Victory Briefs

Resolved: The United States Federal Government ought topay reparations to African Americans.

September-October 2015 PF Brief*

*Published by Victory Briefs, PO Box 803338 #40503, Chicago, IL 60680-3338. Edited by Jake Nebel,Chris Theis, and Abraham Fraifeld. Written by Matthew Feng, Abraham Fraifeld, and Arjun Rao. Evi-dence cut by authors. For customer support, please email [email protected] or call 330.333.2283.

This product is licensed to [email protected] by Victory Briefs. Any distribution or modification of this file not explicitly allowed bythe terms of purchase (including removing or obscuring this text or sending to anyone outside Walter Willis's school) is a violation of

copyright. Please report illicit distribution of this file to [email protected]. Let us know what you think: https://victorybriefs.formstack.com/forms/vbsurvey.

Contents

1 Introduction by the Editors 3

2 Topic Analysis by Matthew Feng 52.1 Opening Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.3 Framing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.4 Affirmative Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112.5 Negative Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132.6 Final Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3 Argument Guides by Abraham Fraifeld 153.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153.2 Argument Guide 1: Plans? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163.3 Argument Guide 2: Rawls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233.4 Argument Guide 3: Utilitarianism and the Benefits of Education . . . . . . . . . 293.5 Argument Guide 4: Lack of Culpability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

4 Argument Guides by Arjun Rao 424.1 Argument Guide 5: Complacency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424.2 Argument Guide 6: Commodifying Slavery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504.3 Argument Guide 7: Racial Backlash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 534.4 Argument Guide 8: Reparations are impossible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 604.5 Argument Guide 9: Health Reparations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 634.6 Final Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

5 The Case for Reparations? by Dr. Tommy J. Curry 695.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 695.2 On the Justification and Need for Reparations under the Present . . . . . . . . . 715.3 Is Moral Reconciliation Possible if Reparations are Given? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

2



1 Introduction by the Editors

This brief is a bit different from our usual Public Forum briefs. Our usual briefs consist of sometopic analyses and a packet of cards. This brief starts similarlyi.e., with an evidence-based anal-ysis of the topic. The topic analysis is written by Duke University freshman and VBI instructorMatthew Feng. Fengs analysis breaks down the resolution and provides recommendations forresearch areas.

It then departs quite radically from our usual structure. Instead of additional topic analyses(which have diminishing marginal value) and a bunch of cards (which are most valuable withcontext and analysis), weve integrated these components into sets of argument guides. These areevolved topic analyses that build, attack, and defend arguments on each side with evidence. Ourhope is that the topic analysis and first two argument guides will provides students with enoughbackground to engage with the topics basic concepts and provide a springboard for further re-search.

Do not be fooled by the thinner table of contents: in addition to containing more evidence (over100 cards in this brief), we believe that these argument guides provide far more comprehensiveanalysis than loose cards. The first four argument guides are written by VBI Curriculum Direc-tor Abraham Fraifeld of Georgetown University. The next five are written by Arjun Rao of theUniversity of Miami, who also taught with us at VBI this summer.

At the end of this brief youll find an original scholarly contribution to the topic by Dr. Tommy J.Curry, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Texas A&MUniversity. This particular article has notbeen published elsewhere, althoughDr. Curry has published other articles on reparations in othervenues. The article is deeper and more complicated than much of the scholarship used in PublicForum debate, but this is a distinctly philosophical topic. Like much philosophy, youmay have toread it more than once to understand the arguments well enough to run them. You can use thisarticle as practice for reading, diagnosing, cutting, running, and answering such arguments.

Our initial topic briefs are, we hope, useful for getting you started on the topic. But topics evolve.So subscribers will receive a booster pack later in September/October with additional, more ad-vanced, argument guides. For even more evidence, please subscribe to our free Card of the Day

3



1 Introduction by the Editors

service.

We greatly value your feedback on our products, so that we can make Victory Briefs better everymonth. Please let us know what you think about our briefs by filling out this short survey.

4



2 Topic Analysis by Matthew Feng

Matthew Feng competed for Plano West Senior High School in Plano, Texas. InPublic Forum, he reached the final round of the Harvard Round Robin and alsoplaced in the top six at the NSDA National Tournament. He also had competitivesuccess in Extemporaneous Speaking, competing in the final rounds at St. Marks,the University of Texas, and the ETOC. Upon graduating, he taught at the Universityof Texas National Institute in Forensics, National Debate Forum, and Victory BriefsInstitute. He currently attends Duke University, where he plans to pursue studies inboth economics and political science.

2.1 OpeningWords

TheSeptember/October topic for PF is different fromany in recentmemory and formore than justone reason not only does thewording deviate fromwhat has become the norm for Public Forumbut the discussion will take place in a context that many may not be familiar with. Questions ofpolicy have always more of less been at the heart of PF, but most debaters will not be familiar withrace-based conversations because resolutions have seldom confronted them. Even beyond that,while the other topic option regarding civil unrest dealt with contemporary issues, the debatesof these two months centered on reparations will be juxtaposed with the debates of decades andcenturies ago. My analysis of the resolution will begin with some background on racial justiceby examining issues that still represent the plight of African Americans in the United States. Iwill then frame the average round that competitors will have before delving into a few approachesthat both sides can take when tackling the topic. I will emphasize throughout the topic analysisthat all debaters keep in mind that this is a highly sensitive topic area where some terminologyand mindsets are not okay. We have an opportunity within the forensic community to expose aproblem that our country faces, but everyone should remember that our platform must be usedresponsibly, not maliciously.

5




2.2 Background

To be absolutely clear, racism is still a very pervasive issue in todays America. While there arethose who believe that slavery was an issue of the past, the mindset that was perpetuated still verymuch persists in the policies of today. Therefore, it is prudent to approach the resolution with theimplicit mindset that one of many objectives at hand is to ameliorate the consequences of racistpolicies, both past and present, while preventing the continuation of racism for the future.

That being said, it would be wise to also have a general understanding of just how exploitativeslavery was in the past. Ta-Nehisi Coates explains:1

The wealth accorded America by slavery was not just in what the slaves pulled fromthe land but in the slaves themselves. In 1860, slaves as an asset were worth morethan all of Americas manufacturing, all of the railroads, all of the productive capac-ity of the United States put together, the Yale historian David W. Blight has noted.Slaves were the single largest, by far, financial asset of property in the entire Amer-ican economy. The sale of these slavesin whose bodies that money congealed,writes Walter Johnson, a Harvard historiangenerated even more ancillary wealth.Loanswere taken out for purchase, to be repaidwith interest. Insurance policies weredrafted against the untimely death of a slave and the loss of potential profits. Slavesales were taxed and notarized. The vending of the black body and the sundering ofthe black family became an economy unto themselves, estimated to have brought intens of millions of dollars to antebellum America. In 1860 there were more million-aires per capita in the Mississippi Valley than anywhere else in the country.

