Public colleges and universities shouldn't be able to restrict free speech on campus.

Road-map: My case, my opponent's case. My case: Point One: My opponent concedes hate speech is bad and should be eliminated. They say "shoving such speech under the rug" is ineffective. However, they don"t explain why banning it doesn"t eliminate it and why banning it shoves it "under the rug." So ignore this argument because it first doesn"t link and second is totally lacks a warrant. Then they say the best way to deal with hate speech is to bring it front and center so people can refute it. However, people"s refutations of hate speech, also known as counter-speech, fail massively and do not stop hate speech. According to Tseis in 2010, "counterspeech is an inadequate remedy for the direct, intimidating attack of hate speech.278 Racism, chauvinism, ethnocentrism, and xenophobia are too deeply embedded in culture to be changed overnight. While public attitudes are being changed, hate speech continues to menace out-groups. Telling a university employee subject to racial or sexual coercion, racial degradation, or ethnic insults to simply respond to antagonists provides victims no legal redress but mere platitudes. Just as responding to comments in a hostile environment does not solve the problem of workplace harassment, neither does counterspeech decrease the risk posed by advocacy groups committed to carrying out a campus campaign of group intimidation, exclusion, and discrimination." And, not everyone feels safe engaging in counter-speech. According to Coustic-Deal in 2017, "So counterspeech is encouraged, but often only possible for those who have the freedom to exercise it without repercussions. It is available only to those who already have privilege, usually white men. They don"t feel the same kind of fear, or live with the constant threat of sexual violence directed at them. It is easy to advocate counter speech when you can engage in it freely and without repercussions." The example they cited of bringing a speaker to campus is not relevant to my argument. I"m not advocating for stopping controversial speakers for speaking, rather I"m advocating for stopping direct and intimidating hate from student to student, because as I showed in my case hate speech has terrible impacts. They completely dropped my solvency--restricting hate speech eliminates it and their entire response to this point assumes hate speech would still occur. However, my Johnson evidence suggests it would stop hate speech and my Northwestern evidence points out that a restriction stops the cycle of hate. They didn"t refute either of those points. Even if you don"t buy that, we can restrict hate speech and still allow controversial speakers. There"s not competition. On my second point about time/place/manner restrictions, they mention that these restrictions are constitutionally allowable and thus not protected speech. Two responses: Even if they are allowable, they still restrict constitutionally protected speech. This debate is about restricting FREE speech, not constitutionally protected speech. That"s what my opponent said they were defending in round one. If they only want to defend constitutionally protected speech that"s fine with me though. My opponent"s case: "My opponent then goes to bring up how the UN has banned hate speech, however, I believe I covered that with my response to their hate speech argument." What? My opponent said that we should follow the UN. Then they said we should not ban hate speech even though the UN advocates for it. I"m really confused as to what they"re actually advocating, so ignore this argument in the round as it"s unclear. On their point about schools limiting discourse, that"s not what I"m advocating. I"m only saying we should ban hate speech and implement time place and manner restrictions. They say those restrictions are happening in the status quo but I never claimed to be advocating the status quo. And the fact that we want to educate people about important issues is exactly why we ban hate speech: Perry "15 explains that "Campus racial climate has been linked to academic success. And research has long shown that academic preparedness is only one of many factors that determine why students do or don"t graduate. The psychological attitudes between and among groups, as well as intergroup relations on campuses, influence how well students of color perform and whether they stay on track toward graduation. Graduation rates lag when schools don"t provide an environment that fosters the scholastic pursuits of minority students, particularly black men. Researcher Sylvia Hurtado explains that "Just as a campus that embraces diversity provides substantial positive benefits, a hostile or discriminatory climate has substantial negative consequences." Clearly, to get the benefits my opponent discusses, we should ban hate speech. They next mention that restricting speech is a slippery slope. But that doesn"t make sense: First, there is a huge difference between political speech (which should be protected) and hate speech (which absolutely shouldn"t be). Second, the Supreme Court"s interpretation of the First Amendment already restricts some speech, but not all speech is restricted in the status quo. So clearly a slippery slope wouldn"t exist. Since negating would help minority groups have a voice, allow colleges to function with reasonable speech restrictions, and stop speech that has no educational value from being a detriment to the college community, and since affirming has zero benefit and does a lot of harm, I strongly urge you to negate. Thank you. Side note: I"m unclear: are we debating the resolution you proposed (Public Colleges and Universities ought not restrict any free speech) or the resolution you seem to be referring back to (the NSDA resolution, Public colleges and universities ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech)? Thanks for clarification! And, yes, I"ve debated this before in competition :)