is considered a model for dispersing integrative housing into even the toniest of zip codes. A recent study showed that the low-income students given access to better schools because of the ordinance have benefited tremendously. Another is Oak Park outside of Chicago. The affluent community took a stand against the white flight that was sweeping across Chicago decades ago and took active steps to ensure integration. It passed a fair housing ordinance in 1968 and a few years later founded the Oak Park Housing Center to promote integrated housing and to discourage the pattern of white residents leaving communities once black residents move in that has defined many Chicago suburbs in. Oak Park has managed to remain a stably integrated community in one of the most segregated metro areas in the country. What got you interested in reporting on this? Simple beat reporting. I was working for a newspaper in Oregon when a press release landed in my email about some tests the city of Portland had done to gauge the level of housing discrimination that black and Latino residents faced. When I asked city officials what they intended to do with the landlords that the tests had found violated the law, city officials informed me they did not plan to do a thing. The tests, they said, were informational only. Say what? That raised my antennae. So I started digging and quickly learned that Portland was only following the federal government's lead. Fair housing enforcement was a joke. A year and a half later, a new job and a cross-country move, I published my project on the 45-year failure of the federal government to enforce this landmark civil rights law. You say that these realities are informed by race, but there's not an appetite for talking about race-based solutions. Why do you think that is? That's a hard one to answer in just a few words. But I guess the easiest way is that there has been a very successful campaign that began as soon as the government began passing civil rights laws to say that now that the country cannot legally discriminate, race is not longer an issue we need to — or can — address. This is the whole notion that racial segregation by law is wrong but that the fact of racial segregation is not. And this notion began really as soon as the federal government began enforcing Brown v Board of Education. The very same people who promoted and enforced racial segregation by law, once the laws changed, they said it was wrong to use race to undo that segregation. And our nation has largely bought into that. We are a society that largely believes that the struggle for racial equality ended with the laws passed during the civil rights movement and there was nothing left to be done. I think it is easy for many Americans to believe that laws on the books make us post-racial, even if the reality is decidedly racialized. The Supreme Court in decisions beginning in the early '70s and continuing through this year has largely confirmed that belief by its rulings. And the effects are atrocious—from mass incarceration to increased susceptibility to dangerous diseases *brackets originally in article Demby 2, Gene (Gene Demby is the lead blogger for NPR's Code Switch team. Before coming to NPR, he served as the managing editor for Huffington Post's BlackVoices following its launch. He later covered politics. Prior to that role he spent six years in various positions at The New York Times. While working for the Times in 2007, he started a blog about race, culture, politics and media called PostBourgie, which won the 2009 Black Weblog Award for Best News/Politics Site. ). "A Battle For Fair Housing Still Raging, But Mostly Forgotten." NPR. NPR, 02 Dec. 2013. Web. 24 Feb. 2017. http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/12/01/248039354/a-battle-for-fair-housing-still-raging-but-mostly-forgotten. SM It's not something we think about a lot or something that gets reported on often, but once you start digging around some, it's hard not to see the consequences of our country's long, sordid history of housing discrimination everywhere racial disparities manifest. The giant wealth gap between black and Latino Americans and white folks. Shorter life expectancies. Worse educational outcomes. Mass incarceration. Last week's This American Life episode was entirely devoted to this topic, and it makes the relationship between housing discrimination and these other disparities jarringly clear. "On every measure of well-being and opportunity, the foundation is where you live," Nikole Hannah-Jones, the ProPublica reporter on whose reporting much of the episode was based, told TAL's Nancy Updike. "Cancer rates, asthma rates, infant mortality, unemployment, education, access to fresh food, access to parks, whether or not the city repairs the roads in your neighborhood." This hypersegregation of black populations drastically reduces the potential for material well-being—locking them inside cycles of oppression and poverty Wilkes and Iceland 04 Rima Wilkes and John Iceland (Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia; Sociology Department, University of Maryland). “Hypersegregation in the Twenty-First Century.” Demography. 2004. Segregation can be conceptualized as consisting of five dimensions: evenness, exposure, concentration, clustering, and centralization (Massey and Denton 1988; Massey, White, and Phua 1996). Evenness refers to the differential distribution of groups across neighborhoods, exposure measures the probability of interaction between groups, concentration refers to the amount of physical space occupied by the minority group, centralization indicates the distance to the center of the urban area, and clustering indicates the degree to which minorities live in areas that adjoin one another. Despite the fact that segregation is a multifaceted social phenomenon, most researchers have considered only one or perhaps two dimensions—usually evenness or isolation. This practice of considering only one dimension may misrepresent the nature of segregation in U.S. metropolitan areas and, in the case of blacks, understate its severity. It has been argued that “as high levels of segregation accumulate across dimensions, the deleterious effects of segregation multiply because isolation intensifies . . . . Not only are blacks more segregated than other groups on any single dimension of segregation, they are also more segregated across all dimensions simultaneously” (Massey and Denton 1989:373- 74). When a group is highly segregated on several dimensions of segregation in a given metropolitan area, it can be considered to be hypersegregated (Massey and Denton 1989, 1993). To date, the only racial group that can be characterized as hypersegregated in U.S. metropolitan areas is blacks (Massey and Denton 1989). Blacks were hypersegregated in 16 metropolitan areas in 1980 and in 29 metropolitan areas in 1990 (Denton 1994; Massey and Denton 1989, 1993). 1 This pattern of hypersegregation End Page 23 persisted even when differences in group socioeconomic characteristics and metropolitan context were controlled for (Massey and Denton 1989). In American Apartheid, Massey and Denton (1993:2) contended that these patterns of segregation have dire consequences: “Segregation systematically undermines the social and economic well-being of blacks in the United States. Because of racial segregation, a significant share of black America is condemned to experience a social environment where poverty and joblessness are the norm . . . where educational failure prevails, and where social and physical deterioration abound. Through prolonged exposure to such an environment, black chances for social and economic success are drastically reduced.” Any alternatives to a comprehensive right fail—a right to housing is uniquely key to solving all of the impacts. Andrews et al. ‘16 Andrews, E. Mitchell, Cristine Delaney Goldman, Katherine Hughes, and Jocelyn Getgen Kestenbaum. "ADVANCING THE RIGHT TO HOUSING IN THE UNITED STATES: Using International Law as a Foundation." REPORT BY THE INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE 1 OF (n.d.): n. pag. INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE1 THE NEW YORK CITY BAR ASSOCIATION O, 12 Feb. 2016. Web. 1 Mar. 2017. http://www2.nycbar.org/pdf/report/uploads/20072632-AdvancingtheRighttoHousingIHR2122016final.pdf. The United States does, however, address the issue of inadequate housing through federal laws and programs that seek to alleviate the challenges to adequate housing. Likewise, states attempt to address housing issues through similar regulatory programs, and often go further than the federal protections that are in place. Unfortunately, this piecemeal approach falls far short of the protections that would be provided under a codified right to adequate housing. The weaknesses in this approach at the federal and state level are evidenced, for example, through housing discrimination and ineffective responses to natural disasters. Ultimately, although Americans have access to various federal, state, and local forms of assistance, there is no federal statutory entitlement to housing.
Framing The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater that presents the best policy option – key to out of round advocacy skills. Nixon 2K (Themba-Nixon, Makani. Executive Director of The Praxis Project, a nonprofit organization helping communities use media and policy advocacy to advance health equity and justice, “Changing the Rules: What Public Policy Means for Organizing” Colorlines 3.2, 2000) “This is all about policy," a woman complained to me in a recent conversation. "I'm an organizer." The flourish and passion with which she made the distinction said everything. Policy is for wonks, sell-out politicians, and ivory-tower eggheads. Organizing is what real, grassroots people do. Common as it may be, this distinction doesn't bear out in the real world. Policy is more than law. It is any written agreement (formal or informal) that specifies how an institution, governing body, or community will address shared problems or attain shared goals. It spells out the terms and the consequences of these agreements and is the codification of the body's values-as represented by those present in the policymaking process. Given who's usually present, most policies reflect the political agenda of powerful elites. Yet, policy can be a force for change-especially when we bring our base and community organizing into the process. In essence, policies are the codification of power relationships and resource allocation. Policies are the rules of the world we live in. Changing the world means changing the rules. So, if organizing is about changing the rules and building power, how can organizing be separated from policies? Can we really speak truth to power, fight the right, stop corporate abuses, or win racial justice without contesting the rules and the rulers, the policies and the policymakers? The answer is no-and double no for people of color. Today, racism subtly dominates nearly every aspect of policymaking. From ballot propositions to city funding priorities, policy is increasingly about the control, de-funding, and disfranchisement of communities of color. Take the public conversation about welfare reform, for example. Most of us know it isn't really about putting people to work. The right's message was framed around racial stereotypes of lazy, cheating "welfare queens" whose poverty was "cultural." But the new welfare policy was about moving billions of dollars in individual cash payments and direct services from welfare recipients to other, more powerful, social actors. Many of us were too busy to tune into the welfare policy drama in Washington, only to find it washed up right on our doorsteps. Our members are suffering from workfare policies, new regulations, and cutoffs. Families who were barely getting by under the old rules are being pushed over the edge by the new policies. Policy doesn't get more relevant than this. And so we got involved in policy-as defense. Yet we have to do more than block their punches. We have to start the fight with initiatives of our own. Those who do are finding offense a bit more fun than defense alone. Living wage ordinances, youth development initiatives, even gun control and alcohol and tobacco policies are finding their way onto the public agenda, thanks to focused community organizing that leverages power for community-driven initiatives. - Over 600 local policies have been passed to regulate the tobacco industry. Local coalitions have taken the lead by writing ordinances that address local problems and organizing broad support for them. - Nearly 100 gun control and violence prevention policies have been enacted since 1991. - Milwaukee, Boston, and Oakland are among the cities that have passed living wage ordinances: local laws that guarantee higher than minimum wages for workers, usually set as the minimum needed to keep a family of four above poverty. These are just a few of the examples that demonstrate how organizing for local policy advocacy has made inroads in areas where positive national policy had been stalled by conservatives. Increasingly, the local policy arena is where the action is and where activists are finding success. Of course, corporate interests-which are usually the target of these policies-are gearing up in defense. Tactics include front groups, economic pressure, and the tried and true: cold, hard cash. Despite these barriers, grassroots organizing can be very effective at the smaller scale of local politics. At the local level, we have greater access to elected officials and officials have a greater reliance on their constituents for reelection. For example, getting 400 people to show up at city hall in just about any city in the U.S. is quite impressive. On the other hand, 400 people at the state house or the Congress would have a less significant impact. Add to that the fact that all 400 people at city hall are usually constituents, and the impact is even greater. Recent trends in government underscore the importance of local policy. Congress has enacted a series of measures devolving significant power to state and local government. Welfare, health care, and the regulation of food and drinking water safety are among the areas where states and localities now have greater rule. Devolution has some negative consequences to be sure. History has taught us that, for social services and civil rights in particular, the lack of clear federal standards and mechanisms for accountability lead to uneven enforcement and even discriminatory implementation of policies. Still, there are real opportunities for advancing progressive initiatives in this more localized environment. Greater local control can mean greater community power to shape and implement important social policies that were heretofore out of reach. To do so will require careful attention to the mechanics of local policymaking and a clear blueprint of what we stand for. Much of the work of framing what we stand for takes place in the shaping of demands Getting It in Writing Much of the work of framing what we stand for takes place in the shaping of demands. By getting into the policy arena in a proactive manner, we can take our demands to the next level. Our demands can become law, with real consequences if the agreement is broken. After all the organizing, press work, and effort, a group should leave a decisionmaker with more than a handshake and his or her word. Of course, this work requires a certain amount of interaction with "the suits," as well as struggles with the bureaucracy, the technical language, and the all-too-common resistance by decisionmakers. Still, if it's worth demanding, it's worth having in writing-whether as law, regulation, or internal policy. From ballot initiatives on rent control to laws requiring worker protections, organizers are leveraging their power into written policies that are making a real difference in their communities. Of course, policy work is just one tool in our organizing arsenal, but it is a tool we simply can't afford to ignore. Making policy work an integral part of organizing will require a certain amount of retrofitting. We will need to develop the capacity to translate our information, data, stories that are designed to affect the public conversation. Perhaps most important, we will need to move beyond fighting problems and on to framing solutions that bring us closer to our vision of how things should be. And then we must be committed to making it so. The standard is reducing structural violence—prefer 1 Standpoint epistemology is the best for moral decisions—other methods exclude certain perspectives Mills 05, Charles W (Mills is presently John Evans Professor of Moral and Intellectual Philosophy at Northwestern University, He is known for his work in social and political philosophy, particularly in oppositional political theory as centered on class, gender, and race.). "“Ideal theory” as ideology." Hypatia 20.3 (2005): 165-183. The crucial common claim—whether couched in terms of ideology and fetishism, or androcentrism, or white normativity—is that all theorizing, both moral and nonmoral, takes place in an intellectual realm dominated by concepts, assumptions, norms, values, and framing perspectives that reflect the experience and group interests of the privileged group (whether the bourgeoisie, or men, or whites). So a simple empiricism will not work as a cognitive strategy; one has to be self-conscious about the concepts that “spontaneously” occur to one, since many of these concepts will not arise naturally but as the result of social structures and hegemonic ideational patterns. In particular, it will often be the case that dominant concepts will obscure certain crucial realities, blocking them from sight, or naturalizing them, while on the other hand, concepts necessary for accurately mapping these realities will be absent. Whether in terms of concepts of the self, or of humans in general, or in the cartography of the social, it will be necessary to scrutinize the dominant conceptual tools and the way the boundaries are drawn. This is, of course, the burden of standpoint theory—that certain realities tend to be more visible from the perspective of the subordinated than the privileged (Harding 2003). The thesis can be put in a strong and implausible form, but weaker versions do have considerable plausibility, as illustrated by the simple fact that for the most part the crucial conceptual innovation necessary to map nonideal realities has not come from the dominant group. In its ignoring of oppression, ideal theory also ignores the consequences of oppression. If societies are not oppressive, or if in modeling societies them we can abstract away from oppression and assume moral cognizers of roughly equal skill, then the paradigmatic moral agent can be featureless. No theory is required about the particular group-based obstacles that may block the vision of a particular group. By contrast, non ideal theory recognizes that people will typically be cognitively affected by their social location, so that on both the macro and the more local level, the descriptive concepts arrived at may be misleading. Think of the original challenge Marxist models of capitalism posed to liberalism’s social ontology: the claim that to focus on relations of apparently equal exchange, free and fair, among equal individuals was illusory, since at the level of the relations of production, the real ontology of worker and capitalist manifested a deep structure of constraint that limited proletarian freedom. Think of the innovation of using patriarchy to force people to recognize, and condemn as political and oppressive, rather than natural, apolitical, and unproblematic, male domination of women. Think of the recent resurrection of the concept of white supremacy to map the reality of a white domination that has continued in more subtle forms past the ending of de jure segregation. These are all global, high-level concepts, undeniable abstractions. But they map accurately (at least arguably) crucial realities that differentiate the statuses of the human beings within the systems they describe; so while theyabstract, they do notidealize. 