Jump to content
CentralHighAnalytico

Racial Profiling Affirmative

Recommended Posts

I have to comment on your Brown comment, though. I think I understand what you're getting at by saying it was never enforced, though my knee-jerk reaction is to say it was enforced. Lots of times. All over the country. We spent $2 billion enforcing it here in Kansas City. The failure of Brown has an entire genealogy, starting with "all deliberate speed" and ending, in my opinion, with Clarence Thomas's amazing concurring opinion in the KC case's 1995 decision, which began with something like: "It never ceases to amaze me how we continue to equate black with inferiority." In my mind, the whole long, sprawling story of our nation's desegregation efforts provides the best picture of how racism works in our country.

Poor word choice, my fault. I don't mean to diminish any efforts undertaken to actually enforce Brown, or diminish the simple power of Brown as an opinion. The argument is that making a judicial decree doesn't automatically generate solvency. State authorities systematically refused to obey the orders of the Supreme Court. Between 1955 (the year the remedy in Brown was decided) and the mid-1960s, there was very little integration. Of course, a lot of that changed, and we can argue about what facilitated that change. But, hopefully now you understand what I was trying to say.

 

These are all good arguments, I suppose; and they might win a debate round, and they might not. They sadden me, though. I don't mean this next question to be mean or condescending or snide. I'm genuinely curious. Do you hang around much with black folks in black neighborhoods or all-black schools? Do any of you who are participating or watching this discussion?

There's no good way to answer this question. Truthfully, I don't actively seek out to hang out in black neighborhoods or make black friends. In the same respect, I don't actively seek to hang out in white neighborhoods either. That said, I do have black friends (not many, but a few) and have lived on the south side of Chicago, firsthand witnessed awfulness of the CPS (in fairness, not all are bad), CPD, etc. Alternatively, I've also witnessed the absolute sheer terror of a policeman making a drug arrest in a particularly bad area of the city. I’m not trying to brag, I’m not trying to apologize. My experience is what it is.

 

More on point, my name is red-flagged on flights (or so I've been told), which requires me to dump the entire contents of my suitcase in front of an entire airline terminal. The search is unecessary, and on occasion, I feel, done in a manner that is humiliating. Additionally, every time I fly, items "mysteriously" disappear from my luggage. For me, flying is a hassle that I try to avoid as much as possible.

 

Joe, I know you rely heavily on personal observation and anecdote in reaching the conclusions that you make. I'm not trying to discredit the power of personal knowledge. But I think based on the implication of your question (whether intentional or not), the person who listens to personal anecdotes cannot comprehend a personal situation. Really, I have no way of knowing what it feels like to kneel on the ground, with a nightstick jammed in my back and a cop screaming in my ear for simply hanging out on the stoop of an apartment building. Sure, I've seen it, but that's nowhere close to experiencing it. That's why I think combining these personal observations with more objective lines of argumentation (statistical studies, etc.) help enhance the dialogue.

It goes back to one of my earlier statements: the listener tends to believe ideas that only ring true with him/her. The stories that you and your students to tell will certainly be powerful; at the same time, they don’t ring true because the experiences of the speaker and the listener will be wildly different. One, easy way to bridge that gap is to combine the experience with “neutral” language, such as data and studies. After all, that’s what debate is: taking outlandish theories that are seriously examined when people read cards to prove these assertions. Put it another way: it’s hard for me to buy the argument that all racial profiling is fundamentally racist; but, combine the personal stories with objective evidence, and it’ll be a lot easier for me to change my mind than with simply the personal knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand being stopped when the police are actively searching for someone when the crime is in progress or in the immediate aftermath of said crime. I won't like it, but I understand. I also put some limits on those stops like: a) make, model and color of car B) a GOOD description of the suspect. As I said don't have a description of Biggie Smalls and pull me over when I look more like Ice Cube. c) it must be in the immediate aftermath of said crime in a reasonable vicinity.

My definitions of racial profiling never shifts. It has remained constant: assuming that people of one race are more apt to commit certain crimes.

 

Exactly! The cops still RACIAL PROFILED you They profiled you because they saw a black person driving a X car and thought he may have done a crime. It doesnt need to be immediate or not. Its still an act of profiling the instant the cop decides to observe you because you may have committed a crime. But the actions they took AFTER the act of profiling were not stemming from a racist objective. And yet you are okay with it, as am I, because the objective of the racial profiling was NOT race motivated. It was crime-oriented. Aka, their job.

 

I would hope that a non-racist wouldn't pull me over and lie to me like that. Because if they didn't have those racist assumptions, then I wouldn't get pulled over in the first place, unless they were actually looking for a suspect in a crime.

 

Bingo! A non-racist wouldnt do that! So the solution isnt banning profiling. The solution is solving for racism. Hence the zero solvency to profiling. So long as you dont eliminate the racism, your rights are guaranteed to continue to be violated to the same, if not greater, degree. The manifestation may be slightly different. The cop will FIND a reason to stop you and ticket you or detain you or search you. He will say "oh, I thought I'd let you know your tire was riding a little low on air. Just wanted to help you be safe on the road...." A racist individual will continue to be racist in a non-profiling world. The problem with racial profiling isnt the profiling, its the RACIAL part of it.

 

Ankur, you never answer my argument that racial profiling in this country is not based on mathematical statistics. It is based on racist assumptions. Those assumptuions include: black folks do and sell drugs, but white folks don't. South Asian/ Arabic men are more likely to be terrorists, young white men aren't. In this country it has been proven that these two assumptions are wrong. A greater percentage of Whites do drugs. In recent years most terrorist attacks in this country have been committed by young White men.Here you are wrong.

 

No. Thats what I said. The current profiling system is a product of RACISM which is bad. But profiling in the absence of racism is a matter of pure statistics. Current profiling is based on racist and flawed statistics. As you say, most drug users are white. In a non-racist world, the profiling would switch accordingly and stop the notion of "driving-while-black."

 

Again, keep the racist policy so we can see the manifestations of it? That makes no sense. Then we should have kept slavery, lynching would be legal and Brown v. Board never would have passed. I don't believe that banning racial profiling ends racism, but it is another strong signal that it is not OK for the government to treat its citizens differently based on race.