Even after the abolition of slavery following the CivilWar, it was clear that African Americans stillfaced many problems. In fact, the problems that occurred following emancipation were largelydue to complacency. Lawrie Balfour gives us historical context:2

Writing in the shadow of a deep disappointment, Du Bois ([1903] 1997, 40) appre-hends the paradox of formal equality: The guarantees of theThirteenth, Fourteenth,and FifteenthAmendments, though incalculably precious, engendered a kind of pub-lic forgetfulness about slavery and fed the Southern fury against the former slaves.The War Amendments, he observes at the turn of the twentieth century, made

1Coates, Ta-Nehisi. The Case for Reparations. The Atlantic. Atlantic Media, Jun. 2014. Web. 24 Aug. 2015.http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/

2Balfour, Lawrie (Asst. Prof. of Politics, University of Virginia). Unreconstructed Democracy: W. E. B. DuBois and the Case for Reparations. American Political Science Review, Feb. 2003. Web. 25 Aug. 2015.http://www.jstor.org/stable/3118219?seq=1# page_scan_tab_contents

6




the Negro problems of to-day (Du Bois [1903] 1997, 45). While he would not re-linquish those amendments, Du Bois ([1903] 1997, 125) perceives that the constitu-tional promise of rights that apply regardless of race, color, or previous condition ofservitude assured liberal-minded citizens that enough had been done, perpetuatingthe carelessness that characterized the national attitude toward the former slaves.Much the same can be said for the post-civil rights predicament. Black Americansfought hard for the formal guarantees embodied in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 andthe Voting Rights Act of 1965, and, like other vulnerable populations, they do nothave the luxury of dispensing entirely with the language of formal equality in whichthose guarantees are framed.2 At the same time, the promise enshrined in those lawshas come to be interpreted inways that allowwhiteAmericans to disown the past andits implications for the present, thereby compounding the disadvantages faced by thevery people the laws were passed to protect. For example, Derrick Bell writes thatthe courts have collapsed the distinction between race-based remedies for decadesof racial injustice and the segregationist policies of the Jim Crow period. The resultof such interpretation is that, for equal protection purposes, whites become the pro-tected discrete and insular minority (Bell 1993, 80). Thus it becomes all the moredifficult to summon the collectivewill to respondwhen activists and scholars identifydisturbing trends in residential and educational segregation and the disadvantagesthey engender orwhen thewealth gap that white and blackAmericans have inheritedfrom previous generations is exposed.3

What Balfourmakes clear is this: historically it seems that every timewe seeminglymake progressregarding racial justice, the movement runs out of steam and allows those who aim to discrimi-nate to pass racist policies. In this sense, it is then clear why African Americans continually aredisadvantaged in the status quo, even though slavery no longer is an issue.

2.3 Framing

Now that we have confronted the ugly truth, we should discuss the technical nuances of withinthe debate space. Like I said before, this resolution offers a lot of new experiences for even themost seasoned of Public Forum debaters. For starters, the use of the word ought will pose to be ahuge obstacle to overcome for many teams in the coming months. Heres what Merriam-Websterhas to say about the words definition:3

3ought. Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2015. Web. 25 Aug. 2015. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ought

7




used to express obligation , advisability , natural expectation , or logical consequence

Even from this, it remains difficult to come up with a singular definition. Does ought imply amoral obligation? Maybe ought indicates a level of capacity for an agent to act. On the otherhand, maybe we can just ignore the word altogether and assume that we default to a cost-benefitcalculus. In any case, your interpretation as the debater of the word ought will have enormousimplications for the debate round, so much so that it will affect the cases you construct. Forexample, if you assume that ought has a moral flavor to it, you will likely look at more moral-based arguments. Following that logic, your cases will vary as the definition you inherently adoptvaries. Wewill explore how each interpretation of ought can change theway you frame the roundand thereby influence the arguments you present in both your constructive as well as your laterspeeches.

The next definitional debate that will happen in many rounds is how to conceptualizing what areparation is. The purest, simplest definition that pertains to the context of this resolution can beprovided by Merriam-Webster:

something that is done or given as a way of correcting a mistake that you have madeor a bad situation that you have caused

This implies that a lot of things could be considered reparations; however, I urge debaters toproceed with caution. While the literature proposes many different ways in which reparationscould be provided, historically there does not seem to be a precedent for anything but a direct cashpayment. In 1988, the United States paid $20,000 in reparations to Japanese Americans for theharms inflicted as a result of internment camps during World War II. Internationally, Germanybegan a reparations program that began followingWorldWar II intended tomake amends for theHolocaust that still continues to this day, adding to a sum of $89 billion. The argument then canbe made that a reparation paid to African Americans would similarly be a cash payment of someform. This can be useful for both sides the Affirmative can reasonably support an advocacywithout much discussion of what is allowed in Public Forum while the Negative can also use thisassumption to draft a case that does not need to adapt to many different kinds of reparationssince they would know which one would be the likely advocacy. The conversations and dialogue

reparation. Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, 2015. Web. 25 Aug. 2015. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reparation

Molotsky, Irvin. Senate Votes to Compensate Japanese-American Internees. New York Times. New YorkTimes Company, 21 Apr. 1988. Web. 25 Aug. 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/21/us/senate-votes-to-compensate-japanese-american-internees.html

Eddy,Melissa. For 60th Year, GermanyHonorsDuty to PayHolocaust Victims. NewYork Times. NewYork TimesCompany, 17 Nov. 2012. Web. 25 Aug. 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/world/europe/for-60th-year-germany-honors-duty-to-pay-holocaust-victims.html?_r=0

8




in policymaking surrounding reparations typically mirror what should be likely for Affirmativeteams. Eric Posner and Adrian Vermeule highlight:

The word reparations does not pick out a natural kind; there are no clear concep-tual boundaries that demarcate reparations from ordinary legal remedies, on the onehand, and other large-scale governmental transfer programs, on the other. Paradig-matic examples of reparations ordinarily discussed in the relevant literatures in law,politics, andmoral theory, such as proposals for slavery reparations, do tend to sharecertain major features: They typically refer to schemes that (1) provide payment (incash or in kind) to a large group of claimants, (2) on the basis of wrongs that weresubstantively permissible under the prevailing law when committed, (3) in whichcurrent law bars a compulsory remedy for the past wrong (by virtue of sovereignimmunity, statutes of limitations, or similar rules), and (4) in which the paymentis justified on backward-looking grounds of corrective justice, rather than forward-looking grounds such as the deterrence of futurewrongdoing. However, a wide rangeof policies, programs, and decisions have been described as reparations, and the var-ious cases are connected only by a series of family resemblances. Any of the typicalfeatures we have listed can be quibbled with; we might, without linguistic impropri-ety, use the word reparations to describe a scheme that dispenses with any of them.A payment to a small group rather than a large one, for example, might without ab-surdity be described as reparations if justified as remediation of wrongs committedunder a previous legal regime.

All of that being said, there are also other reasons for why Affirmative teams should look to directcash payments as the only meaningful reparation that would be paid. While many teams will finda lot of research and many articles regarding different programs education, health, housing, orotherwise the distinction between a reparation and a general social program seems to be ratherclear. Posner and Vermeule again explain:

Second, we will say that reparations schemes are justified on the basis of backward-looking reasons-remediation of, or compensation for, past injustices-rather than onthe basis of forward-looking reasons-increasing utility, deterring future wrongdo-ing, or promoting distributive justice. In dispensing with fully individualized reme-diation, a reparations scheme resembles large-scale governmental transfers, which

Posner, Eric (Kirkland & Ellis Prof. of Law, University of Chicago) and Vermeule, Adrian (Prof. of Law, Universityof Chicago). Reparations for Slavery and Other Historical Injustices. Columbia Law Review, 2003. Web. 25 Aug.2015. http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2787&context=journal_articles

Ibid.

