Race Census Aff – mags compiled by Lenny Brahin Jaden Lessnick Jillian Gordners Brian Roche 1AC

Politics of uncomfortability good – just cause racism isn’t a ‘big stick’ impact doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter

It should go without saying that this is inaccurate, and that there are moral and economic consequences to this misguided view. “The Business Case for Racial Equity,” a W.K. Kellogg Foundation study released this past October, found that while racism costs the country $1.9-trillion dollars each year, whites are not on the receiving end. The report noted that the adjusted earnings of people of color are a whopping 30 percent lower than those of non-Hispanic whites, and it showed how “race, class, residential segregation, and income levels all work together to hamper access to opportunity” for people of color. Feeling uncomfortable because race or racism is mentioned in your presence just doesn’t compare to the economic, psychological, and spiritual consequences of structured racial inequality. Surely this means that we need to find better, more productive ways of talking about race, not fewer. Of course, the problem is that many of us—black and white alike—have been taught that race and racism, like politics and money, are impolite topics best left unexplored with strangers. By the time we’ve entered the academy, many of us have already absorbed this truism. We are simply uncomfortable talking about race. Because of that discomfort and because we haven’t learned the skills necessary to engage in deep discussions on the topic, we avoid them at all costs. And when we look for excuses to close off those discussions, we allow misperceptions to spread. When I ask my students how they broached the topic of racism in their high-school classrooms, many often respond, as my then-seven-year-old once told me, that “Martin Luther King freed the slaves and since then we have had no more racism.” That’s a myth that is as damaging and simplistic as it is comforting. It advances the wrongheaded beliefs that structural inequality and racial bias no longer exist—they do—and that talking about them is an attack on whites. It isn’t. To quote the always insightful James Baldwin, “Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.” For reasons of finance, morals, and ethics, we can no longer afford to let the discomfort of a few keep us from change for the many.

Counterplans

Process cps

3 definitions –

1. “Resolved” doesn’t require certainty

Webster’s 9 – Merriam Webster 2009

(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolved)

# Main Entry: 1re·solve # Pronunciation: \ri-ˈzälv, -ˈzȯlv also -ˈzäv or -ˈzȯv\ # Function: verb # Inflected Form(s): re·solved; re·solv·ing 1 : to become separated into component parts; also : to become reduced by dissolving or analysis 2 : to form a resolution : determine 3 : consult, deliberate

2. Or immediacy

PTE 9 – Online Plain Text English Dictionary 2009

(http://www.onelook.com/?other=web1913&w=Resolve)

Resolve: “To form a purpose; to make a decision; especially, to determine after reflection; as, to resolve on a better course of life.”

3. should means desirable or recommended, not mandatory

AC 99 (Atlas Collaboration, “Use of Shall, Should, May Can,” http://rd13doc.cern.ch/Atlas/DaqSoft/sde/inspect/shall.html)

shall

'shall' describes something that is mandatory. If a requirement uses 'shall', then that requirement _will_ be satisfied without fail. Noncompliance is not allowed. Failure to comply with one single 'shall' is sufficient reason to reject the entire product. Indeed, it must be rejected under these circumstances. Examples: # "Requirements shall make use of the word 'shall' only where compliance is mandatory." This is a good example. # "C++ code shall have comments every 5th line." This is a bad example. Using 'shall' here is too strong.

Process focus fails – causes interpassivity and bad policymaking

Van Oenen 2006 (Gijs, A Machine That Would Go of Itself: Interpassivity and Its Impact on Politic al Life, Theory & Event, LB)