 

The policy of profiling is NOT racist. Its racist individuals MAKING it racist. Federal sentencing guidelines leave federal judges a LOT of leeway during sentencing of crimes. The guidelines are NOT racist. The judges on the bench giving blacks lengthier more severe sentences are MAKING the policy racist. A policy regarding profiling applies to EVERYONE in a world in which there is no racism. Profiling in a world without racism is not a bad thing. Therefore the objective is to eliminate racism, not profiling.

 

Do you really think race relations would be where they are now if it had not been for these policies that "mask" racist behavior? It's no longer OK to be blatantly racist. Does it still exist? Yes it does and we may bnever solve it. But its the manifestations of it that I care about. I could care less if the person next door hates me because of my race, just as long as he or she doesn't act on it, I'm fine.

 

I am going to whip out the bullshit card on this one here. The manifestations will continue so long as you keep racism alive. Deconstructing racism is the ONLY way to stop the manifestations. The manifestation will morph. It has consistently been morphing since 1865.

 

Banning racial profiling also forces officers to do good police work. What is the negative effect of ending racial profiling?

Again, no. The racist cop will be a racist cop. If you ban racial profiling, a racist cop will only have more motivation to give these "colored" bastards a hard time. The cop will be more aggressive in more subtle techniques, like the airtire pressure example above.

 

For another example, I got a ticket by a cop who said I made a right turn at a stop sign forcing him to yield to me (I had a stop, he did not as I turned into his lane of traffic), I rolled through the stop sign without coming to a complete stop, and I sped up to 60 mph in a short span before he stopped me. I took the specs off the Acura website regarding maximum acceleration of my car and mathematically PROVED the cop was not telling the truth. I could not have simultaneously forced him to yield to me while rolling through the stop. The cop was a racist bastard who said "do you know why I stopped you son?" "no sir." "You ran a stop sign" (looking in my rear view mirror since I passed through another intersection) "I do not see any stop sign in that intersection" "do you know what a stop sign is sonny? its that red octangular sign?!" My friend wrote a depo and had it notarized regarding the behavior of the cop. The cop stopped me in rural pennsylvania because I am a colored fellow driving a nice acura.

 

You even admit that post-profiling, cops can find a reason when you say:

If you read these racial profiling articles, cops admit that if they want to find a legitimate reason to pull someone over they can. The vehicle code gives police every opportunity to pull someone over... Going to fast, too slow, signal too early or too late, stop too quickly, whatever.

 

So explain to me again why following me or suspecting me because of my race is OK? If you read these racial profiling articles, cops admit that if they want to find a legitimate reason to pull someone over they can. The vehicle code gives police every opportunity to pull someone over... Going to fast, too slow, signal too early or too late, stop too quickly, whatever. Following someone because of their race is, in itself a violation of rights. Too often that violation is followed by more invasive ones like searches.

 

You are right, the act or profiling in itself is innocuous, but when you put race as the most important characteristic of the profiling, then you have huge problems. When law enforcement looks for a serial killer, they profile. But race is just one of many, many characteristics. They don't start looking at all 56-year-old White men as serial killers.

 

Do me a favor and explain to me again why you think its OK for the government to assume that you are more likely to be a terrorist than I am.

 

I am not arguing the notion of whether profiling is good or bad. In the absence of racism, then the profiling discussion doesnt become one of race. It becomes one of ALL distinguishing characteristics - sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, anything and everything. The question regarding the merits and detriments of the act of profiling is NOT unique to race and therefore race is irrelevant to the act of profiling. Profiling is a question of civil rights, specifically, as you mentioned, revolving around the innocent versus guilt hypothesis.

 

I am arguing the connection between racism and profiling. A concept no one is really understanding because everyone

a) automatically assumes that racial profiling REQUIRES a racist action as a result of the profiling (incorrect as per the apb example)

B) that racism is a prerequisite to racial profiling (untrue)

c) that racial profiling is only bad (untrue as per PURE statistics)

 

these are three fatal errors when evaluating racial profiling.

 

This is why cases must be about ALL PRETEXTUAL stops. Not about racial profiling. The minute racial profiling becomes the issue, you devolve from the correct questions of abuse of power, and get bogged down in an emotional game which has no legislative solution, earning you a fat whopping zero solvency answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's no good way to answer this question. Truthfully, I don't actively seek out to hang out in black neighborhoods or make black friends. In the same respect, I don't actively seek to hang out in white neighborhoods either. That said, I do have black friends (not many, but a few) and have lived on the south side of Chicago, firsthand witnessed awfulness of the CPS (in fairness, not all are bad), CPD, etc. Alternatively, I've also witnessed the absolute sheer terror of a policeman making a drug arrest in a particularly bad area of the city. I’m not trying to brag, I’m not trying to apologize. My experience is what it is.

 

More on point, my name is red-flagged on flights (or so I've been told), which requires me to dump the entire contents of my suitcase in front of an entire airline terminal. The search is unecessary, and on occasion, I feel, done in a manner that is humiliating. Additionally, every time I fly, items "mysteriously" disappear from my luggage. For me, flying is a hassle that I try to avoid as much as possible.

 

Joe, I know you rely heavily on personal observation and anecdote in reaching the conclusions that you make. I'm not trying to discredit the power of personal knowledge. But I think based on the implication of your question (whether intentional or not), the person who listens to personal anecdotes cannot comprehend a personal situation. Really, I have no way of knowing what it feels like to kneel on the ground, with a nightstick jammed in my back and a cop screaming in my ear for simply hanging out on the stoop of an apartment building. Sure, I've seen it, but that's nowhere close to experiencing it. That's why I think combining these personal observations with more objective lines of argumentation (statistical studies, etc.) help enhance the dialogue.

It goes back to one of my earlier statements: the listener tends to believe ideas that only ring true with him/her. The stories that you and your students to tell will certainly be powerful; at the same time, they don’t ring true because the experiences of the speaker and the listener will be wildly different. One, easy way to bridge that gap is to combine the experience with “neutral” language, such as data and studies. After all, that’s what debate is: taking outlandish theories that are seriously examined when people read cards to prove these assertions. Put it another way: it’s hard for me to buy the argument that all racial profiling is fundamentally racist; but, combine the personal stories with objective evidence, and it’ll be a lot easier for me to change my mind than with simply the personal knowledge.