9




frequently take from A to give to B regardless of whether A inflicted harm or B suf-fered it. Any number of transfer programs are justified or rationalized on the groundthat the transfer will increase total or average utility, promote distributive justice, or(more vaguely) make society better off. We distinguish reparations schemes fromthis class of transfers by stipulating that reparations schemes pursue, not welfaremaximization or end-state distributive justice, but rather backward-looking justicethrough rectification of past wrongs. 4 In this regard reparations schemes share thecorrective justice focus of many ordinary legal remedies. It is also true, however, thatordinary remedies are sometimes justified strictly on forward-looking, incentive-based grounds, and the second stipulation excludes those as well. An example isthe vicarious liability of government for the torts of its employees, which would oth-erwise be counted as reparations by virtue of the non-identity of wrongdoer andpayer.

While I have presented a few reasons for why reparations should be looking at only direct cashpayments, Affirmative teams should not feel compelled to only consider that avenue of advocacy.There are varying interpretations for what a reparation could be. For example, Jamelle Bouieinterprets it as such:

On the other end is the policy approach. Instead of cash, the federal governmentwould implement an agenda to tackle racial inequality at its roots. This agendawould focus on major areas of concern: housing, criminal justice, education, andincome inequality. As for the policies themselves, they dont require a ton of imag-ination. To break the ghettos and reduce the hyper-segregation of black life, thefederal government would aggressively enforce the Fair Housing Act, with attackson housing and lending discrimination, and punishment for communities that ex-clude low-income residents with exclusionary zoning. Whatsmore, it would providevouchers for those who want to move, subsidized mortgages for those who want toown, and huge investments in transportation infrastructure, to break urban and ru-ral isolation and connect low-income blacks to jobs in wealthier, whiter areas. Onthe education front, state governments could end education budgets based on localproperty taxeswhich disadvantage poor communities and disproportionately hurtblacksand the federal government could invest in school reconstruction, modern-ization, and vouchersfor parents who want their children in private schoolsinaddition to higher education subsidies for black Americans. These in-kind ben-

Bouie, Jamelle. Reparations Are Owed: Here are a few ways to pay the bill. Slate Magazine. The Slate Group, 22May 2014. Web. 25 Aug. 2015.

10




efits have the virtue of freeing up disposable income, thus acting as de facto cashpayments.

The last part of the Bouie excerpt is what is really important these programs could be arguedto be de facto (re: effectively) cash payments. The definition debate could go back and forth, so Iencourage everyone to continue to consider both sides because many more arguments could bemade from both ends as to why one is more comprehensive or true than the other. This advicegoes for both the definitions of ought and reparations.

2.4 Affirmative Arguments

The Affirmative is the side that depends more on framework victories in order to get their pointacross. In discussions for the case though, there does not need to be that much framework, ifat all; rather, the Affirmative should just be prepared to encounter responses from the Negativethat question their own arguments topicality. That being said, I believe that there are two prettysound Affirmative strategies that can be pursued.

2.4.1 TheMoral Impetus

This might be the easiest way for the Affirmative to win as long as the framework battle is won,the substance debate (re: the arguments) should not really have much room for debate. The ideawith this approach is to demonstrate that historically African Americans have been denied basicrights that have not been made up for. In essence, you are to show that the United States FederalGovernment has a moral debt that it owes to African Americans. Tomake that point, we can lookagain to writing from Ta-Nehisi Coates:1

Terrorism carried the day. Federal troops withdrew from the South in 1877. Thedream of Reconstruction died. For the next century, political violence was visitedupon blacks wantonly, with special treatment meted out toward black people of am-bition. Black schools and churches were burned to the ground. Black voters and thepolitical candidates who attempted to rally them were intimidated, and some weremurdered. At the end of World War I, black veterans returning to their homes wereassaulted for daring to wear the American uniform. The demobilization of soldiersafter the war, which put white and black veterans into competition for scarce jobs,produced the Red Summer of 1919: a succession of racist pogroms against dozens

1See Coates, supra note 1.

11




of cities ranging from Longview, Texas, to Chicago to Washington, D.C. Organizedwhite violence against blacks continued into the 1920sin 1921 a white mob leveledTulsas Black Wall Street, and in 1923 another one razed the black town of Rose-wood, Floridaand virtually no one was punished.

Beyond political participation, there have been socioeconomic differences as well. DavidWilliams and Chiquita Collins document:11

For almost 200 years, research has documented that Blacks report poorer health thanWhites for a broad range of indicators of health status (Krieger, 1987). In 1999, thelife expectancy at birth of 77 years forWhites was 6 years longer than that of AfricanAmericans (National Center for Health Statistics [NCHS], 2002). Contributing tothis life expectancy difference is an elevated rate of illness and death for AfricanAmericans compared toWhites for almost every indicator of physical health. Highermortality rates for Blacks thanWhites are especiallymarked for heart disease, cancer,stroke, diabetes, kidney disease, homicide, hypertension, and AIDS (NCHS, 2002).

And while there are technical biological differences, these do not come close to explaining thedisparate health of the two communities. Williams and Collins further:12

Existing racial categories do not capture biological distinctiveness, and genetic dif-ferences at best make a small contribution to racial disparities in health (Goodman,2000). For example, sickle cell disease accounts for three tenths of 1% of the Black-White differences in mortality (Cooper, 1984). Research has identified socioeco-nomic status as one of the strongest determinants of variations in health in general(Link & Phelan, 1995; Williams & Collins, 1995) and the major contributor to racialdifferences in health, in particular (Williams, 1997). SES accounts for much of theracial differences in health, and it is frequently found that SES differences withineach racial group are substantially larger than overall racial ones (Williams, 1999).

2.4.2 A Practical Problem

A second approach that Affirmative teams can take is one regarding policies that can address spe-cific grievances within the African American community. This kind of case would correspond

11Williams, David (University of Michigan) and Collins, Chiquita (University of Texas at Austin).Reparations: A Viable Strategy to Address the Enigma of African American Health. Ameri-can Behavioral Scientist, pp. 977-1000. Sage Publications, Mar. 2004. Web. 26 Aug. 2015.http://www.isr.umich.edu/williams/All%20Publications/DRW%20pubs%202004/Reparations.pdf

12Ibid.

12




with the framework that defends other means of implementation that act as de facto cash pay-ments (e.g. education vouchers, minimum sentencing reductions, health services).13

2.5 Negative Arguments

TheNegative can get pretty creative when crafting cases, but above all else, teamsmust rememberthe importance of creating inclusive cases. What I mean by that is that it would be unwise tospend four minutes making arguments about why direct cash payments are bad if the Affirmativenever spends time advocating for them. Instead, Negative teams should look to implicationsand outcomes that occur regardless of what specific reparation is paid. Here, there can be twoapproaches to the resolution.

2.5.1 Institutionalizing Racism

A problem many Negative teams will realize that is inherent to their side of the resolution is alack of quantifications. That being said, an approach that argues that reparations would create astronger sense of racism would be effective because it would co-opt the offense generated by theAffirmative heres how. The Affirmative presents a world rife with problems that African Amer-icans face. These problems are implied to be the product of a racist government (re: institution).In that sense, if more racism becomes institutionalized, then it clearly would result in even worsepolicies in the long-term, so even if the Affirmative could prove that short-term benefits couldoccur, they could be rolled back in the long-term.