3 No act-omission distinction specifically in this context – intent and means-based frameworks reflect privilege and decenter oppressed voices Utt 13 Jamie is a writer and a diversity and inclusion consultant and sexual violence prevention educator, “Intent vs. Impact: Why Your Intentions Don’t Really Matter,” July 30, 2013 Imagine for a moment that you’re standing with your friends in a park, enjoying a nice summer day. You don’t know me, but I walk right up to you holding a Frisbee. I wind up – and throw the disc right into your face. Understandably, you are indignant. Through a bloody nose, you use a few choice words to ask me what the hell I thought I was doing. And my response? “Oh, I didn’t mean to hit you! That was never my intent! I was simply trying to throw the Frisbee to my friend over there!” Visibly upset, you demand an apology. But I refuse. Or worse, I offer an apology that sounds like “I’m sorry your face got in the way of my Frisbee! I never intended to hit you.” Sound absurd? Sound infuriating enough to give me a well-deserved Frisbee upside the head? Yeah. So why is this same thing happening all of the time when it comes to the intersection of our identities and oppressions or privileges? Intent v. Impact From Paula Deen to Alec Baldwin to your annoying, bigoted uncle or friend, we hear it over and over again: “I never meant any harm…” “It was never my intent…” “I am not a racist…” “I am not a homophobe…” “I’m not a sexist…” I cannot tell you how often I’ve seen people attempt to deflect criticism about their oppressive language or actions by making the conversation about their intent. At what point does the “intent” conversation stop mattering so that we can step back and look at impact? After all, in the end, what does the intent of our action really matter if our actions have the impact of furthering the marginalization or oppression of those around us? In some ways, this is a simple lesson of relationships. If I say something that hurts my partner, it doesn’t much matter whether I intended the statement to mean something else – because my partner is hurting. I need to listen to how my language hurt my partner. I need to apologize. And then I need to reflect and empathize to the best of my ability so I don’t do it again. But when we’re dealing with the ways in which our identities intersect with those around us – and, in turn, the ways our privileges and our experiences of marginalization and oppression intersect – this lesson becomes something much larger and more profound. This becomes a lesson of justice. What we need to realize is that when it comes to people’s lives and identities, the impact of our actions can be profound and wide-reaching. And that’s far more important than the question of our intent. We need to ask ourselves what might be or might have been the impact of our actions or words. And we need to step back and listen when we are being told that the impact of our actions is out of step with our intents or our perceptions of self. Identity Privilege and Intent For people of identity privilege, this is where listening becomes vitally important, for our privilege can often shield us from understanding the impact of our actions. After all, as a person of privilege, I can never fully understand the ways in which oppressive acts or language impact those around me. What I surely can do is listen with every intent to understand, and I can work to change my behavior. Because what we need to understand is that making the conversation about intent is inherently a privileged action. The reason? It ensures that you and your identity (and intent) stay at the center of any conversation and action while the impact of your action or words on those around you is marginalized. So if someone ever tells you to “check your privilege,” what they may very well mean is: “Stop centering your experience and identity in the conversation by making this about the intent of your actions instead of their impact.” That is: Not everything is about you. “What They Did” vs. “What They Are” The incredible Ill Doctrine puts it well when he explains the difference between the “What They Did” conversation and the “What They Are” conversation, which you can watch here. In essence, the “intent” conversation is one about “what they are.” Because if someone intended their action to be hurtful and racist/sexist/transphobic/pickyourpoison, then they must inherently be racist/sexist/transphobic/pickyourpoison. On the other hand, the “impact” conversation is one about “what they did.” For you, it takes the person who said or did the hurtful thing out of the center and places the person who was hurt in the center. It ensures that the conversation is about how “what they did” hurts other people and further marginalizes or oppresses people. And it’s important for people to understand the difference. Just because you did something sexist doesn’t mean that you are sexist. Just because you said something racist doesn’t mean that you are racist. When your actions are called into question, it’s important to recognize that that’s all that is being called into question – your actions, not your overall character. Listen. Reflect. Apologize. Do Better. It doesn’t matter whether we, deep down, believe ourselves to be -ist or whether we intended our actions to be hurtful or _-ist. It.Doesn’t.Matter. If the impact of our actions is the furthering of oppression, then that’s all that matters. So we need to listen, reflect, apologize, and work to do better in the future. What does that look like? Well, to start, we can actually apologize. I don’t know about you, but I am sick of hearing the ““I am sorry your face got in the way of my Frisbee! I never intended to hit you” apologies. Whether it’s Paula Deen weeping on TV or Alec Baldwin asking us to simply trust that he’s not a “homophobe,” those are not apologies. That’s why I was incredibly inspired and relieved to see a major organization do it well when Kickstarter apologized and took full responsibility for their role in funding a creepy, rapey seduction guide. They apologized earnestly and accepted the role they played in something really terrible. hey pledged to never allow projects like this one to be funded in the future. And then they donated $25,000 to RAINN. At the interpersonal level, we can take a cue from Kickstarter. When we are told that the impact of our action, inaction, or words is hurtful and furthers oppression, we can start by apologizing without any caveats. From there, we can spend the time to reflect in hopes of gaining at least some understanding (however marginal) of the harmful impact. And we can do our best to move forward by acting more accountably.
We should focus on solving specific instances of injustice not broad root cause claims Gregory Fernando Pappas 16 Texas AandM University “The Pragmatists’ Approach to Injustice”, The Pluralist Volume 11, Number 1, Spring 2016, In Experience and Nature, Dewey names the empirical way of doing philosophy the “denotative method” (LW 1:371).18 What Dewey means by “denotation” is simply the phase of an empirical inquiry where we are con- cerned with designating, as free from theoretical presuppositions as possible, the concrete problem (subject matter) for which we can provide different and even competing descriptions and theories. Thus an empirical inquiry about an injustice must begin with a rough and tentative designation of where the injustices from within the broader context of our everyday life and activities are. Once we designate the subject matter, we then engage in the inquiry itself, including diagnosis, possibly even constructing theories and developing concepts. Of course, that is not the end of the inquiry. We must then take the results of that inquiry “as a path pointing and leading back to something in primary experience” (LW 1:17). This looping back is essential, and it neverends as long as there are new experiences of injustice that may require a revi- sion of our theories.¶ Injustices are events suffered by concrete people at a particular time and in a situation. We need to start by pointing out and describing these prob- lematic experiences instead of starting with a theoretical account or diagnosis of them. Dewey is concerned with the consequences of not following the methodological advice to distinguish designation from diagnosis. Definitions, theoretical criteria, and diagnosis can be useful; they have their proper place and function once inquiry is on its way, but if stressed too much at the start of inquiry, they can blind us to aspects of concrete problems that escape our theoretical lenses. We must attempt to pretheoretically designate the subject matter, that is, to “point” in a certain direction, even with a vague or crude description of the problem. But, for philosophers, this task is not easy because, for instance, we are often too prone to interpret the particular problem in a way that verifies our most cherished theories of injustice. One must be careful to designate the subject matter in such a way as not to slant the question in favor of one’s theory or theoretical preconceptions. A philosopher must make an honest effort to designate the injustices based on what is experienced as such because a concrete social problem (e.g., injustice) is independent and neutral with respect to the different possible competing diagnoses or theories about its causes. Otherwise, there is no way to test or adjudicate between competing accounts.¶ That designation precedes diagnosis is true of any inquiry that claims to be empirical. To start with the diagnosis is to not start with the problem. The problem is pretheoretical or preinquiry, not in any mysterious sense but in that it is first suffered by someone in a particular context. Otherwise, the diagnosis about the causes of the problem has nothing to be about, and the inquiry cannot even be initiated. In his Logic, Dewey lays out the pattern of all empirical inquiries (LW 12). All inquiries start with what he calls an “indeterminate situation,” prior even to a “problematic situation.” Here is a sketch of the process:¶ Indeterminate situation → problematic situation → diagnosis: What is the problem? What is the solution? (operations of analysis, ideas, observations, clarification, formulating and testing hypothesis, reasoning, etc.) → final judgment (resolution: determinate situation)¶ To make more clear or vivid the difference of the starting point between Anderson and Dewey, we can use the example (or analogy) of medical prac- tice, one that they both use to make their points.19 The doctor’s startingpoint is the experience of a particular illness of a particular patient, that is, the concrete and unique embodied patient experiencing a disruption or prob- lematic change in his life. “The patient having something the matter with him is antecedent; but being ill (having the experience of illness) is not the same as being an object of knowledge.”20 The problem becomes an object of knowledge once the doctor engages in a certain interaction with the patient, analysis, and testing that leads to a diagnosis. For Dewey, “diagnosis” occurs when the doctor is already engaged in operations of experimental observation in which he is already narrowing the field of relevant evidence, concerned with the correlation between the nature of the problem and possible solu- tions. Dewey explains the process: “A physician . . . is called by a patient. His original material of experience is thereby provided. This experienced object sets the problem of inquiry. . . . He calls upon his store of knowledge to sug- gest ideas that may aid him in reaching a judgment as to the nature of the trouble and its proper treatment.”21¶ Just as with the doctor, empirical inquirers about injustice must return to the concrete problem for testing, and should never forget that their con- ceptual abstractions and general knowledge are just means to ameliorate what is particular, context-bound, and unique. In reaching a diagnosis, the doc- tor, of course, relies on all of his background knowledge about diseases and evidence, but a good doctor never forgets the individuality of the particular problem (patient and illness).¶ The physician in diagnosing a case of disease deals with something in- dividualized. He draws upon a store of general principles of physiology, etc., already at his command. Without this store of conceptual material he is helpless. But he does not attempt to reduce the case to an exact specimen of certain laws of physiology and pathology, or do away with its unique individuality. Rather he uses general statements as aids to direct his observation of the particular case, so as to discover what it is like. They function as intellectual tools or instrumentalities. (LW 4:166)¶ Dewey uses the example of the doctor to emphasize the radical contex- tualism and particularism of his view. The good doctor never forgets that this patient and “this ill is just the specific ill that it is. It never is an exact duplicate of anything else.”22 Similarly, the empirical philosopher in her in- quiry about an injustice brings forth general knowledge or expertise to an inquiry into the causes of an injustice. She relies on sociology and history as well as knowledge of different forms of injustice, but it is all in the service of inquiry about the singularity of each injustice suffered in a situation.¶ The correction or refinement that I am making to Anderson’s character- ization of the pragmatists’ approach is not a minor terminological or scholarly point; it has methodological and practical consequences in how we approach an injustice. The distinction between the diagnosis and the problem (the ill- ness, the injustice) is an important functional distinction that must be kept in inquiry because it keeps us alert to the provisional and hypothetical aspect of any diagnosis. To rectify or improve any diagnosis, we must return to the concrete problem; as with the patient, this may require attending as much as possible to the uniqueness of the problem. This is in the same spirit as Anderson’s preference for an empirical inquiry that tries to “capture all of the expressive harms” in situations of injustice. But this requires that we begin with and return to concrete experiences of injustice and not by starting with a diagnosis of the causes of injustice provided by studies in the social sciences, as in (5) above. For instance, a diagnosis of causes that are due to systematic, structural features of society or the world disregards aspects of the concrete experiences of injustice that are not systematic and structural.¶ Making problematic situations of injustice our explicit methodological commitment as a starting point rather than a diagnosis of the problem is an important and useful imperative for nonideal theories. It functions as a directive to inquirers toward the problem, to locate it, and designate it before venturing into descriptions, diagnosis, analysis, clarifications, hypotheses, and reasoning about the problem. These operations are instrumental to its ame- lioration and must ultimately return (be tested) by the problem that sparked the inquiry. The directive can make inquirers more attentive to the complex ways in which such differences as race, culture, class, or gender intersect in a problem of injustice. Sensitivity to complexity and difference in matters of injustice is not easy; it is a very demanding methodological prescription because it means that no matter how confident we may feel about applying solutions designed to ameliorate systematic evil, our cures should try to address as much as possible the unique circumstances of each injustice. The analogy with medical inquiry and practice is useful in making this point, since the hope is that someday we will improve our tools of inquiry to prac- tice a much more personalized medicine than we do today, that is, provide a diagnosis and a solution specific to each patient.
ROB: Endorse the debater who provides the best liberation strategy for Asian Americans to resist white supremacy in the context of race relations
Punongbayan 15 (10/02/2015 "What Asian Americans Owe African Americans" Christopher Punongbayan is Advisor and former Executive Director of the oldest Asian American legal civil rights organization in the country, Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus. JC) The untold story is that Asian America is what it is today because of the AND owe it to African Americans to hold ourselves accountable to this undeniable truth.
The role of the judge is to act as a critical educator combating oppression—while obviously signing the ballot won't make neoliberalism disappear, voting for strategies to combat oppression in this round makes us better activists in the future.
Giroux 13 (Henry, American scholar and cultural critic. One of the founding theorists of critical pedagogy in the United States, he is best known for his pioneering work in public pedagogy, "Public Intellectuals Against the Neoliberal University," 29 October 2013, http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/19654-public-intellectuals-against-the-neoliberal-university)//ghs-VA Increasingly, as universities are shaped by an audit culture, the call to be AND with others, and transform, when necessary, the world around them.
Best for activism— Talking about methodologies to combat oppressive structures makes us better advocates in the future—this is a key pre-requisite to education and fairness claims, even if we learn from debate, that education is useless without the ability to put it to use.
Part two is the police
Reforming qualified immunity is the best starting point—a lack of police accountability is what the aff fixes
Wright 15, Sam. "Want to Fight Police Misconduct? Reform Qualified Immunity."Above the Law. N.p., 3 Nov. 2015. Web. 02 Oct. 2016. http://abovethelaw.com/2015/11/want-to-fight-police-misconduct-reform-qualified-immunity/. SM Recently, police have been killing and otherwise abusing people of color with what seems AND want to see justice done, we should push to make it happen.
The model minority myth allows police officers to commit acts of structural violence against Asian American populations. Only a total restructure of the political laws and how they construe Asian Americans can any change occur.
The model minority myth was a construct created by white society to make the people of color complacent. This racial engineering pitted the Asian American community against the African American which ignores the systematic violence against the Asian community.
Linshi 14 ("Why Ferguson Should Matter to Asian-Americans "http://time.com/3606900/ferguson-asian-americans/ JC) Michael Brown's death has several parallels in Asian-American history. The first to AND many moments of interplay between African-American and Asian-American activism.
The anti-whiteness movements have holes in its history that create dichotomies between races that not only fails to realize the continued struggle against oppression, but also excludes the voices of Asian Americans.
Linshi 14 2 ("Why Ferguson Should Matter to Asian-Americans "http://time.com/3606900/ferguson-asian-americans/ JC) The concept of non-whiteness is one way to begin the retelling of most AND , must first clean up — and then reassess the unfolding reality outside.
We are missing in history, but it is only by changing the narrative can we reshape history and actually provide a space to live.
Nguyen 15 ("Missing in History" and Why It Matters by Phuong Nguyen" The Ithaca Pan Asian American Film Festival is dedicated to supporting Asian American film, video and media makers both nationwide and throughout the upstate New York area while promoting films created by, starring, and/or about Asian Americans. https://panasianamericanfilm.org/2015/03/19/missing-in-history-and-why-it-matters-by-phuong-nguyen/) JC Lack of Asians in the U.S. history books can easily lead us AND hard work this film marvelously captured, get to thank them in person.
Part three is the resistance
We often competitively participate in debate without ever considering the possibility for how debate can CHANGE the world – how the critical thinking and research skills we develop can provide MEANING and advance methodologies to liberate oppressed people often within our social location. – Our speech act focuses on the EPISTEMOLOGICAL GROWTH occurring from the activity and the development of critical consciousness –Debate becomes more than a game but a process of life leading to CONSCIENTIZATION
Osajima '7 1 2007, Keith Osajima is a professor and Director of the Race and Ethnic Studies Program at the University of Redlands. REPLENISHING THE RANKS: Raising Critical Consciousness Among Asian Americans; JOURNAL OF ASIAN AMERICAN STUDIES (JAAS), February, Volume 10, No. 1; p. 64 JC/SM 3 The fact that these young Asian Americans, from widely varying class, geographic, AND and conditions that contribute to the development of an Asian American critical consciousness.
Our is method is conscientization – a process of constant clarification that allows us to name the world and perceive how we exist in it – through this dynamic process we have come to realizations – like the fact that there could be derogatory language within the discourse of our 1AC authors which we have made a conscious attempt to remove – we have already begun and will continue to create real change
Osajima '7 2 2007, Keith Osajima is a professor and Director of the Race and Ethnic Studies Program at the University of Redlands. REPLENISHING THE RANKS: Raising Critical Consciousness Among Asian Americans; JOURNAL OF ASIAN AMERICAN STUDIES (JAAS), February, Volume 10, No. 1; p. 64 JC/SM 3 Conscientization for these respondents meant being able to "name their world." That is AND .25 Naming the world was an important step toward actively changing it.
Our performance is critical – debate has elements that contribute to conscientization that must be embraced for effective change
Osajima '7 3 2007, Keith Osajima is a professor and Director of the Race and Ethnic Studies Program at the University of Redlands. REPLENISHING THE RANKS: Raising Critical Consciousness Among Asian Americans; JOURNAL OF ASIAN AMERICAN STUDIES (JAAS), February, Volume 10, No. 1; p. 64 JC/SM 3 Given the profound change that conscientization had effected in the lives of respondents, it AND along with greater coordination of influences, is an important dimension of conscientization.
Status quo waste siting is a form of radioactive colonialism. Native Americans have to contend with the worst waste, which saps them of an infrastructure to address dire problems.
Bullard and Johnson, Director of the Environmental Justice Resource Center and Assistant Professor of Sociology at Clark Atlanta University, '9 (Robert D. and Glenn S., "Environmental Justice: Grassroots Activism AND 1992) adopted a resolution of "No nuclear waste on Indian lands."
This is especially true surrounding Yucca Mountain. The discourse surrounding Yucca siting is racist as it valued technical arguments for storage over cultural arguments, which posits nuclearism as a direct antagonism to nativism.
Endres, Associate Professor of Communications at the University of Utah, '12 ~Danielle, "Sacred Land or National Sacrifice Zone: The Role of Values in the Yucca Mountain Participation Process", Process, Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 6:3, 328-345, CQ~ Despite this progress, flaws remain in many currently used processes of participation (Depoe AND -based claims, which formed a significant stasis point in the controversy.
This discursive erasure of cultural and spiritual values attached to Yucca creates a nuclear sacrifice zone, exterminating Native lands and peoples.
Kuletz, Prof. of American Studies @ U of Canterbury, 98' 1 ~Valerie, The Tainted Desert: Environmental Ruin in the American West, pg. 12-13, CQ~ In this Indian country two landscapes – Indian and nuclear – meet at nearly every AND geography where spiritual and cultural life are woven directly into the landscape itself.
Moreover, the USFG uses tribal sovereignty against Natives, exploiting their control over the land to turn them into nuclear sacrifice zones
Kuletz, Prof. of American Studies @ U of Canterbury, 98' 2 ~Valerie, The Tainted Desert: Environmental Ruin in the American West, pg. 95-96, CQ~ When people say that nuclearism is the "price we pay for freedom", they AND grants for nuclear waste programs – 80 of the group's federal grants.
Impact is genocide by nuclear colonialism
Endres, Associate Professor in Communication @ Utah, 09' 1 ~Danielle, "The Rhetoric of Nuclear Colonialism: Rhetorical Exclusion of American Indian Arguments in the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Siting Decision," Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1, March 2009, p. 41 CQ~ Before attending to the rhetorical nature of nuclear colonialism, it is important to AND living near tailing piles at a high risk for lung cancer.10
The collective refusal to acknowledge the genocide of native community is tantamount to serial genocide. Neglecting their cultural diversity leads us on a path to extinction.
Friedberg, PhD Candidate, Germanic Studies, University of Illinois, 2k (Lilian, "Dare to Compare," American Indian Quarterly; Summer, Vol. 24 Issue 3, p. 353 CQ) Attempts on the part of American Indians to transcend chronic, intergenerational maladies introduced by AND , as with Hitler or Stalin, demonically proclaimed as the new salvation."
We justify a complete and total rejection of nuclear power production
Our criticism of the waste siting process is key to resist nuclear colonialism.
Endres, Associate Professor in Communication @ Utah, 09' 2 ~Danielle, "The Rhetoric of Nuclear Colonialism: Rhetorical Exclusion of American Indian Arguments in the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Siting Decision," Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1, March 2009, p. 44-46~ Indigenous resistance over the years has created cracks in the system of resource colonialism AND whose national interest may not include storing nuclear waste on their land.
Resistance to waste storage in Yucca Mountain is specifically crucial to challenge nuclear colonialism
Endres, Associate Professor in Communication @ Utah, 09' 3 ~Danielle, "The Rhetoric of Nuclear Colonialism: Rhetorical Exclusion of American Indian Arguments in the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Siting Decision," Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1, March 2009, p. Now, with over 60 years of uranium mining, nuclear weapons production and AND intersects with sovereignty, nuclearism and colonialism, to which I now turn.
Challenging nuclear colonialism is crucial to ending exploitation of Natives
Endres, Associate Professor in Communication @ Utah, 09' 4 ~Danielle, "The Rhetoric of Nuclear Colonialism: Rhetorical Exclusion of American Indian Arguments in the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Siting Decision," Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1, March 2009, p. 43-44~ The present form of colonialism in the US is what Al Gedicks has called resource AND technopolitical success.''28 Nuclear colonialism is a tale of resource colonialism.
Nuclear Colonialism destroys realities – it creates new norms in which we racialize the "other." Natives aren't thought of as the original settlers they are thought of as Indians, as the ones that we found and conquered. Their whole identify is produced through the lens of colonial thought.
Wolfe '06 (Patrick Wolfe (2006) Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native, Journal of Genocide Research, 8:4, 387-409, DOI: 10.1080/14623520601056240) The question of genocide is never far from discussions of settler colonialism. Land is AND but access to territory. Territoriality is settler colonialism's specific, irreducible element.
9/17/16
1AC Alt-Right v1
Tournament: Emory | Round: 1 | Opponent: Durham OC | Judge: Lucas Bailey Framing The alt-right is back and stronger than ever—students are already engaging in hate speech and harmful dialogue and are being recruited now on college campuses for white nationalist movements. Harkinson 16, Josh. "The Push to Enlist "Alt-Right" Recruits on College Campuses." Mother Jones. N.p., 6 Dec. 2016. Web. 06 Jan. 2017. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/12/richard-spencer-alt-right-college-activism. SM How much support is there for the loose-knit coalition of white nationalists and other far-right extremists known as the "alt-right"? Despite a spike in media coverage for the movement in the wake of Donald Trump's victory, a recent conference hosted by white nationalist Richard Spencer, who coined the term "alt-right," drew only about 275 attendees in Washington, DC. And after a video from the event went viral, showing audience members giving Nazi salutes to Spencer's cry of "hail Trump," the movement faced a fierce backlash. Although Trump named alt-right hero Stephen Bannon as his chief White House strategist, the president-elect went on to disavow the alt-right—in general terms, at least—in an interview with the New York Times. The movement gained momentum online in 2016 but is no longer just about social media, says Spencer; he sees a need to prove that the alt-right can attract supporters in the real world. And he says the best place to do that is on college campuses, starting with a speech he plans to deliver on Tuesday on the campus of Texas AandM University. "People in college are at this point in their lives where they are actually open to alternative perspectives, for better and for worse," Spencer says. "I think you do need to get them while they are young. I think rewiring the neurons of someone over 50 is effectively impossible." Recruiting on college campuses has long been a goal for "academic racists" such as Jared Taylor and Peter Brimelow, a white nationalist whom Spencer helped bring to Duke University for an event in 2007, when Spencer was a student there. In May, Spencer and other white nationalists set up a "safe space" on the University of California-Berkeley's Sproul Plaza to discuss "how race affects people of European heritage." He claims that he will be giving two more speeches about the alt-right at universities in California. "The left just owns academia through and through," Spencer says, "so I think it is important to go to the belly of the beast and not let them own it." In recent months, Breitbart News pundit Milo Yiannopoulos' "Dangerous Faggot Tour" drew crowds at college campuses around the country. Several colleges canceled scheduled talks by Yiannopoulos because of "security concerns." Yiannopoulos does not label himself "alt-right" but has characterized the movement as a legitimate response to political correctness. He often describes white males as victims of "reverse discrimination" and speaks euphemistically of defending "Western values." A talk that he gave on the alt-right at the University of Houston in September drew cheers and a chant invoking the name of the alt-right mascot Pepe the Frog. "That was a revelation for me," Spencer said about Yiannopoulos' talk. "What we are doing is known to people, it's edgy and dangerous, it's cool and hip. It's that thing our parents don't want us to do. So that was definitely a huge inspiration." University campuses historically have incubated a range of social movements, from Marxism to multiculturalism on the left to right-wing movements such as neoliberalism and fascism, including Nazism in Germany (and in the United States). More recently, several groups sympathetic to the alt-right have cropped up on some college campuses: Identity Evropa Identity Evropa describes itself as "a generation of awakened Europeans who have discovered we are part of the great peoples, history, and civilization that flowed from the European continent" and who "oppose those who would defame our history and rich cultural heritage." Founded in February by 30-year-old ex-Marine Nathan Damigo, a junior social science major at California State University-Stanislaus, the group has been active on several California campuses. Its supporters have plastered campuses and downtown areas with posters featuring slogans such as "Let's Become Great Again" and "Serve Your People" superimposed over images or European Renaissance art. Most college professors who teach classes about race and identity "haven't done their homework," says Damigo, who, like Spencer, promotespseudoscientific theories about cognitive differences between the races. Most of his members, he says, are recent college graduates who discovered racialist ideas on their own and now aim to "mentor" younger students while "waging a culture war" on the ivory tower: "We want to have a constant presence there," he says. "We want to normalize our ideas and get to the point where we can push faculty into incorporating this literature into the lectures and into the educational program." In November, Damigo and more than two dozen Identity Evropa members attended Spencer's conference. As a student at Maryland's Towson University in 2012, Matthew Heimbach founded a "white student union." The group conducted night patrols to look for "black predators," according to Vice, and brought "race realist" Jared Taylor to speak on campus. Another white student union was formed in 2013 by Georgia State University student Patrick Sharp, an active member of the neo-Nazi website Stormfront. The "white student union" model has been promoted by alt-right media outlets; since then, more than 30 white student union pages have popped up on Facebook, though many are believed to be hoaxes. After graduating in 2013, Heimbach and his father-in-law founded the Traditionalist Youth Network, a white nationalist group cloaking itself in "traditionalism" that has allied with neo-Nazi and neo-Confederate groups, according to research from the Southern Poverty Law Center. In June, members of the TYN's affiliated Traditionalist Worker Party joined the group Golden Gate Skinheads for a demonstration in Sacramento that turned violent, sending five people to the hospital with stab wounds. Like other figures affiliated with the alt-right, Heimbach idolizes Russian President Vladimir Putin. "Russia is our biggest inspiration," he recently toldthe New York Times. "I see President Putin as the leader of the free world." Students for Trump Though the campus group Students for Trump ostensibly focused on electing and supporting Trump, at least one chapter has openly embraced white nationalist rhetoric and causes. The Facebook page of the group's Portland State University chapter posted an infographic called "What Does White Genocide Look Like," "White Lives Matter" memes, and a quote from former Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Smith about how "colonialism is a wonderful thing." In a counterprotest to a student union demonstration against arming campus police, Students for Trump held up signs reading "Thug Lives Don't Matter." PSU Students who spoke out against Students for Trump were reportedly targeted online by anonymous accounts with racist slurs and death threats, according to ThinkProgress. Campuses have mostly stopped short of banning such groups, opting instead to counter them with protests and educational efforts. Texas AandM University is hosting a counterevent Tuesday called "Aggies United" at its football stadium featuring musicians and activists. "I find the views of the organizer—and the speaker he is apparently sponsoring—abhorrent and profoundly antithetical to everything I believe,” the university's president, Michael Young, said in a letter to the campus community last week. "In my judgment, those views simply have no place in civilized dialogue and conversation." But, Young added, "we have no plans to prohibit the speaker from using the room he has rented. Freedom of speech is a First Amendment right and a core value of this university, no matter how odious the views may be." Even consequentially, Free speech is a gateway to every other impact. D’Souza 96 (Frances, Prof. Anthropology Oxford, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/hearings/19960425/droi/freedom_en.htm?textMode=on) In the absence of freedom of expression which includes a free and independent media, it is impossible to protect other rights, including the right to life. Once governments are able to draw a cloak of secrecy over their actions and to remain unaccountable for their actions then massive human rights violations can, and do, take place. For this reason alone the right to freedom of expression, specifically protected in the major international human rights treaties, must be considered to be a primary right. It is significant that one of the first indications of a government's intention to depart from democratic principles is the ever increasing control of information by means of gagging the media, and preventing the freeflow of information from abroad. At one end of the spectrum there are supposedly minor infringements of this fundamental right which occur daily in Western democracies and would include abuse of national security laws to prevent the publication of information which might be embarrassing to a given government: at the other end of the scale are the regimes of terror which employ the most brutal moves to suppress opposition, information and even the freedom to exercise religious beliefs. It has been argued, and will undoubtedly be discussed at this Hearing, that in the absence of free speech and an independent media, it is relatively easy for governments to capture, as it were, the media and to fashion them into instruments of propaganda, for the promotion of ethnic conflict, war and genocide. 2. Enshrining the right to freedom of expression The right to freedom of expression is formally protected in the major international treaties including the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In addition, it is enshrined in many national constitutions throughout the world, although this does not always guarantee its protection. Furthermore, freedom of expression is, amongst other human rights, upheld, even for those countries which are not signatories to the above international treaties through the concept of customary law which essentially requires that all states respect the human rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by virtue of the widespread or customary respect which has been built up in the post World War II years. 