 

These are good points. What I was getting at with my question was a frustration with some of the comments I was reading on here that seem to lack a race consciousness, such as when you say you don't "actively seek to hang out in white neighborhoods." My sense is that white folks don't even realize they're in white neighborhoods. White neighborhoods are simply "America." But if you live in a black neighborhood, or you hang out a lot in a black neighborhood, you start to see everything diifferently. You develop a race consciousness. And that's what I was getting at with the Barndt evidence, that in order to begin to destroy the "prison of racism," whites need to develop a race consciousness. And this consciousness is tied into an understanding of white privilege, that we as whites benefit from racism and therefore are responsible for fighting it. You can say that this evidence is anecdotal, or arguably without warrant, but statement itself is empirical evidence of the lack of race consciousness. It's like I was saying how colorblindness doesn't exist, that it's just an illusion for the benefit of those of the privileged race. If you're not white, chances are you simply won't see it that way.

 

But as far as data is concerned, we've got that coming out the ying-yang. I often say, "No matter how you slice it, it comes up racist." I'd be willing to bet a year's salary that any set of social statistics reflecting a population of blacks and whites will show very definite disparities along racial lines. In the numbers, the portrait of our nation is stark: It's racist. Doesn't matter what you quantify -- traffic stops, test scores, mortgage approvals, insurance rates, management positions, salary, health stats. Moreover, the disparities are physically manifest. Drive east to west or north to south across any reasonable sized metro area in this nation and you will see solid evidence of segregation and racial inequality.

 

I do have economic evidence to back this stuff up. Those Roland Fryer papers I've referred to several times have very solid data evidence. The weird thing is, debate folks prefer to ignore this stuff. My best example comes from this year. Our squad has been running a case that's desceptively similar to Louisville's. One of our main pieces of evidence comes from a data-based study of debate itself by a grad student from Cal State Fuullerton. The paper was presented at a conferennce and published online, so it's fair game as evidence. It reported:

 

The results indicate a recognizable relationship between the ethnicity of debaters and their total speaker points at invitational tournaments. Furthermore, in a simple test observing the relationship between speaker points and ethnicity, white debaters averaged more than five points more per tournament than non-white debaters. This means that a white debater will earn almost one entire speaker point more per debate than a non-white debater. Interestingly, white and non-white debaters from poor schools (regardless of UDL support), and white debaters from wealthy public and private schools all averaged between 151 and 154 speaker points, while non-white debaters from wealthy public and private schools scored significantly worse with only 146.5. This finding implies that non-white students from wealthy schools are facing a unique burden, and future research into this issue would be illuminating.

 

Clear intersectional disadvantage was found in the tests measuring the relationship between speaker points and gender by ethnicity, as well as speaker points and UDL status by gender by ethnicity. In the gender by ethnicity tests, white women scored the highest, averaging 154.3 points per tournament followed by white males (153.7) and non-white males (152.1). Non-white females managed only 145.9 points per tournament, about a point and a half per-round less than white women. The fact that white women and non-white men scored so much higher than non-white women highlights intersectional disadvantage, in that the difficulties of a minority woman cannot be defined by simply adding together the disadvantage faced by white women and non-white men. Furthermore, the findings suggest that non-white women are even greater targets of disadvantage if they are from a UDL supported school. Non-white women from non-UDL supported schools certainly faced some discrimination in that they averaged only 155.1 points compared to white men, non-white men and white women from non-UDL supported schools who averaged 158.0, 156.6 and 157.7 points respectively, but non-white women from UDL supported schools seemed to face the most difficulty and averaged only 136.7 points per tournament. Non-white women from UDL supported schools also clearly had the lowest winning percentage with only 2.2 wins per six round tournament while no group without UDL support averaged less than 2.9 wins. These findings suggest that non-white women debaters who are from poor schools are possibly facing a new obstacle and perhaps being part of the UDL is a new discriminatory intersection they will be faced with. This is even more evident when observing the relationship between speaker points and economic status by UDL status by ethnicity. A relatively small difference exists between the points earned by white and non-white debaters from both rich and poor non-UDL supported schools (159-154 points), but the range for UDL supported schools (153-136) is much larger and troublesome considering that non-white women score significantly lower than any other group. This suggests that being from a poor school is not necessarily a detriment or predictor of moderate to low success, but being from a UDL supported school may be.

 

This report concludes with a rhetorically strong flourish:

 

This study has shown that many of the power structures evident in our society are mirrored in high school debate competitions. It has explained and highlighted racism, sexism, classism and the unique way in which all of these oppressive ideologies can be combined to further entrench those most marginalized. It has also tried to provide rationales for these discriminating practices and provide directions for future research. Most importantly, this study has shown that high school debate is an important venue for evaluating the foundations of societal norms, and how the Urban Debate League can be a powerful tool for shattering many of the oppressive traditions and practices that exist today.

 

We didn't hit a team this season that could refute this evidence. Indeed, many teams simply chose to ignore it. Amazingly, judges did as well. It got so bad that we actually printed the report out, put tabs on it and handed it out at the beginning of the round to our opponents and the judges, and they still ignored it.

 

So again it comes back to race consciousness. There's a lot of scholarly evidence which states very clearly that it is in the best interest of whites to ignore the existence of racism, which is so plainly visible all around us. There is tremendous investment in the illusion that our abundance and privilege is not borne on racial inequality. Ignoring it allows us to not get involved in a solution and to still sleep at night.

 

And the reason this illusion stays alive, it's clear to me, is because of the lack of anecdotal evidence. Overt racism is a rarity in our day and age. Jim Crow has died. But his ghost lurks in the numbers, in the empirical data. The problem is, he no longer has a face. You can't affix blame to a bunch of data. You can only scratch your head and wonder about it. Or try to explain it away. Or ignore it, which most folks do.

 

You can't drive through the suburbs with a bullhorn on your car shouting, "This environment is empirical proof of racism." But, I would argue, you could do that on the east side of Kansas City. Folks would likely nod their heads in agreement.

 

Race consciousness.

 

Which brings me to Ankur's arguments about solvency. He finally explained his position in the last post in a way that my thick head can comprehend. I agree, you have to solve for the underlying racism. That's why -- getting back to the original purpose of this forum, to write a killer case -- the policy has to have two levels of solvency. There needs to be institutional provisions, discipline for authorities who egregiously violate the law. But there also must be a component which attacks the underlying racism. And here's where Ankur's earlier post pissed me off, when he said education programs are "utopion" and, I forget what else he said -- dumb, in essence.

 

To that I say Ankur is dead wrong. Education can, and has, eliminated prejudice. I've seen it anecdotally. Fryer's papers quantify it economically. And so do several of the papers he cites in his papers.

 

Can education policies eliminate all racism? No. But for God's sakes, what the hell are we supposed to do? If we can't get together and talk and learn and therefore attack the very ignorance upon which racism and prejudice relies we don't have a chance in hell.

 

Can it happen in the real world? Absolutely. As I said, I've seen it (go to the Kansas forum and pull up my entries about our school's exchange with MBA). Can it happen on a grand, nationwide scale. I'm more pessimistic. Probably not (witness the legacy of deseg). But it has a better chance of happening than us being incinerated by nuclear bombs by the end of the month if Plan XYZ does or doesn't pass. (which is a whole other post -- ask some black debaters how frustrated they've been trying to convince a judge that racism outweighs nuclear war; that something real is more important than something fake. This, in my opinion, is still more proof of whites' lack of race consciousness; we're incapable of comprehending oppression and human suffering, so we conjure these video-game-esque doomsday scenarios.)

 

And that brings me to what makes this case totally killer -- it can have a dual-level framework. It can work on the pretend policy level (and I really hope we face Ankur's teams) as well as a kritikal in-round level. Because by raising these issues in a debate round -- where, warranted anecdotal and empirical evidence shows, political and social realities are actually being created -- we are actually attacking the very ignorance at the root of racial profiling.

 

Would we win every round? Of course not. But to say there's no solvency, and just categorically dismiss this case as "terrible," is just plain wrong. Whether we run this case or not next year, we plan to win a damn lot of rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe -

 

well, i am glad i got my previous points across. i dont mean to confuse people. sometimes i am not all that effective at making my points comprehensible. i dont always have a lot of time so i dont really think then type, more like type as i think... so it doesnt always come out well.

 

education programs are not topical. they arent remotely topical. FX topical at best. education programs are most decidedly not cases about racial profiling. its the rough equivalent of me saying "change osha regulations so that all floors in supermarkets are non-slip floors to prevent slip and fall work injuries... and ban the patriot act." the two are entirely unrelated with educational programs being entirely non-topical. (and yes i understand, topicality has not stopped you before... )

 

thus when segregating the two plan planks, the non-topical plank is from what you receive all 100% of any percentage of solvency your plan receives. education programs always remain the counterplan to a profiling affirmative, hence the CP will always solve better. at best, the only education impact you can claim is in round education. racial profiling affirmatives are exactly that - in relation to racial profiling affirmatives and not education programs. hence, racial profiling affirmatives are very very bad because a simple education counterplan will always solve better.

 

education programs in terms of debate are indeed utopian. because the language of debaters make it so. remember, we are talking debate here. not real life. of course in real life i advocate education programs. better still, i favor integration programs, ones whoch expose sheltered biased individuals to members of other races. one cannot understand one whom they dont know, and one generally tends to fear that which they do not know or understand. hence the basis for racism. in fact, i wrote a letter to the editor to the penn state collegian regarding this issue in the past couple weeks. they of course, did not publish it.... and instead chose to publish letters like "black caucus demands to see the president are dumb!"... so sad. sorry for the aside. bak on point.

 

if you claim education, prepare to defend serious rhetorical challenges to your 1ac which better not be deterministic in language stating "we solve for racism"... and topicality, with a CP which keeps profiling (i.e. pretextual stops) but removes racism through education. oh, and a patriot act good addendum. :P this still isnt my strat... but hey... its fun stuff...

 

i dont have any teams. my school has basically stopped offering policy because the head coach prefers PFD as he sees it to be more educational. in some ways i agree, and in others i disagree vehemently. but its not really my decision. all of the policy debaters we actually DO have, are content with local udl-type leagues where most teams believe that having inherency answers why the aff has no solvency and topicality is fiatted. but i wish i did. i wish i had 4 debaters who wanted to do policy. wow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe -

 

well, i am glad i got my previous points across. i dont mean to confuse people. sometimes i am not all that effective at making my points comprehensible. i dont always have a lot of time so i dont really think then type, more like type as i think... so it doesnt always come out well.

 

education programs are not topical. they arent remotely topical. FX topical at best. education programs are most decidedly not cases about racial profiling. its the rough equivalent of me saying "change osha regulations so that all floors in supermarkets are non-slip floors to prevent slip and fall work injuries... and ban the patriot act." the two are entirely unrelated with educational programs being entirely non-topical. (and yes i understand, topicality has not stopped you before... )

 

Education is absolutely topical. The SHA reg analogy is way off the mark. There is no one standard for what is and isn't topical, which so happens to be possessed by Ankur in PA. Topicality has to be debated. There are strong arguments to be made for this being topical.

 

1. The education components come from a landmark policy paper.

2. Authority is both the power to act (roughly) and it also denotes knowledge. Having a plan that addresses this fuller notion of authority is better because it allows us to put forward a more effective plan.

3. We're talking about race here, so when you go T on this -- especially if we corner you in cross-x into defending "legal" definitions -- we can totally racism K it out the room. There's loads of evidence that the language of the justice system itself is racist.

4. We can K over limiting to one narrow definition of the words in the resolution is inherently exclusionary because there are many different ways to interpret words (there's lots of warranted evidence to this, but at it's heart this is common sense -- open the damn dictionary. Words mean lots oof things.

5. Fairness? Define fair. I can guarantee you our students are going to have a completely different perspective on fairness. And they're not at all afraid to point it out.

 

I'm sure there are more, but all of this is going to turn right back into the kritical aspects of our case, of institutionally racist detainment of minorities. And, on a policy level, it's just self-interested hair-splitting to keep us from dealing with a very real and important problem.

 

We might not win on all this. But don't just flatly say it's not topical, this is the way it is because Ankur says so. Honestly, I don't see how anyone can say with even the slightest iota of confidence that any potential plan for next year is or isn't topical. The way I read it, outlawing dams and eliminating income tax are topical cases. Honestly, I feel like I'm bending over backward to make sure our squad brings cases that conform to what everyone else will be doing next year, because the wording of the resolution offers a lot of temptation to just get crazy with it.

 

thus when segregating the two plan planks, the non-topical plank is from what you receive all 100% of any percentage of solvency your plan receives. education programs always remain the counterplan to a profiling affirmative, hence the CP will always solve better. at best, the only education impact you can claim is in round education. racial profiling affirmatives are exactly that - in relation to racial profiling affirmatives and not education programs. hence, racial profiling affirmatives are very very bad because a simple education counterplan will always solve better.

 

This is way I'm more into kritiks than so-called straight-up policy, because straight-up policy bears no relation whatsoever to actual policy making. If you read a bill, it often contains an entire range of provisions to make the policy embedded in the proposed law effective. Training and education components are frequently part of such things -- especially when the law focuses on social issues such as racial profiling. This is especially true wit the really big, landmark legislation such as the Clean Water Act or No Child Left Behind. I mean these bills are huge, and they have many many levels of policies or plans aimed at solving the problem.

 

We would argue back that the two levels of the plan are inseverable, that both the regulations and disciplinary measures are important to keep law enforcement folks on their toes and in line, but that the education or training parts are essential too because the policy deals with the way folks think.

 

education programs in terms of debate are indeed utopian. because the language of debaters make it so. remember, we are talking debate here. not real life.

 

See, this really puzzles me, and it might be an example of your not exlaining yourself well enough. But the way I understand it is that debate is an educational program. It's one of the best, IMO. Here, students can actually take ownership of their own education and avail their knowledge to rigorous scrutiny. Indeed, of all the educational programs in the country, I would argue has the most potential for exactly the kind of multi-cultural exchange called for in the Amnesty International report about racial profiling.

 

of course in real life i advocate education programs. better still, i favor integration programs, ones whoch expose sheltered biased individuals to members of other races. one cannot understand one whom they dont know, and one generally tends to fear that which they do not know or understand. hence the basis for racism. in fact, i wrote a letter to the editor to the penn state collegian regarding this issue in the past couple weeks. they of course, did not publish it.... and instead chose to publish letters like "black caucus demands to see the president are dumb!"... so sad. sorry for the aside. bak on point.

 

if you claim education, prepare to defend serious rhetorical challenges to your 1ac which better not be deterministic in language stating "we solve for racism"... and topicality, with a CP which keeps profiling (i.e. pretextual stops) but removes racism through education. oh, and a patriot act good addendum. :P this still isnt my strat... but hey... its fun stuff...

 

Good advice. Thanks. :wavey:

 

i dont have any teams. my school has basically stopped offering policy because the head coach prefers PFD as he sees it to be more educational. in some ways i agree, and in others i disagree vehemently. but its not really my decision. all of the policy debaters we actually DO have, are content with local udl-type leagues where most teams believe that having inherency answers why the aff has no solvency and topicality is fiatted. but i wish i did. i wish i had 4 debaters who wanted to do policy. wow.

 

Are you in Philly? or College Station? Cuz if you're in Philly, why don't you volunteer for the UDL? Is their UDL thriving there?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you could completley disregard a case, completely sweep it off just because of one CP, and call it bad, then there wouldn't be very many runable cases. Some of the best cases this year had unbelievable CP strats against them. A case is not measured by its negatives; but by its runnability and the people that defend it; as well as how effectively it can be defended. So explain, what kind of education would this be, and how would it solve better. (Also keep in mind that ERPA already includes that type of education/information within the program)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you could completley disregard a case, completely sweep it off just because of one CP, and call it bad, then there wouldn't be very many runable cases. Some of the best cases this year had unbelievable CP strats against them. A case is not measured by its negatives; but by its runnability and the people that defend it; as well as how effectively it can be defended. So explain, what kind of education would this be, and how would it solve better. (Also keep in mind that ERPA already includes that type of education/information within the program)

 

thank you

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Education is absolutely topical. The SHA reg analogy is way off the mark. There is no one standard for what is and isn't topical, which so happens to be possessed by Ankur in PA. Topicality has to be debated. There are strong arguments to be made for this being topical.

 

Why is it way off the mark? If I can successfully illustrate that education is non-topical, then its exactly identical. A non-topical plank which receives all 100% of any solvency claimed added onto a topical plank to give the image of being topical.

 

I am not going to get into a huge topicality battle with you. Its functionally meaningless here, is not educational for the students, and we are not debaters.

 

But I will point out a little sarcastic humor of my own here... just so your kids remember to choose better words...

We can K over limiting to one narrow definition of the words in the resolution is inherently exclusionary because there are many different ways to interpret words (there's lots of warranted evidence to this, but at it's heart this is common sense -- open the damn dictionary. Words mean lots oof things.

a) i'd argue you wont meet ANY of the definitions in a dictionary

B) i'd argue that you have no threshold to what overlimiting actually means or signifies in context of the round thus the argument is already suspect at the point where the argument itselv becomes undefinable.

c) i'd argue then you are constructing your own barriers by limiting yourself to the dictionary, cause lets face it, websters adds hundreds and thousands of new entries every year... just because it isnt in the dictionary doesnt mean its not a sufficient meaning

d) i'd argue that not agreeing to a prescribed form of reasonable language permits the affirmative to always guarantee themselves a win irrespective of the negative arguments be it topicality or not. the affirmative can always "redefine" their words to escape all constructive intellectual argumentation the negative can offer.

e) i'd then run every completely irrelevant and non-mutually exclusive counterplan in the world... and then redefine your words to make your plan mutually exclusive and simply out impact... i'll claim to solve racism by talking about ejection seats on airplanes and cure aids by creating mile high walls made of titanium all along US borders.... cause words can mean anything i want them to.