Even beyond that, teams could adopt a nihilistic mindset, stating that reparations are not a fix-all, in which case racism will always return in some form and re-escalate. Rhonda Magee, citingthen-Professor of Law at Harvard University Derrick Bell, underlines:1

ForBell, the reason that such proposals fail is simple: Self-interestedwhiteswhomustmake the ultimate decisions onwhether or not to transfer property (land or currency)to African-Americans have no incentive to make such self-defeating decisions.253[R]acial subordination has served so many white interests well that the implicitconsideration of race as a factor in public policy decisions is likely to continue forthe foreseeable future.254

13See Bouie, supra note 9.1Magee, Rhonda (Prof. of Law, University of San Francisco). TheMasters Tools, from the BottomUp: Responses to

African-American Reparations Theory in Mainstream and Outsiders Remedies Discourse. Virginia Law Review,pp. 863-916. Virginia Law Review, May 1993. Web. 27 Aug. 2015.

13




There are many ways for Negative teams to link the payment of reparations to an outcome ofentrenched racism, so I encourage a serious level of research into those arguments.

2.5.2 Rights Above All

The second Negative approach is one that I personally am not that familiar with but is one thatdoes have merit. While the typical Public Forum resolution boils down to a cost-benefit analysis,the use of ought gives the resolution a more distinct moral flavor. To that end, teams should lookinto the philosophy of deontology as an alternative means of evaluating the resolution you canfollow the footnote to read a comprehensive explanation of the position.1 The kinds of argumentsthat can occur with a deontological lens include discussions that putting a price tag on sufferingis never justified and instead creates a precedent that future oppression can occur as long as thereis redress in the future in the form of payment.

2.6 FinalThoughts

This resolutionwill test even themost seasoned debaters, and I have no doubt that new argumentswill be broken as the two months progress. While I hope that those who strive for competitivesuccess may achieve it, I want to once again stress two things. First, this is an opportunity to learnmore about issues that are pervasive yet under-covered, so research for both your cases but alsoyour general knowledge. Second, even if competition is your priority, please do not let that cloudyour judgment when it comes to using harmful rhetoric. As a community, we should strive tohave civil and productive discussions, not hateful or harmful conversations.

1Deontological Ethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University, 12 Dec. 2012. Web. 27 Aug.2015. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/

14



3 Argument Guides by Abraham Fraifeld

Abraham Fraifeld competed for Trinity Prep in Winter Park for four years. Overthe course of his career, he accumulated 12 TOC bids and advanced to five finalrounds. In 2014, Fraifeld coached a Walt Whitman Public Forum squad that woneight tournaments, including a close out of the TOC. He currently attends George-town University.

3.1 Introduction

Before diving into arguments, lets lay out a few observations about the topic, which is Resolved:The United States Federal Government ought to pay reparations to African Americans.

Two things to note.

First, ought is a buzzword. Most public forum debate resolutions ask whether an actor shoulddo something, or whether an actions benefits outweigh its costs. While theres no real denotativedifference between the words should and ought, the debate community has assigned conven-tional significance to the latter. In PF, most resolutions lend themselves to debates that assumea decision making paradigm roughly following pragmatic utilitarianism (i.e. every weighable ar-gument links back to lives and/or money). But ought encourages debaters to explore differentparadigms and think deeply about governmentsmoral obligations. So, the strongest debaters willbuild frameworks that describe governmental morality before diving into the reparations debate.

Second, while the resolution is large, most affirmative advocacies will likely be small. In a forth-coming article for Briefly (the Victory Briefs blog), I track PF rules and resolution writing trendsand argue that the way topics are being writtenmakes the events rules nearly meaningless. Essen-tially, while debate topics are getting more and more general, the events rules have been strippeddown to the essentials - what a resolution is, the time allocations and expectations for each speechand crossfire, and a rule prohibiting plans. But how can this resolution be debated without a spe-cific advocacy? And what even constitutes a formalized proposal? Even teams advocating torepair for slavery, the most commonly written about argument on the topic, will be making the

15




resolution far smaller than it initially appears. And negative teams will likely press the affirmativeto provide a model for reparations (cash? entrepeneurship superfund? schools?) because with-out this specification, the con will argue, pro cannot solve the problems they claim reparationswill solve.

Resolutions used to be far more specific. Take the NFL Nationals 2006 topic, Resolved: That theUnited States government should ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Or November 2008, Resolved: Thatthe United States government should implement universal health care modeled after the Frenchsystem. Or January 2009, Resolved: That, by 2040, the federal government should mandate thatall new passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in the United States be powered by alternativefuels.

These topics specify a plan for the affirmative to advocate. In an event that outlaws plans in one ofits three rules, the old resolutionsmake formuch cleaner andmore productive debates. So I arguethat either resolutions need to be written as they once were, or the plan rule should be rolled backor seriously clarified. Debaters will have to tip-toe around this regulation for September-October,so I thought Id detail how I forsee those debates going in an argument guide for the Pro.

3.2 Argument Guide 1: Plans?

The typical affirmative case will be structured as follows: Framework (what principles ought gov-ernments to follow?), Injustice (problem), Reparation (solvency). Some affirmative cases willhide behind the conventions of PF and skip framework. Others will use the rules of PF to theiradvantage and skip solvency, claiming that providing solvency would constitute providing a plan,while avoiding many of the disadvantages the negative specifies.

But for those who want to build a more conventional case, there are two opportunities for plans,as understood by the typical PF judge. The first is at the injustice level: who should be providedreparations? Descendants of the victims of slavery? Victims of Jim Crow? African Americanvictims of police brutality? The resolution does not ask the affirmative to provide reparations forall African Americans, which means the affirmative can make the topic far smaller by advocatingreparations for a specific injustice.

Theother opportunity, as is normally the case, is at the solvency level. While argument guides laterin this file will describe in detail some of themore popular solvencymechanisms, this section willhelp debaters handle the prior, often overlooked debate: ismaking the topic smaller even allowed?

16




3.2.1 Predictive Advocacy AFF

Our argument is not a plan, it is a predictive advocacy. Prefer the affirmative advocacy becausethe CON specifies disadvantages of a particular plan (ex. monetary reparations for slavery, moreon this below) that has little to no chance of being implemented if you treat an affirmative ballotas a policy directive. If politically plausible policies exist within the scope of resolution, neitherside should advocacte for or against policies that wont be considered in the status quo.

This restricts the debate to legislation with public support. More sneakily, it restricts debate toplans that havent been proven divisive because they havnet been talked about much. Thoughin order to avoid the obvious answer this would be divisive if ANYBODY TALKED ABOUT ITIN PUBLIC, affirmatives should prove that there is a reasonable chance of the policy not beingtoo divisive for Congress. Using this, the affirmative could advocate for particular plans (medicalvouchers, community building, etc.) for victims of very particular injustices.

A couple of predictive advocacies

Here are two nascent ideas to build on.

A) According to the Sentencing Project, not only are African Americans are disporportion-ately represented in prisons, they are also disporportionately proven innocent after beingruled guilty.

In 2008, 38 percent of state and federal prisoners were Black compared to 34 percentof Whites. Yet, Blacks accounted for 50 percent of the exonerations while Whitesaccounted for 38 percent of the false convictions. Negatives could try to argue thatAfricanAmerican exoneration indicates that people areworking hard to helpAfricanAmericans, and the fact that many they go free is enough.

But as FreddieAllen ofDistrict Chronicles, citing SamuelGross of theUniversity ofMichigan LawSchool notes, an enormous percentage of false conviction goes under the radar, and exoneration,when it happens, is rarely immediate.

In most cases we never learn about them. University of Michigan law professorSamuel Gross, editor of the registry, said: The defendants serve their time and try toput it behind them or die in prison. In those cases that we do we find out about yearsafter the fact, sometimes decades after the fact, its very hard to go back and figure out

17




what happened.1 The article goes on to tell the story of Edward Carter, one of thehundreds who were freed after serving time for crimes they didnt commit. Edwardspent 35 years in prison.