3. Is free speech absolute? While it is generally accepted that freedom of expression is, and remains the cornerstone of democracy, there are permitted restrictions encoded within the international treaties which in turn allow for a degree of interpretation of how free free speech should be. Thus, unlike the American First Amendment Rights which allow few, if any, checks on free speech or on the independence of the media, the international treaties are concerned that there should be a balance between competing rights: for example, limiting free speech or media freedom where it impinges on the individual's right to privacy; where free speech causes insult or injury to the rights and reputation of another; where speech is construed as incitement to violence or hatred, or where free speech would create a public disturbance. Given that these permitted restrictions are necessarily broad, the limits of free speech are consistently tested in national law courts and, perhaps even more importantly, in the regional courts such as the European Commission and Court of Human Rights. In recent years several landmark cases have helped to define more closely what restrictions may be imposed by government and under what circumstances. In particular, it has been emphasised by the European Court that any restriction must comply with a three-part test which requires that any such restriction should first of all be prescribed by law, and thus not arbitrarily imposed: proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued, and demonstrably necessary in a democratic society in order to protect the individual and/or the state. 4. Who censors what? Despite the rather strict rules which apply to restrictions on free speech that governments may wish to impose, many justifications are nevertheless sought by governments to suppress information which is inimical to their policies or their interests. These justifications include arguments in defence of national and/or state security, the public interst, including the need to protect public morals and public order and perfectly understandable attempts to prevent racism, violence, sexism, religious intolerance and damage to the indi-vidual's reputation or privacy. The mechanisms employed by governments to restrict the freeflow of information are almost endless and range from subtle economic pressures and devious methods of undermining political opponents and the independent media to the enactment of restrictive press laws and an insist-ence on licensing journalists and eventually to the illegal detention, torture and disappearances of journalists and others associated with the expression of independent views. 5. Examples of censorship To some the right to free speech may appear to be one of the fringe human rights, especially when compared to such violations as torture and extra-judicial killings. It is also sometimes difficult to dissuade the general public that censorship, generally assumed to be something to do with banning obscene books or magazines, is no bad thing! It requires a recognition of some of the fundamental principles of democracy to understand why censorship is so immensely dangerous. The conditon of democracy is that people are able to make choices about a wide variety of issues which affect their lives, including what they wish to see, read, hear or discuss. While this may seem a somewhat luxurious distinction preoccupying, perhaps, wealthy Western democracies, it is a comparatively short distance between government censorship of an offensive book to the silencing of political dissidents. And the distance between such silencing and the use of violence to suppress a growing political philosophy which a government finds inconvenient is even shorter. Censorship tends to have small beginnings and to grow rapidly. Allowing a government to have the power to deny people information, however trivial, not only sets in place laws and procedures which can and will be used by those in authority against those with less authority, but it also denies people the information which they must have in order to monitor their governments actions and to ensure accountability. There have been dramatic and terrible examples of the role that censorship has played in international politics in the last few years: to name but a few, the extent to which the media in the republics of former Yugoslavia were manipulated by government for purposes of propaganda; the violent role played by the government associated radio in Rwanda which incited citizens to kill each other in the name of ethnic purity and the continuing threat of murder issued by the Islamic Republic of Iran against a citizen of another country for having written a book which displeased them. 6. The link between poverty, war and denial of free speech There are undoubted connections between access to information, or rather the lack of it, and war, as indeed there are between poverty, the right to freedom of expression and development. One can argue that democracy aims to increase participation in political and other decision-making at all levels. In this sense democracy empowers people. The poor are denied access to information on decisions which deeply affect their lives, are thus powerless and have no voice; the poor are not able to have influence over their own lives, let alone other aspect of society. Because of this essential powerlessness, the poor are unable to influence the ruling elite in whose interests it may be to initiate conflict and wars in order to consolidate their own power and position. Of the 126 developing countries listed in the 1993 Human Development Report, war was ongoing in 30 countries and severe civil conflict in a further 33 countries. Of the total 63 countries in conflict, 55 are towards the bottom scale of the human development index which is an indicator of poverty. There seems to be no doubt that there is a clear association between poverty and war. It is reasonably safe to assume that the vast majority of people do not ever welcome war. They are normally coerced, more often than not by propaganda, into fear, extreme nationalist sentiments and war by their governments. If the majority of people had a democratic voice they would undoubtedly object to war. But voices are silenced. Thus, the freedom to express one's views and to challenge government decisions and to insist upon political rather than violent solutions, are necessary aspects of democracy which can, and do, avert war. Government sponsored propaganda in Rwanda, as in former Yugoslavia, succeeded because there weren't the means to challenge it. One has therefore to conclude that it is impossible for a particular government to wage war in the absence of a compliant media willing to indulge in government propaganda. This is because the government needs civilians to fight wars for them and also because the media is needed to re-inforce government policies and intentions at every turn. Free speech is a pre-requisite to any morality- without it self-realization is impossible. Eberle 94 Eberle, Law @ Roger Williams, 94 (Wake Forest LR, Winter) The Court's decision in R.A.V. reaffirms the preeminence of free speech in our constitutional value structure. n62 Theoretically, free speech is intrinsically valuable as a chief means by which we develop our faculties and control our destinies. n63 Free speech is also of instrumental value in facilitating other worthy ends such as democratic or personal self-government, n64 public and private decisionmaking, n65 and the advancement of knowledge and truth. n66 Ultimately, the value of free speech rests upon a complex set of justifications, as compared to reliance on any single foundation. n67 The majority of the Court in R.A.V. preferred a nonconsequentialist view, finding that speech is valuable as an end itself, independent of any consequences that it might produce. In this view, free speech is an essential part of a just and free society that treats all people as responsible moral agents. Accordingly, people are entrusted with the responsibility of making judgments about the use or abuse of speech. n68 From this vantage point, the majority saw a certain moral equivalency in all speech. Even hate speech merits protection under the First Amendment, because all speech has intrinsic value. This is so because all speech, even hate speech, is a communication to the world, and therefore implicates the speaker's autonomy or self-realization. Additionally, any information might be valuable to a listener who can then decide its importance or how best to use it. Accordingly, any suspicion or evidence of governmental censorship must be vigilantly investigated. Only through a racial realism approach and policy action can real world change that has the end result of empowering the oppressed occur Bell 92 (Derrick Bell, 1992, Conneticut Law Review, http://liberalarts.iupui.edu/mpsg/Essays/Bell20-20Racial20Realism.pdf,) AP While implementing Racial Realism we must simultaneously ac- knowledge that our actions are not likely to lead to transcendent change and, despite our best efforts, may be of more help to the system we despise than to the victims of that system we are trying to help. Nevertheless, our realization, and the dedication based on that realiza- tion, can lead to policy positions and campaigns that are less likely to worsen conditions for those we are trying to help, and will be more likely to remind those in power that there are imaginative, unabashed risk-takers who refuse to be trammeled upon. Yet confrontation with our oppressors is not our sole reason for engaging in Racial Realism. Continued struggle can bring about unexpected benefits and gains that in themselves justify continued endeavor. The fight in itself has mean- ing and should give us hope for the future. I am convinced that there is something real out there in America for black people. It is not, however, the romantic love of integration. It is surely not the long-sought goal of equality under law, though we must maintain the struggle against racism else the erosion of black rights will become even worse than it is now. The Racial Realism that we must seek is simply a hard-eyed view of racism as it is and our subordinate role in it. We must realize, as our slave forebears, that the struggle for freedom is, at bottom, a manifestation of our humanity that survives and grows stronger through resistance to oppression, even if that oppression is never overcome. I am convinced that there is something real out there in America for black people. It is not, however, the romantic love of integration. It is surely not the long-sought goal of equality under law, though we must maintain the struggle against racism else the erosion of black rights will become even worse than it is now. The Racial Realism that we must seek is simply a hard-eyed view of racism as it is and our subordinate role in it. We must realize, as our slave forebears, that the struggle for freedom is, at bottom, a manifestation of our humanity that survives and grows stronger through resistance to oppression, even if that oppression is never overcome.
Thus the role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best upholds a racial realistic perspective and engages in policy action to fight oppression
Harms Free speech is as tight as a pin on college campuses—this limits productive dialogue that can foster new ideas and goes against the true purpose of higher level education Maloney 16, Cliff, Jr (He is a graduate of the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown, Class of 2014, with a B.A. in Education and a B.S. in Theatre Arts.) . "Colleges Have No Right to Limit Students' Free Speech." Time. Time, Oct.-Nov. 2016. Web. 04 Jan. 2017. http://time.com/4530197/college-free-speech-zone/. In grade school, I learned that debate is defined as “a discussion between people in which they express different opinions about something.” Such open discourse was historically encouraged on our college campuses. Universities exemplified intellectual discussion and debate in America. No one voiced their opinions louder than students, professors and administrators. They pushed society’s limits by admitting women and people of color, and by encouraging diversity of thought amongst the college community. Historically, young people flocked to universities to learn more about the world around them, to encounter people from different backgrounds, to expand their minds and to form their own opinions. Unfortunately, things have changed. Recently on college campuses, our open discourse has been threatened, particularly when discussing politics. 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 speak 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. America is a land rooted in the ideas of a free society: the freedom to be who you are, to speak your mind and to innovate. By silencing our students and young people, we have started down a slippery slope. It is up to us to fight back to ensure that our First Amendment rights remain protected—not just on college campuses, but everywhere in America. Speech codes increase racial tensions, cause backlash, and drive racist thought underground to where we can’t fight it Herron 93, Vince. "Increasing the Speech: Diversity, Campus Speech Codes, and the Pursuit of Truth." S. Cal. L. Rev. 67 (1993): 407. SM Some will argue that speech codes were never intended to solve the underlying problems of racism, sexism, and homophobia. According to this theory, speech. codes are meant only to give minority groups respite from verbal attacks while the university employs other mechanisms to attack root problems. These proponents argue that speech codes achieve these rather temporary and modest goals. Speech codes, they will argue, improve the situation for the minority students and give the university time to defeat the ignorance and intolerance that originally necessitated the promulgation of the speech codes. But it is unlikely that speech codes are so unambitious that they envision only preventing injury without attempting to address real problems. To believe the above proposition, one must believe that university administrators, in an attempt to foster better relations on campuses, produce codes with no more in mind than the vain hope that speech codes will be a quick fix to a long-term problem. The argument then, is that because they are offered only as a quick fix to a long-term problem, speech codes in fact do succeed in their goal of injury prevention. Even if it is true that administrators are so short-sighted, there is some evidence that speech codes actually serve to exacerbate already strained tensions on campuses. Dominant groups, which consider codes to be abridgements of free expression created to solve a problem reported only by minority groups (a problem whose gravity the dominant group does not recognize or understand), may struggle to accept the restrictions. Also, both dominant and minority group members alike have been.and will be sanctioned by university administrators under these codes that, doubtless, "exacerbate tensions among members of these groups." 66 It has also been suggested that censoring certain expression makes the expression more, rather than less, attractive.67 This leads to increased, not decreased, use of this expression, and, therefore, more injury, not less. Speech code proponents may disagree with the proffered evidence and dispute that the codes actually exacerbate tensions. They may continue to assert that speech codes in fact benefit minority group members by protecting them from injurious speech. But even if this assertion is accepted, these modest gains will be short-lived and are far outweighed by what both minority group members and educational environments sacrifice when speech codes are established and enforced. Codes not only fail to end the racism, sexism, and homophobia which lead to hate speech, but may actually retard the process. Besides failing to challenge the root problems of ignorance and intolerance, university speech codes exacerbate the problem by masking these causes of hate speech. "Suppression of expression conceals the real problems confronting a society and diverts public attention from the critical issues.''68 When ignorance and intolerance are suppressed but not eliminated, these root problems are less visible to the university community. It follows that when the university community is unable to discern the ill, they are unable to act to reverse the causes and the healing process is retarded. Speech-regulating rules may force campus members to act in a more proper and egalitarian manner when other members are watching.69 However, they will not change the members' true feeling toward other groups in the campus society. Campus speech codes in fact force community members to hide their true -views to avoid sanction. But this effectively forces campus members in need of rehabilitation to mask and disguise that need. This effect in turn frustrates and impedes the university's ability to facilitate the reformation. Thus of those members of the campus who hold ignorant or intolerant views may pass through the university system and into the rest of their lives with their erroneous views undetected by those who had a chance to correct them. As mentioned earlier in Part III.A, university members who are required to filter their expression through the requirements of a speech code may garner some knowledge as to their own insensitivities. Members who had the potential to engage in hate speech not because they were intolerant, but because they were unaware that their speech caused injury, will be able to begin their own rehabilitation through self-governance. But not all speakers will be able to rehabilitate on their own. Those speakers who continue to misunderstand their unawareness will not get the outside guidance they need to understand. Also it is safe to assume that there will be no self-governance by those who hold hateful ideas and prejudice. These speakers will, under the pressures of speech codes, feel restrained from exhibiting their feelings and this will effectively prevent their identification as bigots in need of rehabilitation. Suppression of the bigotry which leads to hate speech may also drive the ideas underground, allowing them to take on a life of their own unbeknownst to, and therefore unchallenged by, the rest of the university community. The rules that force these members underground may actually serve to strengthen and highlight their sense of grievance and even create martyrs.70 Those who are driven underground are able to attract new followers by holding themselves out to be as an "oppressed minority" in their own right, "whose 'truths' are so powerful that they are banned by the Establishment. ' 71 These "truths" are presented to potential followers unopposed, because those who would oppose these ideologies do not know they exist, or, without any reminder of the need for opposition, have become apathetic. Sweeping the problem under the rug is not the answer and will do little to solve the problem. Keeping the problem in the public spotlight, where community members are aware of it, enables members to attack it when it surfaces. Katharine Bartlett and Jean O'Barr stated, "If there is a silver lining to the blatant, egregious forms of hateful harassment that Lawrence describes, it is that they help to make the underlying forms of prejudice undeniable." '72 The gains in injury prevention garnered by campus speech codes are gained at the expense of the community's ability to recognize the ideologies which originally led to these injuries and hinders the continued fight against those ideologies.
Speech restrictions are white paternalism under the guise of protecting vulnerable minorities—they discount the effectiveness of marginalized groups historically successful use of free speech O'Neill 15, Brendan. "Freedom of Speech Is the Best Friend Marginalised Groups Could Ever Have." Freedom of Speech Is the Best Friend Marginalised... N.p., 20 Mar. 2015. Web. 08 Jan. 2017. http://brendanoneill.co.uk/post/114125942824/freedom-of-speech-is-the-best-friend-marginalised. SM There are many grating things about the army of students who have taken it upon themselves to protect their peers - especially their poorer, oppressed peers - from offensive words and ideas. There’s the paternalism of it all. With their hastily constructed “safe spaces”, and their No Platforming of anyone remotely off-message, these censorious students really believe they have a duty to protect the dainty eyes and ears of the student body from allegedly harmful things. They reduce students to the level of wide-eyed babes needing mother to switch the TV channel when something saucy comes on. There’s the killjoyism, too, the treatment of perfectly normal, fun stuff - like the Sun’s Page 3 or a rugby society’s daft, offensive posters - as wicked materials liable to warp minds and destroy self-esteem. These students’ hiding of the “sexist” Sun is an especially fun-free and prudish act, bringing to mind a sad sight I once saw in the shops of Dubai airport: lads’ mags that had been defaced with black gaffer tape by religious censors who didn’t want anyone to glimpse cleavage lest it drive them wild with rapacious desire. And then there’s the mind-dulling effect, the way these platform-pullers and prejudice-policers deprive students of the chance to confront ideas for themselves. This is really bad, for as was recognised by every enlightened thinker in history, from John Locke to John Stuart Mill (WHITE MEN, I know), people’s intellectual and moral muscles are exercised only through being used. When people are denied the chance to see and hear and read everything, including offensive, ugly things, they are robbed of the right to think for themselves, to decide for themselves what is right and wrong, to sharpen their minds and hone their morality through working things through. To live in a safe space, in a bubble through which no bad thought or offensive image may ever pass, is to infantilise yourself, and to deny yourself that potentially life-changing experience of having your mind rocked or your prejudices pricked and challenged by people who think differently. But worst of all, even more irritating than all that, is the way this pseudo-radical safe-thinking brigade has defamed freedom of speech as, in essence, a white, male, middle-class, “cis” conspiracy that benefits only… you guessed it, White Men. This is an argument you hear all the time from the self-elected guardians of moral decency on campus. Desperate to distinguish themselves from the censors of history - most of whom were controversy-allergic bores and/or tyrants - the No Platform nuts try to doll themselves up as radical. So they present free speech as oppressive - allowing White Men to assert their power over minority groups - and they present their acts of petty censorship and intolerant shutting down of debates as great strikes for equality and respect. “Orwellian” doesn’t begin to cover this doublespeak depiction of free speech as a tool of authoritarianism and censorship as a weapon of progress. “Freedom is slavery… Censorship is equality.” The worst thing about this branding of free speech as something that only benefits the privileged, white and middle class - an argument which is most vociferously made by the privileged, white and middle class students who stink up the student-union bureaucracy - is that it tells us freedom is not really important for minority groups, especially ethnic-minority groups. Apparently, students who come from poorer or blacker or more foreign backgrounds than the students who run unions don’t need freedom, because it will only end up harming them through exposing them to wicked words. No, they need protection; they need a moral forcefield guarding them from offence; they need saviours - step forward the brave new officials of the NUS, gallantly come to protect minority students in particular from nasty ideas. This idea that free speech benefits the white and well-off and harms the ethnic and less well-off is foul. Throughout history, many black and Asian activists fought tooth-and-catapult for freedom of speech, because they recognised that they needed freedom of speech in order to stand up for themselves, express themselves, to confront their oppressors. For them, free speech wasn’t a white middle-class conspiracy - it was the core freedom, the freedom that makes all other freedoms possible, the freedom upon which all of our political rights are built. Remove free speech and you destroy even the possibility of liberty. Consider Frederick Douglass, (a man, yes, but not a white one). Douglass was an African-American slave. After escaping slavery he became a tireless social reformer, fighting and arguing for the abolition of slavery and the expansion of freedom to all in America. And what did he consider to be the sharpest, most essential weapon in the armoury of blacks who longed for liberty? Freedom of speech. In his “Plea for Free Speech”, published in 1860, he said: “Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. Thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, founded in injustice and wrong, are sure to tremble, if men are allowed to reason of righteousness, temperance, and of a judgment to come in their presence. Slavery cannot tolerate free speech. Five years of its exercise would banish the auction block and break every chain in the South.” Here, in these words that echo down the decades and touch us still, we see one of the great arguments for free speech: that it empowers us, and it especially empowers the weak and oppressed. It allows us to speak against, and potentially to destroy, tyranny. As Douglass said, slavery itself was fortified with censorship, for those slave-owners knew very well that freedom of thought and speech would “break every chain in the South”. Freedom of speech - for all, as its name suggests - gives us the power to spread ideas, challenge ideas, put forward political ideals, wrestle with other political ideals, and to project ourselves into the public sphere. Today’s paternalistic student censors, with their desire to protect gay, female and ethnic-minority students in particular from “white men’s freedom of speech”, would have horrified Douglass. He would have seen their censoriousness for what it is: yet another attempt by the privileged to protect their ways of thinking from any kind of challenge or ridicule. Grotesquely, they do this, not by honestly saying that they want to privilege their way of thinking over other ways of thinking, but by infantilising less well-off and ethnic students and using them as a Trojan horse to secure the censorship of what the mostly white middle-class student bureaucracy considers to be unacceptable. Students, fight back. Heed Douglass and make today’s perverse and illiberal principality of student bureaucracy tremble before your free, unfettered, off-message speech. This has given rise to the alt-right movements it hopes to contain and prevents agonistic deliberation of ideas Carle 16, Robert. "How The American Academy Helped Create The Alt-Right." The Federalist. N.p., 22 Dec. 2016. Web. 06 Jan. 2017. http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/22/american-academy-helped-create-alt-right/. SM American academics are rightly alarmed by the ascendance of the alt-right and its entrenchment in American politics. The alt-right includes nativists, conspiracists, isolationists, Putinists, white nationalists, and masculinists. The alt-right is pessimistic about the ability of people of different races and religions to live together, and is hostile to both legal and illegal immigrants. Alt-right websites warn against the dangers of miscegenation and criticize the pro-life movement as “dysgenic” because it encourages breeding by “the least intelligent and responsible” women. But American academics have been slow to acknowledge how dependent the leaders of the alt-right are upon playbooks that they learned on university campuses. These leaders are not southern Klansmen. The president of the National Policy Institute graduated from the University of Chicago. The founder of American Renaissance graduated from Yale. The Rise of Identity Politics Over the past 50 years, universities have replaced the Enlightenment ideal of a common humanity with a vision of an America divided into warring races and classes. They have purged their schools of the Enlightenment liberals (“dead white males”) who trained earlier generations to defend universal values over tribal values. Today, students on college campuses are much more likely to read identitarians like Lani Guinier and Marxists like Howard Zinn than to read John Locke, Adam Smith, and David Hume. In this environment, working-class white men have come to see themselves as an economically and politically marginalized tribe. Had colleges and universities stood up for liberal concepts such as free speech and our common humanity, the alt-right would not have gained a foothold in our culture. Instead, our universities have become cesspools of identity politics, censorship, and moral relativism. For a generation now, American academics have been punishing any hint of identitarianism on the Right while defending even the most hateful tribal, identitarian movements on the Left. Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos writes, “It was this double standard, more than anything else, that gave rise to the alternative right. It’s also responsible, at least in part, for the rise of Donald Trump.” Political correctness has trivialized the concepts of bigotry and racism so that they have lost much of their stigma. When a sombrero and tequila party can get you punished as a racist, then racism becomes a meaningless concept. Leftists who label Mitt Romney and John McCain as racists lose the moral authority to label anyone a racist. Activists who demonize white cis-gender men weaken the stigma against demonizing other groups. The debasement of intellectual life in the American academy was demonstrated by a hoax that New York University physicist Alan Sokal performed on his colleagues in 1996. Sokal submitted an article entitled, “Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity,” to Social Texts, a leading, peer-reviewed journal of cultural studies. His paper claimed gravity is merely a social construct, an instrument of phallocentric hegemony. Social Texts published the article, exposing its editors to national ridicule. They “liked my article,” Socal explained, “because they liked its conclusion that the content and methodology of postmodern science . . . supports the progressive political project.” In the past 20 years, Sokal-inspired sting operations have succeeded in getting dozens of spoof articles published in dozens of leading academic journals. Campus Assaults on Free Speech Colleges and universities facilitate extremism when they promote illiberal and unconstitutional speech codes that punish students and faculty for controversial speech. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has compiled a list of 316 speakers who have been disinvited from college speaking engagements because some members of their communities have objected to their points of view. On the list of the disinvited are Condoleezza Rice, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Christine Lagarde, John Brennan, Kathleen Parker, and Jason Riley. Talented comedians like Chris Rock no longer perform on college campuses because of the censorious campus culture. In October, Yiannopoulos was disinvited from speeches he was to deliver at Columbia and New York universities because the universities feared attacks on LGBT and other minority groups. Yiannopoulos calls this rationale “garbage.” Yiannopoulos is openly gay, ethnically Jewish, and has never promoted violence. “The only person really at risk at any of my talks is me,” Yiannopoulos said. In 2010, an Association of American Colleges and Universities survey found that only 16.7 percent of faculty members strongly agree with the statement that they “feel safe to hold unpopular views on campus.” Witch hunts against academics who express any kind of heterodox views have become routine on college campuses. In February 2015, for example, Northwestern University’s feminist film professor Laura Kipnis wrote an article for the Chronicle of Higher Education criticizing Title IX policies. The university subjected Kipnis to hours of grilling about her essay and the ideas underlying it. Kipnis was not permitted to have a lawyer present during her hearings, but she was allowed to have a colleague present. Kipnis chose Stephen Eisenman, the head of the Faculty Senate. When Eisenman told the Faculty Senate that he believed Kipnis’s investigation was a threat to academic freedom, Eisenman was brought up on charges of violating Title IX as well. Kipnis wrote, “It is astounding how aggressive . . . assertions of vulnerability have gotten in the past few years . . . Most academics I know— feminists, progressives, minorities, gays—live in fear of some classroom incident spiraling into professional disaster.” In September 2016, NYU implemented a bias reporting hotline by which students can anonymously report professors and classmates for perceived speech offenses. NYU professor Michael Rectenwald writes that this turned “every classroom encounter into a potential infraction and figures students as Soviet-style monitors of ideological conformity.” Shouting at People Isn’t Persuasive This year, when students who support Donald Trump started chalking Trump’s name on campus sidewalks, schools responded by comparing the chalking to mass murder. At the University of California at San Diego, for example, the provost sent an email to students threatening the school’s “fullest sanctions” against the chalkers. Never mind that UCSD’s policies explicitly state chalking is permitted “on sidewalks of the university grounds that are exposed to weather elements.” The Left’s tendency to shame and silence its opponents is ultimately self-defeating, “When has anyone been persuaded by being insulted or labelled?” British comedian Jonathan Pie says. “That’s why people wait until they are in the voting booth. No one is watching anymore. There’s no blame or shame, and you can finally say what you really think and that’s a powerful thing.” If academics are concerned about the degraded state of American politics, they should begin engaging, debating, and discussing politics with their political opponents instead of setting up echo chambers where only progressive points of view are allowed. The American experiment in human liberty depends upon universities that transmit to future generations respect for free speech and open and honest debate. To sustain our republic, we need desperately to recover the healthy intellectual habit of learning from opinions that we find offensive. A people that ceases to educate in freedom will cease to live in freedom. Thus the plan- Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.
Solvency Education on resisting oppression is key to raising a class of radical students willing to alter the material conditions of oppression through democratic policy actions Giroux 15 (Henry, American scholar and cultural critic. One of the founding theorists of critical pedagogy in the United States, he is best known for his pioneering work in public pedagogy, “Higher Education and the Promise of Insurgent Public Memory,” March 3, 2015, http://truth-out.org/news/item/29396-higher-education-and-the-promise-of-insurgent-public-memory) The current call to cleanse history in the name of a false patriotism that celebrates a new illiteracy as a way of loving the United States is a discourse of anti-memory, a willful attempt at forgetting the past in the manufactured fog of historical amnesia. This is particularly true when it comes to erasing the work of a number of critical intellectuals who have written about higher education as the practice of freedom, including John Dewey, George S. Counts, W.E.B. Du Bois, the Social Reconstructionists, and others, all of whom viewed higher education as integral to the development of both engaged critical citizens and the university as a democratic public sphere. (19) Under the reign of neoliberalism, with few exceptions, higher education appears to be increasingly decoupling itself from its historical legacy as a crucial public sphere, responsible for both educating students for the workplace and providing them with the modes of critical discourse, interpretation, judgment, imagination, and experiences that deepen and expand democracy. As universities adopt the ideology of the transnational corporation and become subordinated to the needs of capital, the war industries and the Pentagon, they are less concerned about how they might educate students about the ideology and civic practices of democratic governance and the necessity of using knowledge to address the challenges of public life. (20) Instead, as part of the post-9/11 military-industrial-academic complex, higher education increasingly conjoins military interests and market values, identities and social relations while the role of the university as a public good, a site of critical dialogue and a place that calls students to think, question, learn how to take risks, and act with compassion and conviction is dismissed as impractical or subversive. (21) The corporatization, militarization and dumbing down of rigorous scholarship, and the devaluing of the critical capacities of young people mark a sharp break from a once influential educational tradition in the United States. The corporatization, militarization and dumbing down of rigorous scholarship, and the devaluing of the critical capacities of young people mark a sharp break from a once influential educational tradition in the United States, extending from Thomas Jefferson to John Dewey to Maxine Greene, who held that freedom flourishes in the worldly space of the public realm only through the work of educated, critical citizens. Within this democratic tradition, education was not confused with training; instead, its critical function was propelled by the need to provide students with the knowledge and skills that enable a "politically interested and mobilized citizenry, one that has certain solidarities, is capable of acting on its own behalf, and anticipates a future of ever greater social equality across lines of race, gender, and class." (22) Other prominent educators and theorists such as Hannah Arendt, James B. Conant and Cornelius Castoriadis have long believed and rightly argued that we should not allow education to be modeled after the business world. Dewey, in particular, warned about the growing influence of the "corporate mentality" and the threat that the business model posed to public spaces, higher education and democracy. He argued:¶ The business mind, having its own conversation and language, its own interests, its own intimate groupings in which men of this mind, in their collective capacity, determine the tone of society at large as well as the government of industrial society.... We now have, although without formal or legal status, a mental and moral corporateness for which history affords no parallel. (23) Dewey and the other public intellectuals mentioned above shared a common vision and project of rethinking what role education might play in provideing students with the habits of mind and ways of acting that would enable them to "identify and probe the most serious threats and dangers that democracy faces in a global world dominated by instrumental and technological thinking." (24) Conant, a former president of Harvard University, argued that higher education should create a class of "American radicals," who could fight for equality, favor public education, elevate human needs over property rights and challenge "groups which have attained too much power." (25) Conant's views seem so radical today that it is hard to imagine him being hired as a university president at Harvard or any other institution of higher learning. Key to Activism: Means your appeal to fairness to be weighed against the critical pedagogy that the 1AC creates. Racists exposing themselves spurs counterspeech which creates activism on campus that constructs solutions and exposes the moral bankruptcy of their views Calleros 95, Charles R. "Paternalism, Counterspeech, and Campus Hate-Speech Codes: A Reply to Delgado and Yun." Ariz. St. LJ 27 (1995): 1249. SM Delgado and Yun characterize these arguments as "paternalistic" and "seriously flawed. ,49 In my reply below, I begin in part II.A with the fourth argument that more speech is the best response to offensive hate speech, and I attempt to establish that counterspeech is much more effective than Delgado and Yun are ready to concede. Within the same part, I conclude that free speech consequently can be a powerful instrument of reform benefitting minorities. In part II.B, I support the second argument against restrictions on speech with an example of a policy suppressing offensive speech that hurt a minority group on one campus and an example of a policy favoring speech and counterspeech that helped minorities on another campus. Finally, in part II.C, I support the notion that free speech allows a therapeutic venting of frustrations and provides valuable information about bigotry, but I qualify my conclusions. In the end, I favor education and counterspeech as a response to campus hate speech principally because I believe that such a response is more effective, empowering, constructive, and healing than is suppression of hateful speech. A. 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 in charge of one's own destiny." 50 Delgado and Yun also cite to those who believe that counterspeech may help educate the racist speaker by addressing the ignorance and fear that lies behind hostile racial stereotyping.51 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 invades the privacy of another's residence. 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 AfricanAmerican 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 62benefit 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 requirement. 63 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 2.3 percent of them African-American. 66 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 Of course, the community action in these cases was effective and empowering precisely because a community against bigotry existed. At A.S.U. and Stanford, as at most universities, the overwhelming majority of students, faculty, and staff are persons of tolerance and good will who deplore at least the clearest forms of bigotry and are ready to speak out against intolerance when it is isolated as an issue rather than diluted in muddied waters along with concerns of censorship. Just as the nonviolent demonstrations of Martin Luther King, Jr., depended partly for their success on the consciences of the national and international audiences monitoring the fire hoses and attack dogs on their television sets and in the print media,73 the empowerment of the targets of hateful speech rests partly in the hands of members of the campus community who sympathize with them. One can hope that the counterspeech and educational measures used with success at A.S.U. and Stanford stand a good chance of preserving an atmosphere of civility in intellectual inquiry at any campus community in which compassionate, open minds predominate. On the other hand, counterspeech by the targets of hate speech could be less empowering on a campus in which the majority of students, faculty, and staff approve of hostile epithets directed toward members of minority groups. One hopes that such campuses are exceedingly rare; although hostile racial stereotyping among college students in the United States increased during the last decade, those students who harbored significant hostilities (as contrasted with more pervasive but less openly hostile, subconscious racism) still represented a modest fraction of all students.74 Moreover, even in a pervasively hostile atmosphere, counterspeech might still be more effective than broad restrictions on speech. First, aside from the constitutional constraints of the First Amendment, such a heartless campus community would be exceedingly unlikely to adopt strong policies prohibiting hateful speech. Instead, the campus likely would maintain minimum policies necessary to avoid legal action enforcing guarantees of equal educational opportunities under the Fourteenth Amendment75 or federal antidiscrimination statutes such as Title V176 or Title IX. 77 Second, counterspeech even from a minority of members of the campus community might be effective to gradually build support by winning converts from those straddling the fence or from broader regional or national audiences. Such counterspeech might be particularly effective if coupled with threats from diverse faculty, staff, and students to leave the university for more hospitable environments; even a campus with high levels of hostility likely would feel 78 pressures to maintain its status as a minimally integrated institution.
1/27/17
1AC Anti-Yellow University v1
Tournament: Colleyville Heritage | Round: 5 | Opponent: Dulles MK | Judge: Part 1: Inherency Debate is part of the modern institution – they seek to silence and perpetuate the everyday violence against marginalized groups; only aiding the most privileged groups. The 1AC is a way to create spaces and radically rupture the institution. Nguyen 14 (Nicole Nguyen is a Postdoctoral Research Associate in Educational Policy Studies at the University of Illinois-Chicago. R. Tina Catania is a Ph.D. student in Geography at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University, where she also obtained a Certificate of Advanced Studies in Women’s and Gender Studies. The Feminist Wire August 5 2014 "On Feeling Depleted: Naming, Confronting, and Surviving Oppression in the Academy" thefeministwire.com/2014/08/feeling-depleted-naming-confronting-surviving-oppression-academy/ JC) Within a deeply inequitable institution, we strive to navigate a space for ourselves, for understanding. We understand that we are a part of the academy and that our actions can also work to sustain it. Yet we strive for a different academy. We seek to transform the institution. For us, this includes naming the violences of those like Stuart and rejecting the common call to discipline ourselves into not writing or voicing radical critiques of the academy. So we begin here, with a naming of sorts. We write to name what we should not name. Yet writing also serves as a way to carve out alternative spaces. Spaces that contribute to our survivability and to our resistance against these structural and everyday forms of oppression. These spaces are where we “recognize each other, find each other,and create spaces of relief, spaces that might be breathing spaces, spaces in which we can be inventive.” We write together to claim our intersectional identities and recognize that for us, the academy must include the stories of our bodies, our exclusions, our resistances, our politics, our activism. We write to document our exhaustion in surviving, resisting, and reshaping this deeply violent institution even as we, as graduate students, occupy particularly precarious positions. Given these oppressions in the academy, this is a call for different, transnational, cross-border, and accessible forms of solidarity. We write, ultimately, as an invitation to those other depleted-yet-vibrant bodies, bodies who imagine another kind of academy. An academy that is collaborative, feminist, and inclusive. It is an invitation to strategize, to survive, to heal.
Part 2: Harms Whiteness imbeds itself into institutions like colleges and universities through habitual repetition – the body creates these spaces and these spaces create the body – this is a mode whiteness that the 1AC is not complacent with. The 1AC makes our speech an object that becomes hypervisible. Ahmed 07 (Ahmed Ahmed, Sara. "A phenomenology of whiteness." Feminist theory 8.2 (2007): 149-168 JC) We need to examine not only how bodies become white, or fail to do so, but also how spaces can take on the very ‘qualities’ that are given to such bodies. In a way, we can think about the habitual as a form of inheritance. It is not so much that we inherit habits, although we can do so: rather the habitual can be thought of as a bodily and spatial form of inheritance. As Pierre Bourdieu (1977) shows us, we can link habits to what is unconscious, and routine, or what becomes ‘second nature’.3 To describe whiteness as a habit, as second nature, is to suggest that whiteness is what bodies do, where the body takes the shape of the action. Habits are not ‘exterior’ to bodies, as things that can be ‘put on’ or ‘taken off’. If habits are about what bodies do, in ways that are repeated, then they might also shape what bodies can do. For Merleau-Ponty, the habitual body is a body that acts in the world, where actions bring other things near. Here, the directedness of the body towards an action (which we have discovered also means an orientation towards certain kinds of objects) is how the body ‘appears’.4 The body is ‘habitual’ not only in the sense that it performs actions repeatedly, but in the sense that when it performs such actions, it and does not command attention, apart from at the ‘surface’ where it ‘encounters’ an external object (such as the hands that lean on the desk or table, which feel the ‘stress’ of the action). In other words, the body is habitual insofar as it ‘trails behind’ in the performing of action, insofar as it does not pose ‘a problem’ or an obstacle to the action, or is not ‘stressed’ by ‘what’ the action encounters. For Merleau-Ponty, the habitual body does not get in the way of an action: it is behind the action. I want to suggest here that whiteness could be understood as ‘the behind’. White bodies are habitual insofar as they ‘trail behind’ actions: they do not get ‘stressed’ in their encounters with objects or others, as their whiteness ‘goes unnoticed’. Whiteness would be what lags behind; white bodies do not have to face their whiteness; they are not orientated ‘towards’ it, and this ‘not’ is what allows whiteness to cohere, as that which bodies are orientated around. When bodies ‘lag behind’, then they extend their reach. It becomes possible to talk about the whiteness of space given the very accumulation of such ‘points’ of extension. Spaces acquire the ‘skin’ of the bodies that inhabit them. What is important to note here is that it is not just bodies that are orientated. Spaces also and take shape by being orientated around some bodies, more than others. We can also consider ‘institutions’ as orientation devices, which take the shape of ‘what’ resides within them. After all, institutions provide collective or public spaces. When we describe institutions as ‘being’ white (institutional whiteness), we are pointing to how institutional spaces are shaped by the their proximity of some bodies and not others: to white bodies gather, and cohere to form the edges of such spaces. When I walk into university meetings that is just what I encounter. Sometimes I get used to it. At one conference we organize, four black feminists arrive. They all happen to walk into the room at the same time. Yes, we do notice such arrivals. The fact that we notice such arrivals tells us more about what is already in place than it does about ‘who’ arrives. Someone says: ‘it is like walking into a sea of whiteness’. This phrase comes up, and it hangs in the air. The speech act becomes an object, which gathers us around. So yes they walk into the room, and I notice that they were not there before, as a retrospective reoccupation of a space that I already inhabited. I look around, and re-encounter the sea of whiteness. As many have argued, whiteness is invisible and unmarked, as the absent centre against which others appear only as deviants, or points of deviation (Dyer, 1997; Frankenberg, 1993). Whiteness is only invisible for those who inhabit it, or those who get so used to its inhabitance that they learn not to see it, even when they are not it (see Ahmed, 2004b). Spaces are orientated ‘around’ whiteness, insofar as whiteness is not seen. We do not face whiteness; it ‘trails behind’ bodies, as what is assumed to be given. The effect of this ‘around whiteness’ is the institutionalization of a certain ‘likeness’, which makes non-white bodies feel uncomfortable, exposed, visible, different, when they take up this space. The institutionalization of whiteness involves work: the institution comes to have a body as an effect of this work. It is important that we do not reify institutions, by presuming they are simply given and that they decide what we do. Rather, institutions become given, as an effect of the repetition of decisions made over time, which shapes the surface of institutional spaces. Institutions involve the accumulation of past decisions about how to allocate resources, as well as ‘who’ to recruit. Recruitment functions as a technology for the reproduction of whiteness. Means that any procedural question first as the answer the implicit assumptions about how debate is inherently white.
The cries for diversity are criminalized and deemed as signs of ingratitude. The filtration of speech creates the illusion that stories of diversity are high while our protests of racism goes unnoticed – free speech doesn’t exist outside of the walls of white coherency. The 1AC is a disruption of white supremacy flips the script, destroying the system that marks our bodies immobile. Ahmed 07 (Ahmed Ahmed, Sara. "A phenomenology of whiteness." Feminist theory 8.2 (2007): 149-168 JC) When our appointments and promotion are taken up as signs of organizational commitment to equality and diversity, we are in trouble. Any success is read as a sign of an overcoming of institutional whiteness. ‘Look, you’re here!’, ‘Look, look!’ Our talk about racism is read as a form of stubbornness, paranoia, or even melancholia, as if we are holding onto something (whiteness) that our arrival shows has already gone. Our talk about whiteness is read as a sign of ingratitude, of failing to be grateful for the hospitality we have received by virtue of our arrival. It is this very structural position of being the guest, or the stranger, the one who receives hospitality, which keeps us in certain places, even when you move up.7 So, if you ‘move up’, then you come to embody the social promise of diversity, which gives you a certain place. It is the very use of black bodies as signs of diversity that confirms such whiteness, premised on a conversion of having to being: as if by having us, the organization can ‘be’ diverse. Diversity in this world becomes then a happy sign, a sign that racism has been overcome. In a research project into diversity work,8 I encounter what I call ‘an institutional desire for good practice’. This desire takes the form of an expectation that to publicly funded research on race, diversity and equality should be useful, and should provide techniques for achieving equality and challenging institutional racism. In actual terms, this involves a desire to hear ‘happy stories of diversity’ rather than unhappy stories of racism. We write a report about how good practice and anti-racist tool kits are being used as technologies of concealment, displacing racism from public view. Anti-racism even becomes a new form of organizational pride. The response to our final report: too much focus on racism, we need more evidence of good practice. The response to your work is symptomatic of what you critique. They don’t even notice the irony. You have been funded to ‘show’ their commitment to diversity and are expected to return their investment by giving evidence of its worth. Within academic fields, I would argue, we can also witness this desire for happy stories of diversity, although the desire takes different form. When I give papers on whiteness I am always asked about resistance, as a sign of how things can be otherwise. Some of these questions take the form of ‘what can white people do?’ The sheer solipsism of this response must be challenged. We can recall Adrienne Rich’s description of white solipsism: ‘to speak, imagine and think as if whiteness described the world’ (1979: 299). To respond to accounts of institutional whiteness with the question ‘what can white people do?’ is not only to return to the place of the white subject, but it is also to locate agency in this place. Other questions do not re-centre on the agency of white bodies, but just on the need for some kind of understanding of power that shows that things don’t always hold; that shows the cracks, the movement, the instabilities and that appreciates how much things have changed, even whilst recognizing that there is much left to do. So one response to my considering of whiteness has been ‘is there any sense that resistance is possible in this account?’ And, ‘if whiteness is a bad habit, what might it be replaced with?’ You become obliged to give evidence of where things can be undone; to locate the point of undoing, somewhere or another, even if that location is not in the world, but in the very mode of your critique. What does it mean if we assume that critiques have to leave room for resistance, as room-making devices? This desire to make room is understandable – if the work of critique does not show that its object can be undone, or promise to undo its object, then what is the point of that critique? But this desire can also become an object for us to investigate. The desire for signs of resistance can also be a form for resistance to hearing about racism. If we want to know how things can be different too quickly, then we might not hear anything at all. The desire for resistance is not the same as the desire for good practice. And yet, both desires can involve a defence against hearing about racism as an ongoing and unfinished history that we have yet to describe fully. We still need to describe how it is that the world of whiteness coheres as a world, even as we tend to the ‘stresses’ in this coherence, and the uneven distribution of such stress. A phenomenology of whiteness helps us to notice institutional habits; it brings what is behind, what does not get seen as the background to social action, to the surface in a certain way. It does not teach us how to change those habits and that is partly the point. In not being promising, in refusing to promise anything, such an approach to whiteness can allow us to keep open the force of the critique. It is by showing how we are stuck, by attending to what is habitual and routine in ‘the what’ of the world, that we can keep open the possibility of habit changes, without using that possibility to displace our attention to the present, and without simply wishing for new tricks.