f) zom blick pid flarny bluuuuu

 

(just being silly here joe... to illustrate a point... obviously in the hands of a talented debater, topicality is irrelevant. in the hands of a skilled debater, a plan regarding the spratly islands, the 7th fleet, and chinese invasion plans of taiwan will be topical next year... hence why i said previously "yes i realize that topicality has never stopped you before".... but lets not talk about the best teams in the land... lets talk about the average team in the land in front of the average judge... and i am fairly confident from my many years of debate and being perhaps one of the biggest abusers of topicality and advocates of running completely blatantly non topical cases... that the average negative team will hold an upper hand on the topicality end of this debate. i mean lets face it... there are always fun ways of "being topical"... on WMD resolution, i ran spratlys as a topical case. i argued that in USFG vs big tobacco, the government stipulated that cigarettes are a WMD because the cigarette manufacturers knew the inherent dangers to smoking, concealed it through repeated denials, and increased the nation's addiction to a product which has lethal sideeffects. similarly, i determined fossil fuels to be the WMD... which became spectacular since most neg teams instinctively answers a global warming disad with global warming doesnt exist/cooling... hence the open denial. i can get creative too joe. if the aff can get creative, so can the neg.... just remember, the average judge isnt critical and highly prone to voting tab. the average judge is policy, and tends to agree the resolutional wording has significant purpose to the competitive aspect of the round.)

 

 

Are you in Philly? or College Station? Cuz if you're in Philly, why don't you volunteer for the UDL? Is their UDL thriving there?

Philly. College Station is in texas. State College is in PA. and we dont have a UDL per se. we have this suburban league which is functionally the same, except it serves a different community. i would volunteer there, but the coaches for those teams are much like the teams. the experienced teams in the league tried to get together and make it more educational for all the kids by trying to institute case limits for the novice division so they dont get turned off by the research burden, esp since the experienced squads with legit coaching can easily slap together a half dozen new cases before every tournament and just out work the other teams... most of whom dont do any work to begin with... and whose idea of an answer to a counterplan is "we are here to debate the affirmative case. not arguments the negative brings up." we of course, were denied by those coaches who didnt want to limit the freedoms for their kids... the same kids who were getting downright slaughtered by the experienced squads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Education is absolutely topical. The SHA reg analogy is way off the mark. There is no one standard for what is and isn't topical, which so happens to be possessed by Ankur in PA. Topicality has to be debated. There are strong arguments to be made for this being topical.

 

Why is it way off the mark? If I can successfully illustrate that education is non-topical, then its exactly identical. A non-topical plank which receives all 100% of any solvency claimed added onto a topical plank to give the image of being topical.

 

I am not going to get into a huge topicality battle with you. Its functionally meaningless here, is not educational for the students, and we are not debaters.

 

But I will point out a little sarcastic humor of my own here... just so your kids remember to choose better words...

We can K over limiting to one narrow definition of the words in the resolution is inherently exclusionary because there are many different ways to interpret words (there's lots of warranted evidence to this, but at it's heart this is common sense -- open the damn dictionary. Words mean lots oof things.

a) i'd argue you wont meet ANY of the definitions in a dictionary

B) i'd argue that you have no threshold to what overlimiting actually means or signifies in context of the round thus the argument is already suspect at the point where the argument itselv becomes undefinable.

c) i'd argue then you are constructing your own barriers by limiting yourself to the dictionary, cause lets face it, websters adds hundreds and thousands of new entries every year... just because it isnt in the dictionary doesnt mean its not a sufficient meaning

d) i'd argue that not agreeing to a prescribed form of reasonable language permits the affirmative to always guarantee themselves a win irrespective of the negative arguments be it topicality or not. the affirmative can always "redefine" their words to escape all constructive intellectual argumentation the negative can offer.

e) i'd then run every completely irrelevant and non-mutually exclusive counterplan in the world... and then redefine your words to make your plan mutually exclusive and simply out impact... i'll claim to solve racism by talking about ejection seats on airplanes and cure aids by creating mile high walls made of titanium all along US borders.... cause words can mean anything i want them to.

f) zom blick pid flarny bluuuuu

 

(just being silly here joe... to illustrate a point... obviously in the hands of a talented debater, topicality is irrelevant. in the hands of a skilled debater, a plan regarding the spratly islands, the 7th fleet, and chinese invasion plans of taiwan will be topical next year... hence why i said previously "yes i realize that topicality has never stopped you before".... but lets not talk about the best teams in the land... lets talk about the average team in the land in front of the average judge... and i am fairly confident from my many years of debate and being perhaps one of the biggest abusers of topicality and advocates of running completely blatantly non topical cases... that the average negative team will hold an upper hand on the topicality end of this debate. i mean lets face it... there are always fun ways of "being topical"... on WMD resolution, i ran spratlys as a topical case. i argued that in USFG vs big tobacco, the government stipulated that cigarettes are a WMD because the cigarette manufacturers knew the inherent dangers to smoking, concealed it through repeated denials, and increased the nation's addiction to a product which has lethal sideeffects. similarly, i determined fossil fuels to be the WMD... which became spectacular since most neg teams instinctively answers a global warming disad with global warming doesnt exist/cooling... hence the open denial. i can get creative too joe. if the aff can get creative, so can the neg.... just remember, the average judge isnt critical and highly prone to voting tab. the average judge is policy, and tends to agree the resolutional wording has significant purpose to the competitive aspect of the round.)

 

You dropped all my arguments about policy making and racism. And I think it is helpful for the folks reading this. For instance, the Arkansas guys can probably benefit from a discussion about how this case is or isn't topical. Indeed, I think my argument about how policies -- especially landmark bills focused on social problems -- typically include training or education components would be a real easy sell to lay judges.

 

 

Are you in Philly? or College Station? Cuz if you're in Philly, why don't you volunteer for the UDL? Is their UDL thriving there?

Philly. College Station is in texas. State College is in PA. and we dont have a UDL per se. we have this suburban league which is functionally the same, except it serves a different community. i would volunteer there, but the coaches for those teams are much like the teams. the experienced teams in the league tried to get together and make it more educational for all the kids by trying to institute case limits for the novice division so they dont get turned off by the research burden, esp since the experienced squads with legit coaching can easily slap together a half dozen new cases before every tournament and just out work the other teams... most of whom dont do any work to begin with... and whose idea of an answer to a counterplan is "we are here to debate the affirmative case. not arguments the negative brings up." we of course, were denied by those coaches who didnt want to limit the freedoms for their kids... the same kids who were getting downright slaughtered by the experienced squads.

 

Why don't you start a UDL in Philly? Aren't they like the fifth biggest city in the country. That they don't have a UDL is a shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree joe. I think those same debaters are better off arguing T themselves. Me spitting out dozens of answers to your points is no different than me giving them a block and saying "here go run this." In my experience, in order for a team to gain significant competencies in topicality, debaters must develop their own analytical abilities. I would much rather have a debater join this discussion and argue their own topicality arguments while posing questions to them as to why they chose specific arguments, what they expect your response to be, etc. I think that would be much more educational for a debater.

 

Thats why I didnt respond to your other T arguments. Technically, I didnt really respond to any of your T arguments. I was arguing gibberish to prove a point that Topicality is never cut and dry like we want it to be, but I disagree with the sentiment that education is topical let alone germaine.... and to be a little funny, an objective which I apparently failed at achieving. And I believe judges will agree with me. If you think differently, thats fine. I'm still not going to get into a T battle with you.

 

 

 

As far as UDL is concerned, I would love to if I possessed the time. My time committments are rather large. If someone else were able to devote the time necessary to get a league up and running, I would be happy to give whatever time I have to assist the league and/or a team. But due to other time committments, I cannot devote the necessary time to that project, especially since I am currently working on a project to establish a free debate camp for financially disadvantaged students (relatively negligible tuition + your own expenses).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These are good points. What I was getting at with my question was a frustration with some of the comments I was reading on here that seem to lack a race consciousness, such as when you say you don't "actively seek to hang out in white neighborhoods." My sense is that white folks don't even realize they're in white neighborhoods. White neighborhoods are simply "America." But if you live in a black neighborhood, or you hang out a lot in a black neighborhood, you start to see everything diifferently. You develop a race consciousness. And that's what I was getting at with the Barndt evidence, that in order to begin to destroy the "prison of racism," whites need to develop a race consciousness. And this consciousness is tied into an understanding of white privilege, that we as whites benefit from racism and therefore are responsible for fighting it. You can say that this evidence is anecdotal, or arguably without warrant, but statement itself is empirical evidence of the lack of race consciousness. It's like I was saying how colorblindness doesn't exist, that it's just an illusion for the benefit of those of the privileged race. If you're not white, chances are you simply won't see it that way.

Just for clarification, I'm not white. I'm not sure that your comments were directed at me, but it sounded like they were. Also, the way you phrased your comments ("a frustration with some of the comments I was reading on here that seem to lack a race consciousness, such as when you say you don't "actively seek to hang out in white neighborhoods") didn't offend me as much as it saddened me (ironic that the feeling can be reciprocal). It makes you seem like a judgmental person that uses debate to reinforce your previously held beliefs and advance only your agenda, rather than openly listen to argumentation from both sides. Based on our conversations on this website and our e-mail dialogues, I know that, by and large, that you are a very open minded person and this categorization is false. But, still, the perception is there.

Like Ankur, I'm of the South Asian persuasion (Dominasian, if you please). That said, I completely agree with (almost) everything you said about race consciousness, with one thing to add: To challenge or expand race consciousness, IMO, you have to get people to want to gain exposure to a different experience. It just reminds me of my experience in Southeast Asia: all the Americans (not necessarily just the white kids) were mortified at the prospect of eating exotic cuisines or rubbing elbows with the locals. Putting this observation in the domestic sphere, put a white kid in a black neighborhood, he/she might just feel completely awkward during the whole experience rather than actually learn.

 

As for the other comments, I won't respond simply because it'll take the thread off-topic. If you want to know my thoughts, just backchannel...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just for clarification, I'm not white. I'm not sure that your comments were directed at me, but it sounded like they were. Also, the way you phrased your comments ("a frustration with some of the comments I was reading on here that seem to lack a race consciousness, such as when you say you don't "actively seek to hang out in white neighborhoods") didn't offend me as much as it saddened me (ironic that the feeling can be reciprocal). It makes you seem like a judgmental person that uses debate to reinforce your previously held beliefs and advance only your agenda, rather than openly listen to argumentation from both sides. Based on our conversations on this website and our e-mail dialogues, I know that, by and large, that you are a very open minded person and this categorization is false. But, still, the perception is there.

Like Ankur, I'm of the South Asian persuasion (Dominasian, if you please). That said, I completely agree with (almost) everything you said about race consciousness, with one thing to add: To challenge or expand race consciousness, IMO, you have to get people to want to gain exposure to a different experience. It just reminds me of my experience in Southeast Asia: all the Americans (not necessarily just the white kids) were mortified at the prospect of eating exotic cuisines or rubbing elbows with the locals. Putting this observation in the domestic sphere, put a white kid in a black neighborhood, he/she might just feel completely awkward during the whole experience rather than actually learn.

 

As for the other comments, I won't respond simply because it'll take the thread off-topic. If you want to know my thoughts, just backchannel...

 

I'm sorry. Honestly, I hadn't connected your online name with our earlier e-mail conversations. I was being very presumptuous.

 

All of your points are well taken.

 

On another note, back on topic, my work on this case has expanded into my reading some Edward W. Said's work. I'm interested in expanding outside black-white notions of racial profiling, and am finding his work quite helpful -- in particular his book about media coverage of Islam. Of course, all of this is pulling me to where I feel most comfortable, in a critical framework. Still, I think some of his writing would be helpful on a more traditional policy level, particularly ther forward to the 25th-Anniversary edition of Orientalism and the introduction to Covering Islam. Plus, these books have pointed me toward some other authors whose work I'm eager to delve into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still digging into the economic studies, and have yet to read the recent papers directed specifically at racial profiling. But this evidence seems like it could be especially strong, in that it shows how prejudice contributes to a vicious cycle of oppression.