Repairing for this at the Federal level is arguably polictically plausible. Twenty four states alreadyoffer reparations to the wrongly imprisoned according to CNN2. Almost any framework describ-ing governmental morality would dictate that governments ought to do this.

B) Recent events have highlighted police brutalitys prevalence. And there is precedent forreparations. This year, the City of Chicago granted $5.5 million in reparations to victimsof Police Commander John Burges reign of terror. Next City reports,

From 1972 to 1991, over 100 suspects, mostly African-American males, were tor-tured and forced into confessions by Burge and officers under his command. JoeyMogul, an attorney for the Peoples LawOffice, the firm representing the victims, saidthere are at least 118 victims, many of whom were not guilty of the crimes they werecoerced into confessing. At the council vote, Mayor Rahm Emanuel thanked the vic-tims and their families for their persistence in fighting for what was right. Whathappened here in this action today is that Chicago finally will confront its past anxdcome to terms with it, Emanuel said. This stain cannot be removed from our historybut it can be used as a lesson of what not to do and the responsibility that all of ushave.3

President Obama seems determined to do something about police brutality. He proposed a $263million DOJ allocation to improving local Law Enforcement Agencies.

TheWhite House factsheet on the proposal read,

In August, President Obama ordered a review of federal funding and programs thatprovide equipment to state and local law enforcement agencies (LEAs). Today, theObama Administration released its Review: Federal Support for Local Law Enforce-ment Equipment Acquisition, and the President is also taking a number of steps tostrengthen community policing and fortify the trust that must exist between law en-forcement officers and the communities they serve. By some definitions, even this

1Allen, Freddie. 2012. Half Of Wrongfully Convicted Are Black, New Study Shows. DistrictChronicles. http://www.districtchronicles.com/news/view.php/426705/Half-of-wrongfully-convicted-are-Black-n# .UgjtxKxqPe4

2CNN. 2012. WrongfulConvictionCompensation Statutes. http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/03/us/table.wrongful.convictions/3Stanley, Jenn. 2015.Chicago Makes History With $5.5M In Reparations For Police Brutality Case. Next City.https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/chicago-pays-reparations-police-brutality-case-burge

White House. 2014. FACT SHEET: Strengthening Community Policing. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/12/01/fact-sheet-strengthening-community-policing

18




plan could constitute a reparation. Leading reparations scholar Alfred Brophy wrotethat reparations can be thought of as programs that are justified on the basis of pastharm and that are also designed to assess and correct that harm and/or improve thelives of victims into the future. Under this definition, couldnt police training be areparation?

Using Predictive Advocacy to Answer Disadvantages of Slavery Reparations

Estimates vary, but overwhelmingly, whites do not support cash reparations. Alfred Brophy ofthe University of Dayton wrote,

When the Mobile Register polled Alabama citizens on the issue of reparations in thesummer of 2002, it found that the question of reparations was the most racially divi-sive issue since it began polling. (See Table 1.) The differences between whites andblacks outstripped even the gap seen during the civil rights struggle over integration.Why is it that only five percent of white Alabamians support reparations for slavery,while sixty-seven percent of black Alabamians support them? Why did some whitesbecome so enraged at the mere suggestion of reparations that they could not com-plete the survey? Lest one think that Alabama is out-of-step with attitudes in theUnited States, that racial gap is fairly constant nationwide.According to a study byHarvard University and the University of Chicago that researchers reported in thespring of 2003, only four percent of whites support reparations payments.

To further demonstrate that legislation tied to slavery reparations will not pass in the status quo,since 1989, Rep. John Conyers has failed to generate support for HR 40, his legislation that wouldset up a comission to study the impact of slavery. OurCongress cannot even get behind legislationto study slavery. As Nkechi Tarifa, who helped found NCOBRA noted, People who talk aboutreparations are considered left lunatics. But all we are talking about is studying [reparations]. AsJohn Conyers has said, we study everything. We study the water, the air. We cant even studythe issue? This bill does not authorize one red cent to anyone. GovTrack gives HR40 a bigfat 0 percent chance of passing this session of Congress. So, the affirmative could easily avoid

Brophy, Alfred L. 2006. Reparations: pro & con. Oxford [England]: Oxford University Press.Alfred L. Brophy, The Cultural War over Reparations for Slavery, 53 DePaul Law Review 1181-1213, 1182-1184(Spring 2004) http://academic.udayton.edu/race/02rights/repara29a.htm

Coates, Ta-Nehisi. 2014. The Case For Reparations. The Atlantic.http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/.

H.R. 40: Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act. GovTrack.https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr40

19




the reparations for slavery debate (the debate the negative will be most prepared to debate) byclaiming the predictive advocacy high ground. One could say something like this:

The disadvantages of monetary reparations for slavery are not reasons to vote Confor two reasons. First, we arent advocating for monetary reparations for slavery. Ifyou accept their arguments, you are allowing them to force us to advocate a plan thatis not inherent to the resolution. This is majorly unfair. Second, there is no reason tobelieve that the pro world includes reparations for slavery. We have laid out a crystalclear prediction of the affirmative world. It includes [whatever the aff advocates], butit doesnt include monetary reparations for slavery. So the cons arguments againstmonetary reparations for slavery are not reasons to reject the pro world.

3.2.2 These are just examples AFF

What if running multiple plans allows the AFF to skirt the plans rule? Seems messed up, but thisis how most plan/anti-plan debates get resolved on the circuit:

AFF: We advocate medical vouchers as reparations.

NEG: THATS A PLANILLEGAL

Alternatively,

AFF: We advocate monetary reparations for slavery, medical vouchers, communitybuilding, and police training.

NEG: (Pulls out the answers to the various plans), and by the way these areplans/illegal.

AFF: They arent plans, theyre examples of reparations. We cant predict which onewill get passed, so we decided to give the judge a menu, each of which is indepen-dently enough to affirm.

Needless to say, LDers would drop damning theory on this sort of argumentation. As will beexplained in the answers to plans, this strategy skews ground so heavily to the affirmative that itshould be illegal. Imagine having to speak first on the negative against a case like this, and noneof the criticisms leveled against reparations apply to the specific plans the affirmative advocates!That would be tragic. Fortunately, this strategy is easy to flag as unfair.

20




3.2.3 Four Answers to Plans

Two General Answers

First, according to the NSDA, In Public Forum Debate, the Association defines a plan or coun-terplan as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. Neither the pro or con sideis permitted to offer a plan or counterplan; rather, they should offer reasoning to support a posi-tion of advocacy. Debaters may offer generalized, practical solutions. It is certainly possible todiscuss reparations in the general sense. We know because experts have done it. Brophy writes,even one of the most recent major books on this topic, Raymond A. Winbushs Should AmericaPay? has hundreds of pages of discussion on whether the U.S. government and corporationsshould pay reparations but very little discussion on what they would pay, if they were going to doso, or of the form the reparations would take.1

Second, since nothing in the rules or conventions of PF grants the affirmative the power to winoff of the advantages of a particular advocacy, if that power is granted to the affirmative, it shouldalso be given to the negative. For example, if the affirmative preaches the advantages of medicalvouchers, and the negative argues againstmonetary reparations for slavery, the affirmative cannotsimply dismiss the negatives argument because it doesnt interact with their advocacy (a commonstrategy among plan-running affirmatives). If the affirmative wins that vouchers are good and thenegative wins that monetary reparations for slavery are bad, then we both ought to and ought notto provide reparations. The best way to avoid this potential irresolvability is to drop the planprivilege all together.

AT: Predictive Advocacy

There is no way for our opponents to predict the future, so they cannot claim that they are per-forming predictive advocacy. Even experts cannot do this. According to John Lehrer of WiredMagazine,

Thedismal performance of these pundits inspired Tetlock to turn his small case studyin to an epic experimental project. He picked a few hundred political experts peo-ple whomade their living commenting or offering advice on political and economictrends and began asking them to make predictions about future events. He had a

National Tournament Operations Manual. National Speech and Debate Association.2015. http://www.speechanddebate.org/DownloadHandler.ashx?File=/userdocs/publicDocs/2014-15_National_Tournament_Operations_Manual.pdf

1Brophy, Alfred L. 2006. Reparations: pro & con. Oxford [England]: Oxford University Press, pp. 17

21




long list of pertinent questions. Would George Bush be re-elected? Would there bea peaceful end to apartheid in South Africa? Would Quebec secede from Canada?Would the dot-com bubble burst? In each case, the pundits were asked to rate theprobability of several possible outcomes. Tetlock then interrogated the pundits abouttheir thought process, so that he could better understand how they made up theirminds. After Tetlock tallied up the data, the predictive failures of the pundits be-came obvious. Although they were paid for their keen insights into world affairs,they often performed worse than random chance. Most of Tetlocks questions hadthree possible answers; the pundits, on average, selected the right answer less than33 percent of the time. In other words, a dart-throwing chimp would have beatenthe vast majority of professionals.11

The takeaway is that the predictive advocacy strategy is a farce. The Pro cannot prove that theiradvocacy will materialize, nor can they prove that the negatives disadvantages wont come tofruition. Nate Silver of FiveThiryEight writes in his bookThe Signal and the Noise, A long-termstudy by Phillip E. Tetlock of the University of Pennsylvania found that when political scientistsclaimed a political outcome had absolutely no chance of occuring, it nevertheless happened 15percent of the time.12

AT: Examples

First, if the affirmative advocates multiple plans, theyre almost certainly underdeveloped andvulnurable. Many will fall under even minimal scruitiny.

Second, they argue that each of their plans independently affirms. This is unfair because it makesthe debate irreciprocal. The affirmative only needs to win one of their underdeveloped arguments,whereas the negative has to answer all of themback andwin an argument in its own right. Debatesneed to be reciprocal to be fair. Their strategy structurally increases the likelihood that they winwithout exercising better skills. Reciprocal debates are more educational because they produceproductive discussions instead of dwelling in underdeveloped and petty mini-advocacies that arespecifically designed to avoid clash.

11Lehrer, Jonah. 2015. Do Political Experts Know What Theyre Talking About?. WIRED.http://www.wired.com/2011/08/do-political-experts-know-what-theyre-talking-about/.

12Silver, Nate. 2012. The signal and the noise: why so many predictions failbut some dont. New York: PenguinPress.

22




3.3 Argument Guide 2: Rawls

Starting here, I will essentially draft contentions and provide answers to someof those contentionsspecifics.

Theword ought in the resolution asks us to consider what is right for a government to do. MartinCarcieri writes in the Michigan Journal of Race and Law

On this foundation, Rawls erects Justice as Fairness. His architectonic theory, on thescale of Platos Republic, Aristotles Politics, and Kants Critique of Pure Reason, isframed for a democratic society30 and consists of a cluster of related ideas. For thepresent, six of the most basic will suffice: the original position, the veil of ignorance,the two principles of justice, their lexical ordering, the basic structure, and the fourstage sequence. Since the original position is where the bargaining game takesplace, let us begin there.13

Rawls argues that through thought experiments, we can conceptualize justice. The original po-sition is a theoretical pre-world state of nature that features nameless creatures who know factsabout basic economics, sociology, and the like, but who do not know anybody in particularssituation. They are constructing the worlds social and economic legal infrastructure under theveil of ignorance. Rawls deduces that benevolent self interest in this position would produce twoprinciples of justice. Martin Carcieri, again in the Michigan Journal of Race and Law:

The first is the equal liberty principle, which is Rawlss foundational constitutionalnorm. It provides that [e]ach person is to have an equal right to the most extensivetotal system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty forall. 41 It is not surprising that such a principle would emerge, for liberty is thegoal of democracy while equality is its concep- tion of justice.42 In final form, thesecond principle provides that [s]ocial and economic inequalities are to satisfy twoconditions: first, they are to be attached to offices and positions open to all underconditions of fair equality of opportunity; and second, they are to be to the greatestbenefit of the least-advantaged members of society.1

Thus, if reparations level the liberty playing field or alleviate the burdens of economic inequalityfor the least well off, then they ought to be paid.

This concludes the framework section. On to the Injustice portion of the case.

13Carcieri, Martin D. Rawls and reparations. 15 Mich. J. Race & L. 267-316 (2010).1Ibid

23




We argue that one source of illiberty and suffering for the least well off is the war on drugs.

Michelle Alexander, author of the New Jim Crow, writes,

Thedrugwar has been brutal completewith SWAT teams, tanks, bazookas, grenadelaunchers, and sweeps of entire neighborhoods but those who live in white com-munities have little clue to the devastation wrought. This war has been waged almostexclusively in poor communities of color, even though studies consistently show thatpeople of all colors use and sell illegal drugs at remarkably similar rates. In fact, somestudies indicate that white youth are significantly more likely to engage in illegaldrug dealing than black youth. Any notion that drug use among African Americansis more severe or dangerous is belied by the data. White youth, for example, haveabout three times the number of drug-related visits to the emergency room as theirAfrican American counterparts.1

Alexander further explains the impact.

There are more African Americans under correctional control today in prison orjail, on probation or parole than were enslaved in 1850, a decade before the CivilWar began. As of 2004, more African American men were disenfranchised (due tofelon disenfranchisement laws) than in 1870, the year the Fifteenth Amendment wasratified, prohibiting laws that explicitly deny the right to vote on the basis of race. Ablack child born today is less likely to be raised by both parents than a black childborn during slavery. The recent disintegration of the African American family is duein large part to the mass imprisonment of black fathers.1

Incarceration takes productive members out of communities and facilitates the continuation ofthe cycle of poverty. Rawlsian thought would reject the war on drugs and support reparations tocorrect the imbalances it has left in its wake.

On to the reparations

We advocate three reparations to correct this problem.

First, the government should erect a War on Drugs truth commission. Brophy clarifies topicality

Phrased another way, reparations include truth commissions that document thehistory of racial crimes and the current liability for those crimes, apologies that ac-

1Alexander, Michelle. 2010. The New Jim Crow: How The War On Drugs Gave Birth To A Permanent AmericanUndercaste. The Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelle-alexander/the-new-jim-crow-how-the_b_490386.html.

1Ibid

24




knowledge liability, and payments to settle those accounts.1 These truth comissionswill reveal the extent of damage done to minority communities.

Zak Cheney-Rice writes for Mic,

Alexander suggests we begin with Truth and Reconciliation hearings, similar tothose held in post-apartheid South Africa. Designed to elicit truth about the pastrather than sweeping it under the rug, thesemeasures allow perpetrators and victimsalike to publicly acknowledge the legacy of national tragedies. Such hearings are animportant first step in what will be a long healing process.1

Second, since community rehabilitation requires members to be present, President Obama oughtto pardon victims of theWar on Drugs. TheGreen Party of New Yorks platform advocates, Free-dom and amnesty for all drug war prisoners currently serving time in prison or on parole fornonviolent drug offenses, and 79 percent of Texans and 73 percent of Floridians support it.1President Obama granted clemency to 46 non-violent offenders earlier this year, and many pre-dict more is to come.

The LA Times reported,

These men and women were not violent criminals their punishments didnt fitthe crime, Obama said in a Facebook video postedMonday that showed him signingthe commutations. I believe that America, at its heart, is a nation of second chances,and I believe these folks deserve their second chance.2 (ellipses in original.)

Third, victims should be given the right to pursue a college education. Howie Hawkins of theNew York Green Party writes,

Every person in prison and on parole should have the opportunity to further his orher education, whether its a GED program or a higher education program. Earlierthis year Governor Cuomo abandoned a plan to provide public money for collegecourses at 10 prisons. Education reduces recidivism. As an example, Ohio reducedrecidivism rates bymore than 60 percent among ex-inmates who completed a degreein prison. We know that more than 50 percent of incarcerated people have children.

1Brophy, Alfred L. 2006. Reparations: pro & con. Oxford [England]: Oxford University Press, pp. 9-101Cheney-Rice, Zak. 2014. There Should Be Payback To The Victims Of The Governments Mindless War

On Drugs. Mic. http://mic.com/articles/85529/there-should-be-payback-to-the-victims-of-the-government-s-mindless-war-on-drugs

1Redmond, Helen. 2014. Should the Victims of the War on Drugs Receive Reparations? Pacific Standard.http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/victims-war-drugs-receive-reparations-93194

2Phelps, Timothy, and Colin Diersing. 2015. Obama Grants Clemency To 46 Nonviolent Drug Offenders.http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-commutations-20150713-story.html

25




When parents participate in post-secondary education, the likelihood their childrenwill go to college increases, creating more opportunities to climb out of poverty.21

3.3.1 AT: War on Drugs as an Injustice

CON: Though it disproportionately affects African Americans, the war on drugs isnt just an ex-clusively black issue. In fact, in 2011, the amount of white and hispanic drug offenders was greaterthan the amount of black offenders.22 Perhaps the affirmative is right that war on drugs victimsshould be provided reparations, but that is a different resolution.

AFF ANSWER: The war on drugs disproportionately affects African Americans and is creditedwith black disenfranchisement and a continuation of the cycle of poverty. There is no doubt thatthe war on drugs holds back African American advancement. More technically, the resolutiondoes not ask the affirmative to defend reparations for African Americans and nobody else. Af-firming does not mean that other victims of the war on drugs do not deserve reparations.

3.3.2 AT: Truth Commissions

First, even their advocates concede they arent reparations.

Hawkins of the New York Green Party writes,

The commission would be modeled after a South African commission establishedfollowing apartheid. It would investigate the ways the states drug policies and jus-tice system have led to high incarceration rates. In particular, it would assess thedevastating impact on black and Latino communities. It would hear from the peo-ple most directly affected and recommend alternatives to mass incarceration. Andit would look at reparations for the communities impacted.23

These commissions are meant to analyze reparations options. They arent reparations themselves.

Second, the South African experience with Truth and Reconciliation Comissions has not beenpositive. Jason Le Grange of The Institute for Upskill and Development writes,


22Carson, Ann and Gollineli Daniella. 2012. Prisoners in 2012 - Advance Counts. Bureau of Justice Statistics.http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p12ac.pdf


26




Elizabeth Stanley (2001, p.541) evaluated the TRC and summed up her findingsthat, Yet, with no real change in social conditions and no clear attempt to addressperceptions of injustice and exclusion amongst certain groups, the TRC has lost itsimpact. Stanley documented an in-depth evaluation of the TRC and believes thatthe experience has failed and has not brought about the reconciliation which wasone of its primary goals. UnlikeMinow, who looked at the overall objectives of truthcommissions and their efficacy, Stanley argues that the reality of holding those whoare accountable and achieving real engagement with the victims has not been ful-filled in South Africa. For Stanley (2001, p.527), The TRC is demonstrated to haveprovided a partial truth, not only because of the Commissions limitedmandate to ex-amine gross human rights violations, but negotiation employed by those who gaveevidence. Stanley (2001) further argues that the TRC was flawed to begin with asthe focus had a limited mandate: With a mandate to deal principally with gross vio-lations of human rights, the result of government imposed restrictions on the Com-missions reporting time and finances, the TRC was never in a position to record thefull truth of South African life. (p. 530) Those implicated by the TRC are still in po-sitions of power (Stanley, 2001, p.536) and those that should have been supported asvictims of state crime have not received reparation (p.537).2

3.3.3 Aff Answers

Truth commissions are topical. Brophy,

Harvard Law School Professor Charles Ogletree, a leader of the Reparations Co-ordinating Committee, a group of lawyers and social scientists whose goal is to co-ordinate reparations lawsuits and political activism, has recently emphasized fourfeatures of reparations: 1. A focus on the past to account for the present 2. A focuson the present, to reveal the continuing existence of race-based discrimination 3. Anaccounting of the past harms or injuries that have not been compensated 4. A chal-lenge to society to devise ways to respond as a whole to the uncompensated harmsidentified in the past16 Ogletree sees acceptance, acknowledgment, and account-ing as central elements of reparations.17[[Brophy, Alfred L. 2006. Reparations:pro & con. Oxford [England]: Oxford University Press., 9].

2le Grange, Jason. 2014. The Truth and reconciliation Comission: Did it Fail to Resolve Con-flict Between South Africans?. Program in Negotiation, Conflict Resolution and Peacebuilding.http://www.ejournalncrp.org/the-truth-and-reconciliation-commission-did-it-fail-to-resolve-conflict-between-south-africans/# sthash.gCc0gMYD.dpuf

27




No matter what people say or imply, the leading reparations advocate in the world says truthcommissions are reparations.

In South Africa, there were problems with the implementation of the truth commission. Thecommission as a concept was not the problem. Le Grange of The Institute for Upskill and Devel-opment (South Africa),

Further confirmation [of the TRCs failures] came from the 2nd Annual DesmondTutu International Lecture delivered by Graca Machel in 2012 who pointed out thatSouth Africa had still not healed after the end of apartheid and participation in theTRC. As Machel notes, South African society is violent, intolerant, accusatory andangry because it has failed to address the emotionalmutilationwrought by apartheid.Machel recommended additional TRCs to continue dealing with these issues.2

Moreover, theUnited States experiencewith TruthCommissions ismarkedly different than SouthAfricas. In Maine, where Native Americans faced intolerable discrimination and the forced re-moval of children from Wabanaki homes, Governor Paul LePage to establish[ed] a truth com-mission to investigate and document intergenerational trauma within tribal communities.2

The International Center for Transitional Justice compliments the Governors work, Since beingseated, the fiveCommissioners have beenmeeting regularlywithWabanaki communities,MainesDepartment of Health and Human Services, and non-native community members. Performanceand oral storytelling, as integral parts of Wabanaki history and culture, are essential componentsof the tribal-led TRC process. One tribal member noted, Having a place where my voice can beheard has changed my life dramatically, helping me to heal and giving me the strength to forgive.I still struggle to find a place in this world where I feel I belong. I believe I will find that place ofbelonging when I let people see who I really am, not only the truth of what has been done to mebut what I have done to others. By acknowledging and sharing my truth, taking responsibilityand seeking forgiveness, I can show my beautiful children, my family and my people that we canrestore our hearts, minds and souls. And the Center concludes, Though the Commission isfocused with investigating only one aspect of the experience of Maines indigenous nations, itscontribution can be significant beyond an examination of the child welfare system, encouragingfuture efforts to look into structural, historical wrongs.2

2le Grange, Jason. 2014. The Truth and reconciliation Comission: Did it Fail to Resolve Con-flict Between South Africans?. Program in Negotiation, Conflict Resolution and Peacebuilding.http://www.ejournalncrp.org/the-truth-and-reconciliation-commission-did-it-fail-to-resolve-conflict-between-south-africans/# sthash.gCc0gMYD.dpuf

2International Center for Transitional Justice. 2014. Maines Indigenous Truth Commission Marks First Year.https://www.ictj.org/news/maines-indigenous-truth-commission-marks-first-year

2Ibid

28




3.4 Argument Guide 3: Utilitarianism and the Benefits of Education

(Again) The word ought in the resolution asks us to consider what is right for a governmentto do. We argue that the government should seek to maximize net benefits also known as posi-tive utilitarianism, while minimizing suffering, known as negative utilitarianism. Governmentsshould follow these rules for two reasons.

First, any moral theory that conflicts with utilitarianism arbitrarily assigns more importance toone persons interests over anothers. Singer writes,

The universal aspect of ethics, I suggest, does provide a persuasive, although not con-clusive, reason for taking a broadly utilitarian position. My reason for suggestingthis is as follows. In accepting that ethical judgments must be made from a univer-sal point of view, I am accepting that my own interests cannot, simply because theyare my interests, count more than the interests of anyone else. Thus my very naturalconcern that my own interests be looked after must, when I think ethically, be ex-tended to the interests of others. Now, imagine that I am trying to decide betweentwo possible courses of action perhaps whether to eat all the fruits I have collectedmyself, or to share them with others. Imagine, too, that I am deciding in a completeethical vacuum, that I know nothing of any ethical considerations I am, we mightsay, in a pre-ethical stage of thinking. How would I make up my mind? One thingthat would be still relevant would be how the possible courses of action will affect myinterests. Indeed, if we define interests broadly enough, so that we count anythingpeople desire as in their interests (unless it is incompatible with another desire ordesires), then it would seem that at this pre-ethical stage, only ones own interestscan be relevant to the decision. Suppose I then begin to think ethically, to the extentof recognizing that my own interests cannot count for more, simply because they aremy own, than the interests of others. In place of my own interests, I now have to takeinto account the interests of all those affected by my decision. This requires me toweigh up all these interests and adopt the course of action most likely to maximizethe interests of those affected.2

Second is the argument from necessity.

Goodin writes,

Public officials are obliged to make their choices under uncertainty, and this uncer-tainty is a very special sort at that. All choices- public or private alike - are made

2Singer, Peter. Practical Ethics, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, 1993, pp. 13-14

29




under some degree of uncertainty, of course. But in the nature of things, private in-dividuals will usually have more complete information on the peculiarities of theirown circumstances and on the ramifications that alternative possible choices mighthave for them. Public officials, in contrast are relatively poorly informed as to theeffects that their choices will have on individuals, one by one. What they typically doknown are generalities: averages and aggregates. They know what will happen mostoften to most people as a result of their various possible choices. But that is all. Thatis enough to allow public policy-makers to use the utilitarian calculus - if they wantto use it at all - to choose general rules of conduct. Knowing aggregates and aver-ages, they can proceed to calculate the utility payoffs from adopting each alternativepossible general rule. But they cannot be sure what the payoff will be to any given in-dividual on any particular occasion. Their knowledge of generalities, aggregates andaverages is just not sufficiently fine-grained for that. For example, consider the caseof compulsory seat belt legislation. Policy-makers can say that with with some con-fidence that, on aggregate, more lives will be saved than lost if all automobile driversand passengers are required to wear seat belts. As always that aggregate conceals thefact that some gain while others lose. Some people would be trapped by seat belts infiery crashes who otherwise would have been thrown to safety by the force o impact,after all.2

So, if the affirmative demonstrates that reparations maximize net benefits for the United States,an affirmative ballot is line.

Side note: Under this framework, identifying an injustice doesnt bolster the case because the gov-ernment should act to maximize net benefits going forward regardless of past action.

White-black inequality is pervasive and results in extensive suffering. CNN reports that medianwhite family wealth is over 10 times that of the median black family. Black unemployment andpoverty rates are more than double white rates, and whites own homes at a rate 29 percentagepoints higher than blacks.3

These metrics translate to worse black quality (and ultimately lower quantity) of life. Poor accessto healthcare combined with a number of external health factors adversley affect black wellbeing.Smedley et. al. of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies write, 50% of black neigh-borhoods lack access to a full service grocery store or supermarket. Further 56% of residents

2Goodin, Robert. Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp. 63-643Luhby, Tami. 2015. 5 Disturbing Stats On Black-White Financial Inequality. CNN Money.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/21/news/economy/black-white-inequality/.

30




in neighborhoods with commercial hazardous waste facilities are people of color.31 Moreover,James Smith calculated that in the US, The fraction in excellent or very good health in the topincome quartile is often 40 percentage points larger than the fraction in those health groups in thelowest income quartile.32. Ultimately, a CDC reports found, The researchers found that whitemen with 16 ormore years of schooling can expect to live an average of 14 years longer than blackmen with fewer than 12 years of education 33

Education is another area for improvement.

Again, Smedley et. al. of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies,

Poor andminority school districts recieve less funding, have larger class sizes, worseinfrastrucutre, and more non-credentialed teachers than white districts, but fiftyyears after the Brown decision, thre resegregation of our schools continues through-out the country. According to a 2007 Civil Rights Project study,Children in theUnited States schools are much poorer than they were decades ago and more sepa-rated in highly unequal schools.3

Mckinsey and Company calculates, >If the gap between low-income students and the rest hadbeen similarly narrowed, GDP in 2008 would have been $400 billion to $670 billion higher, or 3 to5 percent of GDP. Further, If the gap between black and Latino student performance and whitestudent performance had been similarly narrowed, GDP in 2008 would have been between $310billion and $525 billion higher, or 2 to 4 percent of GDP.Themagnitude of this impact will rise inthe years ahead as demographic shifts result in blacks and Latinos becoming a larger proportionof the population and workforce.3

In addition to addressing shortages in food options and obvious problems with neighborhoodquality, African Americans deserve better education to break to cycle of poverty. Two proposals.First the US Federal Government ought to focus on improving school infrastructure and pay toattract better teachers to areas that need them. According to the Rand Corporation,

31Brian Smedley, Michael Jeffries, Larry Adelman and Jean Cheng. Race, Racial In-equality and Health Inequities: Separating Myth from Fact. California Newsreel.http://www.unnaturalcauses.org/assets/uploads/file/Race_Racial_Inequality_Health.pdf

32Smith, James P. (2004) : Unraveling the SES health connection, IFSWorking Papers, Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS),No. 04/02, http://dx.doi.org/10.1920/ wp.ifs.2004.0402

33Friedman, Lauren. This Chart ShowingThe Gap Between Black AndWhite Life Expectancy Should Be A NationalEmbarrassment. Business Insider. http://www.businessinsider.com/huge-racial-gap-in-life-expectancy-2014-1#ixzz3kEw4MTZm

3Brian Smedley, Michael Jeffries, Larry Adelman and Jean Cheng. Race, Racial In-equality and Health

Documents

Victory Briefs