Oppression starts from the colonizers, they let us internalize our own oppression and make us silent into thinking that we are the problem not the institution. How can we break away from this systematic oppression when they already render us powerless – we need a new system to break away from this pathological violence. Osajima writes (Keith Osajima teaches in the School of Education at the University of Redlands, specializing in race and the experiences of Asian American students in higher education. Internalized Oppression and the Culture of Silence: Rethinking the Stereotype of the Quiet Asian-American Student. De Anza College Political Science Department. JC) For those of us who are familiar with or have been involved in progressive social and political movements, we have become are familiar with the forms and mechanisms of oppression in society. We recognize the sexism in media images of women; we know that Gay oppression takes many forms; we are aware that racial oppression accounts for the high dropout rates of black and Hispanic students, the high unemployment rates in minority communities, and recent violence against ethnic minorities. What is not well-known or examined is the impact that these oppressions hasve on people in the oppressed groups. How do the conditions of inequality and exploitation affect the subjective development of oppressed people? Paulo Freire, the Brazilian educator famous for his literacy work with peasants, says that one of the most devastating effects of oppression is that it dehumanizes the oppressed people; that under the objective conditions of oppression people as they lose their ability to see themselves as individual human beings. Frantz Fanon, a psychologist who wrote extensively on the effects of colonialism on the colonized people of Algeria, elaborates on the dehumanizing effect of oppression when he says: “Because it is a systematic negation of the other person and a furious determination to deny the other person all attributes of humanity, colonialism forces the people it dominates to ask themselves the question constantly: In reality, who am ‘I’?” And how do the oppressed people generally answer this question? According to Albert Memmi, Tunisian author of The Colonizer and the Colonized, the oppressed internalize an identity that mirrors or echoes the images put forth by the dominant group. People come to accept the myths and stereotypes about their group as part of who they naturally are. This is the phenomenon of internalized oppression. Memmi writes: “Constantly confronted with this image of himself, set forth and imposed in all institutions and in every human contact, how could the colonized help reacting to his portrait? It cannot leave him indifferent and remain a veneer which, like an insult, blows with the wind. He ends up recognizing it as one would a detested nickname which has become a familiar description. The accusation disturbs him and worries him even more because he admires and fears his powerful accuser. ‘Is he not partially right?’ they mutter. ‘Are we not a little guilty after all? Lazy because we have so many idlers? Timid because we let ourselves be oppressed?’ Willfully created and spread by the colonizer, this mythical and degrading portrait ends up by being accepted and lived with to a certain extent by the colonized.” The impact of internalized oppression on the attitudes, feelings, and actions of the oppressed is profound. First, it hinders one’s ability to think and reflect. People have difficulty objectifying and perceiving the structural conditions that shape and reshape their lives. Second, oppressed people come to believe that the source of their problems lies, not in the relations within society, but in themselves, in their own inadequacies and inabilities. At the same time that they feel themselves to be inferior, they see those in the dominant group to be superior. Third, the feelings of inferiority, of uncertainty about one’s identity, lead oppressed people to believe that the solution to their problem is to become like or be. How do the conditions of inequality and exploitation affect the subjective development of oppressed people? Oppressed people come to believe that the source of their problems lies, not in the relations within the society, but in themselves, in their own inadequacies and inabilities. accepted by those in the dominant group. As Freire says, “At a certain point in their existential experience the oppressed feel an irresistible attraction toward the oppressor and his way of life. Sharing this way of life becomes an overpowering aspiration. In their alienation, the oppressed want at any cost to resemble the oppressor, to imitate him, to follow him.” On the flip side of this desire to be like the oppressor is a degree of selfhatred, a belief that who they are is not good enough, smart enough, beautiful enough, strong enough. The overall impact of internalized oppression is that the oppressed become resigned to their situation and do not look critically at it. They feel powerless to change it, and fearful of taking the risks to make change. In this way, the status quo is not questioned nor challenged. Freire writes: “As long as the oppressed remain unaware of the causes of their conditions, they fatalistically accept their exploitation. Further, they are apt to react in a passive and alienated manner when confronted with the necessity to struggle for their freedom and self-affirmation.” They live in what Freire calls a “culture of silence,” where the oppressed believe and feel that they do not have a voice in determining the conditions of their world. The important outcome is that internalized oppression makes it difficult for the oppressed to take action to transform their world. It serves to perpetuate oppression, without necessarily resorting to overt forms of violence and force. The oppressed become unwitting participants in their own oppression.
Thus our 1AC asks what speech is for Model Minorities when we are told to sit down and raise our hands: we advocate for rage as a methodology of rupturing the antiyellow university-- we create counterpublics that approach this debate about free speech from our embodied experience.
Part 3: Solvency Rage is our tool to recreate a better society. No longer will we stay silent and let them tell us that our anger is bad or that we have no right to be angry, my anger at the status quo is the starting point in which we recognize that somethings wrong and actively try to change it. Chandra 14 (Chandra Ravi Chandra, M.D. is a psychiatrist, poet and writer in San Francisco. Asian American Anger - It's a Thing!: #dvchallenge Pacific Heart Books, 2014 JC) The power of righteous rage and indignation is undeniable. Is it not moving us closer to solving the problems of racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination, persecution and bondage? Isn’t social media part of a sea change in the life and strivings of humanity, reinforcing and advancing our highest values? Certainly. Dictators, oppressors and one-party states have reason to fear rapid communication and dissemination of ideas, and even more so, the easy spread of anger against them. Social media pushes creatively against control. Censors may impose some limits, but people find ways to skirt those prison bars. The network, the loosely organized or completely unorganized online “flash mob”, is taking aim at hierarchical power structures across the globe. If people power is a forbidden fruit, then social media seems like a blossoming orchard of possibilities. It is a genie that can’t be put back in the bottle, a necessary torch to combat the darkness of ignorance and tyranny. Perhaps, even, a spur to enlightenment, as our newfound connection can inspire us to rise above greed and hatred, and towards compassion and wisdom. Our collective compassion and wisdom certainly will determine our fate. Anger is part of our struggle to make sure that there is an end to all forms of the gulag. In case of emergency, and break silence. Anger is a vital component and provocateur of our egos – and that must be heard, met and resolved in our advance towards a healthier, more inclusive society. Anger disrupts the status quo – and the modern mantra of technological change is “disruption”. Anger spreading through social media may be the ultimate disruptive force in our global tweet-à-tweet. Facebook and Twitter are conveyance mechanisms for our angry prayers and insistent demands. We become the “hearer-of-all-cries”, the bodhisattva responsive to the suffering of all, the bodhisattva who delays enlightenment to help others become free. When we feel and observe anger, we recognize suffering. We are reminded of the First Noble Truth – “Life entails suffering”. Something deep within us is compelled. We become restless until we find the cure for what ails, the remedy for the wails and woes of a world in distress. Anger comes to us readily on smartphone screens and social media apps, reminding us of the frustrations of our friends and the world we share. No princess can sleep happily with a troublesome Facebook post, an irksome tweet-pea, under her mattress. They are reminders of the journey, more immediate and personal than a newspaper, because they are being served up by someone you know. They can be a litmus test of our spirit and resolve. If enlightenment, or even community, is our goal, then we must learn to listen to the angers of others, and understand our own. Rage looks for the question before we can even begin to find answers. It identifies the problems within our community and allows us to recognize them meaning that it becomes a prior question to any discussion Chandra 14 (Chandra Ravi Chandra, M.D. is a psychiatrist, poet and writer in San Francisco. Asian American Anger - It's a Thing!: #dvchallenge Pacific Heart Books, 2014 JC) Is anger good or bad? It’s a question that needs to be asked about each instance of anger. Why did it arise? Where did it lead us? The Social Network is an IndigNation This is an excerpt from the book-in-progress Among active and interactive users of Weibo, the Chinese version of Twitter, anger is more viral than happiness, sadness or disgust. (Fan R, Zhao J, Chen Y, Xu K. Anger is more influential than joy: sentiment correlation in Weibo. Anger, researchers found, travels more quickly, broadly and definitively across the social network than the other wan-by-comparison emotions, tying users together in tighter bonds of hell-yeah-me-tooism and retweeted rage. The internet is the angernet, a handy transmitter to broadcast one’s discontent and rage, and connect with discontented others in a rising chorus of ire-amplification. Complaints are contagious. Notes of protest propagate prolifically, passionately pal-literative punctuation points of public pique, replicating clonally and sometimes pandemically, perhaps more polemic than poetic. Anger pops. What arises as a means to overcome one’s own powerlessness, isolation and weakness, to rise up against a menace, a survival-brain boost of energy, is naturally strengthened when joined in tribal, primal scream. There is, always, strength in numbers. Oppositional Facebook rants and tweets are as attractive as they are polarizing, drawing the like-minded into their magnetic “like” orbit. Anger is pure unbridled power, pushing an individual’s synapses into full alert, and readying the body for a fight. We all are easily enticed and entrained to the flow of anger’s yellow bile, which draws us to our most vigorous heights of surly strength and wished-for vanquishing of the triggering, and thus dangerous-in-our-minds, offender. It is the most active, urgent and actionable of our emotions. When the conditions are right, or perfectly “wrong” and therefore unacceptable, they spark us to righteous rage, and a bonfire is sure to follow. When conflict catches us, we catch fire. Social discourse is most powerful and noticeable when people unite against a common threat. Social media have become a spontaneous, rapid response engine that can quickly take aim at issues and incidents that are felt viscerally by hundreds, thousands, or even millions. Clearly, the consequences for racist, sexist or homophobic comments and actions have changed dramatically in recent years. The anger of the masses – the conscience of the masses – holds leaders, businesses, and governments more accountable. All seemingly for the better. Online activists defend social media as if it were their mother – or messiah. They point to concrete examples where a chorus of tweets and posts cause real world change. L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling’s withdrawal from the NBA after his racist comments drew widespread disapproval. The book deal of the Trayvon Martin juror that was canceled after online protest, a notable Twitter-takedown. George Zimmerman, who shot Trayvon Martin, who was charged only after an online petition forced the issue. The outpouring of social media messages after the Mike Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri. Emerging protests the world over that are enhanced and organized with social media tools. All are examples of a population’s anger crystallized and made crystal clear on liquid crystal displays. The people can speak, and in numbers, be heard. Attention can be focused. Conversations started. Social media can turn heads, and if the expressions of anger are noted by a receptive party or government, they can catalyze change. In a democracy, the will of the people is a force to be reckoned with – and now, Facebook and Twitter can make that will known with immediacy. The nightly news spotlight is increasingly aimed by trending conversations on Twitter and Facebook. The complaints of the community can become nothing less than a call to conscience, and certain, palpable evidence of communal mood. Important issues of civil and human rights resonate around the world, share-by-share, tweet-by-tweet. The power of righteous rage and indignation is undeniable. Is it not moving us closer to solving the problems of racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination, persecution and bondage? Isn’t social media part of a sea change in the life and strivings of humanity, reinforcing and advancing our highest values? Certainly. Dictators, oppressors and one-party states have reason to fear rapid communication and dissemination of ideas, and even more so, the easy spread of anger against them. Social media pushes creatively against control. Censors may impose some limits, but people find ways to skirt those prison bars. The network, the loosely organized or completely unorganized online “flash mob”, is taking aim at hierarchical power structures across the globe. If people power is a forbidden fruit, then social media seems like a blossoming orchard of possibilities. It is a genie that can’t be put back in the bottle, a necessary torch to combat the darkness of ignorance and tyranny. Perhaps, even, a spur to enlightenment, as our newfound connection can inspire us to rise above greed and hatred, and towards compassion and wisdom. Our collective compassion and wisdom certainly will determine our fate. Anger is part of our struggle to make sure that there is an end to all forms of the gulag. In case of emergency, break silence. Anger is a vital component and provocateur of our egos – and must be heard, met and resolved in our advance towards a healthier, more inclusive society. Anger disrupts the status quo – and the modern mantra of technological change is “disruption”. Anger spreading through social media may be the ultimate disruptive force in our global tweet-à-tweet. Facebook and Twitter are conveyance mechanisms for our angry prayers and insistent demands. We become the “hearer-of-all-cries”, the bodhisattva responsive to the suffering of all, the bodhisattva who delays enlightenment to help others become free. When we feel and observe anger, we recognize suffering. We are reminded of the First Noble Truth – “Life entails suffering”. Something deep within us is compelled. We become restless until we find the cure for what ails, the remedy for the wails and woes of a world in distress. Anger comes to us readily on smartphone screens and social media apps, reminding us of the frustrations of our friends and the world we share. No princess can sleep happily with a troublesome Facebook post, an irksome tweet-pea, under her mattress. They are reminders of the journey, more immediate and personal than a newspaper, because they are being served up by someone you know. They can be a litmus test of our spirit and resolve. If enlightenment, or even community, is our goal, then we must learn to listen to the angers of others, and understand our own. But as our eyes trip on peeve-after-peeve, we recognize that social media anger can be a burden. I can rhapsodize about anger in theory, appreciate it when used for causes I care about, value my right to use it as well – but in practice, viewing an anger-filled feed gets old quickly. Here’s what we can step in when we log on: there’s anger at spoiled, snooty 20-somethings ("spit in their drinks!”), government in general (“our government is bought by corporations”), Rand Paul (“why would we vote for a candidate who hates government?"), insurance companies (“spent 2 hours on the phone with Blue Shield”), Bill Maher (“Racist!”), rapists (video of alleged perpetrators being beaten by crowds in India) , trolls (“Eff these racists who sent death threats to Asian American students”), bad airport food (“I hate this crappy airport burger!”, amenities (“worst WiFi experience ever!!! And the coffee sucks too!!!”) and even angry rants about angry rants. There was even anger about the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize. “Why did Malala have to share the prize?” “Why did Canada give her honorary citizenship, and my friend hasn’t been able to get citizenship for 3 years even though she’s married to a citizen!!??” There is no firewall for the ire-wall. We all get to our emotions honestly, and have every right to express them. But do we really need to permaculture our peevishness? All these issues need to be communicated, in principle – but when they come as a barrage, the medium becomes a source of dissatisfaction in itself. We discover we want peace, not peeves. To find it, we must return to the real world, relationship, and responsibility for one another, and leave this shallow texting engagement with little context. Our anger needs relationship. It requires empathic reception. Facebook and Twitter can’t provide these fully. A 140-character rant or even a five hundred word update can never give you the full 360. We can feel validated by likes and comments, vindicated by our ability to voice our annoyance, but these do not take us where we need to go. We must touch the flame of anger, but then explore more deeply to understand the fuel of rage. There are no easy answers here. We may rather be right – and angry – than related, but related we must be. Through all our views of anger, we can create a mosaic to help guide our relationship to ourselves, the world, and each other. Where did this anger come from? Where did it lead? If I wasn’t feeling anger, what would I be feeling? What is underneath my anger? How do I want to heal this suffering? Anger is not the answer; it is a question. “Who am I?” “Who would I like to be?” As possessing as it is, anger is not our whole story; but on social media, it can seem like our only note. A shrill and possibly dangerous one, at that. Our counter-public focuses on the multiplicity of identities and problems that are commonly shared by latino and black populations. This subaltern space has the ability to transform our understanding of what counts as a concern and provides minority populations with value to life. Pae and McCarty III 2012 (K. Christine is assistant professor of religion at Denison University, Granville, Ohio. She holds a doctoral degree in Christian social ethics from Union Theological Seminary in New York City and James W. is director of the Ethics and Servant Leadership program at Oxford College of Emory University and a PhD student in religion (ethics and society) at Emory University “The Hybridized Public Sphere: Asian American Christian Ethics, Social Justice, and Public Discourse" JC) To critically understand the hybrid concept of Jesus/Christ in light of Asian Americans’ social locations, political struggle, and identity is not sufficient to create just racial relations. We also need to offer practical ideas for meaningful public discourse. Kwok, for instance, suggests a “diasporic imagination” that questions “the construction of the center and the periphery, the negotiation of multiple loyalties and identities, the relationship between the ‘home’ and the ‘world,’ the political and theoretical diasporized subject.” Various racialethnic minorities, as diasporized subjects, find their stories in those of others and together interweave the stories of oppressions and liberations. Diasporic imagination creates an alternative spaces where multiple groups can interact with each other and build up solidarity based on shared political goals. This alternative space is similar to what Nancy Fraser has named a “subaltern counterpublic.”70 Fraser has convincingly argued that because multiple forms of inequality exist in American society we cannot talk about “the public sphere” in any monolithic way.71 Instead, we should recognize the presence of multiple spheres of public discourse and the different ways in which they interact with and influence one another.72 The Hybridized Public Sphere • 105 Explicitly or implicitly excluded from “formal” or “strong” publics and conversations that influence and help determine political life in a democratic society, oppressed and marginalized people and groups can still participate in the discursive life of that society. They can form and participate in “weak” public spheres that, while lacking any institutional authority to implement desired changes, can influence public opinion and contribute in a significant way to democratic discursive practices about justice and the common good.73 Often, this participation occurs by bringing the unique concerns of the counterpublic into the wider public consciousness and transforming the understanding of what counts as a concern of the public and as vital to the realization of the common good. This contribution is more likely to happens when the discursive conversation of one counterpublic inflauences the conversation of another. The creation of and participation in counterpublics, then, does two things of interest to us here: first, they provide the discursive space for common identity formation through participation in democratic practices that provide some modicum of justice; second, because persons in a democratic society such as the United States have multiple commitments and identities, they make it possible for the pressing issues and concerns of one community to influence the discursive practices of other communities through forms of conversational “crosspollination.”74 This is not dissimilar to Iris Marion Young’s account of “deliberative democracy.” According to Young, when social groups join democratic discussion as those groups, they bring two important contributions to public life: first, they expand the amount of “social knowledge” available for the public to draw upon, and second, they require citizens to appeal to justice so that public discourse moves beyond merely competing individual and group interests.75 In other words, when marginalized and oppressed social groups join the public discourse of a democratic society, they challenge prevailing assumptions, specifically liberal ones, about the nature of life and the relative presence of justice in that society. By telling their stories and sharing their experiences, they force a society to reexamine its notions of justice to include such dissonant narratives. One important historical example of the possibilities present in the creation and existence of such counterpublics is the experience of many African American Christians throughout the history of the United States. Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham has demonstrated the ways in which black Baptist women organized and quite effectively used a subaltern counterpublic of their own creation to mobilize social change.76 This mobilization was not a one-time occurrence; blacks in the United States have repeatedly created spaces where people excluded people from formal spaces of public discourse have participated in democratic practices that have influenced the wider societal discourse and resulted—admittedly, often after a long and arduous process—in significant Debate is disempowering and silencing-- we are just empty receptacles waiting to receive white trash, we are obedient model minorities who conform to models of education that structurally exclude the embodied position: Thus the ROTB is to endorse the debater who best maintains counterpublic spaces of resistance. Osajima writes (Keith Osajima teaches in the School of Education at the University of Redlands, specializing in race and the experiences of Asian American students in higher education. Internalized Oppression and the Culture of Silence: Rethinking the Stereotype of the Quiet Asian-American Student. De Anza College Political Science Department. JC) How can the general discussion on internalized oppression be applied to the experiences of AsianAmerican students? I think it is useful to view the behavior of Asian American students as manifestations of two ways that they have experienced and internalized oppression as students and as members of a racial minority group. First, as students in this society, Asian-Americans participate in an educational system that is often structured in an oppressive manner; a system that does not consistently encourage the development of people’s natural intelligence, and joy for learning, but instead forces students to comply to an form of instruction that is severely limiting and disempowering. Again, Freire provides a useful analytical framework. He argues that much of formal schooling follows the “banking system” of instruction. In this mode, teachers are seen as the legitimate holders of knowledge. It is their role and their power to disseminate that knowledge, mainly through lectures, and “deposit” it into the empty receptacle—the student. Students are primarily passive recipients. Their role is to listen, and to replay the information in the form that it was given. In this mode, students are rarely encouraged to think, question, analyze, or synthesize. One of the ways that the structures of this banking system are held in place is through clearly-defined images of what it means to be a “good student.” A good student is quiet, obedient, unquestioning, prompt, and attentive. They do well on tests designed by the teacher. They can give the right answer. In return for this behavior, “good” students are rewarded with good grades, praise from teachers, honor rolls, and college entrance. A “bad student”, who is loud, rebellious, defies and questions authority, skips class or comes in late, and doesn’t do the homework, is stigmatized and isolated from the rest. For many of us, these messages are so strong that they become a natural, internalized indicator of our self-worth. We come to believe that our abilities and our intelligence are best measured by our grades, or by the opinions and praise. This creates a tremendous pull to adhere to the image of a “good” student. At the same time those rewards become a means to control students, for in the process we lose sight of the fact that we are smart enough to think and figure many things out ourselves, and we also lose sight of our critical, reflective abilities that allow us to question the ways that schooling may be oppressive. I think for Asian students, the pull to be “good” students becomes even stronger when we place that student oppression in the context of the way Asians have responded to racial oppression in this country. For many Asian-Americans, silence and education lies at the heart of how we have dealt with racial oppression. As Colin Watanabe and Ben Tong argued in the early 1970’s, Asian-Americans often adopted a passive, quiet, conforming behavior as a means to survive racial hostilities. It was deemed safer not to rock the boat than to call attention to oneself and risk oppression. Many of us learned these lessons from our parents as we were growing up, internalized them, and came to believe that we too might be in danger if we speak out, or call attention to ourselves. Thus, even when the situation may not be threat A‘good student’ is quiet, obedient, unquestioning, prompt, and attentive. They do well on tests designed by the teacher. They can give the ‘right’ answer. ening, the internalized oppression often makes us feel that we need to be quiet in order to be safe. On another front, Asian Americans have long identified education as a strategy to deal with racial discrimination. Education has been is seen as a way to gain social and economic mobility and to fend off racism. The result has been a tremendous pressure on is Asian students to do well in school, which in many respects has been realized. This success, in turn, has been institutionalized as another stereotype in the media’s portrayal of Asians as the model minority. It is here that student and racial oppression merge and reinforce each other. On the one hand, Asian students believe that education is the key to overcoming racial oppression. Many of us are also told that being quiet, conforming, and invisible is a good way to avoid being the target of racism. We take these internalized messages to school where they meld neatly into the way that students have been oppressed. Recall that being quiet and conforming is encouraged and rewarded in schools, for it is a central facet of the banking system of education. Thus, we have a situation where the oppressive features of the educational system work to reinforce the ways that Asians have dealt with racial oppression. Young AsianAmericans often internalize these images and come to believe that their identity and self-image hinge upon being the successful quiet student. It is understandable, then, why they often carry these feelings, perspectives, and actions into every classroom situation, and have difficulty breaking with familiar patterns and feelings to answer questions in our classes.
2/4/17
1AC SV
Tournament: Plano Senior | Round: 2 | Opponent: A | Judge: A
Framework
I value morality since ought implies a moral obligation
We morally exclude people based on arbitrarily perceived differences—structural violence is rooted in this exclusion
Winter, Deborah Du Nann, and Dana C. Leighton. "STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE." Peace, Conflict, and Violence: Peace Psychology for the 21st Century. (1999):. Print. ~Don't worry I re-cut it~ Finally, to recognize the operation of structural violence forces us to ask questions about AND thinking can be fostered by relationships, communication, and appreciation of diversity.
Thus the standard is reducing structural violence—Three warrants
1~ Eliminating Structural violence is a prerequisite to all other actions-all actions must challenge and change the way we view structural violence and oppression
Taylor Janelle S. "Explaining Difference: "Culture," "Structural Violence," and Medical Anthropology." Office of Minority Affairs Diversity. University of Washington. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. "Structural violence," is a term that Farmer has developed in his own writings AND in situations where the automatic response might be to passively accept systematic inequalities.
2~ Consequentialist moral views assume everyone as equals, but that isn't true in the real world—there are always pre-existing structural barriers that have disproportionate effects on minorities—we have to eliminate these barriers first to ensure an equal starting point for all, out groups don't fit under the util calculus
3) Policy decisions directed at maintaining human survival through whatever means will encourage genocide, war, and the destruction of moral values
Callahan 73 – Co-Founder and former director of The Hastings Institute, PhD in philosophy from Harvard University (Daniel, "The Tyranny of Survival", p 91-93) The value of survival could not be so readily abused were it not for its AND properly manage their need to survive, they succeeded in not doing so.
Contention 1 is Environmental Racism
The use of nuclear power disproportionately harms already marginalized groups
Chen, Michelle. "The Radioactive Racism Behind Nuclear Energy." Colorlines. Race Forward, 23 Mar. 2011. Web. 10 Aug. 2016. http://www.colorlines.com/articles/radioactive-racism-behind-nuclear-energy. When the apocalyptic cloud erupted over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world woke up to AND the danger zone to the populations they see as less worthy of protection.
The status quo views Black bodies as sacrificial—we energize our lives while not noticing the terrible impacts of nuclear power has on them
Its try or die for the aff –any negative effects to the Black body are ignored because they are the out-group as explained in Winter and Leighton, they do not fall under the util calculus—this outweighs any benefit to nuclear power
And, in general, minorities face the brunt of harms from pollution
Massey, Rachel. "Environmental justice: income, race, and health." Global Development and Environment Institute (2004). Some diseases and disabilities that have an environmental component are unequally distributed across race and AND four times higher than in other communities in Massachusetts (see Figure 3).
Contention 2 is Indigenous Peoples
Uranium mining specifically harms Native Americans—three-fourths of mines are on Indigenous land
Kline, Curtis. "Uranium Mining and Native Resistance: The Uranium Exploration and Mining Accountability Act." Intercontinental Cry Uranium Mining and Native Resistance The Uranium Exploration and Mining Accountability Act Comments. N.p., 02 July 2013. Web. 19 Aug. 2016. https://intercontinentalcry.org/uranium-mining-and-native-resistance-the-uranium-exploration-and-mining-accountability-act/. Native Americans in the northern great plains have the highest cancer rates in the United AND who now have to suffer the effects of the poisons these mines emit.
====And, abandoned mines on Navajo land cause tons of contamination==== Fettus, Geoffrey H., and Matthew G. McKinzie. Nuclear Fuel's Dirty Beginnings. N.p.: Natural Resources Defense Council, Mar. 2012. PDF. The environmental hazards from uranium recovery operations are real and widespread. Overall, open AND and processing on Navajo lands until past harms have been fully remediated.62
Nuclear power usage dumps waste on native communities.
Nevadans and Utahans living downwind and downstream from nuclear weapons testing AND Chernobyl" in its tracks on Capitol Hill for the past five years.
And, prohibition on nuclear power means no more uranium mining
IEER 12 "Uranium: Its Uses and Hazards - Institute for Energy and Environmental Research." Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, May 2012. Web. 10 Aug. 2016. http://ieer.org/resource/factsheets/uranium-its-uses-and-hazards/. The property of uranium important for nuclear weapons and nuclear power is its ability to AND , 1945 and the one dropped on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945.
That solves plutonium usage too
MEC no date "Plutonium." Minerals Education Coalition. Minerals Education Coalition, n.d. Web. 14 Aug. 2016. https://www.mineralseducationcoalition.org/elements/plutonium. Named after the planet Pluto, plutonium is a silvery, radioactive metal. It AND 376,000 years. Plutonium is dangerous owing to its intense radioactivity.