 

Experimental Studies of Discrimination

Lisa R. Anderson, Roland G. Fryer, Jr. and Charles A. Holt *

Prepared for the Handbook on Economics of Discrimination, William Rogers, editor March 2005

 

I. Introduction

 

Measuring the intensity and impact of overt racism and discrimination has been the subject of much debate over the 20 th century. Few disagree that historical discrimination and other forms of social ostracism partly explain current disparities on a myriad of economic, social, and health related outcomes. Disagreement arises when ferreting out the underlying reasons behind the discriminatory treatment. The difficulty in uncovering mechanisms behind discriminatory actions lies in the quagmire of measuring attitudes about race, gender, and other characteristics that often serve as a basis for differential treatment. Therefore, laboratory experiments have been particularly useful in the study of discrimination under conditions where experience, perceived status, and group identity can be partially measured and controlled. For example, cleverly designed experiments allow one to distinguish the effects of underlying biases in preferences for one’s in-group from the effects of information-based forms of discrimination (statistical profiling, social categorization, and so on). This paper surveys laboratory studies of discrimination in psychology and economics.

 

There is a long tradition of experimental studies in psychology that examine the effects of observed characteristics, like status or group identity, on the way subjects treat others. The division into groupings can be based on survey responses or on observed traits like eye color. If deception is permitted, then the groupings can be random, even though people are told that the groupings are determined by some task or questionnaire. The goal of such manipulations is to determine the extent to which people with high status or of one’s own group are treated differently in exercises like a money division task.

 

Laboratory experiments in economics also reveal that status affects behavior in some market contexts. A number of economics experiments are motivated by formal equilibrium models in which discrimination arises from self-fulfilling expectations. For example, if workers in one group anticipate being discriminated against, they will be less likely to invest in acquiring skills and, as a result, employers will observe systematic differences in investment decisions. Feed-back effects can cause discrimination to become entrenched, as noted by Tajfel (1970): “For example, economic or social competition can lead to discriminatory behavior; that can then in a number of ways create attitudes of prejudice; those attitudes can in turn lead to new forms of discriminatory behavior that create new economic or social disparities, and so the vicious circle is continued.” These discriminatory equilibria may persist even when the two populations are ex ante identical (e.g. Arrow, 1973; Coate and Loury, 1993), and this theoretical possibility can be investigated in the laboratory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've already created a lisit of potential topical affirmatives for next years topic prior to reading any of these threads. To be completely honest racial profiling is in there. While its not my favorite aff I've looked at I think it could be pretty good. There will be a number of cases under the racial profiling case list (in my opinion).

 

-Airport Searches

-Drug War

-Border Patrol

-Court Trials & Detention

 

It's all good aff ground and is happening extensively in the status quo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just randomly happened on this thread cause I just wrote a racial profiling aff for a handbook. I think the main problem here is lack of explained plan mechanisms. How is police officer education topical? Let alone societal education? It's effects topical and clearly not the type of case the resolution is calling for in my opinion. And I really don't know why it's racist to say "you should be topical and fair to the neg AND you can discuss these issues of racism iwth a topical case." But that's a whole different matter.

 

The problem as I see it is that the way the rez is worded, you have to REQUIRE probable cause for some police action which does not currently require probable cause. Unfortunately, this makes the best cases questionably topical.

 

For example, Whren allows police to use subjective pretexts (e.g. race) to be used to pull someone over as long as that person violates some part of traffic code (which most drivers do regularly, even if they don't know it because of the vague/arcane nature of traffic laws). In this case, the issue is the ability to pull the driver over--which b/c of the traffic violation, the offers have probable cause to do. Whren, though, is not really about searches (although those often happen afterwards). However, when combined with the Atwater case, police can basically detain a driver for a small violation--thus, the pretext gives way to abuse in terms of the search.

 

The real problem as I see it is this:

--Overturning/changing Whren is not topical BUT

--Without overturning Whren, police still have virtually unlimited authority to pull over who they want, which means no other case solves profiling.

 

The case I wrote changed laws based on volunatary consent--it said that police had to inform drivers of their ability to refuse to consent to a search. The evidence is pretty good saying that this will deter officers from pretext stops because they won't see them as effective anymore.

 

A major problem with this aff and others as well will be the states CP. Bush signed a law banning federal law enforcment from profiling (with a national security exception), so it might be hard to win a solvency deficit to the states. There are ways, but it's not as clear cut as it might seem.

 

I ran this aff in high school and have done research for it this year. I don't check these boards often, so if anyone has a response/questions, you should e-mail me.

 

Eric

suniea@whitman.edu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. how is overturning whren not topical

 

2. the states counterplan wont work well at all. First we argue that SC Court action is key and states cant do that. Second we argue that ERPA solves all states and that the federal ban bush put on was crap and you even said that there was a national security excemption. Thats so shady and Bush uses that all the time to profile arabs. Even if that ban solves blacks is doesnt solve arab profiling and we solve better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overturning Whren is not topical for two reasons:

1. It deals with the ability to make pretext stops, not to make searches after those stops. Really, it's ab out probable cause in relation to police stops, not police searches. That means it's probably effectually topical.

2. My interpretation of the topic is:

The plan has to install a probable cause requirement on something that currently doesn't have it. That means that plans that overturn cases where the govt. already has probable cause (eg Whren, Atwater) are probably not topical.

 

(I really think Whren should be topical, and given decent T blocks, you'd be able to convince a lot of judges of that as well. But I'm not sure how, with the way the rez is worded, overturning Whren is topical).

 

For states, there's pretty solid evidence that states are acting now and are better than the USFG. And there's damn good ev. indicting the courts as an effective body to remedy racial profiling (as is proven by Whren, etc.). And moreover, it's pretty easy for politics to outweigh any solvency deficit.

 

Eric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the real topicality issue here is the word "its". The Federal Government has to restrict its authority to search without probable cause. A federal statute banning racial profiling doesn't restrict the Federal Government's authority, it restricts the state governments' authority. Overturning any Federal case will likely have the same problem.

I don't think that's a topic flaw; I think it's an attempt not to have the privacy topic all over again.

I think you could run topical cases regarding Federal racial profiling by, for example, limiting the natiional security exemption. But I think its going to be difficult to claim state advantages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...