Metaphor signifies of course that the hierarchical relation between government and citizens is being replaced by one of 'equal standing' – conjunctive instead of subjunctive, we might say. But it also symbolizes how the 'interest' in politics itself is changing. The 'locus' of involvement with politics shifts from the 'product', or social praxis that it aims to realize, towards the earlier phases of preparation, consultation and policy-formation. This shift implicit in the growth of 'interactivity' serves the interests of both parties involved in political life. In the official rhetoric, interactivity strengthens the involvement of citizens in politics, by committing them not only to the results of the political process but also to that process itself. In this way they become 'co-producers of policy', dedicated citizens so to speak. In turn, government is able to 'fine tune' its policies and in general stay in close contact with its citizens, enabling it to reach its objectives in a more precise and secure way. More realistically, citizens become interactive because they see this as a better option to safeguard their (partial) interests than the traditional options of party membership or voting behavior. They feel that interactivity will let their voice more forcefully be heard. Or even more straightforwardly, their attitude towards politics in general is one of 'what is in it for me?' In such a self-centered view, politics appears primarily as an institution that may facilitate one's own plans and preferences, rather than as a process of collective will formation furthering socially desirable practices. Government, in turn, sees interactivity as an effective way of 'polling' views and interests, which are usually better accommodated in an early stage of policy formation than in later stages, that may involve troublesome renegotiations, or protracted litigation. But more importantly, the official view or 'ideology' underwriting interactivity denies that a shift in political interest is taking place. It suggests that the interest of both citizens and government in what politics 'produces' – some form of collective good – is enhanced and supplemented by an increased interest in the process of policy formation. Against this 'win-win' view, I want to suggest that the increase in involvement in the political process, the sphere of policy formation, goes along with aloss of involvement in the 'product' of the process. The point here is not merely that people lack sufficient time or means to be involved in both process and result. Rather it seems that people nowadays feel more attached to the process than to its eventual product. Being actively involved in the process has acquired a sense and meaning of its own, that may compete with, or actually override, the interest in what the process aimed to realize. In other words, what the process now mainly realizes, its main 'product', is involvement with itself.

Reform census cp

There are many issues to the racial aspect of the census – prevents self identification and creates a whiteness-bias

Thompson, 10 – PhD candidate (poli sci) at University of Toronto (Debra Elizabeth, “Seeing Like a Racial State: The Census and the Politics of Race in the United States, Great Britain and Canada” A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy Department of Political Science, 2010)//jml

*note: OMB = Office of Management and Budget.

While this strategy may have practical merit, Goldstein and Morning (2002) note there are several controversial elements to the OMB’s approach: first, it is, in effect, a revival of the one-drop rule, a historical legacy that necessitates persons with any traceable amount of non- white ancestry be counted – in both law and society – as non-white. While the rule of hypodescent is now used in order to redress discrimination rather than enforce segregation, it is “still open to the criticism that it repeats the mistakes of the past, further institutionalizing the divide between the white and nonwhite populations” (2002: 120). Secondly, the strategy violates the principle of self-identification: “Now that many multiracial individuals are finally permitted to ‘mark one or more’ races, many expect to be treated as such without being put back in a single checkbox” (Goldstein and Morning, 2002: 120). Thirdly, this strategy may make race-based policies more controversial than they already are. Further, there is evidence that this application of a modernized one-drop rule runs counter to how mixed-race people actually identify. Goldstein and Morning (2002) find that among people of white/American Indian background, the vast majority identify “white” as their single race and among white/Asian mixes, more than two-thirds identify as white. The one-drop rule, in effect, only properly applies to the African American/white mix, where the majority identify their single responses 98 as black (but where nearly 40% of mixed-race respondents would choose white if given the opportunity) (Goldstein and Morning, 2002: 128-129). Finally, there is evidence that mixed- race identification in the United States is highly unstable: results from a 2001 survey of census respondents revealed that 40 percent of those who had marked more than one race on their census forms in 2000 chose a single race in 2001, and there was a correspondingly large percentage that did the exact opposite (Bennett, 2003). Suffice to say, many of the political and policy contingencies of the multiracial turn in census politics have yet to play out (Hochschild and Burch, 2007).

Directory: file -> view
view -> Western Europe after wwii
view -> Author study: paul fleischman
view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide
view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg
view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh
view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce
view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy
view -> Table of Contents Lesson #
view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad

Download 0.87 Mb.

Share with your friends: