LatCrit 1nc - Open Evidence Project

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 1

LatCrit 1nc Dominant paradigms of economic and legal analysis are unidimensional, but Latina/o identity is multidimensional. The Latina/o encounter with the law and economics is thus one of vivisection and violence. HERNANDEZ-TRUYOL 97 [72 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 882 (1997), BORDERS (EN)GENDERED: NORMATIVITIES, LATINAS, AND A LATCRIT PARADIGM] Latinas/os do a lot of world traveling, with Latinas additionally journeying through the mundos of gender inequality.4 We travel be- tween our various and varied multiple worlds, psychic and physicalfrom casa y familia to calle y trabajo; from espafiol to ingles to espanglish; from tta to lawyer; from hija to profesora; from normadva to outsider. We weave our way, as we weave our hair, in and out of passages that we inhabit, being a little alien everywhere.5 As a Latina law professor,6 I am used to traversing mundos, yet rarely do they so visually, physically, intellectually, and emotionally converge/collide as they did at a recent meeting of Latina/o lawyers, students, and law professors that took place in Miami, Florida-iome to much of my familia, including mami y papi. My multidimensional identity, the complicated pathway between/among my mundos-pathways that constantly intersect, flow, and clash-is the channel for this Essay. Such world traveling is not unique to me. Rather, it is a common daily experience for all Latinas/os in the United States by virtue of our status as Latinas/os. We are the interdependent intersections of our race, gender, color, ethnicity, nationality, ancestry, culture, and language. Our multilingualism is defined not by the languages we literally speak (in fact, many of us speak only Spanish or only English) but instead by virtue of the worlds we inhabit, the journeys we take. This multidimensionality of Latinas/os is in tension with the dominant legal paradigms that take a single-attribute, analytical approach to identity. The dominant model, for example, presupposes a monolithic racial or sexual identity "that can be described independent of other facets of experience."'7 Such essentializing of identity is inap- propriate for Latinas/os whose multidimensionality is central to their personhood. Because this existing methodology vivisects and atomizes the Latina/ o identity, it is necessary for Latinas/os to deconstruct the normative paradigm/rule of law, expose its limitations in re/presenting Latinas/os, and reject it for its flawed foundation that misapprehends the Latina/o. Latinas/os must also create nuevas teorfas (new theories) that understand, penetrate, define, and elucidate the content and meaning of our multidimensional identities and develop, expand, and transform the construct in such a way that translates, incorporates, and realizes Latinas'/os' worldviews. The promise of a LatCrit theoretical model lies in its ability to debunk the ineffectual dominant model, as applied specifically to the Latina/o position and condition under "American" 9 law and within "American" society, and to create nuevas teor(as. This Essay, developed in a prologue and three parts, adopts Latinas'/ os' world traveling as a metaphor for Latina/o multidimensionality and as a springboard for LatCrit theorizing. The Prologue is a brief diary entry of unfin de semana viajando mundos-a weekend of actual traveling between New York and Miami; law and familia; profesora and learner; colleague and hija; espafiol and English; norte y sur; normativa and other; indigenous and alien. This abbreviated record of a Latina's life reveals, exposes, and unveils Latinas'/os' daily crossdressing simply by virtue of their latinidad. This Prologue thus serves as a concrete backdrop for the analytical, political, and theoretical points addressed in the remaining parts of this Essay which explores two sets of relationships vis-A-vis their significance to and impact on the development of LatCrit theory. The first link is the external relationship of Latinas/os to NLW10 normativity; the second is the internal relationship of Latinas to Latino normativity. Both of these

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 2

relationships are central to a LatCrit paradigm, as the "othering" effects of NLW normativity on all of La- tinas/os and of Latino normativity on Latinas must be confronted, deconstructed, and eliminated before a nonessentialist, inclusive theoretical model can be advanced. Part I uses narrative to compare and contrast NLW and Latina/o normativities of race, ethnicity, nationhood, and language. It exposes the race, color, ethnicity, gender, nationality, culture, and language fronteras Latinas/os must cross-the "othering" we experience-while traversing the world as defined by the dominant culture. This comparing and contrasting of Latina/o and "American" normativities in Part I defines the need for a LatCrit theoretical model that does not subordinate the Latina/o experience. In Part II this Essay exposes how Latinas' assorted deviations from the normative male prototype, combined with gendered Latino norms, including the gendered nature of the Spanish language adding to these internal boundaries and confines, multiplies their fronteras and complicates their journeys. The borderlands created for Latinas by the overlapping gender biases of the external "American" and internal Latino normativities, exacerbated by gendered cultural norms, underscore the need for the development of teortas that specifically will recognize, embrace, and espouse Latinas' identities, interests, and issues. LatCrit is a teoria that can address the concerns of Latinas in light of both our internal and external relationships in and with the worlds that have marginalized us. Finally, in Part II this Essay proposes a LatCrit theoretical model that uses Latina/o panethnicity, representative of race, gender, nationality, color, language, ethnicity, and cultural diversity, to stimulate and inspire the construction of a LatCrit matrix that places multidimensionality at the center of paradigm formation by plaiting a multicultural, multilingual, multiethnic fabric into its philosophy, construction, and logic. This model is important because it will recognize the multidimensionality of Latinas/os and the particular position of Latinas' dual relationship with the internal comunidad Latina and the external "American" culture in developing a discourse which incorporates our realities and identities. This proposal suggests that LatCrit theory adopt a construct based on indivisibility, inviolability, and interdependence of rights and identities. This model rejects the identity-as-atomized approach, adopting instead an approach that re/constructs, develops, expands, and transforms the existing dominant legal paradigm in an interpretation that accepts, incorporates, embraces, and enables Latina/o multidimensionality. This Essay concludes that such an aspirational LatCrit paradigm can transfigure the status of Latinas/os in the United States from marginal actors to protagonists in legal theorizing.

Economic engagement is a link. Economic analysis is not neutral – rather, it has already made decisions about which economic statuses and units matter for analysis that erase the multidimensionality of racial and gendered realities of poverty and economic exploitation. The affirmative occurs against a backdrop where all economic international institutions and legal framework stack the deck against racial minorities and the global South. Hernandez-Truyol et al., 06. Professor, University of Florida College of Law; Harris, Professor, University of California at Berkeley School of Law; Valdés, Professor, University of Miami School of Law (Berta, Angela, Francisco. 17 Berkeley La Raza L.J. 169 2006. Pg. 209-210. 7/2/13. KJ) From the LatCrit/CRT side of this convergence, interest in economics and class has manifested itself in two lines of scholarship, and perhaps an incipient third. First, many LatCrit/CRT scholars are beginning to utilize economic analysis in thinking about racial subordination. For years, the Supreme Court has directed the attention of civil rights scholars toward problems of intent. Thus, for example, cases like Feeney have required that plaintiffs prove intent to discriminate, or explicitly race-conscious action, in order to obtain strict scrutiny under the federal equal protection clause for government actions that create racialized effects. 58 The conscious intent test of the Equal Protection Clause has exerted a gravitational pull on judicial interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, even though Title VII as

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 3

originally enacted contemplated claims based on racial impact alone.159 In explaining why a singleminded focus on conscious intent is inadequate to root out racial injustice, some LatCrit/CRT scholars have turned to economic analysis as a theoretical framework. Economic analysis can show how even in the absence of conscious intent to discriminate, institutions can be racialized, particularly when the starting point is unequal distribution of economic and political resources on the basis of race. 160 Thus, economic analysis helps construct a useful theory of institutional racism. In addition, as LatCrit/CRT spreads to new fields, such as commercial law, tax, corporations and business law, and bankruptcy, scholars are beginning to piece together an understanding of how market institutions, state institutions, and civil society institutions work together through law in ways that perpetuate racial hierarchy.'1 61 A second line of LatCrit/CRT analysis emphasizes the critical tradition. Although economic analysis has long tried to portray itself as a neutral policy science, even some economists have recognized that economics is rhetoric like any other. 162 New avenues of economic analysis opened up by "the economics of identity,"'' 63 socio-economics,164 the new institutional economics,1 65 and behavioral economics 166 have also begun to mount an internal critique against classical microeconomics. This critique suggests that market actors are not always entirely rational and selfinterested: they may demonstrate systematic cognitive bias, they may act within institutions that have their own norms of behavior, and they sometimes act with self-understandings inconsistent with the singleminded goal of wealth maximization. LatCrit/CRT scholars have begun to join the project of reshaping economic analysis itself in order to take better account of the questions of meaning, identity, and subordination that pervade markets and class relations. 167

The alt is to politicize identity—making identity a question of ethnic struggle deessentializes identity critique and founds the possibility of a new intersectional identity politics aimed at recovering experiences erased by the unidimensional analyses of being championed by the status quo. Chang, Associate Professor at California Western School of Law, 97 [Robert S., Fall 1997, Harvard Latino Law Review, “Racial Cross Dressing,” http://biblioteca.uprrp.edu/latcritcd/Publications/PublishedSymposium/LCIHarvardLat(1997)/LCIRChan g.pdf, date accessed: 07/06/2013, LV] We might examine the development of a "Black" Afro-Asian identity in Britain. Kobena Mercer comments:When various peoples -of Asian, African, and Caribbean descent -- interpellated themselves and each other as /black/ they invoked a collective identity predicated on political and not biological similarities. In other words, the naturalized connotations of the term /black/ were disarticulated out of the dominant codes of racial discourse and rearticulated as signs of alliance and solidarity among dispersed groups of people sharing common historical experiences of British racism. The empowering effect of the transformed metaphor, which brought about a new form of democratic subjectivity and agency into being, did not arise out of a binary reversal or a closed anti-white sensibility, but out of the inclusive character of Afro-Asian alliances which thus engendered a pluralistic sense of "imagined community." n24 If we read the Korean grocer's claim to Blackness in Do the Right Thing against the grain of the stock story or master narrative of conflict, and read it thus as a sign of alliance or solidarity, we create new possibilities. Whether

"Blackness" in the United States may become a basis for forging an Afro-Asian alliance will depend on how open "Black" is, and whether Asian Americans are willing to accept a "Black" identity or subject position. n25 Transgressive [*431] moments, such as when the Korean grocer says, "I Black," may help create the space for such an alliance. 2 These examples contain potential successes and failures for a variety of boundary transgressions loosely collected under the term "cross-dressing." In the context of race, racial crossdressing already contains the notion that there is such a thing as racial dressing, that racial identity already contains within it aspects of performativity or agency. This is implicit in Do the Right Thing when Buggin' Out tells Mookie, "Stay Black." Because Mookie cannot change biology, such a statement must refer to a

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 4

politicocultural notion of "Blackness." It also acknowledges agency. To acknowledge agency is necessarily a rejection of essentialism, a move away from the essential subject accompanied by what Stuart Hall terms "the end of innocence." n26 The "end of innocence" means that we must understand and take seriously identity as political, not essential, as Gerald Torres invited us to do during the first day of this conference. n27 This notion of political identity already understands identity to be aspirational, as Gerald Lopez reminded us, n28 and as even Calvin Coolidge

The challenge for us is articulating this political identity or identities to serve a progressive anti subordination agenda. This challenge is also present in the shaping of a progressive Latino political identity, "racial dressing" as it were. If we are to effect real change, however, we must not stop at racial dressing. Racial [*432] cross-dressing will help us establish chains of equivalents between different enactments of oppression n30 so that we may, as Jerome Culp invited us, participate in the struggles of people who are not we. n31 Perhaps then we might make sense of Frank Valdes' context-specific claim of being lesbian, Barbara Cox's context-specific claim of understood in the early part of this century when he said, "We have a great desire to be supremely American." n29

being Latina, and the Korean grocer's claim of being Black.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 5

LatCrit Neg Core

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Law/Multidimensionality Links

Dunn/Davis Page | 6

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 7

Normativity Normativity within legal analysis allows inequality by destroying positive change for issues like affirmative action and border security using “American” rhetoric justifying an “Us-vs-Them” dichotomy that inherently seeks to exclude immigrants – Ignoring the LatCrit movement only insures repetition of past inequality and injustice Hernandez-Truyol, Professor of Law, St. John's University, 1997 (Berta Esperanza, Harvard Latino Law Review, “PANEL: LATINA/0 IDENTITY AND PAN-ETHNICITY: TOWARD LATCRIT SUBJECTIVITIES: Indivisible Identities: Culture Clashes, Confused Constructs and Reality Checks”, Fall, 7-5-13, pg. 8-11) ABS The role of normativity is of particular importance in leading to such anomalous legal analysis. Any consideration of equality in these terms incorporates the "equal to what?" question. The point of departure -- the "what" -- is entrenched in traditional legal thought -- purportedly objective, rational, and neutral. This "what" is then constructed (embellished) around the aspirational, normal (but really mythical) "reasonable man" -the accepted normative model. This "reasonable man" was made in the image of the heroic "founding fathers," and resulted in a skewed model. This archetype of normalcy is gendered (male), racialized (white), ethnicized (Western European/Anglo), classed (formally educated and propertied), sexualized (heterosexual), religious-based (Judeo-Christian), and abilitydefined (physically and mentally). Each of the indicia of normativity becomes part of a rite of passage and each individual's divergent traits represents a deviation from the norm, a degree of separation from the aspirational paragon, a mark of a deficiency or defect. Such deviation from the norm is both a symptom of inequality and its justification. This static model is anathema to a heterogeneous, democratic, and ever-changing society. Thus it is not surprising that the unprincipled normative intransigence of this model and its concomitant social/cultural/political inertia (of rest, not motion) has been subjected to serious challenge. LatCrit, it is my hope and vision, will be a forceful, multi-dimensional challenge to the hegemonic conservatism (backlash) that normativity has imposed on the law. LatCrit will allow for attainable aspirations, not false norms, for equality in our heterogeneous society. Two recent equality conundrums in the context of which LatCrit can have immense impact are the recent erosion of affirmative action programs and the new anti-immigration laws. Nowhere in our jurisprudence does the issue of equality create more polarity than in the area of "affirmative action." Narrowly defined, affirmative action consists of race-, ethnicity-, and even sex-based "preferences." The concept, coined in the height of the [*219] civil rights era, was intended to make equality a reality for those who for essentially the entire history of this country had been excluded and marginalized from enjoying the fruits of social, technical, employment, and educational progress. The Civil Rights Acts, barring discrimination in employment, education, housing, and even immigration on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, and religion, were the vehicles that would make the dream of equality come true. n44 Recently, with the affirmative action debate, this dream has become a nightmare. n45 Ironically, although affirmative action takes many forms, the only models under attack are those models that grant "preferences" (read: unfair advantages) to all persons of color and majority women. Sometimes the opposition to these programs take the paternalistic view that the programs "stigmatize" those they seek to protect. The Hopwood n46 decision, with its extensive references to Adarand, n47 City of Richmond, n48 and Metro Broadcasting n49 -- all decisions taking away those "unfair preferences" from undeserving and less qualified (by normative standards, mind you) minorities n50 -- is replete with allusions to how demeaning such preferences are to [*220] those who are consequently stigmatized by obtaining a seat in law school or a job, simply because of their race. Paul Rockwell in his article Angry White Guys for Affirmative Action n51 describes the duplicity of this "stigma" argument. First, he notes that "we hear a lot about the so-called stigma of affirmative action for minorities and women [and] we are told that affirmative action harms the psyches of African-Americans, Latinos[/as], and women." n52 Then he unearths the disingenuousness of such an assertion. It is a strange argument. Veterans are not stigmatized by the GI Bill. Europeans are not stigmatized by the Marshall Plan. Corporate farmers are not stigmatized by huge water giveaways and million-dollar price supports. The citizens of Orange County, a Republican stronghold, seeking a bailout to cover their bankers' gambling losses, are not holding their heads in shame. The $ 500 billion federal bailout of the savings and loan industry, a fiasco of deregulation, is the biggest financial set-aside program in U.S. history. Its beneficiaries feel no stigma. Only when the beneficiaries of affirmative action are women and people of color is there a stigma. Where

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 8

there is no racism, or sexism, there is no stigma. Affirmative action is already part of the fabric of American life. We are all bound together in a vast network of affirmative action . . . . n53 Notwithstanding the patent infirmity of this "stigma" rationale, the Supreme Court has embraced it as an appropriate basis to [*221] dismantle racial preferences. n54 Yet, veterans' preferences n55 and alumni preference n56 remain constitutionally in place. The irony of these results is inescapable. For example, in Hopwood the court rejected any consideration of race even in instances in which, as was the case at the University of Texas, historic de jure discrimination had been confessed. The Hopwood court plainly stated that "while the use of race per se is proscribed . . . [a] university may properly favor one applicant over another because of his[/her] . . . relationship to school alumni." n57 Only in a very confused construct of equality can this be considered, as the court expressly declared, color-blind. n58 How in a system in which, because of its conceded discrimination throughout history, the alumni body is overwhelmingly racially homogeneous (white), can an alumni preference be color-blind? This is as perplexing a premise as pregnancy not being sex-related n59 and Spanish language ability not being national-origin related n60 -- two concepts that under our neutral jurisprudence have been confirmed as constitutionally sound. In the name of equality, the Supreme Court now requires colorblindness -- a concept that declares the constitutional irrelevancy of race. I find this an interesting concept at the eve of the twenty-first century. Where was this fair and neutral concept of color-blindness in the last few illustrious decades, decades during which women and [*222] men of color could not speak, could not vote, could not work, could not own a home, could not ride in the front of the NLWs buses, go to their schools, play on their teams, use their bathrooms, eat at their counters, or drink from their water fountains. The eve of the twenty-first century is some interesting time to call upon a notion of color-blindness. It

is noteworthy that this chaotic notion of justice is replaying itself in the anti-immigrant initiatives. Justice Scalia justifies color-blindness based upon the notion that we are all simply human beings constituting an "American" race. n61 At the same time, Congress apparently is seeking to redefine the American race. Notwithstanding our constitutional provision that "all persons born . . . in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States . . ." elected Senators and Representatives are contemplating a movement that would effectively repeal this constitutional right. The proposal would deny citizenship to persons born in the United States if their mother is not in the country legally. n62 A constitutional amendment to deny citizenship to one born in the United States would defile the very basis of the foundation of this country as new home for those seeking freedom and prosperity in this land of opportunity. Nonetheless, federal initiatives, like local counterparts, target the presence of so-called "illegal aliens" -- a telling moniker in itself as the people are not illegal, although their presence within United States borders may well be, and the people are not "alien" they are simply foreign nationals -- for wreaking havoc with our economy by taking jobs away from deserving Americans (although there is ample proof that "they" take jobs that Americans will not perform), n63 [*223] by depleting our coffers by virtue of using our health facilities and educating their children in our schools (although it is well established that the targeted immigrants -- Mejicanas/os, Salvadorenas/os, and Guatemaltecas/os who enter California without documentation -- every year give more to national, state, and local economies than they receive in services), n64 and just their

general and overall criminality, ironically proven by their very undocumented entry into and presence within our borders. That outsiderness/otherness plays a role in these nativistic trends is made patent by a review of how other non-U.S. nationals are treated. Lack of papers alone as a symbol of criminality is very limited as such documentation is not even necessary for many other foreigners to enter into the U.S. legally. n65 For example, the visa waiver program allows persons who are residents of twenty-two selected countries, largely from Western Europe, to stay in the United States for up to ninety days simply by purchasing a round-trip ticket. n66 These "undocumenteds" are "significant abusers of the system" with the Immigration and Naturalization Service estimating they constitute between five and ten percent of the "illegal immigrants who overstayed their visas." n67 Further, visa overstays constitute over fifty percent of the illegal presence in the United States. n68 With these figures, nativism

and xenophobia, and a disdain, dislike, and fear of certain others/outsiders are clear [*224] justifications and pretexts for such differential treatments of non-nationals. However, such differential treatment follows the pattern of the confused notions of equality in our jurisprudence. IV. REALITY CHECK So any self-preserving, if by now admittedly not sane, person must ask herself, what difference can LatCrit make? With the jurisprudential notions of equality being as chaotic, disconcerting, and befuddled as they are, with the Latina/o communities being as diverse as they are, is there any possibility, remote or attenuated as it may be, that we can go somewhere with this panethnic movement? I think so. I hope so. I dream so. So there are glitches. If I were to let that bother me I would not be able to continue teaching and writing and I would return to the safe haven of the practice of law where, as a commercial litigator, my soul was seldom at issue. However, the project (and its process) is not going to be easy. Al contrario, tenemos un tremendo reto frente nosotros/as. Pero unidos, conscientes de, pero aceptando, nuestras diferencias y multiples dimensiones, no hay obstaculo que no podamos sobreponer. n69 But the foundation must lie on the recognition of the indivisibility construct and our acceptance that although we may not like, understand, or agree with all our neighbors and their issues, well, we have to love them. This commitment, of course, is a difficult one, for we must commit to asking questions we do not want to ask, hear answers we do not want to hear, and embrace people we might be afraid to embrace. But if not now when? If not us, who? We have the diversity to give us the strength to carry out this challenge. In our "us" we can include persons of every size, shape, form, gender, sexuality, race, color, religion, class, and ability. We have engaged [*225] with our familias for years -- abuelas/os from the "old country," whichever one that may be, and hermanas/os from the new one, often speaking a different tongue; we have supported each other for years, writing tenure letters and reviewing articles; we have fought for our causes for years, writing briefs, attending rallies. It is time we join our intellectual strengths and make sense out of the nonsense that surrounds us calling itself law. We have to keep our diversity in the foreground because, and some might see this as ironic, that is where our strength lies. Both Linda Chavez and Cesar Chavez want to educate our kids. And if those two can share a goal, who knows, we might be able to eat grapes in the near future. Here are the questions to always ask: The ethnicity question -- what are the implications of a practice/action/law to our ethnic group? The gender question -- are there particularized implications of the practice/action to Latinas? And so, following this pattern we must ask the alienage question; the race question; the language question; the sexuality question; the class question; the ability question. We have to own up to the reality check that we are all those groups. Thus, we have to be willing to work together to further ourselves, in spite of ourselves. We have to purge ourselves of our internalized racism, sexism, heterosexism, classism, ethnicism, elitism. I am going to step forward and face the challenge. I will start by doing an unpopular thing: I

am going to "out" us as imperfect, be a little critical of us. This exercise is intended in the constructive vein in which Angela Harris has

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 9

presented the venture: so that we can recognize our past successes and stresses and mistakes, learn from them, and not repeat them. With respect to our achievements as well as our failings let us be neither unduly elated nor foolishly selfdeprecatory. While we continue to focus on the positive, we must not overlook the blunders/exclusions that we effect ourselves, probably by virtue of the internalization of that normative hierarchy which we then echo, lest we then replicate those mistakes. So I say to the Latinos in our midst, do not make Latinas the truly [*226] olvidadas; n70 to the sexual normativos/as, do not marginalize the gays and lesbians; to the mas blancas/os n71 do not exclude the indias/os, mestizas/os, morenas/os. Let us be the first movement that can pride itself in not being gender/race/class/religion/sexuality/ethnicity essentialists. We have seen what it has done to the Crits. Women's feeling of exclusion engendered the FemCrits. Ironically, the FemCrits failed to learn from their own exclusion and the movement was overwhelmingly racially essentialized. Similarly, persons of color who felt excluded from the critical movement formed the RaceCrits who, while more inclusive, still felt the strain of the emerging Critical Race Feminism. In

addition, the RaceCrit discourse so centered in the black/white paradigm that it overlooked issues related to ethnicity and sexuality.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 10

Subjectivity Law fabricates a citizen/alien dichotomy that legitimates practices of racial exclusion, dehumanization and economic exploitation. IGLESIAS 1997 (ELIZABETH M. Professor of Law Director of the Center for Hispanic and Caribbean Legal Studies J.D. 1988, Yale Law School. “INTERNATIONAL LAW, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LATCRIT THEORY” pgs189-191) University of Miami Inter-American Law Review) Professor Kevin Johnson's intervention further develops these points in a rich, compelling, and multilayered analysis of U.S. immigration laws. 13 In his account, immigration law appears as a field of representation populated, among other things, by teeming hoards of rapidly multiplying, fearsome, loathsome creatures called "illegal aliens." Johnson's significant contribution begins by mapping their appearances on the field of legal discourse. Through a systematic analysis of the way the term "alien" is deployed in the articulation of U.S. immigration policy, Johnson invites us to explore more critically the values and assumptions embedded in the legal construction of citizenship. Not only does Johnson reveal the significant human costs of decisions enforcing the citizen/alien dichotomy, he also exposes the dichotomy's empirical indeterminacy-who is "illegal?"'14 -as well as its normative bankruptcy-why should any human person ever have to suffer the label? In this way, he, like Professor Hern~ndezTruyol, leads us to a new threshold for imagining community-a human community beyond the nationstate.First, Johnson shows how U.S. immigration law subordinates the individual's enjoyment of fundamental civil and political rights to the enforcement of the citizen/alien dichotomy. Only citizens have the right to vote, to participate in jury deliberations, to engage in political activities without fear of deportation, to challenge indefinite terms of detention, and to enjoy the protection of judicial review through habeas corpus. These rights are denied to "aliens," a term that legitimizes these restrictions by connoting illegality and otherness -rather than a common humanity. Equally important, Johnson shows how the citizen/alien dichotomy contracts the parameters of community. Through this dichotomy, the political community is defined, not by reference to the human dignity of all individuals in relation to the state, but rather by citizenship. Aliens, no matter what their "real" connections to the community, remain only partial members, as marked by their more restricted rights against the state. By reading U.S. immigration law through the normative prism of international human rights, Johnson's analysis establishes a vantage point from which we can challenge the artificiality of the imagined community underlying the citizen/alien dichotomy. Thus Johnson observes there is no inherent requirement ... that society have a category of "aliens" at all . We could dole out political rights and obligations depending on residence in the community, which is how the public education and tax systems generally operate in the United States. Indeed, a few have advocated extending the franchise to "aliens," a common practice in a number of states and localities at the beginning of the twentieth century. 15 This revealed artificiality, in turn, enables us to explore more critically the kind of community the dichotomy sustains-the why of it all. This is Professor Johnson's second major contribution. By mapping the uses (and abuses) of the term "alien," Johnson enables us to see how the citizen/alien dichotomy legitimates practices of racial exclusion and economic exploitation. Through thisdichotomy, U.S. immigration law continues to police the racial identity of the community it defines as citizens, even as it fosters, on an international level, the divide and conquer strategy that have so successfully undermined the American labor movement. The "alien" presence is tolerated in times of labor shortage, repudiated when work is scarce, super-exploited in either case through the denial of citizenship-based rights. In this way, the citizen/ alien dichotomy creates a legal space in which exploitation and exclusion are legitimated. At the same time, Professor Johnson makes a broader and

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 11

more general contribution to the development of LatCrit theory. Johnson's work urges LatCrits to focus on legal doctrine and, more particularly, on the way language is deployed in the articulation of legal doctrine. His mapping of the term "alien," provides a powerful framework for challenging U.S. immigration policies and practices, in part, because it shows us that the legality of these policies is always a predetermined conclusion as a result of the meanings embedded in the language deployed. It makes sense, in any particular instance, to deny "aliens" basic civil and political rights not because they are "human persons," not because they are "individuals," but because they are "aliens."

Western conceptions of persons only recognize formal legal and political rights— cultural differences are subject to colonization precisely because culture falls outside the scope of legal protection. Malavet, Associate Professor at University of Florida, 05 (Pedro A., January 1, Afterword - Outsider Citizenships and Multidimensional Borders: The Power and Danger of Not Belonging, 52 Clev. St. L. Rev. 322 (2005), http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub/208, p. 324-325) ABS In framing its objectives and beneficiaries, LatCrit theory is conscious of the difference between legal and political citizenship, on the one hand, and cultural and social citizenship on the other. 5 By focusing on marginalized groups, outsiders, LatCrit theory continues the communitarian challenge to traditional liberalism seen in the citizenship debates.' 6 Critical Race and LatCrit theorists have recognized that group or identity rights are often opposed by traditional liberals and modem reactionaries. 7 Robert Westley notes that "[t]he irony posed by the very question of Black national group status is that in ordinary social and political discourse, Blacks are treated as a group for every purpose other than rights-recognition."' 8 Latinas/os generally and even some Latina/o sub-groups in particular have similar problems. For example, the Puerto Ricans are treated as a group for the purpose of constitutional deprivation of constitutional rights guaranteed to every U.S. citizen who resides in the U.S. proper, but not for purposes of an equal allocation of the public resources spent on "regular" U.S. citizens. 9 In its study of citizenship and belonging, and as many of the authors in this symposium illustrate, LatCrit has identified the paradox of the colonized: the society left behind after the end of the colonial period is both for better and for worse, the product of the mixture of people, cultures and laws 2 ' brought together by the colonization process.2 Accordingly, postcolonial societies often fall victim both to external cultural imperialism22 and to internalized oppression. The former colonized peoples culturally colonize themselves and prey upon each other by adopting and perpetuating the essentialized hierarchies of the former colonial power. As a result of this process, the peoples themselves are the colonizers and the colonized.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 12

Whiteness Metaphorical descriptions of the body in the current society evoke the current national body as white, leaving Latinos out of this circle. Latcrit draws attention to this distinction in the legal and political landscape. Davis, professor of law at Washington University, 97 (Adrienne D. Davis, 1997, “Harvard Latino Law Review”, accessed 7/5/13, pp.2-6, http://biblioteca.uprrp.edu/latcritcd/Publications/PublishedSymposium/LCIHarvardLat( 1997)/LCIADavis.pdf) [*267] INTRODUCTION Political corpus, body politic, body of law, corporate law, body of evidence, body of knowledge, the footnote. Metaphors of the body dominate the rhetorical legal landscape, encroaching upon even the most casual of conversations. Intrigued by the various legal meanings and uses of the body, several years ago I proposed a seminar entitled, "Jurisprudence and Interpretation: The Human Body as a Legal Metaphor." In the course of discussing my proposal with a colleague, he frowned and responded without jest, "Hmmm, I doubt such a course would be appropriate for our student body." Such a response illustrates perfectly the uses and abuses of anthropomorphism in law school and life, and in a way suggestive of similar uses and abuses in law and history. In daily encounters, [*268] people

routinely and offhandedly evoke the body in order to cloak themselves in an image of consummate self-contained community. Evocations of the body, like any good metaphor, elicit a series of resonances. For instance, my colleague's comment probably seemed to most readers to be no more than a routine and offhanded use of a convenient figure of speech. Why make any more of it than that? But consider for a moment the political framework established by his rhetorical appeal to "our student body." What resonances and alliances with our other colleagues did he hope to evoke by representing students of myriad and diverse interests and abilities as a solitary portrait? How and why would the collapse of 600-odd students into a single body authorize his position on the curriculum? What is it exactly that a body represents? It suggests a singular and unified entity. But anthropomorphism, the use of the human body as a metaphor, has an even more specific connotation. It is

an organism circumscribed by inflexible, unchanging boundaries, composed of discrete, hierarchical, discernible parts with a direct correlation between the number of the parts and their status in the hierarchy. One head, one heart, one soul, two arms, two legs, two eyes, ten fingers, 32 teeth, and unknown quantities of hair and epidermis. Some parts of the body grow rotten, die, and are excised, cut, or exfoliated. No one mourns dead skin and dead hair and few offer significant lament over dead teeth. My colleague's adoption of anthropomorphism suggested a nonexistent unity of vision and will amongst our many students. I have been pondering the myriad images evoked by his metaphor in this instance. If all of our students were in fact "the student body," I wonder exactly which were the brain of that body, which were the heart, and which, if any, were the soul. More troubling, I am concerned that some of our students may in fact have been conceived as appendages, the things that we might lose, but without which we can go on. I hope none among the students would represent the rotten or dead parts, the split ends. [*269] I. METAPHORS OF THE BODY The study of the human body may be done in many ways. Inquiries into the body may be done as anatomies, classifying internal structure and function, or by drawing a genealogical tree, establishing ancestry, relationship, and pedigree. Alternatively, one might track the projection of bodies in time and space as a sort of discursive itinerary, documenting their starting point, destination, and stops. Finally, bodies may be mapped, describing the appearance and shape of their surfaces and characteristics. There is much to be mined from the law about the persistent construction and use of the trope of the human body. This project is the starting point in attempting to graft coherent meaning from seemingly discrete and isolated instances of racial and other sorts of subordination and regulation. What could a multi-dimensional inquiry of the body provide for the burgeoning theory of the Latino/a encounter with American law and history? More specifically, and politically, from the perspective of an already skeptical legal academy, what can the Foucauldian and radical feminist and literary analyses that generate these bodily mappings offer the latest child of racial legal theory, newly christened here as LatCrit Theory? For the purposes of this paper, I decline to do the obvious, which would be an ancestral genealogy, a dissective anatomy, or a discursive itinerary of a Latino or Latina body. Instead, I will start with engagements between people of color and two of the most studied and analyzed bodies in Western culture, the metaphoric bodies of Jesus Christ and the body politic. The body of Christ provided a literal anatomical map for canonical law and church structure, and it provided aparallel framework for medieval political theory:The Church, as a community of the faithful, is considered to be a body of which Christ is the Head . . . . It found its [*270] way into political ideology during the Carolingian period when the empire, which was for them an embodiment of the Church, formed a single body of which Christ was the head, and which Christ directed on earth through two intermediaries, "the sacerdotal person and the royal person," that is, the pope and the emperor (or the king). n1As ecclesiastical and royal authority emerged and clashed, the institutions of the monarchy and the papacy each seized Christ's body to justify political authority and territorial dominion. Thus, in the thirteenth century, Cardinal Hostiensis argued that,[A] bishop is anointed on the head but a king on the arms and a bishop with chrism but a king with oil, to inform us that the bishop is a vicar of our head, i.e. Christ, and to show how great is the difference between the authority of a pontiff and the power of a prince. n2Advocates of the superiority of royal authority fought back: "It is clear, therefore, that in Christ the royal power is greater and higher than the priestly in proportion as his divinity is greater and higher than his humanity." n3 Even the surgeon to Philip the Fair, king of France, linked his anatomical studies to the sovereign order:The heart is the principal organ par excellence [membrum principalissimum] which gives vital blood, heat and spirit to all other members of the entire body. It is located in the very middle of the chest, as befits its role as the king in the [*271] midst of his kingdom. n4 Meanwhile, the Pauline formulation of Christ as the head of the Catholic Church provided another series of rich metaphoric uses. Alanus, an avid proponent of a papally run theocracy, declared the monstrosity of an empire in which the king was not subordinate to the pope: "If the emperor was not subject to the pope in temporalities he could not sin against the church in temporalities. Again the church is one body and so it shall have only one head or it will be a monster." n5 Fellow canonist Vincentius Hispanus inverted the metaphor, but concurred. n6 Monarchy and papacy each represented its political function as analogous to anatomical in order to naturalize a claim to a sovereign power. And mapping political hierarchy onto the divine, yet anatomically human body of Christ, added authority to anthropomorphism. While the

body of Christ has not been used explicitly to order secular American law and political theory, a multi-dimensional analysis of his body in Western political theory would have to include its use at a critical historic moment as an organizing metaphor for the racial order of the United States and the consolidation of the national identity as white. That historic

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 13

moment is the end of Reconstruction in the recently reclaimed southern United States and the metaphor is the white conservative label of the age: Redemption. In the midst of Reconstruction and efforts to integrate free Blacks into southern life and national citizenship, white conservatives resisted, labeling themselves Redeemers and their successful challenge and resistance Redemption. In Christian theology, Christ is known as the Redeemer, who, by virtue of [*272] crucifixion and resurrection, provides the possibility of salvation, redemption for the world. It is telling that in the face of the crisis of political reunification, the demand of the South was for redemption. It is suggestive first of the perception that the Civil War worked as a sort of crucifixion of the national body. If resurrection followed the physical reunification of the country, that is the elision of the

political significance of the Mason Dixon line, then white southerners' redemption, national spiritual reunification, could only occur when total white economic and political control was restored in the southern states. Thus the nation that entered the twentieth century had chosen a racial order and hierarchy even as it integrated the white controlled South as equal partner in the new political order . The Hayes/Tilden Compromise n7 signaled the redemption of the South, and the possibility of salvation of the previously torn country. Reunification came of course at the expense of Black civil and human rights. The possibility of meaningful citizenship ends in the late nineteenth century as the Fourteenth Amendment is eviscerated, n8 the Fifteenth Amendment is savaged in poll taxes, literacy tests, and [*273] grandfather clause exemptions, n9 and the Thirteenth Amendment goes down in flames at the end of the century as apartheid is sanctioned in Plessy v. Ferguson. n10 Even as rights of citizenship are stripped, a simulacrum of the old antebellum order is enforced as federal troops withdraw, enabling totalitarian violence to be enacted against any who seek to enforce their remaining nominal rights. In the last quarter of the 1800s, the United States confronted a challenge to its fragile postbellum identity. It had to incorporate the newly reclaimed southern confederacy. In linking salvation to the resolution of the perceived crisis in political power, the redemptive metaphor is ineluctably about sovereignty.

Restoration of sovereign control to Redeemers defined the salvation both demanded and celebrated by the metaphor. Redeemers articulated their political success as the return of "home rule," casting the Republican (and Black) governance during Reconstruction as a foreign invasion. Christ's body was used to justify the violent reclamation of the south by whites and the casting of Blacks out of citizenship. In its connection of salvation with political control, the redemptive metaphor creates the illusion that southern sovereignty requires white governance. Following the religious origins of redemption, only some are fit (called) to correctly govern the southern states. Not all Americans are included within the body politic, constructed as redeemed. Christ's

body played the implicit role of ordering society that it played explicitly in canonical law and medieval political struggles. The critical question of sovereign identity was not theocracy or empire, but racially defined membership in democracy. [*274] II. THE SECOND REDEMPTION I would submit that a similar process is occurring on the eve of the next millennium, in the last quarter of this century. In this instance, it appears to be a consolidation that targets explicitly Latinos/as, hoping to construct them as outside of the racially white body as well. White economic concerns now appear directed against the southern border, and segregation and grandfather clauses are represented in English-Only laws, Proposition 187, and proposals to alter birth citizenship. Another crisis of national identity has occurred, and we may find ourselves confronting the Second Redemption. The process of excluding Latinos/as from a racialized body politic may prove intriguing due in part to the failure of the American racial structure to provide adequate account for distinctions between Latinos/as and non-Hispanic whites. Charting this consolidation, and attempting to stop it, will be one of the early challenges for LatCrit Theory. Places to start are suggested by references to earlier efforts to consolidate national identity around whiteness. Reclamation of the national identity as historically always diverse, documentation of the denial of citizenship to groups of color, and the rectification of the consequences of this, through both active and benign means, open the possibility of true redemption of the American character, and a vision of the participation of multiple bodies necessary for a serious democracy. III. LATCRIT THEORY Thus, in charting racial paradigms, I have focused on two bodies -the American political corpus or body politic and that of Christ. Unraveling the metaphors of the body politic and redeemed body parallels the conference project of charting the still nascent body of LatCrit Theory. Academic questions, both political and methodological, are [*275] raised by the process of charting an intellectual movement. If LatCrit Theory seeks

to be a distinct body of legal scholarship, it must delimit its boundaries, and to expand the metaphor, in birthing itself, it must establish its genealogical tree. Scholarly movements typically are categorized along the lines of methodological approach, generational influence, or paradigm shifting. An early project for those commencing the intellectual genealogy of LatCrit Theory is to begin to establish the parameters of the discourse, as well as its point of entry into extant legal scholarship, specifically legal historical, critical legal, and civil rights scholarship. The participants in this conference have denominated this emerging scholarly project Latino Critical Legal Theory. In offering a few tentative suggestions about possible avenues of exploration, I will commence with the name itself. Considered holistically, LatCrit Theory

suggests that the project intends to document a distinctive legal history and identity for Latinos/as, while simultaneously drawing links to critical and racial legal discourses. The stress on Latinos/as marks an intervention in legal scholarship on race. Conventional civil rights scholarship and critical race theory have made excellent inroads in exposing the falsity of the binary "white/black" nature of racial

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 14

reasoning and logic in America. Yet, the old paradigms continue

to structure legal thought and analysis. A mere shift in language is not sufficient. What is needed is a deepened analysis of the specific legal engagement of Latinos/as with American culture and history. One intervention LatCrit Theory will offer is to establish paradigms that engage the uniqueness of the Latino/a legal experience. The notion of Latino/a community challenges outdated and essentializing notions of race that pervade both progressive and conservative dialogues about civil rights. The spectrum of hues and politics in the Latino/a community requires sophisticated modes of reasoning about the nexus of heritage and race that at this moment appears to comprise Latino/a identity. Rather than reworking established paradigms to appear as a racial amendment (i.e. "How is [insert a racial issue] the [*276] same/different for Latinos/as?"), LatCrit Theory will articulate the distinctiveness of the Latino/a encounter with law in this country. Some scholars may draw on theories of imperialism and colonialism to explain the historical and contemporary complexity of law's regulation of the relationship between U.S. capital and Latino/a labor. Other scholars may consider how Latino/a legal history ought to be periodized? What are the pivotal events, cases, victories, and defeats? How ought they be grouped to constitute historic moments? Other LatCrits may engage how language has shaped community at the same time that it has been a primary justification for discrimination. Still others will analyze how the politics of sexuality in this community inform Latino/a (legal) feminism and understandings of gender discrimination. And finally, some will assess how the differential legal treatment afforded immigrants from various countries affects political affiliation? LatCrits may provide one of the most sophisticated structures for considering conservative strains in minority political culture. Neither I nor LatCrit Theory ought to be understood as calling for essentialist historical inquiry. Instead, LatCrit's focus on a heretofore relatively ignored racial minority may expose flaws in historiographical methods that, applied neutrally, miss the presence of Latinos/as in our culture. Thus, LatCrit's project of documentation and inquiry will also challenge and enhance extant legal historiography. The possibility of developing new methods of legal analysis and enhancing interdisciplinary study leads directly to the next piece of the project title. The designation of this project as "critical" suggests a desire to draw genealogical links to extant critical legal discourses, including possibly critical race theory, critical feminism, and one of the scholarly "ancestors" of both, critical legal studies. What sorts of interventions does LatCrit Theory perceive itself as offering into which specific legal discourses? Regardless of the call LatCrit makes as to its relationship to different types of theory, it cannot avoid landing squarely in the middle of academic debates raging over the role and effectiveness of critical theories in legal [*277] scholarship on race. While here I will not delve into the substance or merits of that debate, I do want to take care to suggest that what is at stake for LatCrit Theory is not merely political affiliation, but rather, larger questions as to whether the insights yielded historically by critical race theory and fellow scholarly travelers might offer help and insight into the history of Latinos/as. This paper suggests, that in establishing its own genealogical tree, LatCrit Theory might benefit from grappling with the substantive issues of mapping Latino/a bodies and metaphors of exclusion, as well as engaging in a broader consideration of its own theoretical affiliation(s), directions for inquiry, and the role of methodological unity. To address for a moment the need for methodological or political unity to constitute an intellectual movement, this paper does not mean to suggest that a monolithic paradigm of Latinos/as will emerge from this intellectual project. Rather, part of the task of LatCrit Theory is to offer and provide coherence for the ranging, and oft-times contradictory, and perhaps warring, theoretical, doctrinal, and historical documentations of the story(ies) of Latinos/as and the law in the United States. Rather than searching to create a monolithic paradigm of "Latinos and the Law," LatCrit

Theory should conceptualize a series of platforms,

assumptions, and paradigm shifts and linkages, again at times contradictory, that will not only enrich our understanding of Latinos/as, but will

also enhance our larger understanding about law and race in America. In doing this terribly important work, LatCrit Theory will join battle against the Second Redemption.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 15

Economics Links

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 16

Globalization UQ US economic engagement with Latin America further the forces of globalization that lock in poverty and exploitation for the global South. Ramierez 2006 [Steven, Professor of Law and Director of the Business Law Center, Loyola University at Chicago. “Endogenous Growth Theory, Status Quo Efficiency, and Globalization,” 17 Berkeley La Raza Law Journal 1] Globalization may hold the promise for the most massive amelioration of poverty and economic oppression in the history of humanity.8 Today in China and India, hundreds of millions of people of color are emerging from the depths of economic marginalization to be the core of a new economic center of gravity in the world. 9 Indeed, this part of the world seems much more likely to fundamentally challenge the traditional Western economic hegemony than to submit to it. 10 This development follows on the heels of the stunning success of the so-called Asian Tigers in the 1980s and the 1990s. l The Asian Tigers, in turn, followed in the wake of the remarkable success of Japan, which grew in the 1980s into an economic superpower. 12 This is the promise of globalization. At the same time, globalization threatens to impose a new corporate feudalism upon workers worldwide, as the bargaining power of laborers is relentlessly eroded by huge pools of dormant labor. 13 Nation-states around the world seem powerless to preserve a vibrant middle class, as any job not bound by geography moves to the lowest cost worker-from lawyers to engineers, jobs are migrating to low cost labor locales. 14 Even the ability of governments to secure the human rights of their citizens is under siege." Economic security has become a myth, and combined with the destruction of earnings implicit in the movement of jobs to lower wage locales, threatens to create a crisis in buying power. 16 As a result, globalization seems as likely to exacerbate inequality as to relieve poverty and oppression. 17 Worldwide, poverty seems to resist the positive impact of globalization. 18 The institutional framework governing the global economy, dating to the depths of World War II, is overwhelmed by the pace and risks of globalization, and has been captured by a narrow corporate and financial elite that appears to disregard the long term viability of the global economy and its potential for realizing poverty reduction and amelioration of economic oppression. 19 Despite fifty years of increasing international trade and financial integration, there has been no expansion of the institutional framework governing globalization, other than to secure more free trade . This narrow framework has resulted in higher levels of instability and accompanying risk with no apparent means of managing any significant crisis. 2 0 Consequently, financial regulators with little transnational authority must cobble together solutions to emerging crises on an ad hoc basis, and with little proactive planning. 21 Thus, the IMF recently warned of "dangerous global imbalances" resulting from soaring U.S. foreign debt and a concentration of consumption largely within the U.S. that seems economically unsustainable. 22 Yet, the IMF did nothing to remedy this problem, and is largely powerless to undertake any significant action to address these imbalances.2 3 These problems are the nightmares of globalization, and they are as real as the promise of globalization. In short, the promise of globalization is being subverted by the dominating influence of elites.24 Consider economics.25 Traditionally, economics has ignored growth in favor of the obsessive glorification of free market efficiency which has always operated to preserve the economic status quo .2 6 Similarly, law has always operated to entrench power elites from the very process of status quo driven, even reactionary, common law rule making, or the ossification of pre-existing power relationships as manifest in statutes.27 It should, therefore, come as no surprise that under mainstream Law & Economics, the status quo invariably remains the status quo. 28 In terms of globalization this elite domination is amplified by the fact that only an

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 17

infinitesimal percentage of those with a stake in globalization have any real voice in the terms of globalization. 29 Thus, one should not be surprised that many believe our globalized economy is of elites, by elites and for elites. 30 Economists have argued that the IMF and World Bank are keener to further economic dogma than to grapple with the more complex issues of spurring development in areas that have been left behind by globalization. 3' Thus the "Washington Consensus" insists that the developing world pursue policies of limited state intervention in the economy, fiscal rectitude, mass privatization and financial liberalization. 32 Indeed, the IMF's actions in particular seem well-designed to assure repayment for western banks rather than to act in accordance with its stated countercyclical purpose.33 The international financial institutions are structured in a way that maximizes the ability of special interests to hold sway: there is a revolving door between the relevant officials and the private sector; the public has little ability to monitor and comprehend issues relating to globalization; the institutions have no independent source of funding; and, there are powerful interests that have significant stakes in the course of globalization.34 Finally, globalization has so far favored the interests of the financial and corporate sector in that it has been a strong force for the exploitation of cheap labor and for capital market liberalization.35 All signs suggest that the promise of globalization has gone "horribly wrong."36 Poverty has not been significantly reduced and continues by all accounts to impede global growth.37 While corporations have been able to exploit cheap labor, there are signs that that buying power and consumption are sure to falter.38 Inequality is threatening to grow both on a global basis and within leading nations such as the U.S. and the U.K.39 In fact, where globalization has had its greatest success, from Japan to China and East Asia, it seems to have worked specifically because those nations have rejected the "Washington Consensus" in favor of a more interventionist model of economic growth. 40 A radical rethinking is needed to reset globalization on a track that fulfills its fundamental promises of greater prosperity and real poverty reduction.4 1

Exploitation of natural resources in the name of globalization only allows Anglocentric Whiteness to disguise its true motives via proxy good will that reifies the global economic order Valdes, Professor of Law, University of Miami, 97 (Fransisco, October, “FOREWORD: Under Construction - LatCrit Consciousness, Community, and Theory”, 85 Calif. L. Rev. 1087, 7-9-13, ABS) Professors Chang and Aoki also identify a growing concern over the exploitative design of economic globalization. n142 This exploitation often tracks the racial and ethnic supremacy of Anglocentric Whiteness: the extraction of natural resources from "Third World" countries, the implementation by North American corporations of cheap labor strategies both here and abroad, the manipulation of power over trade and investment to exercise political and cultural domination, and the (mis)use of technology and education to further stratify the world. These issues present fertile and urgent areas of Asian-American and LatCrit interrogation because they encapsulate the complex structural transnationality of our communities and interests. n143 [*1125] The specter of globalized economic exploitation thereby points to another shared interest: transnational analyses of all legal and social conditions. n144 Addressing the international dimensions of personhood, n145 Professors Chang and Aoki evoke the legacies of colonialism and imperialism, both in their traditional and neo-forms, to question the usefulness of analyzing present conditions within "the confines of the nation-state." n146 Transnational approaches to all legal issues can help to "deepen the chain of democratic equivalents, linking the struggles of those who have been in the United States for generations with the struggles of those who have arrived more recently." n147 Thus, both Asian-American and LatCrit scholars face the common task of introducing internationalist sensibilities to outsider jurisprudence, and particularly to ongoing critiques of "domestic" equality issues. n148 But this sense of commonality, Professors Chang

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 18

and Aoki warn, is neither simple nor unqualified. Using the demographic and political tale of Monterey Park in Southern California, as well as larger shifts in national population trends, their essay posits the imminence of "tantalizing questions about the limits of interracial and interethnic cooperation." n149 In Monterey Park and around the nation, shifting attributes of "minority" groups are creating areas of both convergence and divergence regarding Asian-American, Latina/o, Black, and White/Anglo interests. This complex interplay can create political realities that pit minority communities against each other in mutually [*1126] self-defeating scenarios. n150 In this case, the Monterey Park tale shows the capacity and willingness of Asian Americans and Latinas/os to practice opportunistic racism against Blacks, thus engaging in the same behavior that originates and perpetuates White supremacy in this society. n151 With these precautionary notes, Professors Chang and Aoki also invoke the dilemmas of "sameness" and "difference" specifically in the Asian-American and Latina/o context. Explored in recent years by Critical Race and Feminist Legal Theorists, the sameness/difference dialogue n152 emphasizes the complexities of subject positioning in a multicultural society and highlights the perils of unthinking "essentialism" in legal or social analysis. n153 Though powerful and useful, sameness/difference analysis may impede the formation of transformative group relations. This invocation thus reminds Asian-American, LatCrit, and allied scholars that our work necessarily includes the mapping of sameness/difference constructs from an anti-subordination perspective; our work should strive to bring about emancipatory conceptions and applications of "sameness" and "difference." n154 The limits of interracial and interethnic cooperation in the anti-subordination project during these changing and turbulent times remain unknown and uncharted; it is our joint work to find, test, and surpass them in the name of legal progress and social justice. n155 Ultimately, Professors Chang and Aoki remind all outsider scholars that our capacity for mutuality will be the measure of our commitment to the [*1127] inter-group values and cross-communities that we profess to uphold and serve. LatCrit scholars cannot afford to slight this reminder as we embark on our collective enterprise.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 19

Economic Crisis Traditional narratives of economic crisis and engagement are color-blind and obscure the ways in which economic downturn reinforce racial exclusion Hernandez-Lopez 2012 [Ernesto, “Cluster Introduction: Economic Crises from the Bottom Up— (In)Securities of Silencing a Racial Past and Present,” 22 Berkeley La Raza Law Journal 1] The papers in this cluster illuminate how the traditional narratives on global or national economic crises often silence or overlook issues of racial exclusion, in relation to those events. While national and global economies struggle with falling currencies, institutional breakdown, unemployment, contagion and their consequential "newsworthy" anxieties, populations of color and other subordinated identities must confront not only these realities but also the legal and political histories which effectively place them in disadvantaged situations during these crises. Shaping political and legal resolutions, these challenges occur "from the bottom up" as opposed to from some state or politically sponsored engagement. What is left is the mindset to "fend for oneself." With this action from below, this acts as resistance and colors our current and past crises. In this introduction, I highlight two points: 1) how the papers included show "silenced" racial pasts and presents, along with the significance of this silencing in local and global contexts, and 2) how each paper identifies this silence in both substantive and methodological terms. As such, by shedding light on how race, gender, and empire operate as precise tools of subordination, creating insecurity for populations of color and subordinated identities during crises, these papers contribute to LatCrit theory and, in particular, LatCrit XV's theme of "The Color of the Economic Crises: Exploring the Downturn from the Bottom Up." This cluster is titled "Economic Crises from the Bottom Up: (in)Securities of Silencing a Racial Past and Present" to highlight how subordinated populations are particularly disenfranchised from legal and political remedies during times of crises. The authors discuss how cross-border relations, whether public in terms of state-tostate, private in terms of individuals and organizations, or global in terms of empire and colonization, imply a silencing^ of how race intersects with gender, class, sex, physical contact, fear, and/or nation. Further, they show that as part of these multi-dimensional or intersectional discourses, subordinated identities must negotiate economic or material insecurity within a larger process of exclusion that includes race. Race is ever-present and, at times, is central to the reasons for exclusion, but as the papers show, race does not operate alone to exclude or resist. Race functions with other forces to cloud how these challenges are described historically and presently. As such; memory and our knowledge of the past must confront this silencing. Similarly, race and this silencing operate to preclude or ignore remedies for the injustices that subordinated populations suffer during times of crises.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 20

Economic Epistemology Dominant economic models erase the fact that economic disadvantage and racial injustice are inextricably linked—because economic analysis is unidimensional, it is impossible to think how economics intersects with other axes of oppression so as to become invisible. Hernandez-Truyol, Harris, and Valdes, all are college professors, 6 (Berta, Professor at the University of Florida Law School, Angela, Professor and UC Berkeley Law School, and Francisco, Professor at the University of Miami Law School, Spring 2006, 26 Chicano-Latino L. Rev. 237, Lexis) At first glance, it might seem that LatCrit and economic analysis have little to say to one another. LatCrit's hallmark is an interest in identity, meaning, and the "problem of the subject," all issues usually accessed through methodologies associated with the humanities: narrative, close reading, "theory." n154 Traditional economic analysis, in contrast, employs a subject-the "rational maximizer"-for whom neither identity nor meaning is important, except insofar that these concepts imply preferences on which the actor will attempt to act. n155 Traditional economic analyses attempt to model and sometimes predict behavior using methods adapted from mathematics and the "hard" sciences. In fact, however, LatCrit/CRT theory and the economic analysis of law are beginning to converge in new and exciting ways. There are at least three reasons for this convergence. First, global racial injustice is closely tied to economic disadvantage. The beginning of capitalism as we know it coincided with a period of European colonialism and imperialism, and an international trade in African slave labor, that profoundly shaped international political and economic relations for centuries to come. Thus, black liberation movements in the United States [*288] have struggled since Reconstruction to untie the knot of race and class; immigration politics in the United States has always been inextricably intertwined with economic relations, with "culture," and with race-ethnicity; and post-colonialist movements in other nations struggle with problems of economic "underdevelopment" and marginalization that owe their genesis to European accounts of the gap between the "civilized" and the "savage." Second, we are living in a historical moment in which international capitalism seems newly invigorated. The developments that are collectively referred to as "globalization"-advances in technology that have permitted capital to be ever more mobile, ever more abstract and unrelated to the "real" economy, and ever more deeply inserted into political institutions and practices-are rapidly altering the global political economy and national domestic political economies in unforeseen and perhaps unforeseeable ways. Moreover, today there seems no alternative to capitalism. As Erik Olin Wright observes, talking about capitalism today is something like talking about the weather; everybody has a complaint about it, but nobody seriously thinks that any other form of life is possible. n156 Chantal Thomas quotes former U.S. President Bill Clinton: "Technology revolution and globalization are not policy choices, they are facts." n157 The final reason why LatCrit/CRT and economic analysis are beginning to converge is that both disciplines are moving beyond their original concerns. LatCrit/CRT scholars are increasingly interested in thinking about class relations and political economy, and they are increasingly incorporating economic analysis in their work, or offering important critiques of traditional economic analysis. At the same time, the kind of work that comprises "economic analysis of law" is rapidly changing. "Law and economics" began as a fairly narrow body of work focused on proving that common law rules are "wealth maximizing." Today, law and economics comprises a broad and eclectic group of approaches that collectively are challenging the basic assumptions of neoclassical economics,

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 21

and beginning to grope toward an understanding of the subject as more than just the sum of certain preferences.

Status quo economic ideology assumes that international trade occurs as an exchange between equals—this renders economic imperialism and domination invisible, allowing the exploitation of the global South to continue unabated. Mexico’s situation in NAFTA proves-JOSE E. ALVAREZ, 1996, Professor of law at University of Michigan School of Law, “COLLOQUIUM PROCEEDINGS: PANEL TWO: CRITICAL THEORY AND THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT'S CHAPTER ELEVEN” pgs. 1-2 http://biblioteca.uprrp.edu/latcritcd/Publications/PublishedSymposium/ColloquiumIIUMAIL(1997)/CIIJA lvarez.pdf I will limit my remarks to an examination of the North American Free Trade Agreement's (NAFTA) Chapter Eleven governing foreign direct investment (FDI). n2 NAFTA's investment chapter is a direct descendant of the U.S. model bilateral [*304] investment treaty as well as the nearly 900 similar bilateral investment treaties that now exist throughout the world. n3 At the same time, the NAFTA investment chapter is a much strengthened version of prior U.S. bilateral investment treaties as well as bilateral investment treaties now in force between other countries; it is, in many ways, a U.S. bilateral investment treaty on steroids--a dream come true for the U.S. foreign investor. n4 The NAFTA investment chapter is also significant as it is likely to represent the starting position for U.S. negotiators in other forums addressing FDI issues. Absent a radical shift in the U.S. approach to foreign investment, it is likely that our government will seek the replication of the NAFTA investment provisions through a hemisphere-wide Free Trade Agreement for the Americas or through global arrangements within the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development or the World Trade Organization. n5 The rhetorical power of the NAFTA investment chapter--its perceived legitimacy among traditional international lawyers--needs to be compared to some troublesome realities on the ground. The rhetoric of the NAFTA investment chapter is that of scrupulous neutrality and equal protection. Its text is grounded in symmetrical and reciprocal rights as between the NAFTA parties and their investors. This befits the treaty's claim that it is a "fair" contract between "sovereign equals." The reality is quite different. There is no actual symmetry of direct benefits to the national investors of all three NAFTA parties--at least not for the foreseeable future. As few Mexican investors are likely to be in the position to penetrate the U.S. market, it is almost exclusively U.S., not Mexican, nationals that get the benefit of the investment chapter. In reality, U.S. firms, not [*305] Mexican companies, will be demanding national and most-favored-nation treatment; they, not Mexican firms, will be the ones relying on the NAFTA to renege on their prior promises to litigate in local courts; they, not small- or medium-sized Mexican firms, will be reaching for supposedly "impartial" international arbitration to resolve investor-state disputes; they, not Mexican nationals, will be able to challenge local ordinances as de facto confiscatory measures or as breaches of the NAFTA prohibition on performance requirements. U.S. firms will be the ones claiming the direct benefits of free unencumbered repatriation of profits. Thanks to guaranteed arbitration, U.S. multinationals, who have been largely responsible for the promulgation and entrenchment of the doctrine of state responsibility to aliens, will henceforth be in a strengthened position to claim the benefits of that doctrine as well as the growing body of "lex mercatoria" so favorable to their interests.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 22

Economic analysis is not neutral – rather, it has already made racialized and gendered decisions about which economic statuses and units matter for analysis Hernandez-Truyol et al., 06. Professor, University of Florida College of Law; Harris, Professor, University of California at Berkeley School of Law; Valdés, Professor, University of Miami School of Law (Berta, Angela, Francisco. 17 Berkeley La Raza L.J. 169 2006. Pg. 209-210. 7/2/13. KJ) From the LatCrit/CRT side of this convergence, interest in economics and class has manifested itself in two lines of scholarship, and perhaps an incipient third. First, many LatCrit/CRT scholars are beginning to utilize economic analysis in thinking about racial subordination. For years, the Supreme Court has directed the attention of civil rights scholars toward problems of intent. Thus, for example, cases like Feeney have required that plaintiffs prove intent to discriminate, or explicitly race-conscious action, in order to obtain strict scrutiny under the federal equal protection clause for government actions that create racialized effects. 58 The conscious intent test of the Equal Protection Clause has exerted a gravitational pull on judicial interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, even though Title VII as originally enacted contemplated claims based on racial impact alone.159 In explaining why a singleminded focus on conscious intent is inadequate to root out racial injustice, some LatCrit/CRT scholars have turned to economic analysis as a theoretical framework. Economic analysis can show how even in the absence of conscious intent to discriminate, institutions can be racialized, particularly when the starting point is unequal distribution of economic and political resources on the basis of race. 160 Thus, economic analysis helps construct a useful theory of institutional racism. In addition, as LatCrit/CRT spreads to new fields, such as commercial law, tax, corporations and business law, and bankruptcy, scholars are beginning to piece together an understanding of how market institutions, state institutions, and civil society institutions work together through law in ways that perpetuate racial hierarchy.'1 61 A second line of LatCrit/CRT analysis emphasizes the critical tradition. Although economic analysis has long tried to portray itself as a neutral policy science, even some economists have recognized that economics is rhetoric like any other. 162 New avenues of economic analysis opened up by "the economics of identity,"'' 63 socio-economics,164 the new institutional economics,1 65 and behavioral economics 166 have also begun to mount an internal critique against classical microeconomics. This critique suggests that market actors are not always entirely rational and selfinterested: they may demonstrate systematic cognitive bias, they may act within institutions that have their own norms of behavior, and they sometimes act with self-understandings inconsistent with the singleminded goal of wealth maximization. LatCrit/CRT scholars have begun to join the project of reshaping economic analysis itself in order to take better account of the questions of meaning, identity, and subordination that pervade markets and class relations. 167

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 23

North/South Economic engagement occurs against the backdrop of the dominance of international financial institutions who structure the global trade system to exclude the political participation of the global South. Gordon 2006- (Ruth, professor at Villanova Law School, “Contemplating the WTO from the Margins,” Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, Volume 17, Issue 1, pg 95-116 FG) The institutional reasons for this lack of influence are many and begin with scarce and insufficient resources and inadequate access to expertise. The WTO is an immense entity whose work covers a broad variety of topics and concerns. There are over a thousand meetings a year, with many taking place simultaneously. Many delegations from very poor nations, however, do not have missions in Geneva, making it impossible to be part of the day-today decision-making of the Organization. During Trade Rounds and Ministerial, this loss of voice is amplified as WTO Members engage in discussions and negotiations that will have a long-term impact on the future direction of the Organization. There are even more meetings, which are often held concurrently, making it difficult if not impossible for these nations to attend them all. Their delegations simply are not large enough, even when they manage to send additional personnel from home to augment whatever size mission they might have in Geneva. There are also the so-called Green Room meetings that one must be invited to, if one is to participate, and most poor, small countries fail to make the exclusive invite list. Many decisions are being made in these forums, however, and it is almost impossible to have input if one is not present. Moreover, this scenario does not account for the highly disturbing trend of decisions being taken at meetings held by the Quad countries (Canada, the United States, the European Union, and Japan) and then presented to WTO Members as a fait accompli. Even if a nation has sufficient resources to attend meetings, and one is invited to those held in the back rooms, there is still the matter of not having the technical expertise to participate in a meaningful manner. The work of the WTO is not only voluminous, but is often very technical and complex and is only becoming more so. One need only briefly survey the trade literature to quickly realize the need for considerable and sustained expertise to seriously and continuously participate in a significant and sophisticated manner. Lacking internal think tanks, adequate numbers of trade specialists and the resources to sustain such activities on an ongoing basis, there is evidence that these nations are often not as successful as they would like to be. However, NGOs do sometimes fill some of the gaps, and international institutions such as the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the WTO Secretariat do provide technical assistance. These are external entities, however, that come with their own beliefs, ideologies and agendas. There is little doubt that they can and have been helpful and supportive, and usually have the best of intentions; and surely, some assistance is usually better than none. Yet, it is doubtful whether this assistance adequately substitutes for the internal dialogue and vetting that takes place in affluent countries. These states can set their own priorities and agendas and then act in what they determine to be their national interests, even if multinational corporations and other special interests often drive their national agendas. For example, ponder what would transpire if a Southern tier country decided not to abide by the current neo liberal "trade liberalization leads to development" ideology, or if it decided to pursue a different approach than that advocated by development professionals? My guess is it would be vilified and left to its own devices. It could be argued that all countries are now restricted by the numerous rules emanating from the WTO, especially with the strengthened dispute settlement system that enforces these rules. On some level, this is true. The biggest difference is the Quad countries have largely written the rules and consequently they tend to reflect Western interests and mimic Western law and values.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 24

Economic engagement occurs against the backdrop of already existing inequality. Therefore, the plan occurs as a way to lock in the advantages that developed nations already hold over the global South. Lenaghan 06 (Senior Lecturer, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa. Presented at the Tenth Annual LatCrit Conference held in San Juan, Puerto Rico, October 6-10, 2005, “Trade Negotiations or Trade Capitulations: An African Experience” pg71-pg72) 2006 BERKELEY LA RAZA LAW JOURNAL

The debate on economic development within the global economy centers on the facilitation of trade within the framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO), which emphasizes the equal treatment of trading partners as a means of ensuring the economic advantages associated with trade. In particular, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Most Favored Nation (MFN) Clause as contained in Article 1 of tbe GATT obliges parties to grant each other equal treatment with regard to inter-party trade. However, the so-called MFN treatment does not take into account existing inequality in economic structures as well as levels of development between developed and developing (less developed) countries.^ Preferences were seen as helping to overcome these disadvantages. For this reason, it was necessary to implement legislative changes in order to introduce preferential treatment of developing countries (DCs). The 1947 GATT had no provisions for special arrangements, such as nonreciprocal duty free access, to help developing countries through trade. However, a number of provisions was added in 1965, for example. Article XVIII, Article XXVIII and Part IV on Trade and Development. In order to allow the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) to become legally operational, on June 25, 1971, the GATT Contracting Parties decided to waive the provisions of Article I of the GATT for a period of 10 years. Following the conclusion of the Tokyo Round, on November 28, 1979, the Contracting Parties adopted the Decision on Differential and More Favorable Treatment, Reciprocity and Fuller Participation of Developing Countries (the "Enabling Clause") which provided a legal basis for the granting of trade preferences. The Enabling Clause therefore constitutes the legal basis by which individual WTO Members may unilaterally grant GSP preferences to developing countries. The generalized basis of preferences under the Enabling Clause means that there is no need for donor countries to seek permission to grant preferences to developing countries or even better preferences to least-developed countries (LDCs). However, unilateral preferences that are only available to selected developing countries are not covered by the Enabling Clause reciprocal preferences, under GATT Article XXIV on regional trade agreements. For example, preferences under the Cotonou Agreement for African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries are not covered. The GSP is the most extensive and explicit expression of an attempt to use trade preferences as a tool of development.

Today

there are a number of other schemes limited to sub-groups of developing

countries with varying product coverage and preferential arrangements .

The affirmative occurs within international financial institutions which are structured to provide legal advantages to the North over the South Gonzalez, Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law, 2010 (Carmen G. 4/13/2010, Deconstructing the Mythology of Free Trade: Critical Reflections on Comparative Advantage, Berkeley La Raza Journal, Vol.17 pp. 65.68, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1588987, 7/02/2013, J.Y.) In September 2003, the Fifth Ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Cancun, Mexico, collapsed abruptly as a consequence of bitter disputes between the wealthy, industrialized countries of the North and the less affluent countries of the South over agricultural subsidies.1 Claiming that the $300 billion annual subsidies paid by the North to the world’s wealthiest farmers undermine the livelihoods

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 25

of millions of poor farmers in the South, delegates from Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean walked out of the negotiations to protest the unwillingness of the United States and the European Union to curtail their massive agricultural subsidies.2 The negotiations did not resume until the U.S. and the E.U. agreed to curb agricultural protectionism.3 Two years later, in November 2005, over 30,000 demonstrators faced chain link fences, police and tear gas at the Summit of the Americas in Mar del Plata, Argentina, to oppose the hemisphere-wide free trade agreement known as the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).4 The summit ended without clear agreement among the 34 leaders of Western Hemisphere nations on when and how to resume the stalled FTAA negotiations.5 These events highlight the growing dissatisfaction in the global South with the rules governing international trade and, more broadly, with the neoliberal economic model promoted through U.S. foreign policy and through multilateral institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the WTO.6 Popularly known as the ―Washington Consensus,‖ this economic model seeks to open the markets of the global South to foreign competition by imposing a standard package of economic reforms, including, inter alia, trade liberalization, privatization of industry and public services, deregulation, curtailment of government expenditures, elimination of barriers to direct foreign investment, financial liberalization, and enforcement of private property rights.7 One of the chief criticisms of the neoliberal economic reforms imposed by multilateral trade and financial institutions is that these reforms systematically disadvantage the South by allowing the North to protect its industries while requiring market openness in the nations of the South.8 Nowhere is this more apparent than in the agricultural sector. While the United States and the European Union lavishly subsidize their farmers and utilize tariffs to protect domestic producers from Southern competitors, the trade rules in the WTO Agreement on Agriculture and the structural adjustment programs mandated by the World Bank and the IMF require Southern nations to open their markets to ruinous competition from highly subsidized U.S. and E.U. producers.9 The health and safety standards that exclude the agricultural products of the South from Northern markets exacerbate these inequities.10 In other words, ―free trade‖ is a misnomer. The legal regime governing international agricultural trade institutionalizes a highly uneven playing field by permitting protectionism in the North while requiring Southern nations to open their markets to highly subsidized foreign competition.11 As a consequence of this double standard, the United States and the European Union are currently rendering small farmers destitute in Asia, Africa, and Latin America by dumping agricultural products on world markets at below the price of production.12 For example, the U.S. exports cotton at prices 47 percent below the cost of production; wheat at prices 28 percent below the cost of production; rice at prices 26 percent below the cost of production; and corn and soybeans at prices 10 percent below the cost of production. 13 According to a report by the International Food Policy Research Institute, Northern subsidies and import barriers cost Southern countries $24 billion per year in foregone agricultural and agro-industrial income.14 It is hardly surprising that agriculture continues to be one of the most explosive issues in the WTO negotiations.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 26

Free Trade Free trade perpetuates domination of the North on the South under the guise of leveling the field. Trade institutions systematically disadvantage poorer countries Gonzalez, Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law, 2010 (Carmen G. 4/13/2010, Deconstructing the Mythology of Free Trade: Critical Reflections on Comparative Advantage, Berkeley La Raza Journal, Vol.17 pp. 65.68, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1588987, 7/02/2013, J.Y.) Drawing upon the insights of critical race theory, the first critique is that free trade orthodoxy perpetuates the subordination of the South under the guise of formal equality.54 In other words, ―leveling the playing field‖ by promoting free market reforms in both the North and the South is necessary but insufficient to address the problem of Southern poverty. Formal equality among nations with vastly unequal economic power will only reinforce the dominance of the North by failing to address the entrenched economic imbalances rooted in centuries of Northern colonial exploitation and decades of Northern protectionism (most notably in agriculture, steel and textiles). 55 Indeed, some critics have referred to this neoliberal vision of international trade as ―international Lochnerism.‖56 It seeks to forbid the state from intervening in the ―free market‖ in order to subsidize particular industries or to provide favorable treatment to any particular trading partner – much as Lochnerism forbade the state from interfering with ―freedom of contract‖ in order to limit the hours that employees could be required to work. 57 Thus, the critics contend, a regime of formal equality imposed upon conditions of substantive inequality will inevitably serve the interests of the dominant group at the expense of the subordinated group 58 and will reinforce the privileged position of Northern economic actors in international trade.59 This critique is consistent with the ―structuralist‖ or ―dependency‖ critiques of certain early postcolonial development scholars based primarily in the global South. 60 As explained in Part IV below, Northern countries industrialized their economies through the use of subsidies, tariffs and other forms of state intervention while most Southern countries remained locked into poverty as a consequence of the colonial division of labor that relegated them to the production of raw materials for the benefit of the North.61 Postcolonial development scholars advocated state intervention to promote economic diversification and industrialization, pointing out the disadvantages of agro-export specialization.62 However, once Northern countries diversified and industrialized their economies, they became staunch opponents of state intervention in economic activity.63 Thus, even though the North achieved economic prosperity through protectionist means, neoliberal mythology now posits ―free trade‖ as the one and only path to ―development.‖ In so doing, neoliberalism uses formal equality (―leveling the playing field‖ by liberalizing trade in both the North and the South) to perpetuate the economic advantages gained as a result of the colonial division of labor and of the North’s current and historic use of economic protectionism. Part IV draws upon this insight in its discussion of static versus dynamic comparative advantage.

Free Trade exacerbates global inequality, hurts local farmers, and devastates the environment Gonzalez, Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law, 2010 (Carmen G. 4/13/2010, Deconstructing the Mythology of Free Trade: Critical Reflections on Comparative Advantage, Berkeley La Raza Journal, Vol.17 pp. 65.68, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1588987, 7/02/2013, J.Y.) A second critique of neoliberal orthodoxy demonstrates through empirical evidence that trade liberalization has exacerbated global inequality by increasing the income gap between the world’s poorest and wealthiest denizens.64 Trade liberalization has had a particularly devastating impact on small farmers in the global South. According to studies conducted by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and various non-governmental organizations, agricultural trade liberalization has benefited large export-oriented agricultural enterprises at the expense of small farmers, exacerbated rural poverty and unemployment, and accelerated migration from rural areas. 65 In addition, the export-oriented economic

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 27

strategy favored by neoclassical trade theory has imposed serious environmental costs on the South, including the erosion of agrobiodiversity, greater pesticide-related illness, agrochemical contamination of groundwater and surface waters, depletion of local aquifers, deforestation, and soil degradation.66

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 28

Free Trade Rhetoric The politics of economic engagement are saturated with the mythology of free trade: that all we need to lift the global South out of poverty is free trade. This mythology sanitizes the history of interventionism and protectionism in the North, forever relegating the global South to legally sanctioned poverty. Gonzalez, Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law, 2010 (Carmen G. 4/13/2010, Deconstructing the Mythology of Free Trade: Critical Reflections on Comparative Advantage, Berkeley La Raza Journal, Vol.17 pp. 65.68, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1588987, 7/02/2013, J.Y.) The patterns of trade and production that produce poverty and undernourishment in the global South have their origins in colonialism.94 Postcolonial development scholars have long pointed out that European economic prosperity was predicated on the ―underdevelopment‖ of the non-European world via conquest,

colonial domination, and exploitation of the peoples and resources of the conquered societies.95 The transfer of raw materials from the colonized ―periphery‖ (South) to the colonizing ―core‖(North) created economic prosperity in the North and economic stagnation in the South. 96 The penetration of capitalism ―underdeveloped‖ the South by extracting indigenous resources, disrupting indigenous social, economic and political systems, and transforming self-reliant subsistence economies into economic satellites of the North that were dependent on exporting raw materials and importing manufactured goods.97 After political independence, this regime continued; many countries in the global South continued to specialize in agro-export production and to import manufactured goods.98 From this postcolonial critical perspective, the agricultural trade liberalization advocated by the World Bank may benefit the South in the short run, but will ultimately perpetuate the economic dominance of the North by reinforcing agro-export specialization rather than promoting economic diversification and industrialization. Rather than encouraging Southern countries to employ state intervention to create new comparative advantages in industries that promise longterm rewards under contemporary market conditions, the World Bank report appears to endorse a static conception of comparative advantage that would replicate patterns of production imposed during the colonial era.99 Specifically, the World Bank’s endorsement of agricultural trade liberalization fails to take into account the concessions that the South will likely have to make in order to persuade the Unites States and the European Union to phase out agricultural subsidies and tariff barriers. For example, in the WTO negotiations on non-agricultural market access, the North is pressing the South to substantially reduce tariffs on manufactured goods.100 Indeed, India and Brazil recently agreed to open their markets to Northern manufactured goods and services in exchange for additional liberalization of Northern agricultural markets.101 Such concessions may deprive the South of badly needed tariff revenues, while exposing the South to de-industrialization and loss of jobs if goods produced by local industries are unable to compete with Northern imports. 102 In essence, the objective of trade liberalization is to limit the ability of states to protect or promote domestic industries on the theory that state intervention distorts comparative advantage and produces inefficiency.103 The proponents of trade liberalization attribute the economic success of the North to liberalized trade and financial flows, and argue that these policies will likewise benefit the South.104 However, the historical record suggests otherwise.105 Contrary to the free market prescriptions of the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO, nearly all Northern countries (including the United States, Germany, France, Japan, and the United Kingdom) successfully

diversified and industrialized their economies through a broad array of interventionist industrial, trade, and financial measures that included tariffs, subsidies, state financing of important industries, and even state-sponsored acquisition of intellectual property through industrial espionage.106 Most recently, the Newly Industrializing Countries of South Korea and Taiwan created new comparative advantages in high productivity industries through the use of tariffs, subsidies, technology transfer requirements, and regulation of foreign investment.107 All over the global South, the countries that rapidly industrialized in the aftermath of the Second World War (such as Brazil, Chile, Mexico, India, and China) did so through selective industrial policy – the use of a

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 29

combination of state intervention and market incentives in order to promote those industries most likely to contribute to long-term national economic welfare.108 Under the guise of ―leveling the playing field,‖ the free market reforms advocated by international trade and financial institutions threaten to exacerbate Southern poverty by prohibiting or phasing out the protectionist instruments historically used by the North and by certain middle-income countries in the South to achieve economic prosperity. The justification for these free market reforms is a static notion of comparative advantage that would consign much of the South to traditional agroexport production even though it is highly disadvantageous for the reasons noted in the preceding section. In

order to develop policy alternatives designed to promote the economic welfare of the global South, it is important to replace the static version of comparative advantage with a dynamic version that is responsive to present day market conditions and is grounded in historical fact rather than popular myth about how the North acquired its economic might. In short, the South must be permitted to intervene in the economy in order to promote those industries most likely to enhance long-term national economic welfare based on contemporary market opportunities (as opposed to historically imposed patterns of raw material production) and based on each country’s unique endowment of natural and human resources. 109

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 30

The Case of NAFTA (Trade Links) Trade between the US and Latin America is measured against GNP, masking domestic inequalities and leveling cultural values and differences in the name of economic efficiency. JOSE E. ALVAREZ, 1996, Professor of law at University of Michigan School of Law, “COLLOQUIUM PROCEEDINGS: PANEL TWO: CRITICAL THEORY AND THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT'S CHAPTER ELEVEN” pgs. 2-3 http://biblioteca.uprrp.edu/latcritcd/Publications/PublishedSymposium/ColloquiumIIUMAIL(1997)/CIIJA lvarez.pdf The economic models that produced the NAFTA investment chapter focus on Mexican GNP, not equity. n10 Even assuming that the sanguine estimates of economists prove correct with respect to the growth of the Mexican economy as a whole, no one knows whether the widening gap between Mexican elites and the desperately poor, along racial and ethnic lines, will only be exacerbated by FDI nor what the resulting social and political costs will be if the gap increases. Furthermore, investment liberalization, NAFTA-style, has been pursued without regard for the need to legitimize FDI to the Mexican people, and not merely to those in Chiapas. In Mexico and elsewhere, investment liberalization has been pursued without a vision of social justice, without real democratic legitimacy, and without concern for the historical record of FDI. NAFTA negotiators from all sides pretended that free trade and free investment were interchangeable phenomena--as if the import of a Sony television and the sale to a foreign investor of a treasured cultural icon are as indistinguishable politically as they are under economic theory. n11 Many [*307] real world effects of incoming FDI flows were not addressed, at least not for Mexico. n12 No one engaged in story-telling about foreign investors of old; instead, the rhetoric of the NAFTA investment chapter suggests that all foreign investors, regardless of their bargaining power or the histories of particular companies, are all "innocents" abroad, equally needful of protection from all-powerful government interests bent on their destruction. n13 Instead of addressing the likely consequences of a tide of FDI in the 1990s and beyond, U.S. negotiators insisted on using the NAFTA investment chapter to address the concerns of the Cold War. Instead of looking forward, Chapter Eleven of the NAFTA looks back: it insists on protecting foreign investors from the last wave of Third World nationalizations, without much attention to the factors that produced those waves or the possible backlash that may accompany future incoming FDI flows. The rhetoric of the investment chapter suggests a narrow economic treaty dealing with a limited set of protections for a defined group. The drafters of the NAFTA, as well as the commentators who have addressed it, tend to see it as a treaty within the self-contained sphere of "private" international law or, even more narrowly, "international economic law." In reality, this is a treaty that has an impact on the civil, political, economic, and social rights of a variety of individuals -from national investors driven out of business to those employed and unemployed by the changing fortunes and preferences of foreign multinational enterprises, especially in those sectors of the Mexican economy most likely to be dominated by foreign investors such as commercial agriculture and export manufacturing. But, if viewed as the human rights treaty that, in fact, it is, the NAFTA investment chapter is the most bizarre human rights treaty ever conceived.

Free trade is only a cover for the corporate takeover of indigenous labor JOSE E. ALVAREZ, 1996, Professor of law at University of Michigan School of Law, “COLLOQUIUM PROCEEDINGS: PANEL TWO: CRITICAL THEORY AND THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT'S CHAPTER ELEVEN” pg. 3

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 31

http://biblioteca.uprrp.edu/latcritcd/Publications/PublishedSymposium/ColloquiumIIUMAIL(1997)/CIIJA lvarez.pdf Under the NAFTA investment chapter, corporate and natural investors have gained direct access to binding denationalized adjudication of any governmental measure that interferes with their ample rights. Many of the NAFTA investor protections [*308] echo human rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the principal human rights coventions, including rights against discrimination, to security, to recognition as a legal person, to nationality, to freedom of movement, and to own property and not be arbitrarily deprived of it. n14 Interestingly, the United States has only managed to agree on such a potentially effective regime for human rights enforcement in the context of one type of legal person, the foreign investor, and not for any other human being. n15 Seen from this perspective, the NAFTA investment chapter is a human rights treaty for a specialinterest group. Except for relatively weak side agreements, which deal with environmental and labor issues, this is a treaty that is effectively silent with respect to the rights of others, who may be affected by FDI flows, and that ignores many of the other rights also contained in the Universal Declaration of Human rights. In the chapter protecting the rights of businesses, there is no mention of a human being's right to "economic" rights "indispensable for . . . dignity and the free development of . . . personality." n16 Similarly, there is no mention of a right to work, of free choice of employment, of just and favorable conditions of work, or of protection against unemployment. Neither is there mention of rights of "equal pay for equal work" and "just and favourable remuneration ensuring ... an existence worthy of human dignity," or of the "right to form and to join trade unions." n17 No one, not even the foreign investor's employees, are given enforceable rights to "rest and leisure, including reasonable limitations of working hours and periodic holidays with pay." n18 No one is given a right to an "adequate" standard of living n19 or a "right to education," n20 and, of course, there is no discussion of a "social and international order" in [*309] which all of these human rights can be fully realized for all persons, not merely foreign investors. n21 What is perhaps most striking in a treaty whose essential goal is economic development is that there is no attempt to connect the rights it so lavishly bestows on its investors to the needs of the collective; there is no real attempt to put flesh on concepts such as a "right to development" or "sustainable development." n22 It might be said that the comparison between the NAFTA and human rights instruments is, in itself, a rhetorical stance that is as questionable as the NAFTA's invocation of "equal rights." Nonetheless, the idea that NAFTA advocates would find comparisons with human rights instruments inapposite or absurd, at a minimum, shows the limited frame of reference in which that treaty was negotiated.

NAFTA proves—the US’s attempts at economic engagement with Latin America divorce economics from moral or cultural concerns. JOSE E. ALVAREZ, 1996, Professor of law at University of Michigan School of Law, “COLLOQUIUM PROCEEDINGS: PANEL TWO: CRITICAL THEORY AND THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT'S CHAPTER ELEVEN” pg. 4 http://biblioteca.uprrp.edu/latcritcd/Publications/PublishedSymposium/ColloquiumIIUMAIL(1997)/CIIJA lvarez.pdf Furthermore, the NAFTA investment chapter does not purport to impose any corresponding duties on the U.S. multinationals it privileges. The NAFTA chapter contains scarcely one word about the many duties that multinationals should owe host states under international law. These duties have been canvassed, for example, in the Draft Code on the Conduct of Transnational Corporations, which has been under discussion at the United Nations for years. n23 There is no mention of duties to respect the national sovereignty of the states in which they operate; to contribute towards the achievement of

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 32

national economic goals and development objectives; to implement contracts in good faith and to renegotiate contracts subject to a fundamental change in circumstances; to adhere to socio-cultural objectives and values; to respect human rights; to abstain from corrupt practices; to cooperate in the allocation of decisionmaking powers among their entities such as to enable them to contribute to economic development, local equity participation, and the managerial [*310] and technical training of nationals; and to give priority to the employ of nationals. Moreover, there is no mention of duties to avoid transfer pricing practices, which have the effect of modifying the tax base on which their entities are assessed or of evading exchange control measures; to cooperate with host state's transfer of technology goals; to perform their activities with due regard to relevant international standards of consumer protection; and to disclose financial information. n24 While many of these duties are not regarded as controversial in the abstract, the prospect of making them as enforceable as the rights recognized in the NAFTA would have seemed heretical to NAFTA negotiators. The bottom line is that instead of the comprehensive, balanced, and truly reciprocal investment regime that it purports to be, the NAFTA investment chapter is merely a short-sighted, one-way ratchet to reward and attract U.S. capital. Even those who assume that the attraction of foreign capital provides its own reward ought to be concerned should this treaty's imbalances undermine its promise to supply stable and enduring rights for foreign investors.

NAFTA uncovers Americas true motivation behind free trade: to liberalize and dominate the world market JOSE E. ALVAREZ, 1996, Professor of law at University of Michigan School of Law, “COLLOQUIUM PROCEEDINGS: PANEL TWO: CRITICAL THEORY AND THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT'S CHAPTER ELEVEN” pg. 4 http://biblioteca.uprrp.edu/latcritcd/Publications/PublishedSymposium/ColloquiumIIUMAIL(1997)/CIIJA lvarez.pdf There are many other promising avenues of inquiry that race critics might pursue in connection with the NAFTA investment [*312] chapter. Some of these may clarify the past. Critical race perspectives may have much to say about how the NAFTA investment chapter came about. They may help explain the "naive" faith of its negotiators in facially neutral rules and forums that ignore North/South power differentials. Critical insights may pose issues for the future, suggesting, for example, that there are risks should FDI flows encourage the "harmonization" of laws between sending and receiving countries. n29 While many have assumed that such harmonization is desirable, race critics may not be quite as sanguine, especially if harmonization should proceed, as has investment liberalization, on U.S. terms. Once we use critical insights to "deconstruct" and "reconstruct" the NAFTA investment chapter, we may become aware that investment liberalization, NAFTA-style, is not what it appears to be: a manifestation of neutral or impersonal "market" forces. We may realize just how much the NAFTA investment chapter reflects U.S. laws and perspectives.

The NAFTA agreement occurs in a Rights Regime which leverages the advantages toward the more developed US economy and legal system against Mexico. Iglesias, Professor of Law Director of the Center for Hispanic and Caribbean Legal Studies, 1997 [Elizabeth M., LatCrit Theory: Some Preliminary Notes Towards a Transatlantic Dialogue, http://personal.law.miami.edu/~iglesias/transatlantic.htm#_ftn29, 7-7-13] Like other commentators, Professor Alvarez is interested in revealing the realities of enforced subordination that are suppressed by the rhetoric through which the NAFTA is represented in legal discourse. However, Alvarez exposes these realities by invoking the rights critiques of early critical legal theory. Liberal rights, particularly negative rights, like the rights to property and privacy, have

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 33

been the focus of heated debate in critical legal theory, as these rights have often proven to be empty formalisms of limited use in the struggle for social justice. Invoking these insights, Alvarez demonstrates how NAFTA's investment rights regime reproduces relations of economic and political subordination. Put differently, Alvarez can pierce the rhetoric of NAFTA's Investment Chapter, in part, because he knows how to do critical rights analysis. Alvarez begins his rights analysis by noting that NAFTA is represented as a fair contract between sovereign equals, that establishes symmetrical and reciprocal rights between the state parties and their investors. NAFTA's Investment Chapter establishes a legal regime of substantive rights and remedial procedures for the benefit of "foreign investors." [FN21] The rights are broad *196ranging and impose significant restrictions on the state's authority to regulate economic activity within its territory. Indeed, many of these rights track the human rights enumerated in the Universal Declaration. Thus, under NAFTA's Investment Chapter, foreign investors enjoy the rights to be free of discrimination "to security, to recognition as a legal person and to nationality, to freedom of movement, and to own property and not be arbitrarily deprived of it." [FN22] Alvarez's first move is to reveal the fundamental asymmetry of the rights established by the Investment Chapter. He does this by invoking the critical distinction between formal rights equality and equal rights enjoyment. For example, the rights to national treatment and unencumbered repatriation of profits may be equally afforded to all investors of the three contracting parties, but these rights are much more valuable to U.S. investors than to Mexican investors because U.S. companies are moving into Mexico much faster than Mexican companies are expected to move into the United States. Like other liberal rights regimes, NAFTA's formal rights equality for all foreign investors ignores the very real inequalities in levels of economic development between the state parties. These inequalities mean that U.S. companies will be the main beneficiaries of the NAFTA investment rights regime for some time to come."

NAFTA undermines Mexican interests and negatively impacts the social, economic, and cultural human rights of its citizens IGLESIAS 1997 (ELIZABETH M. Professor of Law Director of the Center for Hispanic and Caribbean Legal Studies J.D. 1988, Yale Law School. “INTERNATIONAL LAW, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LATCRIT THEORY” pgs189-191) University of Miami Inter-American Law Review) The first presentation by Professor Jos6 Alvarez provides a critical analysis of the investment rights regime established byNAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. 20 His analysis of NAFTA's Investment Chapter makes a number of important contributions to the development of LatCrit theory, in large part because it demonstrates the significance of international trade and investment agreements to our antisubordination agenda. Alvarez encourages LatCrit scholars to turn their attention to these agreements because they are directly implicated in reproducing the patterns of subordination we struggle to dismantle. At the same time, his analysis illustrates how methodologies already familiar to critical race theorists can increase our understanding of the way international investment agreements impact on Latina/o economic, social, and cultural rights. Like other commentators, Professor Alvarez is interested in revealing the realities of enforced subordination that are suppressed by the rhetoric through which the NAFTA is represented in legal discourse. However, Alvarez exposes these realities by invoking the rights critiques of early critical legal theory. Liberal rights, particularly negative rights, like the rights to property and privacy, have been the focus of heated debate in critical legal theory, as these rights have often proven to be empty formalisms of limited use in the struggle for social justice. Invoking these insights, Alvarez demonstrates how NAFTA's investment rights regime reproduces relations of economic and political subordination. Put differently, Alvarez can pierce the rhetoric of NAFTA's Investment Chapter, in part, because he knows how to do critical rights analysis. Alvarez begins his rights analysis by noting that NAFTA is represented as a fair contract between sovereign equals, that establishes symmetrical and reciprocal rights between the state parties and their investors. NAFTA's

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 34

Investment Chapter establishes a legal regime of substantive rights and remedial procedures for the benefit of "foreign investors. 21 The rights are broadranging and impose significant restrictions on the state's authority to regulate economic activity within its territory. Indeed, many of these rights track the human rights enumerated in the Universal Declaration. Thus, under NAFTA's Investment Chapter, foreign investors enjoy the rights to be free of discrimination "to security, to recognition as a legal person and to nationality, to freedom of movement, and to own property and not be arbitrarily deprived of it.)22Alvarez's first move is to reveal the fundamental asymmetry of the rights established by the Investment Chapter. He does this by invoking the critical distinction between formal rights equality and equal rights enjoyment. For example, the rights to national treatment and unencumbered repatriation of profits may be equally afforded to all investors of the three contracting parties, but these rights are much more valuable to U.S. investors than to Mexican investors because U.S. companies are moving into Mexico much faster than Mexican companies are expected to move into the United States. Like other liberal rights regimes, NAFTA's formal rights equality for all foreign investors ignores the very real inequalities in levels of economic development between the state parties. These inequalities mean that U.S. companies will be the main beneficiaries of the NAFTA investment rights regime for some time to come. This rights asymmetry is not the only thing that Professor Alvarez's rights analysis reveals. The formal rights equality of NAFTA's Investment Chapter hides the economic subordination it perpetuates. As a regime of negative rights, NAFTA investment rights operate as restrictions on the Mexican state's authority to regulate economic activity in ways that have promoted the economic development of Mexican investors, prohibiting requirements like domestic content rules, technology transfers, local sourcing, and the use of local managerial personnel. Mexican investors get formal rights equality in exchange for economic extinction, even as the Mexican economy becomes another American market and the border becomes an INS encampment and a toxic waste dump . Professor Alvarez's critical rights analysis takes another turn, striking a now familiar theme. Alvarez shows yet another way in which the fragmentation of legal fields undermines the struggle for human rights. While NAFTA's Investment Chapter purports to establish a self-contained regime of substantive rights and remedial procedures for foreign investors, this agreement and the economic activities and relations it protects from state regulation have a direct impact on many rights and interests not included, nor even recognized, within the rights regime the agreement establishes. The NAFTA investment rights regime only protects the human rights of the foreign investor. The rights most directly impacted and blatantly excluded are the social, economic, and cultural human rights of the most vulnerable Latinas/os, both in the United States and throughout Latin America.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 35

Trade Agreements Generally Trade agreements only appear to uphold the spirit of free trade—in reality, the economic power of the global North coerces others into “unilateral” trade agreements that benefit the domestic and military interests of the elite. Lenaghan 06 (Senior Lecturer, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa. Presented at the Tenth Annual LatCrit Conference held in San Juan, Puerto Rico, October 6-10, 2005, “Trade Negotiations or Trade Capitulations: An African Experience” pg71-pg72) 2006 BERKELEY LA RAZA LAW JOURNAL

Both the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and the Cotonou Agreement are based on the assumption that they can assist in poverty reduction, increase growth and achieve sustainable development in Africa. Both establish nonreciprocal trade preferences for African countries with regard to their trade with the EU and the U.S., respectively. The implementation of non-reciprocal preferential trade arrangements is part of the concept of special treatment for developing countries. While the Cotonou Agreement and the AGOA aspire to promote Africa countries' advancement, this paper argues that the unbalanced power relationship between the EU and the U.S. on the one hand, and Africa on the other, raises suspicions that the negotiation and implementation of these agreements have failed to fully address African concerns . I raise this point by critically evaluating the use of trade preferences within the African context. Part II of this paper focuses on the recent relationship between Africa and the United States (US) in terms of the AGOA. The supposedly altruistic aspects of the AGOA are recognized as furthering primarily the interests of the dominant U.S. Part III explores the historical relationship between the EU and Africa. Following an analysis of the current EU and ACP relationship is an examination of the Cotonou Agreement and the Everything But Arms Agreement. The Cotonou Agreement represents a considerable break with the unilateral preferences of the past and aims to replace preferential trading with reciprocal Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). Until now, only the EU and South Africa have completed EPA negotiations. For this reason, the analysis of the negotiations process between the EU and South Africa seeks to identify the possibility of coercion by the dominant EU in further EPA negotiations. These findings assist recommendations on how best to employ the EPA negotiations process in the other ACP regions.In an attempt to understand these dissimilar agreements between Africa and the EU, on the one hand, and the U.S. and Africa on the other, it is important to take note of the historical experiences, different economic perceptions as well as the different global roles that might have been an influence. In comparison to the strong historical ties that the EU holds in Africa, the U.S. represents a comparatively limited relationship. Other than establishing an independent Liberia as a resettlement area for freed slaves^ and other African descendants in the 184O's, the U.S. policy towards Africa has been based on the socalled 'hands-off principle.^ During the period of the Cold War, the U.S. recognized the potential of Africa as a large supplier for raw materials critical in particular to military and industrial purposes. Perhaps most illustrative of this is the U.S. commitment in the Congo (presendy the Democratic Republic of Congo) during the rule of draconian dictator Mobutu Sese Seko, in the 196O's as a result of their dependence on strategic minerals for use in U.S. nuclear weapons program . Later U.S. relations focused on Nigeria, who became the second leading exporter of oil to the U.S. in the early 1970s. Perhaps even more important was the U.S. foreign affairs policy to fight Communism wherever it appeared in the world. The intensity of this waged war is particularly visible in the 1960s and the 1970s, in the U.S. support of anti-communist rebel movements like the South-African sponsored guerrilla group UNITA in Angola and military incursions by South Africa itself as part of the later destabilization policies.* During the 1980s and the 1990s, U.S.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 36

foreign policy towards Africa was primarily based on the principle of quiet diplomacy. This was followed by intermittent interventions such as the United States' participation in the UN humanitarian mission in Somalia from 1992 until 1994. In response to the genocide in Rwanda that erupted in April 1994, the Clinton Administration established new governmental institutions like The African Crisis Response Initiative, which was aimed at developing African capacity for peacekeeping with US assistance. From these initiatives evolved a commitment to build a new partnership with Africa giving rise to a White House Conference on Africa in 1994 which was followed by an African Summit in 1995, forming the foundation for economic relationships between the U.S. and Africa. B. AGOA In May 2000, the U.S. Congress enacted AGOA I, a unilateral piece of legislation said to benefit sub-Saharan African countries'" solely with regard to trade and trade-related issues. U.S. President Chnton signed the Act into law on 18 May 2000. Starting from October 2000, AGOA I covered a period of eight years." In contrast to extended Cotonou discussions between the EU and ACP countries, this trade act is

unilateral, not bilateral . The U.S. govemment failed to engage African governments in negotiations, indicating a fundamental disrespect for the sovereignty of African govemments in the implementation of their economic policies

Trade agreements with the US always result in unpredictable and authoritarian demands, leaving third world economies vulnerable and dependent on the US Lenaghan 06 (Senior Lecturer, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa. Presented at the Tenth Annual LatCrit Conference held in San Juan, Puerto Rico, October 6-10, 2005, “Trade Negotiations or Trade Capitulations: An African Experience” pg71-pg72) 2006 BERKELEY LA RAZA LAW JOURNAL

Regarding application, AGOA distinguishes between eligibility regarding countries and the eligibility of products.'^ Section 104 of AGOA I refers to certain "country eligibility" requirements. In order to receive the benefits of AGOA I, a Sub Saharan African country must: . . .[be] determined to have established, or to have been making continual progress towards establishing a market-based economy, the rule of law and political pluralism, elimination of barriers to U.S. trade and investment, protection of intellectual property, efforts to combat corruption, policies to reduce poverty, increasing availability of health care and educational opportunities, protection of human rights and worker rights, and elimination of certain child labor practices and refrain from activities that undermine U.S. national security. In addition to these eligibility requirements the U.S. President has the right to certify a countries' eligibility status.'^ This

one sided

determination of eligibility as well as the provision for

reviewing a country's status every year, with the right of the U.S . to withdraw the eligibility status any time causes uncertainty and instability and keeps African trade vulnerable to U.S. politics. For example, during the 2004 presidential election, Africa was not a priority. This caused a delay in the renewal of a 'special treatment' clause by the U.S. Congress, forcing Swaziland to retrain textile workers as the Taiwanese factory owners diverted orders to other factories. Kenya foresaw a textile industry disaster if the extension were not passed by the September 2004 deadline.''* What enterprising manufacturer would seriously invest in factories that might lose their major market in a few months? The uncertainty of AGOA eligibility is further aggravated through the political and economic conditions imposed on eligible countries. For the purposes of this analysis the following criteria will be critiqued: the elimination of barriers to U.S. trade and investment, protection of intellectual property, and the duty to refrain from activities that undermine U.S. national security.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 37

The promotion of economic specialization rapidly devastates the economies of southern countries while those who benefit and promote it distance themselves from the damage Gonzalez, Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law, 2010 (Carmen G. 4/13/2010, Deconstructing the Mythology of Free Trade: Critical Reflections on Comparative Advantage, Berkeley La Raza Journal, Vol.17 pp. 65.68, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1588987, 7/02/2013, J.Y.) Notwithstanding the economic vulnerability associated with agro-export specialization, the structural adjustment programs imposed by the World Bank and the IMF on debtor nations have promoted comparative advantage in agricultural production as a means of earning the revenue with which to service debt, thus impeding economic diversification and industrialization.87 Ironically, structural adjustment has depressed the export earnings of debtor nations by glutting world agricultural markets and causing agricultural commodity prices to decline.88 The emphasis by the World Bank and the IMF on agroexport specialization has been disastrous for the global South. In sub-Saharan Africa, for example, the terms of trade for agricultural products have been declining at an alarming rate since 1980, resulting in deteriorating balance of payments, quadrupling of debt, declining standards of living, and growing hunger.89 Regrettably, the World Bank continues to endorse agro-export specialization as a viable economic strategy, provided that both the North and the South eliminate agricultural subsidies and import barriers.90 In the recent World Bank report discussed in Part III of this article, 91 the World Bank acknowledges that most successful developing countries do not rely on agro-export production to finance economic development, and even concedes that an agro-export-led development strategy is likely to be impoverishing in the current protectionist economic climate.92 The report, however, does not address the World Bank’s historic role in promoting the very agro-export specialization that the report now finds impoverishing; nor does the report discuss the declining terms of trade for agricultural commodities in relation to manufactured goods. It is unclear whether the authors of the World Bank report believe that agricultural trade liberalization will reverse the long-term decline in the terms of trade for agricultural commodities or whether the failure to address this issue is an analytical oversight. Since the elimination of agricultural protectionism will not address the factors cited in the economics literature for the long-term decline in agricultural commodity prices relative to manufactured goods, it appears unlikely that the agro-export specialization advocated by the World Bank will prove to be a viable economic strategy.93 The World Bank report is a classic example of the neoliberal orthodoxy that this article seeks to deconstruct.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 38

Trade Liberalization Trade liberalization only happens for those goods which accrue comparative advantage to developed countries of the global North. Gordon 2006- (Ruth, professor at Villanova Law School, “Contemplating the WTO from the Margins,” Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, Volume 17, Issue 1, pg 95-116 FG) The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which has been folded into the panoply of WTO Agreements, was long thought of as a "rich man's club' that operated in the interests of industrialized countries. Indeed, the international trade regime has been, and remains tilted against the so-called developing world. This bias can be found in the basic precepts and conventions that inspire it, as well as the manner in which these principles have been implemented. GATT is intended to liberalize trade by reducing tariffs, and the most favored nation principle requires that these reduced tariffs be extended to all Members of the WTO. Trade liberalization has been enormously successful, with tariffs on manufactured goods currently at their lowest levels in modern history. Yet, when it comes to agricultural products and textiles, goods in which Southern tier nations have a comparative advantage, protectionism has been rampant. GATT outlawed non-tariff barriers to trade that might dilute or lessen tariff concessions, yet quotas, subsidies and other devices that would otherwise be unacceptable if applied to other goods proliferated and thrived with respect to agricultural products and textiles.' Exports of primary products, such as minerals and agricultural goods, have been subjected to tariff escalation whereby tariffs escalate as processing increases, thereby discouraging processing, and presumably industrialization and job creation in the nation of origin. It might be observed that it is unlikely that these devices were employed with the explicit intent of harming Third World countries. Rather, it is more probable that they were intended to protect specific domestic industries in industrialized nations, industries that are often populated by the lowest paid and most disenfranchised segments of the labor force. Thus, global competition has meant the poor are competing against the poor on an even larger and broader scale.

Liberalizing trade within the current international legal regime only reinforces the advantages of the global North Gonzalez, Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law, 2010 (Carmen G. 4/13/2010, Deconstructing the Mythology of Free Trade: Critical Reflections on Comparative Advantage, Berkeley La Raza Journal, Vol.17 pp. 65.68, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1588987, 7/02/2013, J.Y.) However, it would be a mistake to regard trade liberalization in the North as sufficient to address the inequities in the global trading system that maintain the subordinate status of the global South. Applying the same rules to poor countries and wealthy countries will only reinforce the economic dominance of the latter in the absence of efforts to grapple with deeper structural inequities in the global trading system that have their genesis in colonialism.20 As explained in Part IV below, the declining terms of trade for agricultural products relative to manufactured goods will perpetuate poverty in agro-exporting Southern countries even if Northern agricultural subsidies and import barriers are eliminated. In order to ensure that specialization and trade genuinely benefit the South, trade liberalization in the North must be accompanied by modifications in the rules governing international trade in order to allow Southern governments to utilize the protectionist tools historically used by the North to achieve economic diversification and industrialization. Rather than being consigned to patterns of agro-export specialization imposed during the colonial period and maintained after political independence, Southern countries must be permitted to utilize tariffs, subsidies and other forms of state intervention in order to promote those industries most likely to contribute to long-term national welfare. In other words, only an asymmetrical set of rules requiring market openness in the North and permitting protectionism in the South can begin to provide redress for the inequities caused by colonial exploitation of the South and by Northern protectionism. These and other recommended reforms of the legal regime governing international trade are discussed at greater length in Part V below.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 39

Trade Liberation fails six reasons Gonzalez, Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law, 2010 (Carmen G. 4/13/2010, Deconstructing the Mythology of Free Trade: Critical Reflections on Comparative Advantage, Berkeley La Raza Journal, Vol.17 pp. 65.68, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1588987, 7/02/2013, J.Y.) Contrary to the assertions of the World Bank, an economic strategy based on ―comparative advantage in agricultural production will not alleviate poverty or bring prosperity even if Northern subsidies and import barriers are lifted. Indeed, trade liberalization in the North is likely to accelerate the degradation of the natural resource base necessary for agricultural production, and intensify Southern poverty in the long run for the six reasons discussed below. First, countries that rely on their ―comparative advantage‖ in agro-export production are disadvantaged in the global economy as a consequence of the declining terms of trade for agricultural products vis-à-vis manufactured goods and the historic volatility of agricultural commodity markets.70 Second, neoclassical trade theory frequently relegates the nations of the global South to economic specialization in their traditional exports – even if this specialization was imposed rather than chosen and even if it is disadvantageous under current market conditions.71 By focusing on static rather than dynamic comparative advantage and by precluding governmental intervention in the market to create new comparative advantages, the predominant interpretation of the theory of comparative advantage deprives the South of the state interventionist tools used by Northern nations to diversify and industrialize their economies.72 Third, the theory of comparative advantage assumes perfect competition73 and thereby fails to take into account market distortions caused by the dominant role of transnational corporations in global agricultural trade.74 Fourth, the failure of market prices to reflect social and environmental externalities results in a misidentification of comparative advantage and in an international division of labor that exacerbates poverty and environmental degradation.75 Fifth, neoclassical trade theory frequently underestimates the costs of adjusting to the economic dislocations caused by shifting patterns of economic specialization.76 Finally, the economic specialization promoted by neoclassical trade theory is inherently incompatible with the biological diversity necessary to promote agroecosystem health.77

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 40

International Trade Institutions The affirmative’s economic engagement is not some innocent swap of goods in a neutral marketplace—international financial institutions controlled by elite economic interests already control social services and developmental efforts in the poorest countries of the global South. Gordon 2006- (Ruth, professor at Villanova Law School, “Contemplating the WTO from the Margins,” Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, Volume 17, Issue 1, pg 95-116 FG) International financial institutions not only proclaim the appropriate theories, but also are in a position to rule the poor, small nations that must adhere to their policies and principles. There have been numerous analyses of international financial institutions and their chokehold on poor countries. They often finance healthcare, infrastructure construction and many other projects and services or contribute sufficient funds to direct the size, scope or design of these undertakings. In the meantime, many impoverished nations drown in unsustainable debt to Western banks and governments and thus are forced to maintain strategies and plans that are determined by outside institutions. International financial institutions (IFIs) dictate economic policies and increasingly governance, and under the rubric of good governance. They determine the content and implementation of government policies. Nations are being compelled to conform their laws to international prescriptions as part of the good governance agenda, while they are required to implement numerous WTO mandates that essentially require the adoption of Western laws and policies. International Financial Institutions are notoriously undemocratic, with the principal monetary contributors possessing the dominant voice over policy and resource allocation. Those who partake of these resources have an almost negligible voice, and this is especially true for the poorest of the poor, and the smallest of the small. Thus, as development becomes part of the agenda of an increasingly powerful WTO, the possibility of finding a more strident voice within an ostensibly more democratic system was eagerly anticipated, but has ultimately proven fruitless. It seems that despite being in the numerical majority, these nations have been unable to exert their collective will.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 41

Development The ideology of “development” constructs poor nations as uncivilized barbarians in need of management from the West. Gordon 2006- (Ruth, professor at Villanova Law School, “Contemplating the WTO from the Margins,” Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, Volume 17, Issue 1, pg 95-116 FG) We rarely question development, but perhaps we should. I have more fully appraised development elsewhere, and so only a few thoughts are offered here. By definition, development supposes some deficiency that must be corrected, and presumes inferiority and being substandard to the other that is developed. It also assumes that a particular kind of modernization is the inevitable course that all nations and peoples must pursue, for there is no question that it is preferable, superior and indeed the only path; no other way of life or being is even worthy of discussion. All those who cannot reach this promised land, must somehow be inept, undeveloped, inadequate, and in need of betterment by the West, now termed the international community which comes in the guise of international financial institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and now the WTO. Although development is posited as universal and almost natural and intrinsic, it is very much a part of western ideology and can thus be contested and critically appraised. Indeed, there has been resistance to development, although it is sometimes characterized as incompetence and an inability to comprehend. The most impoverished, or those who are now termed the 'least developed,' are the ultimate 'other' that is almost always colored, powerless and whose prospects are unmistakably bleak. Depending upon ones perspective, these communities are regarded almost as if they were errant children that one should pity, rescue, ignore or at the other end of the political spectrum, perhaps just turn out of the house and leave to their own sorry devices. To eradicate their desperate poverty, it seems that there is no burden that can be imposed (upon them, of course) that is too great. Poverty reduction provides a rational for the kind of imposition, the kind of thought processes we would find reprehensible, perhaps unbearable if they were applied to the rich and prosperous West, indeed even to the impoverished colored West. The presumption is the West knows what is best for all peoples. Indeed, there is a presumptive privilege, in fact an obligation, to order and change lives at will and to prescribe how societies and indeed life itself should be ordered. Often, this is done with the best of intentions, but that does not necessarily make it permissible.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 42

Links and Modules

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 43

Civil Society The institutions of civil society are already captured by the economic forces of exploitation and the unidimensional analysis of identity which excludes Latina/os. Hernandez-Truyol et al., 06. Professor, University of Florida College of Law; Harris, Professor, University of California at Berkeley School of Law; Valdés, Professor, University of Miami School of Law (Berta, Angela, Francisco. 17 Berkeley La Raza L.J. 169 2006. Pg. 212-213. 7/2/13. KJ) Wright suggests that the forms of socialist economy that thus emerged in the Soviet Union and China should really be renamed statism. In contrast, a truly "socialist" economy would put the power to control the economy not in the hands of a central state, but directly in the hands of "society": in institutions and practices dominated neither by market institutions nor by government institutions, but by voluntary associations. This, in Wright's view, would be true "socialism": "an economy organized in such a way as to serve the needs and aspirations of ordinary people, not elites."1 74 Such an economy would, he notes, be truly democratic, meaning ruled by the people subject to the principle of egalitarianism. Wright concludes: "If 'Democracy' is the label for the subordination of state power to social power, 'socialism' is the term for the subordination of economic power to social power.' 175 This vision of socialism responds to some of the deep liberal values of contemporary Western political philosophy. Liberal political philosophers like "civil society" because it is not based on coercion but on freedom. No one is forced by the need to survive or the fear of death or prison to participate in the "voluntary" associations and institutions (we will come back to the scare quotes later). Instead, the whole idea of civil society is the idea that there, people voluntarily join with one another to engage in collective action that furthers their desires and dreams. Moreover, civil society, in some formulations, is not only an expression of liberty but a school for liberty. The process of coming together and working cooperatively with others inculcates "civic virtues." From this perspective, civil society is where adults go to relearn the basic rules of human life first introduced in preschool: you must share, and share nicely; no hitting, kicking, or biting other people; you must respect other people who want things that are different from what you want; take turns; you can learn from people who are different from you; and what you make together can even be better than what you would have made on your own. Civil society, lacking mechanisms of coercion other than those inherent in human relations themselves (e.g., if you are mean, nobody will play with you anymore) is therefore a school for egalitarian political relations. So what might a truly "socialist," in this sense, economy look like? How would it operate? Wright concludes that a pure socialist economy is probably unachievable in a large complex society. Even attempts to create pure "free-market" or pure "statist" economies always involve some mix of regulation and control by state, market, and civil society institutions. Nevertheless, Wright's taxonomy is useful. By identifying socialism with power rooted in "the social" and with democracy, Wright's taxonomy helps us think about the ideal society and about ways of getting there, as well as helping us analyze the many mixed forms of governance currently in existence. Wright tells us that "'Social power' is power rooted in the capacity to mobilize people for cooperative, voluntary collective actions of various sorts in civil society."' 76 But his work does not have a lot to say about what social power looks like, or what the obstacles to an egalitarian civil society might be. Indeed, he does not even talk very much about what "civil society" means or what institutions it consists of. In contrast, LatCrit/CRT's approach to thinking about economic practices and institutions is rooted in problems and issues that provide a much more detailed look at the problem of inequality within "the social." From its inception, LatCrit/CRT has been focused on the problem of subordination: that is, unjust power relations in liberal societies that are both more subtle and more pervasive than outright slavery or political repression. These unjust forms of power-for example, racism, heteropatriarchy, and imperialism-regularly pervade

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 44

state and economic practices and institutions, but in contemporary times they are centrally reproduced in civil society as well. Any society that wants to move toward a more socialist economy must challenge these forms of subordination if it wants to foster democracy. LatCrit/CRT, like other intellectual movements drawing on the past generation of "theory" in the academy, has been focused on the problem of identifying and criticizing these unjust forms of power, including those that lie in wait in seemingly unproblematic concepts like "voluntariness." LatCrit/CRT's other contribution to a new socialist theory is its focus on law. Although law is popularly identified with state power, it has been a commonplace at least since American Legal Realism that law shapes the "private" as well as the "public." In contemporary liberal societies, law provides a framework for distinguishing "state" from "market" from "civil society," and sets the ground rules for the major practices and institutions in each of these realms. LatCrit/CRT has taken off from these basic observations to detail how law works sometimes in conjunction with and sometimes in conflict with other forms of power. Finally, law in the modem era has provided the major institutional and philosophical framework for thinking about and striving for "justice." People who seek (public) justice seek it through law. And people thinking about what justice means start with law (though they may not end there).

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 45

Mexico Relations with Mexico are inherently unilateral, despite seeming bilateral, and ends whenever US loses economic interest Purcell 2004 (Dr. Susan Kaufman Purcell is the Director of the Center for Hemispheric Policy at the University of Miami. Established in March 2005, the Center sponsors public and private programs and meetings dealing with Latin American economic and political issues and U.S.-Latin American relations “MEXICO-U.S. RELATIONS: BIG INITIATIVES CAN CAUSE BIG PROBLEMS” pg381-pg382) 2004 Council on Foreign Relations, Inc While a good personal relationship between the two Presidents makes it easier to manage problems between the two countries, it does not cause them to disappear. The meetings between Presidents Reagan and López Portillo have involved exchanges of ideas. No decisions on the hard issues have been taken. In part, this is because a Mexican president approaching the end of his six-year term tries to avoid making innovative decisions. Since de la Madrid will not take power until December 1982, issues involving the shape of the bilateral relationship are, in a sense, "on hold." Once they begin to be addressed, the differing perspectives of the two Presidents will become apparent. It is sobering to recall that Jimmy Carter's initial encounter with López Portillo was also a kind of love-fest . López Portillo was Carter's first official visitor and hopes ran high that a new and better era in Mexico-U.S. relations was beginning. They evaporated when the nitty-gritty issues, such as the price the United States was to pay for Mexican gas, began to be negotiated. Mexico-U.S. relations were therefore worse than they appeared to be in the early years of the Carter Administration and better than they appeared to be at the end of his presidency. Progress was achieved in increasing the attention that U.S. policymakers gave to Mexico, as well as their sensitivity to the bad effects that domestic decisions might have on Mexico. This was accomplished in part through the establishment of a "consultative mechanism" consisting of bilateral committees that met regularly to discussissues such as trade, energy and migration. It was also enhanced by the creation of an office in the State Department to keep track of and coordinate decisions of the U.S. government that affect Mexico. In terms of what the Carter Administration hoped to achieve, however, its accomplishments fell far short of its intentions. In the area of energy, for example, the Administration succeeded in negotiating an agreement that gave the United States an assured supply of Mexican natural gas and Mexico an assured market for its gas. The way the negotiations were handled, however, damaged the overall bilateral relationship . Mexico thought it had a binding agreement in 1977 to sell natural gas to six U.S. oil companies at $2.65 per thousand cubic feet. President López Portillo had worked hard to get Mexicans to accept this price, which was lower than many thought acceptable. He had also allowed construction of a pipeline to the Texas border, despite the nationalistic uproar this produced. After a flamboyant announcement of these decisions by the Mexican President, Secretary of Energy James Schlesinger killed the agreement because the price was too high. This embarrassed President López Portillo. The new purchase price finally agreed on in 1979 saved the United States some money but lost it substantial goodwill in Mexico. In the area of trade, the Administration did not achieve a major objective. Convinced that Mexico—and the United States— would benefit from a gradual but significant reduction in Mexican protectionism, the United States tried hard to persuade Mexico to join the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade). The issue was widely debated in Mexico, where opinion was divided. Because the United States appeared so eager for Mexico to join, many Mexicans assumed that GATT membership would benefit the United States more than Mexico . López Portillo finally decided to postpone entry, in part because he believed that oil

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 46

would substitute for GATT membership in enabling Mexico to attract new investment and increase the volume of its international trade.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 47

US-Mexico Border The US-Mexico Border is an imperative – The border justifies legal sanctions against all “Latin” companies Ansley, Associate Professor of Law at University of Tennessee, 01 (Frans, 2001, “ARTICLE: LACRIT V SYMPOSIUM; CLASS IN LATCRIT: THEORY AND PRAXIS I A WORLD OF ECONOMIC INEQUALITY; BORDER CROSSINGS; Borders”, 78 Denv. U.L. Rev. 965, 7-9-13, ABS) If ever there was a physical location with special significance for LatCrit theory and practice, it would have to be the U.S.-Mexico border. That long, violent, contradictory, material and imaginary line produces so many startling effects, causes so much unnecessary suffering, has itself been the subject of so many rounds of varying representation, and embodies so many cogent lessons in history and power, it is a compelling subject of study and reflection for anyone interested in the current state of the world. But for LatCrit scholars, The Border--both as place and as metaphor--presents itself as an all but imperative concern. Of course the border is significant for several of LatCrit's core communities, and for many different reasons. The line itself represents the physical extent of U.S. conquest over Mexico, memorialized in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and now marked by the line itself. It symbolizes the restrictiveness of U.S. immigration policy toward Mexican persons. The border lives vividly in the memories of countless Mexicans who have crossed it illegally in order to enter the U.S., and sounds resonantly in the narratives they tell to friends and kin, and sometimes tell nowadays to the larger public as well. Moreover, the border has come to symbolize policy conflicts with countries well beyond Mexico, and it is often seen in the U.S. as a border that separates our nation not only from Mexico, but from "all places Latin" or even all places in the third world from all those brown and black countries to the South. Beyond the line itself, with all its subtle complexity and raw simplicity, "the border" is also a geographic and cultural region. These long hot borderlands have a special character of their own, displaying languages, foods, musical expressions, human institutions, and social practices found nowhere else on earth, different on each side of the international [*968] line, but intimately and intricately related across it. These unique border cultures are the subject of no small amount of projection and fantasy by people in the interior regions of both the U.S. and Mexico. One should be wary of easy generalizations or stereotypes about these cultures. Even through properly cautious eyes, the border region is remarkable. One source of the region's distinctiveness, of course, is the border itself, with the imperatives it has imposed upon the people who live there, and the creativity with which they have responded. Over the past ten years or so, the border between the two countries has become a subject of interest for another reason as well: its special significance for the new neo-liberal gospel of free trade. As a particularly raw interface between unequal trading partners within the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the U.S.-Mexico border has come to symbolize much of what critics say is wrong with that trade agreement and others like it. For instance, opponents of NAFTA and of the more recently proposed hemisphere-wide Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) complain that if most goods are now to be allowed to move freely across borders, then people should be able to do so as well. These opponents protest the radically different and patently racial treatment accorded to human crossers at the U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Canada borders, and they question how such a difference can reasonably be justified. Critics also point out that the gap in average wealth and median income between the U.S. and Mexico is so extreme that conjoining the two economies into a regional trade and investment block produces dramatic and unjust effects. They note that many other free trade areas, such as the European Economic Community, have taken great pains to accompany or precede the lowering of trade and investment barriers with significant transfers of material and informational

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 48

resources directed toward less-developed countries to help close and soften gaps between the wealthy and poor nations and thereby minimize foreseeable pathologies. In these debates both critics and supporters of neoliberalism have pointed to some of the practices and institutions on the border as exemplars of what "free trade" presages for the rest of the world. For instance, NAFTA opponents predicted that the regional trade agreement would impose the "maquiladora model" throughout North America, and warned that it would bring with it the environmental problems, worker exploitation, and community disintegration so characteristic of the export processing areas along Mexico's northern frontier. Meanwhile, supporters pointed with pride to the dizzying growth rate and job proliferation in border towns that were sites of mushrooming maquiladora development in Mexico. They also argued that the industry constituted a smashing success as a development strategy for countries like Mexico that have an excess labor pool. [*969]

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 49

Immigration I/L US Immigration Law filters racial identity through the lens of the state in which the community is not defined by its individuals but by citizenship - Transnational Identity separate from group identities are key to a plural democracy Iglesias, Professor of Law, University of Miami, 13 [Elizabeth M. , 1997 , University of Miami Inter-American Law Review, "International Law, Human Rights, and LatCrit Theory " , http://personal.law.miami.edu/~iglesias/latcrit1.html , 7/5/13 , JC] Taking up her own challenge, Professor Arriola illustrates how story-telling methodologies can disrupt the boundaries of exclusionary community by exposing the inhumanity (and illegality) of the practices through which these boundaries are enforced. Significantly, her story-telling calls us to focus precisely on the narrative elements suppressed in mainstream media accounts of INS raids-- the physical and psychological violence visited on the detained and deported; the terror of confronting each day the risk that friends or family will be caught without papers, their papers rejected, indefinitely detained, deported without notice, in effect disappeared. *189 By emphasizing these narrative elements, Professor Arriola exposes how popular cultural representations manipulate the lines of empathy through which we imagine community. She asks whether INS immigration practices would withstand legal/political scrutiny if the judicial/popular conscience were more regularly exposed to stories of the hopes, fears, and aspirations of the individuals these practices target and terrorize. In short, by focusing on the common humanity that is denied in popular accounts of INS raids, Arriola's story-telling goes a long way toward recontextualizing U.S. immigration policy and enabling the exposure of its failure to comply with basic human rights. Professor Kevin Johnson's intervention further develops these points in a rich, compelling, and multilayered analysis of U.S. immigration laws. [FN13] In his account, immigration law appears as a field of representation populated, among other things, by teeming hoards of rapidly multiplying, fearsome, loathsome creatures called "illegal aliens." Johnson's significant contribution begins by mapping their appearances on the field of legal discourse. Through a systematic analysis of the way the term "alien" is deployed in the articulation of U.S. immigration policy, Johnson invites us to explore more critically the values and assumptions embedded in the legal construction of citizenship. Not only does Johnson reveal the significant human costs of decisions enforcing the citizen/alien dichotomy, he also exposes the dichotomy's empirical indeterminacy--who is "illegal?" [FN14]--as well as its normative bankruptcy-- why should any human person ever have to suffer the label? In this way, he, like Professor Hernandez-Truyol, leads us to a new threshold for imagining community--a human community beyond the nation-state. *190 First, Johnson shows how U.S. immigration law subordinates the individual's enjoyment of fundamental civil and political rights to the enforcement of the citizen/alien dichotomy. Only citizens have the right to vote, to participate in jury deliberations, to engage in political activities without fear of deportation, to challenge indefinite terms of detention, and to enjoy the protection of judicial review through habeas corpus. These rights are denied to "aliens," a term that legitimizes these restrictions by connoting illegality and otherness-rather than a common humanity. Equally important, Johnson shows how the citizen/alien dichotomy contracts the parameters of community. Through this dichotomy, the political community is defined, not by reference to the human dignity of all individuals in relation to the state, but rather by citizenship. Aliens, no matter what their "real" connections to the community, remain only partial members, as marked by their more restricted rights against the state. By reading U.S. immigration law through the normative prism of international human rights, Johnson's analysis establishes a vantage point from which we can challenge the artificiality of the imagined community underlying the citizen/alien dichotomy. Thus Johnson observes, [t]here is no inherent requirement ...that society have a

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 50

category of "aliens" at all. We could dole out political rights and obligations depending on residence in the community, which is how the public education and tax systems generally operate in the United States. Indeed, a few have advocated extending the franchise to "aliens," a common practice in a number of states and localities at the beginning of the twentieth century. [FN15] This revealed artificiality, in turn, enables us to explore more critically the kind of community the dichotomy sustains-the why of it all. This is Professor Johnson's second major contribution. By mapping the uses (and abuses) of the term "alien," Johnson enables us to see how the citizen/alien dichotomy legitimates practices of racial exclusion and economic exploitation. Through this *191dichotomy, U.S. immigration law continues to police the racial identity of the community it defines as citizens, even as it fosters, on an international level, the divide and conquer strategy that have so successfully undermined the American labor movement. The "alien" presence is tolerated in times of labor shortage, repudiated when work is scarce, super-exploited in either case through the denial of citizenship-based rights. In this way, the citizen/alien dichotomy creates a legal space in which exploitation and exclusion are legitimated. At the same time, Professor Johnson makes a broader and more general contribution to the development of LatCrit theory. Johnson's work urges LatCrits to focus on legal doctrine and, more particularly, on the way language is deployed in the articulation of legal doctrine. His mapping of the term "alien," provides a powerful framework for challenging U.S. immigration policies and practices, in part, because it shows us that the legality of these policies is always a predetermined conclusion as a result of the meanings embedded in the language deployed. It makes sense, in any particular instance, to deny "aliens" basic civil and political rights--not because they are "human persons," not because they are "individuals," but because they are "aliens." For LatCrit scholars, the implications of this analysis are profound. If legal discourse is a field of representation, legal interpretation is, all the more, an instrument of power. In order to challenge the subordination reproduced through law, we need to bridge the gap between the reality represented in legal discourse and the reality it rhetorically suppresses. Professor Johnson's intervention is, thus, a call for us to develop our critical legal theories in the interdiscipline. This means finding new modes of analysis and importing them into the field of legal discourse. It is a call he answers, as much through his skillful mapping of the language used in immigration law, as through the external critique he develops using social science data on the contribution undocumented immigrants have made to the U.S. economy, a contribution otherwise invisible in the rhetoric of monumental social problems generated by teeming hoards of invading aliens. If Professor Johnson leads us to the threshold of a newly imagined community, Professor Enid TruciosHaynes pushes us through, for her intervention begins precisely where Johnson *192stops. [FN16] Despite his devastating critique of the way U.S. immigration law partitions community and legitimates the denial of citizenship-based rights to its partial members, Johnson ultimately accepts the citizen/alien dichotomy. [FN17] Perhaps the consequences of rejecting this dichotomy are deemed unacceptable, perhaps the feasibility too tenuous, but in either event it is Trucios-Haynes, who leads us to imagine a postmodern possibility superseding this dichotomy by invoking images of community and identity that transcend the nation-state. Clearly, she travels a different route. Rather than focusing on the violence effected through the exclusion of aliens, Trucios-Haynes imagines the demise of the nation-state as a fulfillment of the possibilities embedded in the growing recognition of transnational identities. These identities, reflected in the legal form of dual citizenship, are artifacts of the increasing flows of peoples across national borders. These flows subvert inherited legal categories and compel a redefinition, a new map, of the international. Rather than bemoaning these new changes, her formulation reveals and validates the possibilities they engender. More specifically, she views the increasing displacement of individual identity from the territorial boundaries of the nation-state as an opportunity, a new socio-political space, in which to promote the development of radical and plural democracy based on the personal self-determination of individuals. From this perspective, immigration law, particularly its construction and exclusion of aliens, reads like a last ditch effort to re-impose

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 51

modernist categories in a postmodern world, a violent and regressive intervention aimed at preserving "the nation-myth, that defines the United States as a tribal community with a shared white, Christian, Western European heritage ... ." [FN18] Professor Trucios-Haynes encourages LatCrit scholars to embrace our transnational identities as unique and empowering positions from which to develop crossnational solidarities. Many of us speak the languages of our places of origin. We may maintain *193 family and community ties to and travel between these places and the homes we have made in the United States. Engagement in and with the social justice struggles in these places will make us the embodied instruments of social transformation. Crossing borders is our way of being and creates a vantage point from which to challenge more effectively and profoundly the borders we must cross. At the same time, Professor Trucios-Haynes is not unaware of the substantial legal obstacles we confront in our efforts to promote cross-national solidarities with human rights movements in other places. If the fragmentation of political and economic human rights reflects the impoverished vision of social justice through which international capitalism maintains its dominance and claims its legitimacy, TruciosHaynes shows us how the separation of domestic and international law enables the United States to maintain its dominance by rejecting its accountability to the international community. In both instances, the fragmentation of legal fields reproduces the relations of subordination that undermine cross-national solidarity and contracts the jurisprudential and institutional spaces that might otherwise enable international legal advocacy to generate cross-national organizing. This makes the fragmentation of legal fields an important target for LatCrit critical scholarship--precisely because of its impact on the solidarities we want to develop. To be sure, Trucios-Haynes's formulation is not entirely unproblematic, in part, because its most visionary elements need and deserve further development by her and other LatCrit scholars. She offers the personal right to individual self-determination as the focal point for and instrument of the cross-national solidarity she wants to promote. According to her, this right permits individual choice about loyalty to country, ethnic or racial group, or any other common bond and is evidenced in the growing recognition of dual citizenship. Can this postmodern conception of individual identity withstand the challenge it will face from scholars operating through modernist categories of group identity? Can it withstand the objection that a right to individual self-determination, at least the "choose your favorite loyalty" sort, is a recipe for possessive individualism, not collective solidarity? To my mind, it can because the contradiction between individual self-determination and collective solidarity is in large part an artifact of the policies, practices, and institutional arrangements through *194 which modernist categories of group identity--of race and class and nationality--have been imposed upon and enforced against the human race. [FN19] To my mind, Trucios-Haynes's postmodern possibilities are worth pursuing, but not in a world of nation-states, dual citizenship notwithstanding. Thus, the challenge she puts to LatCrit scholars is precisely the task of envisioning and producing the type of world legal order in which the contradictions between individual self-determination and collective solidarity can be superceded.

Immigration gets blamed for the economic woes of Latin America—Latina/os get constructed as “voluntary immigrants” who sacrifice the economic gains of their homelands to their individual profits. In between racial oppression and outright economic impoverishment, the Latina/o finds no place in law or ideology to voice her/his concerns Moran, University of California School of Law Professor, 97 Rachel F.,Professor of Law, University of California School of Law, Published Fall, 1997, Harvard Latino Law Review, “Neither Black Nor White”, http://biblioteca.uprrp.edu/latcritcd/publications/publishedsymposium/lciharvardlat(1997)/lcimmoran. pdf, 2 Harv. Latino L. Rev. 61, Lexus, pg. 4-5, Accessed July 2 2013, JB)

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 52

A recent article by Paul Brest and Miranda Oshige discussing which racial and ethnic groups are entitled to affirmative action in law school admissions nicely illustrates the doubts surrounding Latinos' status as a disadvantaged minority. n30 The authors begin by [*72] defining

Latinos as "immigrants or the descendants of immigrants from Puerto Rico, Cuba, [Mexico,] and the many countries of Central and South America." n31 Having categorized Latinos as a population of voluntary immigrants , Brest and Oshige question whether their disadvantage stems from factors meriting remedial intervention. Instead, they argue that Latinos' depressed socioeconomic condition is attributable in part to a large proportion of recent immigrants. Brest and Oshige go on to note that unlike Blacks, Latinos were "typically classified as 'white' by the Jim Crow laws that existed between the end of Reconstruction and the mid-1960s." n32 Although Brest and Oshige concede that Latinos suffered from negative stereotyping and systematic discrimination despite their formal classification as Whites,

they conclude that "the extent to which discrimination has contributed to the poverty of Latinos is open to dispute" because "some social scientists attribute much of the wage differential to Latino immigrants' lack of marketable job skills and English literacy." n33 By characterizing Latinos as a White, immigrant population, Brest and Oshige cast doubt on their entitlement to affirmative action. As a result, they find that special consideration for Latinos may be appropriate on a regional basis, depending on local demographics, but it should not rise to the level of a national commitment as is true for Blacks. n34 By evaluating how closely Latinos resemble White immigrants, rather than Blacks, Brest and Oshige overlook unique features of the Latino population. First, the most intractably disadvantaged Latino populations, those of Puerto Rican and Mexican origin, have become part of the United States not simply through immigration but also through territorial annexation. This history of conquest is important because it resulted in structures of subordination and control to subdue seemingly alien and untrustworthy former [*73] Mexican and Spanish citizens . As David Montejano recounts in his history of Texas, settlers who arrived shortly after the Mexican War distinguished themselves as "white folks," rather than Mexicans, and they expressed dismay when former Mexican citizens insisted on asserting their rights

Anxieties about the impact of the Mexican-origin population on race relations persisted well into the twentieth century. In the early 1900s, a professor at the because "they think themselves just as good as white men." n35

University of Texas expressed concern that the Southwest could not handle a "second racial problem" and noted that "for Mexican immigrants, there is no congenial social group to welcome them . . . They are not Negroes . . . They

are not accepted as white men, and between

the two, the white and the black, there seems to be no midway position." n36 In 1930, Texas sociologist Max Handman echoed these views, noting that "American society has no social technique for handling partly colored races. We have a place for the Negro and a place for the white man: the Mexican is not a Negro, and the white man refuses him an equal status." n37 By analogizing Latinos

discrimination arguably have blocked Latino assimilation and forced newcomers to adapt to existing structures of inequality. to White ethnic immigrants, Brest and Oshige overlook the ways in which historical prejudice and systematic

By emphasizing the formal classification of Latinos as White under Jim Crow laws, Brest and Oshige ignore the ambiguous racial status of Latinos in the United States. Perceptions

of Latinos as foreign and unassimilable were linked to some extent to their very [*74] failure to fit America's racial paradigm; Latinos came from countries with a history of race-mixing at odds with and threatening to the United States' system of racial classification. In an earlier era, leading American social scientists even attributed the volatility and instability of Latin American governments to their deficient mixed-race populations, which were considered unfit for self-governance. These researchers warned that the dominance of America's pure racial types was key to preserving the country's democratic traditions. n38 In this way, the

complex racial identity of Latinos was used to undercut their claims to equal status and respect. Neither Black nor White, Latinos threatened the established terrain in American race relations.

The playing field isn’t even – Latin Immigrants exist in a state of race relations that delegitimizes the plight they have endured. Latino/as now becomes “not white enough”. This is ignorant of the rich historical past that certain cultures have. Entire populations are thrown together – regardless of their individual or collective successes – and given a new identity. This one is racial, negative, and inferior. Moran, University of California School of Law Professor, 97 Rachel F.,Professor of Law, University of California School of Law, Published Fall, 1997, Harvard Latino Law Review, “Neither Black Nor White”,

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 53

http://biblioteca.uprrp.edu/latcritcd/publications/publishedsymposium/lciharvardlat(1997)/lcimmoran. pdf, 2 Harv. Latino L. Rev. 61, Lexus, pg. 6-8, Accessed July 2 2013, JB) II. THE IMMIGRATION MODEL: NOT WHITE ENOUGH The other key paradigm of opportunity affecting Latinos is the immigration model. While the civil rights model is rooted in the Black experience, the immigration paradigm draws on the experience of White ethnic immigrants. According to the traditional account, immigrants arrive by invitation only; having accepted the invitation to come to the United States, they make a permanent commitment to this country and renounce ties to their homelands. Although the first generation of newcomers struggles for a share of the American dream, their children and grandchildren profit from their hard work and enjoy the full benefits of life in the United States. n46 In contrast to the civil rights model, which assumes that government intervention is necessary to overcome past discrimination,

the immigration model assumes that once the federal government has extended its invitation, immigrants will succeed through free enterprise and individual effort. Indeed, the receipt of government assistance is perceived as a failure of the immigrant work ethic; immigrants are screened to ensure that they will not become public charges. n47 Consequently, most government regulation under this model focuses on who will enter and who will [*78] be privileged to remain based on a demonstration of individual desert, rather than on how to integrate the newly arrived who confront obstacles

The traditional view of immigration is seriously incomplete even for Whites, but its symbolic imagery continues to dominate discussions of immigration policy. n48 Because the Latino experience is frequently inconsistent with this account, some policymakers have expressed doubts about whether Latinos will prove to be desirable immigrants. In the first place, the terms of the invitation to come to America have not been clearcut for Latinos. While some have enjoyed the traditional opportunity to become permanent members of the American polity, others have been asked to work here on a temporary basis with every expectation that to full participation.

they will return to their native lands. For some, the scope of their provisional invitation has been explicit, formalized through temporary work programs, but for others, it has been implicit, a message sent by lax enforcement of border controls when work is plentiful. n49 For example, between [*79] 1940 and 1992, only 1.2 million Mexicans entered the United States as legal immigrants, while 4.6 million came as temporary contract workers and approximately four million entered without documents. This

influx of labor represented the "largest sustained flow of migrant workers in the contemporary world," yet only a little over 10% of the immigrants entered as permanent resident aliens, demonstrating that the traditional model is a poor fit for much of Latino immigration. n50 In addition, Latinos in the United States remain in close proximity to their native countries, making it more likely that they will retain some of their linguistic and cultural heritage in order to facilitate ongoing exchange with friends, relatives, and associates who remain in their homelands. For this reason, even Latinos who have successfully integrated into American life may consider themselves bilingual and bicultural. Consider, for example, the remarks of Dr. Celestino Fernandez, Vice-President of Academic Affairs at the University of Arizona: "I feel Mexican and I behave American. Inside, my feelings, my values, my attitudes, my beliefs are based in Mexican culture, but my behavior is very American."

n51 In a similar

vein, a writer living in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico and commuting to a job at the University of Texas at El Paso found that "I can't be a Mexican and not be an American. And I can't be an American without being Mexican." n52 By

adopting hybrid identities, many Latinos challenge the notion of what assimilation and being a "good American" mean. [*80] Moreover, the proximity to Latin America makes it feasible for immigrants to travel back and forth between the United States and Latin American countries of origin, especially Mexico, a pattern that gives rise to transnational communities. Composed of international migrant workers with economic and social ties to both the United States and their homelands, these communities depart from the traditional picture of immigrants who settle in America and renounce their countries of origin. Indeed, the process of continuing 2 Harv. Latino L. Rev. 61 exchange across international borders, as illustrated by transnational communities, undoubtedly accounts in part for the comparatively low rates of naturalization among Latino immigrants. n53 Finally, the

path of intergenerational upward mobility for Latino immigrants and their progeny is not certain. Although some observers believe that Latinos will pursue the same path to success as earlier generations of immigrants did, other researchers fear that blocked assimilation will stymie the aspirations of second- and third-

first-generation immigrants, despite their low healthier lives than their children and grandchildren. A number of explanations have been offered for this "Latino health paradox," but one of the most intriguing focuses on the dangers of acculturating to American standards of material success while systematically lacking the means to achieve them. According to this view, first-generation Latino immigrants gauge their success by standards in their home countries, and by this measure, they have accomplished a great deal by relocating to the United States. Because these Latino immigrants are basically generation Latinos. In the field of public health, for example, evidence suggests that levels of income and education, lead

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 54

satisfied with their lives, they do not resort to self-destructive behaviors. By contrast, their children and grandchildren measure themselves in comparison to American peers. By this [*81] standard, they often find their lives wanting, and they express little hope of overcoming exclusionary barriers to capitalize on educational and economic opportunities in the United States. Disappointed and disillusioned, they engage in risky health practices. n54 In short,

the traditional immigrant

account of intergenerational mobility is undermined by lingering racial and ethnic inequities . Under the immigration paradigm, Latinos receive the message that they are supposed to assimilate like White, ethnic immigrants, but they will not . Under the Black/White model of American race [*82] relations , the corollary of this message is that those who fail to assimilate will become a permanent minority like Blacks . This ancillary message is clearly communicated in a recent bestseller entitled Alien

Nation by Peter Brimelow,

which addresses the interplay of immigration and affirmative action. n55 Brimelow decries the fact that in contrast to earlier waves of White ethnic immigrants, Latinos are failing to assimilate because "they are being issued with a new, artificial 'Hispanic' identity" that entitles them to special treatment. n56 He argues that Latino immigration must be restricted because rising numbers of Latinos eligible for affirmative action will displace Whites in education and employment. Having expressed doubts about the willingness of Latinos to assimilate, Brimelow goes on to question whether they in fact deserve to be included under affirmative action. As he puts it: "No matter how new, all immigrants from the right 'protected' classes -- black, Hispanic, Asian -- are eligible for preferential hiring and promotion. They are counted toward government quota requirements that were allegedly imposed on employers to help native-born Americans." n57 Having found that Latinos' treatment as a protected class is a function of "ethnic lobbying," rather than a genuine entitlement to corrective justice, Brimelow concludes that "any change in the racial balance must obviously be fraught with consequences for the survival and success of the American nation." n58 In Brimelow's view, America simply can not afford the creation of another permanent and rapidly growing minority. Ironically, then, Latinos are considered suspect beneficiaries of affirmative action because they are really White ethnic immigrants, yet they are considered poor candidates for immigration because they will end up needing special assistance like Blacks. [*83] Despite

the racial overtones in the immigration debate, civil rights organizations have sometimes been reluctant to ally themselves with immigrant rights organizations. For example, when Congress was considering employer sanctions for hiring undocumented workers, immigrant advocates argued that the penalties would lead to discrimination against Latino and Asian workers legally present in the United States. According to this view, employers would play it safe by refusing to hire people of Latino or Asian ancestry, even when they were citizens or permanent resident aliens. n59 Rejecting these concerns, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) testified in support of the sanctions; the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR) declined to take a position on the issue. n60 Ultimately, Congress adopted the sanctions. n61 A subsequent General Accounting Office study found 2 Harv. Latino L. Rev. 61 that the penalties did in fact lead to widespread employment discrimination against Latinos and Asians. n62 The report prompted the NAACP and LCCR to join Latino advocates in calling unsuccessfully for repeal of the sanctions. n63 [*84] The

tensions between civil rights and immigration advocates stem in part from a fear that immigrants will reduce employment opportunities for native-born Blacks. Some argue that immigration must be cut back to preserve jobs for American citizens. Under this view, Blacks are particularly vulnerable to displacement because they are disproportionately represented among semi-skilled and unskilled laborers. n64 Some also contend that newcomers leapfrog Blacks in the queue for jobs because employers perceive Blacks as less reliable and less compliant workers than immigrants. n65 Other scholars question the benefits of restrictive measures because they believe that immigrants take jobs that native-born citizens refuse to do. New immigrants therefore displace other immigrants who have arrived shortly before them; that is, immigrants compete for jobs in a discrete segment of the labor market. n66 These analysts argue that the best way to preserve American workers' labor market position [*85] is to embrace immigration policies that legitimate immigrant workers' presence and protect them from unfair labor practices; in this way, immigrant labor will not be used to undermine wages and working conditions that native-born workers demand. n67 Ongoing doubts about the impact of immigration on African Americans' life chances have made it difficult to forge effective rainbow coalitions of Blacks, Latinos, and Asian Americans. Several studies have reported that Blacks and Latinos express relatively little interest in building political coalitions. For Blacks, the interest in forging alliances with other racial and ethnic groups is particularly low among younger generations. n68 The

lack of such coalitions may explain why Blacks and Latinos increasingly perceive themselves as competing for various government positions, including elected office and civil service jobs. n69

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 55

Terrorism Link Anti-terror efforts construct Latina/o migrants as terrorists Guadalupe T. Luna, 2010, Professor of Law at Northern Illinois University College of Law, Copy write by American University Journal of Gender Social Policy and the Law, “The Introductory Comments of Guadalupe T. Luna* to essays by Ming H. Chen, M. Katherine Baird Darmer, Richael Faithful, Ernesto Hernandez-Lopez, Orlando I. Martinez-Garcia, Lupe S. Salinas, and Janelle Martinez” http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/? Several of the authors declare that their analytical approaches apply to all communities. Many articles incorporate astute multi-disciplinary intellectual reasoning. These approaches expose fissures within the impenetrable and rigidly applied jurisprudence of legal formalism that marginalizes communities. Each, moreover, questions the prevailing, rigid formal legal templates and, without restraint, advocates for their [*395] transformation. n6 Thus, all of the essays extend a critical analysis of the status quo while petitioning the law to promote greater inclusiveness and fair treatment. With a rare exception, this group of compelling analytical assessments nonetheless fails to reference LatCrit Theory scholarship on issues concretely related to their thesis. While the essays lay out much needed knowledge and propose new intersections, the absence of causative linkages with the jurisprudence of LatCrit scholarship diminishes the theoretical framework introduced in earlier scholarly investigations on gender, n7 race, n8 language rights, n9 sexual identities and orientation, n10 equal protection analysis, n11 and anti-discrimination laws. n12 Without incorporating the requisite legal antecedents, LatCrit's goal of expanding and linking theoretical constructs with praxis is accordingly curtailed, if not stymied. n13 Furthermore, without the requisite jurisprudential linkage the essays expose the difficulties of transforming subordinated communities. n14 Despite this [*396] limitation, the essays reveal compelling insights within their own framework and promote LatCrit's core aspirations of generating knowledge and challenging the formalism of Anglo-American law that marginalizes outsiders. For example, the Secure Fence Act of 2006 purports to protect the United States against the firestorm of terrorist entry into the nation. n16 Yet federal and state officials have collapsed undocumented immigrants into the same category as terrorists. n17 Although none of the terrorists who participated in the September 11 attacks arrived into the United States through its southern borders, the Secure Fence Act purports to aid in the war on terrorism. The Secure Fence Act not only detrimentally affects those seeking to emigrate through the southern border; it is engendering harm on the property owners of the region. Furthermore, the Act fails to block employers that violate the nation's immigration laws and human rights laws. Efforts to restrict the livelihood of marginalized minorities are also visible at various state levels. While immigration law is primarily the domain of the federal government, states are also engaging in inflammatory anti-immigrant rhetoric, which impacts domestic groups of color. Increasingly, new forms of odious state laws are surfacing, such as the newly-signed Arizona law n18 that expands the jurisdiction of law enforcement officers, without providing training on the complexities of [*397] immigration law relevant to their new duties and in blatant breach of federal law. n19 Ultimately, the majority of these new restrictive legal measures curtail civil liberties and civil rights and increase racial profiling of Latinas/os, many aggressively "presumed" undocumented. n20

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 56

Gender Link-NAFTA Focuses on Investors’ Rights more than Workers’ leading Arriola Professor of Law B.A Faculty Associate in the NIU Women’s Studies Program ’7 (Elvia, “Accountability for Murder in the Maquiladoras: Linking Corporate Indifference to Gender Violence at the U.S.-Mexico Border”, pg.624, JJ) The NAFTA/NAALC/NAO procedure for workers presents a strong contrast with the rights and remedies for investors under NAFTA. NAFTA never included workers' rights language; NAALC tells the host government simply to enforce existing law. The infamous Chapter 11 of NAFTA, however, permits a corporation to sue for compensation when another government's regulatory conduct is deemed "tantamount to expropriation."'132 Not only does this reflect an anti-regulatory sentiment in NAFTA, it seemingly protects corporate activity and profit at any cost.'33 This is not to say investors should not have rights under free trade agreements. But currently NAFTA, and its successor version for Central American states, CAFTA,134 unfairly place investors' rights above workers' rights, health and welfare regulation, and consumer rights.' 35 A review of the NAALC process shows that investors are clearly favored over SOCIOCULTURAL CONSEQUENCES OF FREE TRADE Accountability for Murder in the Maquiladoras 625 workplace policies meant to protect injured workers from the likelihood of bodily harm or even kidnapping and violent or fatal assaults near the workplace. Free trade policy is about markets and profit, not about making corporations more socially responsible. Harmful consequences of corporate activity have become the price of doing business.

Legal privileges enjoyed by NAFTA cause harm to working women on the US-Mexican border. Arriola Professor of Law B.A Faculty Associate in the NIU Women’s Studies Program ’7 (Elvia, “Accountability for Murder in the Maquiladoras: Linking Corporate Indifference to Gender Violence at the U.S.-Mexico Border”, pg.607, JJ) I argue that the Ciudad Judrez murders are an extreme manifestation of the systemic patterns of abuse, harassment, and violence against women who work in the maquiladoras-treatment that is an attributable by-product of the privileges and lack of regulation enjoyed by the investors who employ them under the North American Free Trade Agreement. 39 I begin by acknowledging the critical relationship between women, gender violence, and free trade that has been noted by some scholars.40 But I also seek to understand how the absence of regulation to benefit workers in standard free trade law and policy perpetuates the degradation of maquiladora workers and creates environments hostile to working women's lives, including discrimination, toxicity in the workplace, and threats of fatal assault.4' Noted feminist reporter Debbie Nathan rightly criticized Seiiorita Extraviada for its failure to highlight the presence of the maquiladora industries and their power to set standards of worker treatment that encourage general hostility against poor working women. 42 The unquestioned right to exploit the mostly female working poor in Mexico, combined with the effects of rapid industrialization, incites increased gender violence43 while securing Mexico's significant role in the globalization of the economy at the U.S.-Mexico border. In section I of this article, I present the argument, also made by activists at the border, that the Juirez murder phenomenon is a story about systematic abuse and violence against working class employees, which includes exposure to toxicity in their workplace, sexual harassment, and arbitrary disciplinary methods. This systematic abuse is the result of VOLUME 5 ISSUE 2 - 2007 608 SEA'ITLE JOURNAL FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE investor privileges, guaranteed under NAFTA and repeated in The Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA),44 that

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 57

virtually immunize the transnational investor from accountability for harm to the worker, anticipated or not, when conducting business in Mexico.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 58

Environment Neoclassical economics don’t take into account the unsustainability of their ecological ethics and instead push the system to its limits Sheeran, Assistant Professor of Economics @ St. Mary's College of Maryland, 2006 [Kristen A. Sheeran, “LATCRIT X: CRITICAL APPROACHES TO ECONOMIC IN/JUSTICE: ARTICLE: Ecological Economics: A Progressive Paradigm?”, Copyright (c) 2006 Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, 17 Berkeley La Raza L.J. 21, lexis, chip] Ecological economists and progressive economists share common ground in their methodological critique of neoclassical economics. For instance, both criticize neoclassical economics for its overly mechanistic world-view and its rigid adherence to assumptions, many of which contradict historical and empirical evidence. n9 Both are less positivist than mainstream economists and are more inclined to consider equity and distribution in their analyses. n10 However, whereas progressive economists stress neoclassical economics' atomism and its reluctance to address distributive issues in their critique, ecological economists emphasize neoclassical economics' inability to view the economic system as embedded in a finite ecosystem and its steadfast support for economic growth. n11 According to ecological economists, the tendency of neoclassical economics towards reductionism obscures the complex interconnectedness between ecology and economy. This renders neoclassical economics unable to recognize the ecological limits to growth and to identify the sustainable scale of economic activity. n12 Ecological economists offer an alternative analytical framework that fuses ecological and economic knowledge for the purpose of identifying how human needs and wants can be satisfied within the limits imposed by the earth's natural carrying [*24] capacity. This framework incorporates a more holistic (and realistic) understanding of human behavior that eschews many of the standard assumptions of neoclassical economics. Ecological economists deny rational self interest as the sole motivator of human action, reject the presumption of insatiable human desires, n13 recognize only limited substitutability between manufactured and natural capital, and exhibit skepticism that technology can overcome natural limits to growth. n14 Ecological economists also draw an important distinction between economic growth, which they define as a quantitative increase in economic throughput, and economic development, which they view as a qualitative improvement in human wellbeing. n15 Ecological economists argue that economic throughput growth cannot be sustainable in a world characterized by ecological limits. n16 Progressive scholars and ecological economists share similar concerns for the environment. Both locate the origins of the current environmental crisis firmly within the economy and seek sustainable alternatives to current modes of production and consumption. Ecological economists and progressive economists both recognize the role of vested interests in perpetuating the status quo and the incentives facing capitalist firms to externalize environmental costs. n17 Unlike most ecological economists, progressive economists are more inclined to view environmental degradation as endemic to capitalism and unlikely to be completely mitigated through gradualist reforms that leave the capitalist system intact. n18 As evidence, some progressive economists will cite the mechanisms by which market institutions mold human preferences and relations in ways that discourage sustainable resource use. n19 Others will cite the role of skewed income distribution by positing that environmental degradation is unavoidable as long as the benefits from resource use and extraction accrue to wealthy elites who exercise disproportional influence in policy making, while the costs are spread amongst the disenfranchised poor and middle class. n20 Still, other progressive economists view environmental degradation as the inevitable manifestation of capitalism's self-destructive drive toward accumulation. According to this view, capitalism cannot be environmentally sustainable because it requires growth to sustain itself and consumerism to absorb the

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 59

surplus generated. n21 It is this author's opinion that what these emerging green perspectives from progressive economists lack, however, is an operational notion of sustainability. This likely frustrates many progressive environmentalists and may explain the growing popularity of ecological economics amongst progressive scholars as the only truly sustainable paradigm. However, whatever ecological economics may offer progressives in terms of sustainability, it likely disappoints on other fronts [*25] dealing more explicitly with progressive capitalist reforms.

Ecological economics provides a model of sustainable economics that neoclassical economics cannot do due to their faith in market flexibility Sheeran, Assistant Professor of Economics @ St. Mary's College of Maryland, 2006 [Kristen A. Sheeran, “LATCRIT X: CRITICAL APPROACHES TO ECONOMIC IN/JUSTICE: ARTICLE: Ecological Economics: A Progressive Paradigm?”, Copyright (c) 2006 Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, 17 Berkeley La Raza L.J. 21, lexis, chip] Ecological economics proffers a notion of sustainability that is substantially different than that of the mainstream. Ecological economists attribute this distinction to a difference in pre-analytic vision that is so stark that it constitutes a major paradigm shift. n28 In neoclassical economics, the economic system is viewed as distinct from the ecosystem. Nature is viewed as a source of raw materials and as a sink for human wastes, not as a limiting factor to the economy. Ecological limits, though they may constrain growth in the short run, can be overcome in the long run by human ingenuity and invention. When resources become scarce or waste products too abundant, market mechanisms will trigger more efficient resource use or the discovery of suitable alternatives. For mainstream environmental economists, environmental problems are largely the result of market failures which can be corrected using market-based mechanisms such as pollution taxes or tradable permits. Mainstream environmental economists are less concerned with the scale of the economic system per se, but more with the efficiency of its allocations. n29 In contrast, ecological economists view the economic system as an open subsystem of a larger but finite ecosystem. The economic system is an open system because it exchanges raw materials and waste with the ecosystem that contains it. The ecosystem is a closed system in which the amount of matter in circulation is constant. n30 According to ecological economists, if one considers the economic system as an open and growing subsystem of the closed and finite ecosystem, the issue of optimal scale cannot logically be avoided. n31 Ecological economists reason that limits to growth imply that there are opportunity costs associated with growth; in which case, it is inevitable that the costs of growth will at some point outweigh the benefits. Mainstream analysis ignores this potential for "uneconomic growth" by essentially treating the potential for growth as unlimited. n32 According to ecological economists, economic approaches that abstract from this aspect of the relationship between economy and ecology, and view the economic system in isolation from nature, will fail to achieve sustainability. n33 Ecological economists analyze economic activity from the perspective of a "full" world - one in which the scale of human economic activity is dangerously large relative to nature's capacity to provide raw materials and absorb and recycle waste. n34 Increasing production and consumption activities beyond the earth's carrying capacity will impair nature's selfrepairing faculties, a phenomenon already observed with respect to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Ecological economists, therefore, conclude that sustainability requires slowing the rise of the economy's throughput growth. n35 They define throughput as the flow of natural [*27] resources from the ecosystem, through the economy, and back into the ecosystem in the form of waste. n36 Ecological economists rationalize limits to throughput growth by appealing to the laws of thermodynamics. n37 Ecological economists view economic activity as a transformation of energy and resources into the goods and services people desire. According to the second law of thermodynamics, the amount of usable energy provided by nature declines with energy use. This decline of usable

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 60

energy is an increase in entropy. Accordingly, ecological economists reason that as the economic system grows, the amount of useable energy declines while entropy rises. The economy transforms the low entropy resources (high-use value) that nature provides into high entropy waste (low-use value). n38 As Herman Daly notes, it is impossible to power a steamship with the heat contained in the oceans or build windmills using sand or ashes. By implication, there are natural limits to growth. At some point, the increase in entropic waste from production will limit throughput growth. n39 Ecological economists urge economists to recognize the implications of thermodynamics for throughput growth and to avoid the temptation of viewing technological change as a panacea for circumventing limits to throughput growth. n40 Human-made alternatives to natural ecosystem functions are almost always more energy intensive, although this fact is easily disguised by market prices for energy which are artificially low, due to subsidies and externalized costs. n41 Producing human-made substitutes for natural capital will create more entropic waste; therefore, the production of human-made substitutes is limited. n42 Ecological economists conclude that while technological improvement may forestall ecological catastrophe in the short run by utilizing resources more efficiently and minimizing waste, it cannot surpass natural limits to throughput growth. n43

The steady state economy allows our natural capital and resources to be used sustainably Sheeran, Assistant Professor of Economics @ St. Mary's College of Maryland, 2006 [Kristen A. Sheeran, “LATCRIT X: CRITICAL APPROACHES TO ECONOMIC IN/JUSTICE: ARTICLE: Ecological Economics: A Progressive Paradigm?”, Copyright (c) 2006 Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, 17 Berkeley La Raza L.J. 21, lexis, chip] It is clear that ecological economists offers a notion of sustainability that is fundamentally different than that of the mainstream, which denies limits to growth based on the assumption of perfect substitutability of natural and human-made capital. n65 While this change in vision regarding humanity and its relationship to nature is in itself radical, its broader implications are potentially more so. Ecological economists often seem unaware that their notion of sustainability not only requires a radical change in vision, but also a radical change in economic practice along more egalitarian lines that is at odds with the current economic system. Progressives seeking to reform the current economic system in more egalitarian ways should welcome the radical implications of ecological economics. Ecological economists advocate a steady-state economy that maintains a constant stock of people and physical wealth at a rate of throughput consistent with the earth's carrying capacity. A sustainable steady-state seemingly implies a radical [*32] departure from "business as usual" economics. n66 Yet, the specific policies and practices that ecological economists often propose include the following. In general, extraction rates cannot exceed regeneration rates and waste production cannot exceed nature's assimilative capacity. n67 Nonrenewable resources should only be depleted at a rate equivalent to the rate of creation of renewable substitutes, to the extent that such substitutes exist. If good substitutes are not available for non-renewable resources, governments should determine which nonrenewable resource stocks can be drawn down and at what rate and auction depletion quotas for resources. n68 Since natural capital is the economy's limiting factor, governments should adopt policies aimed at raising the productivity of natural capital and increasing its long run supply. n69 For example, taxing resource throughput could raise the price of natural capital and generate incentives to use it more productively. n70 Governments should invest the proceeds from the depletion of natural resources into expanding stocks of natural capital, human-made substitutes for nonrenewable resources, and cultivated natural capital (e.g., tree plantations). n71 Governments should abandon their standard practice of counting natural capital depreciation as national income. n72 In this regard, what the ecological economists propose can be accommodated by the current economic system. Their

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 61

recommendations are based on, "impeccably respectable conservative institutions: private property and the free market." n73 Indeed, their recommendations for taxing natural capital use, re-investing the proceeds of natural capital into expanding natural capital stocks, and subtracting natural capital depreciation from GDP, can be found in mainstream environmental economics textbooks and in a literature predicting the emergence of a new "natural capitalism." n74 These proposals are aimed at eliminating the market failures that almost all economists cite as the underlying cause of environmental problems. n75 However, ecological economists do differ from mainstream environmental economists who view market failures as the primary cause of environmental degradation. Ecological economists emphasize scale and distribution - the macroeconomic challenges to sustainability - and more readily admit to the pervasiveness of market failures. Ecological economists see pervasive market failure as the cause of "uneconomic" growth, i.e. growth that has exceeded sustainable limits. For ecological economists, correcting market failures is a necessary, but not [*33] sufficient condition, for sustainability. n76 Sustainability requires that the scale of economic activity relative to nature's carrying capacity be addressed. n77

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 62

Impacts

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 63

Racism Whiteness has become a societal norm, casting Latino/a’s into a blurry hierarchy of “non-inclusion”. Wildman, Professor of Law, University of San Francisco School of Law, ’97 (Stephanie, published in the Harvard Latino Law Review.307, Copyright (c) 1997 Harvard Latino Law Review, Fall, 1997 “Panel: Races, Nationalities, Ethnicities: Mapping Latcrit (Dis)Continuities: Reflections on Whiteness and Latina/o Critical Theory”, page 3-5 http://biblioteca.uprrp.edu/latcritcd/Publications/PublishedSymposium/LCIHarvardLat(1997)/LCISWild man.pdf, accessed July 3, 2013, QDKM) [Because of white privilege, the opinion and voice of non-Latina/o whites n3 is heard throughout the dominant culture, while other voices have to fight for the air waves. So, you may wonder, why add more whiteness? Why should we talk about whites again? -- especially when Trina and I have already written about the problem of whites stealing the center of conversations and placing their own concerns ahead of everyone else's. n4[*310] Studying whiteness from a critical perspective reveals a lot about the construction of hierarchy, power, insiders, and outsiders. Because whiteness is considered the norm of the dominant culture, it remains mostly invisible, taken as a given. Whiteness is rarely named in conversations about race, except when it is discussed as the opposite of Black. Discussions about race are usually constructed along this bipolar axis, making many of the dynamics of the social construction of race invisible and thereby perpetuating white privilege. The invisibility of whiteness works in curious ways when Latinas/os are added to the discussion. The bipolar construction of race eliminates Latinas/os from conversations about race. As a group, Latinas/os cross many racial groups of different colors, including white; yet they are not positioned with whites in the bipolar conversation. Latinas/os are defined as non-white or other by the dominant culture. Even the history of how to name the group shows they are not the powerful. The fight for some kind of recognition in the census, to enable adequate funding requests for education and other programs led to the use of the category "Hispanic". n5 The recognition in the census was a form of political victory, but the power to self-name remained elusive. There remains a lot of blurriness in our cultural thinking about race, nationality, and ethnicity. This blurriness helps to maintain the dominant cultural status quo that privileges whiteness.]

US foreign policy is entrenched in the fear of the Latina/o—the foreigner is constructed as the radical Other we must exclude at all costs, and this culminates in violence and discrimination. Hayes, Professor of Law at University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, 1 [Enid Trucio, “Why ‘Race Matters:’ LatCrit Theory and Latina/o Racial Identity,” http://homepage.smc.edu/preciado_christina/Current/Sociology%2031/Readings/Why%20Race%20Mat ters%20LatCrit.pdf, date accessed: 07/02/13, LV] A Latina/o indeterminate group racial identity facilitates the manipulation of the Latina/o image to exploit racial fears. Latinas/os, on one hand, are characterized as an integral part of racial problems in the United States, yet legal remedies for race discrimination do not include this reality experienced by most Latinas/os.160 This incongruence between law and reality harms Latinas/os directly not only by limiting antidiscrimination remedies, but also by manipulating our group image to increase fears of a growing Non-White population in the United States A Latina/o indeterminate group racial identity permits the portrayal of Latinas/os as a substantial part of larger racial problems, making these issues appear much more threatening or intractable. Latinas/os can be characterized as another racial minority taking advantage of the system

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 64

in such areas as affirmative action and social welfare benefits. The code words designed to inflame racial fears in public policy discussions about such issues include "urban crime", "illegal alien", and "welfare queen", "wetbacks giving birth to U.S. citizen babies."161 Opposition to increased legal immigration has focused on the threat of a larger Non-White population, specifically a larger Latina/o and Asian population.162 Latinas/os are implicated either explicitly or implicitly as part of the problem.163 Recent legislation reflects this racialized fear of a larger Latina/o population in the United States For example, anti-immigrant

measures such as California's Proposition 187 would have limited access to public education, health and social welfare benefits by undocumented persons in California. 164 Federal legislation limited social welfare benefits to both documented lawful permanent residents as well as undocumented immigrants.165 Such legislation demonstrates the hysteria of the sentiment that the United States has lost control of its borders, not just because of the problem of undocumented workers coming from Latin America, but because of the color of these workers 166 Proposals to limit birthright citizenship that is accorded to the United States born children of undocumented persons also exemplify the desire to limit Litina/o participation because U.S citizen children born of undocumented parents is perceived as a Latina/o issue.167 The

Latina/o image is used to increase racial fears when Latinas/os are viewed as an impetus to further balkanization among racial groups. The belief that amendments to the immigration laws have permitted greater immigration of Latinas/os and Asians since 1965, and therefore has caused increased balkanization among racial groups, relies on a Non-White Latina/o identity.168 The

offered antidote to this problem is a limitation on legal immigration.169 The 1965 Amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act formally shifted the focus of immigration policy from national origin to family reunification.170 Before 1965, discriminatory national origin quotas favored the entry of northwestern European immigrants into the Unites States.171 As a result, immigrants from other parts of the world were often excluded. The 1965 amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act, enacted one year after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act,172 were heralded as an integral part of the civil rights movement seeking equality for all noncitizens in the immigration laws. This shift in policy has become the source of much of the criticism of immigration policy today, because of the racial character of the immigrant stream since 1965.173 The immigrant population within the last decade has been dominated by Asian/Pacific Islanders and Latino/as,174 with 48% of all immigrants to the United States coming from Asian/Pacific Islander countries.175 The

link between immigration policy and balkanization among groups, particularly schisms between the African-American community and the Latina/o community, has been highlighted by those seeking to limit the current streams of immigration, predominantly Asian and Latina/o.176 It has also been noted that immigration policy became such a divisive issue in the 1990s because of the increased Asian and Latina/o immigration and U.S. Census Bureau predictions that the White population of the United States could become a racial minority.177

Racism outweighs all other impacts Joseph Barndt, Dismantling Racism: The Continuing Challenge to White America, 1991, p. 155-56 To study racism is to study walls. We have looked at barriers and fences and limitations, ghettos and prisons. The prison of racism confines us all, people of color and white people alike. It shackles the victimizer as well as the victim. The walls forcibly keep people of color and white people separate from each other; in our separate prisons we are all prevented from achieving the human potential that God intends for us. The limitations imposed on people of color by poverty, subservience, and powerlessness are cruel, inhuman, and unjust; the effects of uncontrolled power, privilege, and greed, which are the marks of our white prison will inevitably destroy us as well. But we have also seen that the walls of racism can be dismantled. We are not condemned to an inexorable fate, but are offered the vision and the possibility of freedom. Brick by brick, stone by stone, the prison of individual, institutional, and cultural racism can be destroyed. You and I are urgently called to join the efforts of those who know it is time to tear down, once and for all, the walls of racism. The danger of selfdestruction seems to be drawing ever more near. The results of centuries of national and worldwide conquest and colonization, of military buildups and violent aggression, of overconsumption and environmental destruction may be reaching the point of no return. A small and predominantly white minority of global population derives its power and privilege from sufferings of the vast majority of peoples of color. For the sake of the world and ourselves, we dare not allow it to continue.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 65

Racial justice is a moral imperative. Human dignity demands that we treat people as ends in themselves, never as a means Paul Gordon Lauren, Regents Professor, University of Montana, Power and Prejudice, 1996, p. 321. Yet despite these many problems and centuries of wrestling to find solutions, normative questions about the ought rather than simply the is of global politics and diplomacy remain before us. Indeed, such questions are particularly pressing and acute in the area of racial discrimination. Race was the subject that placed the whole issue of human rights upon the international agenda in the first place, and for a vast majority in the world race remains the most critical and universal test of how people deal with other people on the basis of an ethical standard. The principle of racial equality itself flows from a basic ethical concept, that of human dignity which implies in its simples terms that every human being is an end in himself or herself, not a mere means to an end, and should be treated as such. Thus, it is only natural for people to ask whether the conduct of politics and diplomacy supports or opposes racial discrimination, which is the very negation of the principle of equality. This should not be at all surprising, for as scholar Stanley Hoffman writes in his penetrating book Duties Beyond Borders: On the Limits and Possibilities of Ethical International Politics, :“We must remember that states are led by human beings whose actions affect human beings with and outside: considerations of good and evil, right or wrong, are therefore both inevitable and legitimate.”

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 66

Poverty / Exploitation The affirmative doesn’t fully incorporate environmental and social externalities ensuring their continued devastation while ignoring all criticism against dislocations caused by trade externalities. Ensures the aff fails and locks in global poverty. Gonzalez, Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law, 2010 (Carmen G. 4/13/2010, Deconstructing the Mythology of Free Trade: Critical Reflections on Comparative Advantage, Berkeley La Raza Journal, Vol.17 pp. 65.68, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1588987, 7/02/2013, J.Y.) Neoclassical trade theory distorts comparative advantage by failing to take into account the environmental and social costs of production. For example, one of the consequences of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was a substantial increase in the amount of cheap, subsidized U.S. corn exported to Mexico, which produced a 70 percent decline in Mexican corn prices.122 The increase in exports was so dramatic that by the year 2000, Mexico had become the second most important export market for U.S. corn after Japan.123 For the United States, the increase in corn exports was accompanied by an increase in serious environmental externalities not reflected in the price of corn, including soil erosion, high levels of agrochemical use, water pollution due to pesticide and fertilizer runoff, unsustainable water utilization for irrigation, loss of biodiversity resulting from the conversion of grasslands and wetlands to agricultural use, and risks associated with the increased cultivation of genetically modified corn.124 For Mexico, the most significant social externality was the increase in rural poverty and unemployment resulting from the precipitous drop in corn prices, which, in turn, accelerated migration from rural areas and threatened the integrity of indigenous and local farming communities.125 The most significant environmental externality was the threat to agrobiodiversity resulting from the out-migration of the farmers who cultivate Mexico’s enormously diverse indigenous corn varieties and the displacement of these traditional rain-fed corn varieties by other crops or by commercially available, non-native corn varieties.126 An additional threat to agrobiodiversity was the possibility that genetically modified corn crops might cross-pollinate with Mexico’s indigenous varieties, thereby producing genetic contamination potentially detrimental to Mexican corn or to beneficial organisms in the ecosystem.127 Mexico responded to this threat by declaring a moratorium on the planting of genetically modified corn seeds in 1998.128 Nevertheless, genetically modified corn has been found in Mexican fields, sparking widespread scientific debate and public alarm about genetic contamination.129 The commercial price for U.S. corn underestimates the true social costs of corn production by failing to internalize the environmental costs discussed above. Conversely, the commercial price for Mexican corn fails to internalize the social and environmental benefits of traditional corn cultivation, including the well-being of Mexico’s indigenous and traditional farming communities and the importance for Mexico and for the world’s food supply of conserving Mexico’s diverse corn varieties. Economist James Boyce has referred to this phenomenon as the ―globalization of market failure.‖130 Market failures in the United States interact with market failures in Mexico to create a price structure that misidentifies the United States as the most efficient corn producer, thereby increasing environmental damage in the United States, undermining the sustainable livelihoods of local and indigenous communities in Mexico, and jeopardizing an irreplaceable public good – Mexico’s reservoir of genetic diversity.131 Liberalized trade based on commercial prices rather than on true social and environmental costs can thus promote global inefficiency – a result that exacerbates both poverty and environmental degradation. E. Failure to Fully Account for the Costs of Adjusting to Dislocations Caused by Trade Liberalization Some economists advocate neoliberal economic reforms on the assumption that countries can easily adjust to economic dislocations occasioned by trade liberalization (such as loss of jobs, firms, and entire industries) because the overall benefits of trade liberalization will outweigh the costs.132 Thus, they argue, Mexican farmers rendered destitute by falling corn prices should migrate to the cities and find alternative employment. As the World Bank emphasizes, liberalization of agricultural commodity markets will inevitably produce winners and losers and will require the losers to find alternative ways of earning a living.133 According to the theory developed by neoclassical economists Eli Heckscher and Bertil Ohlin, increased trade should bring increased demand for goods that use

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 67

inputs in which a country has a comparative advantage.134 In countries where unskilled labor is relatively abundant, trade liberalization should produce an increase in demand for this labor, thereby producing greater opportunities for those displaced from agricultural production.135 Regrettably, these assumptions fail to take into account the consequences of the enormous transformation that has taken place in the rural areas of the South in recent decades.136 The remainder of this section explains this rural transformation and discusses its implications for the Heckscher-Ohlin theory. The Green Revolution137 and the export-oriented agricultural policies adopted by many countries in the global South to service the foreign debt have driven billions of farmers off the land and into urban slums.138 Both the Green Revolution and the export-oriented policies favored by advocates of the theory of comparative advantage tend to benefit large agro-exporting enterprises at the expense of small farmers because they require expensive inputs such as synthetic fertilizers, chemical pesticides, and irrigation equipment unaffordable to most small producers.139 In addition, the surplus agricultural production resulting from the Green Revolution’s high-yielding varieties tended to depress agricultural commodity prices and to deprive small farmers of the income needed to purchase agricultural inputs, pay taxes, and purchase goods not produced on the farm – causing many to abandon the land.140 By contrast, wealthy farmers generally benefit from policies that favor export-oriented production because they have better access to capital and are often provided with tax breaks, subsidized credit, and other economic incentives designed to promote cash crop production.141 As cash

crop production causes land values to rise, landowners raise rents, evict squatters, and terminate tenancy and sharecropping arrangements in order to expand the land under cash crop cultivation—by either growing the crops themselves or by leasing the land to more affluent farmers who can produce these lucrative crops.142 The rise in land values creates incentives for wealthy farmers to expand their landholdings by acquiring land from poor farmers who lack the capital required for export production.143 Finally, to the extent that bilateral and multilateral trade agreements and IMF and World Bank loan conditionalities require Southern countries to relax restrictions on foreign land ownership, transnational corporations often participate in the land grab, thereby accelerating the exodus of poor farmers from the countryside.144 The exodus from rural areas in recent decades has been so great that unemployment in the global South is rising rather than falling and real wages continue to decline.145 Even in Mexico, a middle-income Southern country, job creation in the manufacturing sector has not kept pace with the post-NAFTA exodus from agriculture, thereby negating the beneficial effects on of trade liberalization on employment and wages predicted by the Heckscher-Ohlin theory.146 As the Mexican example illustrates, trade liberalization has failed to deliver the promised wage

and employment benefits in the global South. This failure underscores the limitations of decontextualized economic theories (such as the Heckscher-Ohlin theory) that neglect to consider historical contexts and real-world economic and political dynamics.147 Unfortunately, the World Bank continues to prescribe agro-export production based on comparative advantage as a way of ―modernizing‖ agricultural production in the South.148 Ignoring the real-world impact of ―modern,‖ export-oriented agricultural production, the World Bank’s recommendations will exacerbate rural inequality and will perpetuate the exodus of poor farmers to the cities.149 This, in turn, is likely to overwhelm the capacity of Southern governments to provide jobs and housing, accelerating migration to the North.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 68

Cultural Death American ideology concerning race reduces the multidimensionality of identity to single axes of oppression. Blacks are doomed to be only the descendants of slaves, and passing Latina/os are destined to overcome their ethnic pasts Moran, University of California School of Law Professor, 97 Rachel F.,Professor of Law, University of California School of Law, Published Fall, 1997, Harvard Latino Law Review, “Neither Black Nor White”, http://biblioteca.uprrp.edu/latcritcd/publications/publishedsymposium/lciharvardlat(1997)/lcimmoran. pdf, 2 Harv. Latino L. Rev. 61, Lexus, pg. 4, Accessed July 2 2013, JB) I. THE CIVIL RIGHTS MODEL: NOT BLACK ENOUGH Developed to address a caste system that perpetuated the harmful effects of slavery, the civil rights model clearly is rooted in the African-American experience. n24 This caste system was enforced through a system of racial classification, most notably the "one-drop" rule that treated anyone with a trace of African ancestry as Black. n25 The process of dismantling this system necessarily focused on race as the indicium of inequality and subordination. In formulating remedies, policymakers treated race as a biological trait, manifested through skin color and other phenotypical characteristics, that should be irrelevant to political, social, and economic opportunity. Even today, the African-American community is defined in primarily racial terms; a small influx of African and Caribbean immigrants has not altered the perception that Blacks are mainly the descendants of slaves. America's fascination with the charismatic General Colin Powell exemplifies [*70] this monolithic racial understanding of Blacks. When the media labeled General Powell as the first Black with the potential to become President, he politely pointed out that he was the descendant of Jamaican immigrants and thought of himself as such. Nevertheless, the press continued to

As the federal government's commitment to civil rights grew, so did the number of groups asserting that a history of disadvantage and discrimination rendered them sufficiently like Blacks to merit special protection. Among these were Latinos, who adduced evidence of past segregation and exclusion to win recognition as a minority group from Congress, the Supreme Court, and civil rights agencies. Latinos were able to gain this status, even though they are classified as an ethnic, rather than a racial, group. n27 Despite this [*71] formal recognition, doubts remained about the refer to him as a Black who had broken through the race barrier to become a Presidential frontrunner. n26

legitimacy of Latinos' claims. Because racial classifications were deemed biological, the United States Supreme Court concluded that race was a

Ethnicity, by contrast, seemed relatively malleable because it related to social traits, like language and culture, that could be changed. Consequently, policymakers often believed that Latinos could free themselves of discrimination by learning English and adopting American customs, while Blacks could not. In short, these officials doubted that Latinos were entitled to civil rights protections because like earlier generations of White immigrants, they could achieve inclusion through acculturation and assimilation. n29 particularly pernicious basis for official discrimination precisely because the trait was immutable. n28

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 69

Development Takeout The failure of development is blamed on the poorest nations receiving development aid rather than the system which stacks the deck against them. This rhetoric serves to erase the protectionist tendencies that enable the economic growth of the First World. Gordon 2006- (Ruth, professor at Villanova Law School, “Contemplating the WTO from the Margins,” Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, Volume 17, Issue 1, pg 95-116 FG)

In essence, the West is regarded as the past, present and future of the South and it blazes the path for everyone else. The underdeveloped 'other' can see its future if it observes and emulates the West, just as the West sees its past when it regards the Third World. We are quite certain what the path of the underdeveloped should and must be, because we have already successfully blazed it. Surely, there have been countless theories, studies and plans on how to develop and realize the aspiration of modernization. Globalization and international trade are only the latest manifestation of a wideranging sequence of modernization theories, and like those before it, it is inspired by the prevailing dogma of the West, which is currently dominated by the ideology of free markets and diminished government. Given the manifest and consistent failure of these theories, however, as demonstrated by persistent and widening global inequality, should we not at least question whether the promises of the international trade system are viable? Although development agencies would no doubt lay development's failures at the feet of recipient nations, no initiative to date has met the expectations of developers or those they profess to develop. Consequently, one must speculate as to why it is believed that somehow this particular theory will yield different results, especially in such an obviously lopsided and biased system. Surely, the prescriptions small poor nations are being advised to undertake were not utilized by Northern nations as they industrialized. Indeed, most rich nations matured either behind exceedingly high trade barriers that protected their infant industries. Others relied on the surplus labor and markets of their colonies and other overseas possessions.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 70

Economics Turn The free market ideologies of US economic engagement harms the economies of Latin America Porrata-Doria in 6 (Rafael A., Berkely La Raza Law Journal, “Economic Paradigms and Latin American Development Theory: The Search for Nirvana” p. EBSCO) The above discussion supports a number of conclusions regarding the assumptions and assertions of the various paradigms. First, Rostow's modernization development theory has a number of problems. Of principal concern is the fact that modern experience makes it clear that economic progress and "development," however defined, is not an inevitable and linear process. Moreover, external pouring of money and technical expertise into "modern institution building" in less developed countries does not necessarily result in effective, competent, efficient or honest institutions. Similarly, external pouring of money and technical expertise into the development and establishment of new industries and industrial facilities in less developed countries does not necessarily result in the establishment of successful industrial facilities.^^ The ECLA/Prebisch import substitution development paradigm has similar faults. The substitution of market mechanisms for state management as the principal catalyst of economic development does not work. Nationalization of private industry and the creation of new public industries creates a bloated public sector which constitutes a massive monetary drain on often limited public income. This situation results in inadequate funding for either economic development or government services. The state as a manager is not generally technically competent, objective, effective, or efficient to be able to manage an extensive economic infrastructure. Moreover, private and public "infant industries," nurtured by protective import substitution mechanisms, never seem to mature and become either regionally or globally competitive. High tariffs, imposed as part of an import substitution regime, merely invite retaliation from industrialized countries, which results in damage to export markets. Technology transfer regimes imposed by developing countries did not result in the acquisition of new technology. To the contrary, they will cut off access to new technologies because the owners of the new technology will not want to lose their rights to it. Lastly, limitations on foreign investment do not stimulate domestic capital investment. To the contrary, they prevent much needed foreign capital from coming in. On the other hand, the Chicago School's paradigm is also imperfect. As was seen in the case of Chile, the elimination of state regulation, intervention, or involvement in the economic system does not necessarily result in increased economic growth and stability. It can result in instability, increased debt, and chaos. Privatization of government-owned industries as an ideological imperative often results in "fire sales," causing great economic losses to the state and the creation of monopolistic or quasi-monopolistic concentration of industrial power in small groups. Excessive dependence on foreign capital inflows, both debt and equity, can create massive instability. Excessive private foreign debt can devastate an economy, the Chilean situation in 1982 demonstrates. Excessive reliance on foreign equity investment is also problematic, since the foreign investors attracted by favorable conditions may leave if they find more favorable conditions elsewhere. Lastly, excessive and exclusive reliance on monetarist macroeconomic policies to resolve structural economic problems may exacerbate these problems.'*

Managing globalization through free markets and diminished government presumes the possibility of infinite growth and fails to increase the standards of living for the global poor. Gordon 2006- (Ruth, professor at Villanova Law School, “Contemplating the WTO from the Margins,” Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, Volume 17, Issue 1, pg 95-116 FG)

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 71

The poorest nations do not possess a comparative advantage or an advantage of any type in the types of exports that generate skills, education, jobs or any of the other elements the modernization critique demands. Moreover, there are few resources to create and build other centers of comparative advantage, especially in the face of multiplying sources of competition. Oil, agricultural and mining products are all that the West, or anyone else it seems, appears to covet from these nations, and even a cursory examination of bilateral agreements and how they are implemented makes this painfully obvious. As for other so-called 'take-off industries' such as textiles, that boat has apparently sailed. This rung on the development ladder is currently occupied by many nations, including emerging economic giants with a seemingly unlimited quantity of laborers who presumably will need work for quite some time. Underlying the promise of globalization is an unquestioned belief in unlimited growth, meaning the other can become richer while those who are wealthy can remain at the same level (or perhaps become richer still). This is often expressed by the assertion that globalization will raise all boats. On some level, it is surely correct that the poor could be somewhat better off without a corresponding decrease in Western standards of living. Nonetheless, the outer contours of growth must be critically examined, as well as the juxtaposition of poverty to wealth. It is entirely possible that Western affluence is built upon, and based on, the poverty and destitution that is so evident in the international community. Even those who press for change do not intend to relinquish prosperous lives, although Western peoples appropriate and squander a disproportionate share of the earth's bounty and rely upon the world's poor to make the many consumer goods that make these societies consumer cultures. Those with a progressive conscience do attempt to determine how to make 'the other' wealthier, or at least better off. Nonetheless, we seldom question the right to have more, be it based on race, ethnicity, being an American, Western or whatever rationale accompanies this sense of entitlement.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Alternative / Framework

Dunn/Davis Page | 72

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 73

Alternative The alt is to politicize identity—making identity a question of ethnic struggle deessentializes identity critique and founds the possibility of a new intersectional identity politics aimed at recovering experiences erased by the unidimensional analyses of being championed by the status quo. Chang, Associate Professor at California Western School of Law, 97 [Robert S., Fall 1997, Harvard Latino Law Review, “Racial Cross Dressing,” http://biblioteca.uprrp.edu/latcritcd/Publications/PublishedSymposium/LCIHarvardLat(1997)/LCIRChan g.pdf, date accessed: 07/06/2013, LV] We might examine the development of a "Black" Afro-Asian identity in Britain. Kobena Mercer comments:When various peoples -of Asian, African, and Caribbean descent -- interpellated themselves and each other as /black/ they invoked a collective identity predicated on political and not biological similarities. In other words, the naturalized connotations of the term /black/ were disarticulated out of the dominant codes of racial discourse and rearticulated as signs of alliance and solidarity among dispersed groups of people sharing common historical experiences of British racism. The empowering effect of the transformed metaphor, which brought about a new form of democratic subjectivity and agency into being, did not arise out of a binary reversal or a closed anti-white sensibility, but out of the inclusive character of Afro-Asian alliances which thus engendered a pluralistic sense of "imagined community." n24 If we read the Korean grocer's claim to Blackness in Do the Right Thing against the grain of the stock story or master narrative of conflict, and read it thus as a sign of alliance or solidarity, we create new possibilities. Whether

"Blackness" in the United States may become a basis for forging an Afro-Asian alliance will depend on how open "Black" is, and whether Asian Americans are willing to accept a "Black" identity or subject position. n25 Transgressive [*431] moments, such as when the Korean grocer says, "I Black," may help create the space for such an alliance. 2 These examples contain potential successes and failures for a variety of boundary transgressions loosely collected under the term "cross-dressing." In the context of race, racial crossdressing already contains the notion that there is such a thing as racial dressing, that racial identity already contains within it aspects of performativity or agency. This is implicit in Do the Right Thing when Buggin' Out tells Mookie, "Stay Black." Because Mookie cannot change biology, such a statement must refer to a politicocultural notion of "Blackness." It also acknowledges agency. To acknowledge agency is necessarily a rejection of essentialism, a move away from the essential subject accompanied by what Stuart Hall terms "the end of innocence." n26 The "end of innocence" means that we must understand and take seriously identity as political, not essential, as Gerald Torres invited us to do during the first day of this conference. n27 This notion of political identity already understands identity to be aspirational, as Gerald Lopez reminded us, n28 and as even Calvin Coolidge

The challenge for us is articulating this political identity or identities to serve a progressive anti subordination agenda. This challenge is also present in the shaping of a progressive Latino political identity, "racial dressing" as it were. If we are to effect real change, however, we must not stop at racial dressing. Racial [*432] cross-dressing will help us establish chains of equivalents between different enactments of oppression n30 so that we may, as Jerome Culp invited us, participate in the struggles of people who are not we. n31 Perhaps then we might make sense of Frank Valdes' context-specific claim of being lesbian, Barbara Cox's context-specific claim of understood in the early part of this century when he said, "We have a great desire to be supremely American." n29

being Latina, and the Korean grocer's claim of being Black.

We need to re-envision our legal system to incorporate Latina/o experiences Hayes, Professor of Law at University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, 1 [Enid Trucio, “Why ‘Race Matters:’ LatCrit Theory and Latina/o Racial Identity,” http://homepage.smc.edu/preciado_christina/Current/Sociology%2031/Readings/Why%20Race%20Mat ters%20LatCrit.pdf, date accessed: 07/02/13, LV]

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 74

The Latina/o indeterminate racial group identity permits discrimination against Latinas/os to be ignored and remain unremedied. This occurs because the dominant Black-White paradigm structures discourse about all racial issues, and discrimination against Non-Whites who are not Black becomes nearly invisible Discrimination against Non-Whites who are not Black under this paradigm is identified as less problematic than discrimination against Blacks. For instance, the classifications that predominantly impact Latinas/os are not viewed as discrimination against a racial group and, therefore is more easily justified because it seemingly may focus on some "legitimate" reason for distinctions between Latinas/os and Whites such as language ability. Discrimination based on language ability may be unremedied under antidiscrimination law because it is not perceived as race-based.237 Under current antidiscrimination law, Latinas/os are protected only so much as the discrimination is based on national origin. The guidelines of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) prohibits discrimination based on "physical, cultural or linguistic characteristics corresponding to a different national origin," or because of an individual's place of origin.238 One writer has commented that fc there

is no meaningful legal protection against discrimination based on the ethnicity of Latinos," as long as ethnicity is distinguished from race.239 This lack of antidiscrimination law protection has been attributed to Congress's principle concern of prohibiting discrimination based on race or color.240 National origin further has been interpreted as different from language discrimination, which is deemed non-actionable because language is not an immutable trait.241 The

failure of current antidiscrimination law to address uniquely Latina/o concerns results from a narrow definition of race and racial group used by state and federal governments, as well as courts of law, all of which rely on biological race definitions such as those incorporated in OMB Directive 15 242 This definition of race as a biological trait has been rejected by scientists and academics.243 The idea

that racial groups are socially constructed, and are identified by a shared set of experiences, and a common way of being perceived,244 makes it possible to understand Latinas/os as a race entitled to appropriate remedies for discrimination based on race. A demand that the civil rights paradigm fully address the complete range of discrimination experienced by groups with a NonWhite racial group status in this country would include Latinas/os.245 An effective demand for a broader definition of racial discrimination requires a united political stance among communities of color that currently does not exist.246 Some scholars view the Latina/o identity as an ethnic identity, proposing an expanded antidiscrimination protection for ethnicity.247 Professor Juan Perea has also focused on the ethnicity of Latinas/os. Professor Perea would adopt a broader view of ethnic traits than those currently protected under the national origin paradigm.248 His view of ethnicity incorporates "physical and cultural characteristics that make a social group distinctive," either in group members eyes or in the view of outsiders, including traits in addition to race such as "national origin, ancestry, language, religion, shared history, traditions, values and symbols."249 There is a concern that Latina/o discrimination described as race-based rather than ethnicity "would inappropriately conflate the separate racial and ethnic identities that are a reality for Latinas/os of African ancestry who are primarily, but not exclusively, from the Caribbean.'"250 It is

the indeterminacy of the Latina/o identity accepted at the individual level and at the group level that effectively removes Latina/o issues from the race relations discourse in this country. The remedies for discrimination against Latinas/os must be established firmly within the civil rights paradigm.251 Through Latina/o advocacy of a clear, Non-White racial group identity, it is possible to redefine remedies to include all of the discrimination that is perpetrated against all people of color.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 75

Alt Solves – Multidimensionality The hegemonic dominance of the United States creates a mindset where they consent to being ruled. LatCrit recognizes this oppression and finds alternatives to this. Espinoza, Associate Professor of Law at Boston College Law School, 98 (Leslie Espinoza, 1998, “Essay: A Vision Towards Liberation”, pp.1-3, accessed 7/7/13, http://biblioteca.uprrp.edu/latcritcd/Publications/PublishedSymposium/LCIIChicanoLatino(1998)/6LCIILEspinoza.pdf, ST) [*193] In May 1997, I attended the LatCrit II Symposium held in St.Mary's University Law School and participated in a panel discussion concerning the oppression of Latina/os. There were two main themes that linked the presentations of this panel. The first theme is that of identity. When we, as "outsider" scholars, talk about identity it is important to remember that we begin with a self-aware and self-proclaimed identity as "oppressed." Be it intuition or analysis, this recognition that we belong to a group that is linked, is our foundational identity. The group may not have clearly defined Pmeters, we may not agree on all identifying criteria, yet we have a commitment that we belong. We are aware that we live in the "Master's House." n1 The other side of oppression is liberation. That day's panel discussion had a second theme, an optimistic theme that of change. However, we are challenged in our hopefulness not only by the pervasiveness of oppression, but also by the way our efforts for change always seem to boomerang back to us. We live in the master's house; the master defines our realities and our possibilities. We confront the problem of how to use the master's tools to dismantle the master's house. n2 We try to work ourselves out of this bind. We take what we have and try to fashion new tools, little tools that are not exactly the master's tools. Whether reformists or revolutionaries, we recognize that we are trying to dismantle something. We are trying to change. Nonetheless, I continue to have this sense that we dismantle the master's house thinking that we are moving ahead, only to find that we are part of a much larger urban renewal project that the master has in mind. Painful as it is, we

need to articulate our perceptions of futility and the seeming intractability of racist oppression. 19 Chicano-Latino L. Rev. 193 All of the panelists acknowledged the master's power to construct identity. This power is not exercised solely as an external force. We cooperate in the construction of our oppressed identities. Margaret Montoya spoke of hegemony. Hegemony is about rule. One way to rule is by coercion. However, there is a more powerful way to rule. If one wants to rule over the long term, it is crucial to obtain the consent of the ruled. The

dominant society acts in two ways to obtain our consent. First, the dominant class will distribute goods to us to get us to cooperate. We are given a stake in the system, even if our interest is marginal. Second, the dominant class creates a discourse of domination. This results in the mental attitude of the subordinate class that being ruled is natural. We develop a consciousness that is the consciousness of oppressed people. We are fearful of disrupting the system of domination because we might lose the little that we have, and we cannot conceive of ourselves as empowered. Racist oppression has the horrific beauty of masterful, hegemonic domination. LatCrit theory and LatCrit II panelists force us to explicate racism's intractability. Racism is intractable because it is unknowable. What is race? Certainly, it is about color. Color lines are imposed by the dominant society. They are also imposed, as Kevin Johnson noted, within the communities of the oppressed. We know race is about color, but then, it is not always about color. LatCrit theory reveals the exceptions that course through all RaceCrit theory. LatCrits know that racism is also about language differences and suppressions. However, within the dominant discourse, racism is not always about language differences. Race markers vary from color to language to national origin to culture, including religion, food and apparel. The race markers, and the lines they draw between the powerful and the oppressed, are not solely imposed by the dominant society. We consent to being ruled. We contribute to our own oppressions. We integrate racist/language differentiations in our own communities. Latino/as define ourselves by language and we divide ourselves by language. In Mexican American communities there is a word for Mexican Americans who have lost their language. They are "Pochos." Likewise, as Ana Novoa points out, our

culture is one where there are strongly genderized roles and sexualities. These roles are understood as being components of the identity "Latino/a." Whether phobia of homosexuality or worshipful imposition of female domesticity, our Latino/a identity binds us and breaks us. It gives us power and it subverts us. Likewise, we are a culture of immigrant identity. We both embrace and scorn this identity. Immigration issues bring Latino/as together as a community and immigration issues fracture us as a community. The

immigration discourse not only fractures us, but also breaks us in a way that keeps any piece from seeing the whole. The immigration discourse reinforces an immigrant identity that simultaneously blinds us from claiming our status as the colonized. It is our Southwestern Aztlan that has been overrun by Anglos. Latinos/as are not the interlopers; we are the indigenous mix. Despite the way our identity and the markers of our identity shift and change, we find that the

identity of being oppressed is operational and

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 76

real even when we are blind to it. Racism is an effective system of oppression because every time we try to put our hand on it, it escapes us. But it never goes away. The politics of hegemony are particularly troublesome for those who try to catch, to name racism. Who are we, the theorists? We are law professors. We are comfortably in the master's house about to eat some of the master's food. People

of color traditionally experience the double consciousness of seeing the world as the master does and as the servant does. n3 Our consciousness is again split. We have become part of the dominant society by virtue of our status as law professors. We live a shifting persona that has many masks. We go in and out of multiple roles, as teachers in our own schools, as scholars in critical communities, as activists and as family members. There are very few places that we do not feel "dis"integrated. We find comfort in this group of scholars because we share the experience of multiple consciousnesses and maskings. The problem is that we only have a few places where we can be integrated. We are all here to reconstruct ourselves in ways that are healthy. Yet, even as we warm to this project, I am finding a new division within this group. I have experienced a generational division. I feel that it is between law professors hired within eight to ten year 19 Chicano-Latino L. Rev. 193 eras. As we talked about what occurs in law schools during the conference, I had to sit back and listen. I had not understood how much of my own consciousness had been captured by fear. It is not only a fear for my survival in the institution, and my own psychic survival, but also my fear for our young, outsider, critical colleagues. I am worried that their new ways of dismantling the master's house are going to undermine them. But, I have no special patent on effective methods of liberation. Indeed, with each challenge, I am recommitted to critiquing my own way of viewing the world. Fear is not an effective way to change. [*196] What is an effective way to change? Can we change the hegemonic oppression? In his book, Race Matters, Cornell West offers an insight on survival. n4 Nihilism is the road to destruction. When we stop caring about anything, when we feel there is no future, when we have no hope, this is the dead end. How do we keep our will to struggle? I found, in the presentations at this conference, a commitment to narrative. Narrative presents an opportunity to share and to reconstruct our shattered selves. We can use narratives, or tales of our worlds, and ourselves to transform our ways of thinking about ourselves. Every time we tell a tale that is subversive, we suddenly find out that we are both liberated and entrapped. We can bring change by understanding that we will always be part of the divided and dominated world and that we will always have our survival strategies that subtly undermine the oppression. I will end with three thoughts. The first is that we must bring faith to our work. We must have the faith to act against oppression. Second, we need hope. Without hope, we have no vision. Lastly and most importantly, we should bring an unabashed, unashamed notion of love to our work. We do not want to lose the love and the caring that motivates us to work for liberation.

Recognition of the complexity of the law boosts assists individuals’ understandings of the political and legal system and provides incentives for them to make a difference Webb, University of Westminster, 5 (Julian Webb, 1/1/2005, “Law, Ethics, and Complexity: Complexity Theory & (and) the Normative Reconstruction of Law”, accessed 7/7/13, http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1277&context=clev stlrev, ST) It is my assertion that complexity does have a part to play, both conceptually and empirically. Sociolegal theory as a framework for social action requires three elements:51 Broadly-based theoretical understanding and systemic analysis; an (empirical) knowledge of institutions which shape and are shaped by law, and an understanding of what might constitute adequate political practice(s). Complexity (theory) can provide a distinctive contribution to at least the first two parts of this equation. Let me conclude by offering a non-exhaustive set of illustrations. First, complexity serves to remind us of the inevitability of the truism that the law delivers justice as much by accident as by design. I do not say this to deny the possibility of justice, but to emphasise its unpredictability and to encourage emancipatory movements to embrace the uncertainty this provides. It is both an opening for, as well as a closure of the emancipatory potential of law. For individuals interested in strategies of justice, the promise of complexity is that (despite its analytical exclusion of the individual52) collective and even individual action will form part of the environment of a system and can make a difference. The fact that the magnitude or direction of change is often unpredictable offers both the possibility that the outcomes of hegemonic strategies of the state and the institutions of global capital are less certain than their progenitors predict, and the potential that, like the metaphorical butterfly beating its wings, a small change can have substantial systemic consequences. Second, complexity has a deconstructive value, which should not be ignored. It can assist our “understanding” of the way ethical and normative concerns are constructed discursively within and between different sub-systems (e.g., the psychic, political, religious and legal systems). Each of these systems may be self-referentially closed,

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 77

but they also depend on each other to produce a version of disturbing events which displays normative consistency – this gives an air of rationality to the process, reinforcing our sense of social cohesion and “public understanding” of the world, at the same time as it disguises the very complexity and “ad hocery” of the processes underlying the construction of such meanings. On the other hand, a failure to achieve normative consistency between systems will generate system-conflicts in the coding of individual events (e.g., illegal but morally justified), and may well generate short-term responses in one or more systems to deal with the perturbations caused. These critical events too may be viewed as valuable in providing sites at which the inherent stresses and strains caused by system closure, boundary failure, or by the incompatibility of communicative systems become visible. Third, far from demanding a mechanistic and positivistic view of society, there is a plausible normative dimension to complexity by which values can be seen as emergent properties of social systems – including the legal system. This is not to say that there is something inherently ethical about such systems, or that there is a plausible “ethics of self-organization,”53 but it does mean that there are certain values which functionally support the maintenance and development of systems in their complexity, some of which may have ethical implications. Aside from the obvious candidates, such as justice and human dignity, examples relevant to the legal system might include: Altruism,54 decentralization/structural pluralism,55 and interdependence.56 Work to uncover more fully the emergent values of the legal system would self-evidently support a project of normative reconstruction.

Lat Crit’s investigation of Latino/a diversity decenters bias legal assumptions that skew Latina/o life. Hernandez-Truyol et al., 06. Professor, University of Florida College of Law; Harris, Professor, University of California at Berkeley School of Law; Valdés, Professor, University of Miami School of Law (Berta, Angela, Francisco. 17 Berkeley La Raza L.J. 169 2006. Pg. 187. 7/2/13. KJ) The first of these is the elaboration of "Latina/o" identity as a multiple variegated category.89 To do so, we embarked on collective and programmatic investigations of ethnicity, religion, language, immigration and similar constructs to better understand, and to underscore, the intra-group diversities of "Latina/o" populations, specifically but not only in the United States. 90 These collective investigations sparked not only vigorous debate and searching inquiry, but also exposed the fallacy of the "essentialized" Latina/o employed in mainstream venues to make law and policy regarding "Latinas/os." 91 These investigations demonstrated and documented key demographic facts, including that not all Latinas and Latinos are Hispanic; that not all Latinas and Latinos are Roman Catholic; that not all Latinas/os speak Spanish, or want to; and that not all Latinas/o live in the United States due to immigration. Conversely, these investigations showcased the complexities and diversities of Latina/o communities in terms of race and ethnicity,92 religion, 93 culture, 94 imperialism and colonialism, 95 language and its suppression, 96 class97 and immigration status. 98 These investigations, in short, de-centered uncritical assumptions that all Latinas/os fit predominant stereotypes, assumptions that skew law and policy to the detriment of multiply diverse Latina/o communities.

The alternative can recognize the multidimensionality behind the law’s one-sided construction of Latina/o identity Hernandez-Truyol et al., 06. Professor, University of Florida College of Law; Harris, Professor, University of California at Berkeley School of Law; Valdés, Professor, University of Miami School of Law (Berta, Angela, Francisco. 17 Berkeley La Raza L.J. 169 2006. Pg. 205-207. 7/2/13. KJ)

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 78

Critical challenges to the liberal binary paradigm can find support in this multidimensionality human rights' interdependence and indivisibility paradigm. This is of particular utility to multiple others, whose identities cross racial and economic lines, including to Latinas/os who daily cross borderlines of culture, race, and sex and in addition remain among the poorest of the poor. For instance, women of color, including Latinas, remain marginalized by a race-based system that obscured sex and sex-related issues. 153 Thus, women's multidimensional identities-defined by sex, race, color, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, national origin, language, citizenship, and culture - exclude them from the norm. The complexity of their identities need not be reduced to a single trait analysis when the human rights indivisibility and interdependence paradigm can be deployed. Culture becomes a double-edged sword for Latinas who navigate cultural differences between majority culture and the cultura Latina from multiple subordinated positions. Within majority culture, Latinas/os are racial, ethnic, and often religious and linguistic "others." In addition, within the cultura Latina, Latinas confront a subordinate status because of our sex and sometimes our sexual orientation. The human rights indivisibility and interdependence standards provide tools to work on the issues pertaining to our groups' and individuals' multidimensionalities operating within majority paradigms including issues that Latinas/os confront such as their location within the U.S. black-white paradigm. The protections of color and culture would protect Latinas/os from oppression by the majority culture while at the same time protecting Latinas from Latino oppression. The interdependence/indivisibility paradigm permits an analytical framework that considers a person's myriad locations-including culture, race, ethnicity, religion, class - and provides appropriate reparations for damages suffered. It enables the asking of the sex, race, gender, sexuality, color, religion, language, nationality, ethnicity, culture, and poverty questions, i.e., whether there are such implications to the structure, process, circumstances, or institution at issue. These are precisely the questions that the LatCritical project poses and the interdependence and indivisibility paradigm allows them to be asked contextually without atomizing complex identities.

Intersectional analysis of identity solves HERNANDEZ-TRUYOL 97 [72 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 882 (1997), BORDERS (EN)GENDERED: NORMATIVITIES, LATINAS, AND A LATCRIT PARADIGM] LatCrit as an articulable theoretical construct both presents a great challenge and offers great promise. First, the challenge lies in the great diversity-the panethnicity T7 -of Latinaslos. Latinaslos come from different ethnic, cultural, and racial heritages, as well as from varied national origins. Some are citizens, some are not; some noncitizens are present with, and some without, proper documentation. Many have been in the United States for generations, others are recent arrivals. Some are monolingual in Spanish, some in English, others are bi/multilingual. Some are homocultural and others can (and some do daily) culturally crossdress. Such apparently cacophonous, heterogeneous demographics would appear to interfere with any attempt at a coherent, cohesive paradigm. This notion of panethnicity, upon an initial consideration, could appear to be an impediment to the articulation of any congruent teorfa. Ironically, however, such heterogeneity is what holds the promise of LatCrit: the development of a paradigm that accepts, embraces, and accommodates persons as mul-tidimensional entities rather than as conveniently divisible parts of that whole being. A LatCrit model must deconstruct and reject the existing legal philosophy that fragments worlds by looking only at one aspect of identity at a time. 18 Of course, this dominant atomistic model is a convenient, superficial, artificially created, normative driven, comparativist construct that facilitates "othering."1 19 The analysts, having fabricated their image of the pertinent universe, can handily exclude those who do not fit the mold.1 20 The existing "rule of law" driven construct possesses inherent national, racial, gender, religious, sexuality, and cultural hierarchies. The normative NLW legal paradigm essentializes' 2' and disadvantages Latinas/os, as we are the multiplicity of our identities, not the atomization of

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 79

them. As far as traditional classifications go, LatCrit theory must reject defining identity as anything other than multidimensional because doing so would result in an essentializing of self.'m Latinas/os are the combination, not the stratification, of our multiple selves. Therefore, under the LatCrit model, rather than independent glyphs carved in stone, notions of personhood, race/ethnicity, nationhood, and cultural citizenship must be viewed as fluid, interdependent, and indivisible. The central epistemological question to ask in the construction of a LatCrit paradigm is what conditions need to exist in order to have a pluralistic, nonessentialist LatCrit theory. Because all "reality" is socially constructed, the model must incorporate broadbased sources of knowledge and information on race, sex, culture, language, and ethnicity. This re/construction will avoid the flawed structure of the NLW rule of law which evolved as racialized, ethnicized, gendered, and nativistic.123 A LatCrit theory, at its core, would insist on the indivisibility, inviolability, and interdependence of identities that are constitutive of personhood. As such, a LatCrit paradigm could eschew the "rule of law" as we know it.24 Rather than the existing normative comparativist model with the NLoW at the center as the aspirational aim, rather than placing the "elite," the most privileged, at the nucleus, LatCrit would place at the center the notion of full citizenship, the inviolable right of every member of society to respect, dignity, and selfhood, with acceptance of identities as indivisible, interrelated, and interdependent rather than splintered. Adoption of such a model will place LatCrit uniquely in the position of displacing the schisms of the past (namely, "othering" of selves by the majority, "othering" of selves within nuestra comunidad, silencing of Latinas' voices, and the eclipsing of Latinas' visibility), developing, expanding, and transforming the content, meaning, and application of legal theoretical constructs. LatCrit can change the landscape of legal discourse. CONCLUSION LatCrit, using Latinas'/os' cultural, ethnic, and national origin diversity, and Latinas' gendered history and experience, can develop a nonessentialist, pluralistic, egalitarian, and equitable notion of legal discourse and community. Indeed, the central epistemology of norms is social, cultural, and political. Dominance by one group defines, and is constitutive of, social, cultural, and legal realities and identity. The existing, essentialist notion of the "American" has excluded "others" who look or sound foreign to the self-selected norm setters, creating a class of aliens within the borders. This "American" ideal excludes many, particularly Latinas/os,'2 who cannot blend into the "melting pot" because of the colorizing, feminizing, spanishizing, and latinizing consequences of their membership. This "American" definition of normativity has created an exclusive/elite community with fronteras denying access to "others." Consider a postessentialist model in which an individual can freely and comfortably journey in her/his various worlds, engaging in cross-participation, rendering the communities interdependent and indivisible without barriers to knowledge and identity-flows that not only allow traversing the worlds, but help to re/constitute the communities themselves with due regard to the needs and concerns of the varied citizenry. Such unobstructed traveling facilitates information flow from the many perspectives and enhances norm articulation in a pluralistic and inclusive fashion. The hope of LatCrit lies in the articulation of a system of analysis that, by deconstructing the political normative and rebuilding a participatory and inclusive policy model, can result in praxis. To that end, and in developing such a LatCrit construct, this Essay urges the incorporation of a globalized, feminist, multi/cross-cultural vision of international human rights norms-a perspective that promotes a conception of identity and rights centered on indivisibility, inviolability, and interdependence. Such an expanded, developed, and transformed philosophy can serve to eradicate essentialism, fronteras, and margins, providing the pathway for the silenced voices of these borderlands to travel to the center of the narrative.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 80

Alt Solves – Rights / Root Cause Lat Crit examines Human Rights. The hegemonic powers hinder the influences of human rights Hernandez-Truyol et al., 06. Professor, University of Florida College of Law; Harris, Professor, University of California at Berkeley School of Law; Valdés, Professor, University of Miami School of Law (Berta, Angela, Francisco. 17 Berkeley La Raza L.J. 169 2006. Pg. 204. 7/2/13. KJ) This portion of the Afterword' 44 explores the complementary relationship between LatCrit Theory and international law, more specifically human rights law. Its goal is to elucidate the way that human rights norms can inform the LatCritical project of non-essentialism and antisubordination with its aim, common to the human rights system, to liberate the human spirit. LatCrit theory, like human rights law, explores the boundaries of law and related disciplines with the aim that all people from North and South, East and West alike can enjoy full personhood. To be sure, it is important at the outset not to idealize the human rights system. A critical substantive deconstruction of the context, in which international human rights law emerged, reveals that the norms that are deemed universal were in fact developed in a narrow social, economic, historical, and cultural space. Such deconstruction also reveals the hegemonic Western/Northern underpinning influences of the human rights documents. Thus, before deploying human rights ideas to enrich the LatCritical project - an opportunity for enrichment that exists because human rights and critical theory share common aspirations for liberation and justice-it is important to question the validity of the normative standards.Like local laws that have been challenged by critical theorists, the human rights framework has been critiqued by internationalists because the narrative is rooted in a Northern/Western dominant liberal paradigm. In fact, as human rights standards were formulated prior to the entrance of the former colonies into the modem community of, nations it does not include their particular perspectives. Thus, it would be appropriate to reconstruct the framework to incorporate the interests of such previously excluded States. Reconstructed human rights standards would include post-colonial perspectives and reject any version that is crafted in the interest of the colonizers. Once properly reconstructed, however, the just, inclusive norms that result can be instructive to the LatCritical project. The adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reflects a commitment by states to a collection of indivisible, interdependent, and inalienable rights that include not only civil and political rights but also social, economic, and cultural rights as well as solidarity rights. These concepts of indivisibility and interdependence dovetail the LatCrit focus of multidimensionality and nonessentialism. Both sets of ideas reject the atomization of the complex that constitutes human life and identity.

The human rights paradigm allows for a true embrace of peoples’ identities Hernandez-Truyol et al., 06. Professor, University of Florida College of Law; Harris, Professor, University of California at Berkeley School of Law; Valdés, Professor, University of Miami School of Law (Berta, Angela, Francisco. 17 Berkeley La Raza L.J. 169 2006. Pg. 205-6 7/2/13. KJ) Thus, in order to utilize a human rights intervention into LatCritical perspectives, it is first imperative to engage in critical interventions into the human rights model to expose its hegemonic foundations and engage in a counterhegemonic, multidimensional, multicultural reconstruction. Once reconstructed, however, the human rights paradigm can be of immense utility to the LatCritical project both structurally and substantively. First, structurally, the indivisibility and interdependence framework of the human rights system provides support for the complexity as presented by the LatCritical project and its embrace of multidimensionality, of individual's identities and interests. Contrary to the U.S. atomization of identity approach, structurally the human rights paradigm offers an alternative

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 81

framework in which persons' true multidimensional being can be addressed. Thus, the human rights framework transforms the structure of the critical analysis from one of domination and equality in lawwomen can be equal to men in so far as they are like men149-to one premised on humanity and equality in fact because all people are equally valued and their rights are viewed as indivisible and interdependent. International human rights norms, in embracing the multiplicity of identities, constitute a more realistic, expansive, and useful indicator of an individual's attainment of dignity, integrity, and full citizenship. Substantively, the international human rights framework can develop, expand, and transform the LatCrititcal project in three ways. One, it expands the range of civil and political rights that are protectable in ways that is significant to Latinas/os and other pan-ethnic groups. Specifically, the human rights standards for nondiscrimination reaches beyond the U.S. protection of race, sex, religion, and alienage. It also includes categories such as language, culture, and social origin.1 50 Two, the human rights framework also provides protections of social, economic, and political rights dramatically significant to the obtainment of full personhood rights for the "other." Such protections include the right to work, the right to health, the right to education, and the right to cultural preservation. Three, the human rights framework is of utility to the LatCritical project because it provides an expanded reach of existing protected categories. Specifically, both the U.N. Human Rights Committee15 and the European Court on Human Rights 15 2 have interpreted the category "sex" to include sexuality-a move rejected by the U.S. legal system.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 82

Coalitions Solve Multicultural coalitions solve – the only way to motivate anti-racist and antiethnocentrist movements is to build coalitions around the intersections of oppression Roman, Florida International University Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law, 2007 (Ediberto, Mercer Law Review, “Coalitions and Collective Memories: A Search for Common Ground” http://www2.law.mercer.edu/lawreview/getfile.cfm?file=58203.pdf, pg 5 (641) accessed 7-9-13 KR) The above quotes from two path breakers of the civil rights era evince clashing visions of coalition building—one embracing inter-minority group coalitions and the other questioning their usefulness. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in the name of social justice called for ever-expanding collaboration, which included whites; Malcolm X rejected such coalitions as unnecessary and misdirected. Though several decades old, these conflicting sentiments—one following an assimilationist model and the other more nationalist—are still the subject of academic debate. In fact, a considerable amount of legal scholarship, written primarily by scholars of color, has recently taken contrasting views regarding the efficacy and propriety of coalitional efforts. These scholars have included some of the academy’s most accomplished authors, including Lani Guinier,3 Gerald Torres,4 Richard Delgado,5 Haunani-Kay Trask,6 Robert Williams,7 Kevin Johnson,8 and Eric Yamamoto.9 The following pages explore this contemporary debate, and ultimately sides in favor of inter-minority group coalitions, as they may be effective democratic vehicles towards social change. Part II examines the argument in favor of inter-minority group coalitions. Part III addresses the challenges to those positions, including the arguments posed by leading skeptics. Finally, Part IV rejects the cynicism associated with coalitions and proposes a concrete point of commonality that may help forge much needed common ground for many racial and ethnic outsider groups. Those who advocate inter-minority coalitions10 tend to emphasize changing national demographics, especially the growth of the Latino community. At least one advocate has termed the Latino community as the new “‘favored minority’” and the new “‘majority minority’” group,11 noting that that community will become the largest minority group by the year 2050.12 As one writer put it, the optimism associated with these coalitions stems from the old maxim that “‘there is power in numbers.’”13 These numbers are approaching the point where the coalitions legitimately expect to challenge racial hierarchy and white supremacy in the United States.14 In their recent book on the subject, The Miner’s Canary, Professors Guinier and Torres support a recasting of constructions of race in favor of the use of the term “political race,” which would include a host of different minority groups that could choose to join a coalition of the previously marginalized.15 To the authors, this new construction can bolster the participation of previously marginalized groups.16 They assert that “[p]olitical race is therefore a motivational project. Rebuilding a movement for change can happen only if we reclaim our democratic imagination.”17 By way of example, these authors point to the dramatic way in which African-Americans and Mexican-Americans responded to a legal ruling against affirmative action in Texas.18 After examining that effort, the authors summarize their thesis: “[the African-American82 and Mexican-American] activism showed how collective racial identity can operate within the American paradigm, not as the limiting essentialism denounced by conservatives and neoliberals but rather as the locus for individual and communal participation.”19 In his book, Interracial Justice, Professor Eric Yamamoto similarly examines a host of reconciliation projects and coalition efforts.20 Yamamoto calls for the mutual acknowledgment and recognition of the respective histories of each member of a coalition.21 Other authors have likewise placed great value on the role of finding a common ground in any coalition effort.22 Like Yamamoto, these authors tend to believe that finding such points of commonality is a necessary starting point for any coalition.23 While advocating the need for traditional

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 83

domestic minority groups to defend the rights of Arabs and Muslims, one writer traces the evolution of critical race scholars’ growing interest in coalitional politics in order to achieve civil rights reform.24 She emphasizes the importance of finding a common understanding within groups.25 Other scholars have championed such coalitions, stressing perceived common interests.26 Examining Asian and Latino and Latina groups, another writer highlights each group’s shared views on “immigration, family, citizenship, nationhood, language, expression, culture, and global economic restructuring.”27 Overall, these advocates not only use political pragmatism and democratic idealism as vehicles to promote their goals, but they also tend to look to constructions of identity and mutual interests as starting points for mobilization. Though most of these scholars note the need for shared experiences several nonetheless stress the need to acknowledge points of difference between members of any coalition.28¶

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 84

A/T: Framework Carving out academic space, like in debate, is key to solving our multidimensionality impacts Hernandez-Truyol et al., 06. Professor, University of Florida College of Law; Harris, Professor, University of California at Berkeley School of Law; Valdés, Professor, University of Miami School of Law (Berta, Angela, Francisco. 17 Berkeley La Raza L.J. 169 2006. Pg. 197. 7/2/13. KJ) The importance of community-building to the production of critical outsider jurisprudence cannot be over emphasized, given the ambient dangers that confronted (and still confront) any progressive or critical undertaking in the United States. As already mentioned, two ambient dangers were most salient. The first was the anticritical bent of the legal academy, which had engineered the "death" of critical legal studies and the banishment of "crits" from law faculties throughout the country. 1 9 The second was the anti-identitarian backlash of the culture wars, which insisted on formal blindness to traditionally vexed identity categories such as race, gender, ethnicity and class. 2 ° Under these circumstances, the safest and surest way to "succeed" as a legal scholar in the United States during the 1990s was to avoid guilt by association with "crits" and, more specifically, critical projects of color. The existence of a self-identified "community" of LatCritical scholars, therefore, is a collective act of defiance against the political juggernaut that demands blindness to identity in law and policy, as well abandonment of critical inquiry into the corrupt reasons underlying the unjust status quo. 12

The judge is a LatCrit scholar – only by looking at our theoretical grounding can we contest the ongoing subordination of Latinos – it’s a pre-requisite to policy making Valdes, Professor of Law, University of Miami, 99 [Francisco, 53 U. Miami L. Rev. 1265, “Theorizing "OutCrit" Theories: Coalitional Method and Comparative Jurisprudential Experience - RaceCrits, QueerCrits and LatCrits,” lexisnexis, date accessed: 07/07/13, LV] Given this society's troubled record of race and ethnic relations, much of our collective learning process and tendency to self-reflection has been concerned with intergroup issues or, more concretely, with improving intergroup collaboration among outgroup scholars and communities as a form of antisubordination praxis. n7 It must of course be so, for the issues that LatCrit and allied scholars seek to negotiate internally are reflective of those that divide larger outgroup communities, n8 and which can impede our antisubordination struggles more generally. n9 We [*1268] must understand that, in effect, our work represents the current stage of struggle by our communities, through and with outsider jurisprudence, inside the legal culture and discourse of this country. n10 The importance of the legal academy and public discourse as sites of antisubordination contestation in this legalistic and cyberbolic society is unquestionable, and our work in both arenas has been a form of contestation seeking to enjoin subordination both within and beyond the academy. The importance of outsider efforts to transform, or at least reform, the academy and its work product similarly is unquestionable - though questioned nonetheless. n12 And because our own immediate efforts and struggles are crucibles of antisubordination insight and potential,

LatCrit and allied scholars must employ not only "rotating centers" and "shifting bottoms" for normative insight and theoretical grounding; n13 we also must look expansively and critically to our own jurisprudential experiments and experiences as outsider scholars in legal culture. n14 It is both important and right for LatCrits, and for all likeminded scholars, to conceptualize and deploy the critical insights to be drawn from the overall experiential record of outsider jurisprudence as part of this larger, and ongoing, social justice contestation that we have inherited and seek to [*1269] advance. n15 Thus, our antisubordination analyses and interventions must be trained not only on society, the academy, its institutions and our various communities, but also on ourselves and our work. To succeed in antisubordination solidarity, outsider scholars must practice internally the lessons and insights that we apply to others structures, and we must

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 85

learn continually from this internal focus to help us unpack and tranquilize cycles or patterns of subordinating behaviors that recur both within and beyond our immediate vicinity. This

inward moment of self-reflection, is part and parcel of our antisubordination work. n16 This multi-tiered concern for intergroup relations as antisubordina tion praxis is not surprising, especially from a LatCrit perspective, because the ongoing effort to link current practices and prospective projects to social and jurisprudential experience is part of a foundational LatCrit commitment to coalitional method and critical coalitions.n17 [*1270] Indeed, and in retrospect, the threshold decision, taken during the early planning of the First Annual LatCrit conference in 1996, n18 to configure LatCrit as a critical coalition of multiply diverse Latinas/os and nonLatinas/os has turned out to be a defining choice. n19 Ideally, LatCrit brings us together to construct and promote via multilateral exchanges an ethical vision of a postsubordination society. n20 At their best, LatCrit theory and its conferences represent coalitional method toward critical coalitions dedicated to antisubordination principles and formed by scholars (and activists) from various backgrounds and disciplines. It follows that the involvement in LatCrit of multiply diverse and overlapping outsider scholars from various genres of critical theory has been and is integral to this effort at coalitional method. Multiply diverse "OutCrits," n21 including LatCrits, have arisen from within the legal acad [*1271] emy in recent years to articulate the social justice claims of traditionally marginalized groups, and we have proceeded from that point of entry to bring into existence the jurisprudential formations, communities and experiments that today constitute "outsider jurisprudence" n22 in the United States. It therefore is important to stress at the outset that LatCrit theory, as presently conceived, can succeed only to the extent that both Latina/o and nonLatina/o outsider scholars, such as those whose self- reflective essays prompt this Afterword, continue to invest their time, energy and creativity in this project.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 86

A/T: Policymaking Racial exclusion of history and narratives silence populations and erase the ways in which the global social reconfigurations spurred by capitalism cause local erasures of cultures and traditional ways of living. If we win an erasure impact, we are a prerequisite to good policymaking. Hernandez-Lopez 2012 [Ernesto, “Cluster Introduction: Economic Crises from the Bottom Up— (In)Securities of Silencing a Racial Past and Present,” 22 Berkeley La Raza Law Journal 1] To help draw some theoretical abstraction from these examples of silencing, this essay refers to two analytical tools: Eric Wolfs Europe and the People Without History and Michel-Rolph Trouillot's Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History, From different viewpoints, these authors describe how silencing or the ignoring of history occurs and that this has significant impacts for subordinated populations. Put simply. Wolf presents an expansive picture of how interconnected local socio-economic contexts are with larger global forces by analyzing world commerce and European expansion after the fifteenth century to industrialization and empire in the early twentieth century. Trouillot highlights how silence, not evident in historical accounts or official records and at times ignored by historians, often more accurately describes past power relations. Both provide valuable theoretical suggestions. Wolf emphasizes how history is denied, leaving the experiences of certain populations untold and invariably painting markets and Western forces as victorious or neutral, while Trouillot suggests identifying what prior perspectives or events are silenced to then examine the influence of this silence in present struggles. For the purposes of this Essay and LatCrit XV's theme of "the Color of the Economic Crises," these two perspectives suggest valuable tools to examine silencing in terms of material and global connections and in symbolic and local terms. Wolf and Trouillot do this respectively. They both speak to many of the themes this cluster's papers do. Both the LatCrit XV theme and this cluster attempt to further LatCrit's already impressive theoretical contributions to understanding the interplay between global economics and cultural forces. Wolf paints an impressively broad picture with ornate analytical details to describe repeated examples of the interconnection between global trade and local social transformation. He shows how the spread of capitalism worldwide from Europe, and then from the Global North, since the fifteenth century forces a reorganization socio-economic structures locally. With this, the negative socioeconomic effects of trade, economic growth and downturn occur consistently. Whether it is fur trading in North America, sugar production in the Americas, the slave trade in Africa and the Americas, or rubber plantations in Asia, cross-border economic forces have a sustained and formative impact on local societies. The common story of capitalism, Europe, or empire's success invariably overlooks significant social transformation locally. He argues that this story, seen globally as interconnected with cultural impacts, produces a denial of history in two ways. First, the story and impacts felt for local populations penetrated by capitalist forces from the center is denied.'^ Second, after this penetration, populations are forced to migrate as labor, because local systems of production are disrupted and/or capitalism seeks cheap labor. Wolf argues that history is denied, when analysts focus solely on state-actors or economic changes. This picture of global economic, local social transformation, subordination, and how the latter is denied provides a fruitful set of questions for the LatCrit XV theme of "The Color of the Economic Crises: Exploring the Downturn from the Bottom Up." Specifically, Wolf describes how global commerce, empires, and world systems ignore the histories of two sets of populations. These include periphery populations in the colonies or away from the seat of imperial power, who often are "discovered" or "colonized," and for populations who migrate as a result of cross- border commerce such as slaves, refugees, or migrant labor. ' ' With Wolfs claim that empires and global commerce unseat populations and deny their history, we begin to see the

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 87

material causes, evident in political relationships, geopolitical interests, and economic interactions that result in silencing of a population's history.'^ Using Wolf’s suggestions, we may begin to ask about what local stories are denied when global economic forces reach subordinated populations. Similarly, we can question how these forces lead to socio-economic transformations for these populations. Next, Trouillot presents more intimate and qualitative descriptions of how history may be ignored or silenced and how the effects of these manifest themselves presently. He examines a series of historical examples to show how silencing the perspectives of certain actors or not reporting certain events has normative impact on what becomes the historical record. This silencing shapes how later issues are told 19 or and how later events unfold. A Haitian historian, Trouillot describes a series of examples from Haitian history with global and domestic impacts that are usually ignored or silenced in international histories. Haiti was the second state to become independent in the Americas, after the U.S., and this was the result of a violent slave revolt in 1791, killing French whites or forcing them to leave Haiti. Victoriously, Haiti became a black independent state early in the nineteenth century, but was ignored diplomatically and monitored geopolitically out of regional fear for another slave revolt. These Haitian events resulted in significant changes in race and labor relations throughout the Americas, making slavery a more violent and controlled source of labor and exploitation than had been in the prior three centuries, and an international fear that slaves, whether locally or by spreading across borders, would revolt, kill whites, and destabilize U.S., British, Spanish, and other economic interests. France's foreign policy was re-oriented to focus on colonies outside the Caribbean and on territorial gains elsewhere, especially with Napoleonic Wars in Europe and the Middle East, and British naval and imperial policy re-focused to both limit the black republic's regional influence and to increase its overseas naval presence. For these past events, Haiti was ignored in international law and foreign policy terms due to cultural and racist assumptions about a black nation and who could be sovereign. The republic was not recognized for decades after it was no longer under French sovereign control. This historic ignoring or silencing became the eventual cause for "silencing the past" of how influential Haiti was on the world stage. With additional examples from Haitian national history and the evolving controversy over Christopher Columbus's legacy since the sixteenth century (inside the U.S., Spain, and other locations), Trouillot abstracts an articulate picture of how historical silencing or ignoring actors and events exert normative influence. This is felt in both what stories we tell about the past (i.e. history's narrative) and how future contests, negotiations, or power develop. In sum, Trouillot provides a highly appropriate way to examine the interplay between history, denying the perspectives of subordinates, and cultural assumptions about what is presented as neutral fact. His suggestions on silence and its normative influence in the future and presentation as neutral fact are potentially illuminating for any inquiry on economic crises, brewing for decades but most obviously exploding since 2008. Trouillot describes the symbolic and more localized significance of silencing history. He notes how when the historical record may not include something or a fact is denied, this shapes how in the future issues are addressed. Using these suggestions we may question what public narrative is presented about an economic crises. Trouillot inspires asking: What is not being discussed? Who is benefitting from public response? And what facts or manifestations cloud a more complex explanation? This essay argues that Wolf and Trouillot suggest two ways to make sense of how to contest the narratives of global economic crises and to illuminate the injustices felt by subaltems who are disenfranchised by race, gender, sexual orientation, national allegiance, or class. In exploring what is the color of the economic crises. Wolf and Trouillot, respectively, illuminate how current subordination may be the result of material, local, and global interconnections and/or symbolic or narrative denials. These suggestions are infinitely applicable to an economic crisis felt since 2008. For instance, the complexity and inter-connection of subordination and denying narratives is evident in just a few examples since LatCrit XV convened in October 2010 and as this Essay is written in May of 2011, e.g. denying a President's citizenship; eliminating public services and education on local and state levels due to national financial challenges;

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 88

scapegoating foreign nationals in public debates on crime, labor demand, immigration, national security, or education; attacking legal gains for same-sex marriage; increasing local and state enforcement of immigration due to changes in global and national labor markets; Wikileaks' global and far-reaching political impact of disclosing diplomatic secrets; ignoring U.S. foreign policy support of falling regimes in the Middle-East and North Africa; and rising oil prices as populations challenge political regimes traditionally supported by the U.S. Taking this cluster of papers, the theoretical examples, and this brief list of co-existing struggles, it appears that the color of the economic crisis includes inter-connection and silencing. This tangible and prolific reality should not be ignored. These papers offer powerful steps in suggesting how to identify the silence and begin addressing their harms.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 89

2NC’s

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 90

A/T: Permutation LatCrit can’t be formalized into a structured end point. The permutation cannot contest the alternative due to people’s inability of picturing the final result; thus, the permutation can only hold in an authoritarian advocacy that devalues self-reflection and personal-growth. Marc-Tizoc González et. all, 2012, J.D. University of California Berkeley and Assistant Professor of Law at St. Thomas University School of Law, Seattle Journal for Social Justice, “Afterword: Change and Continuity: An Introduction to the LatCrit Taskforce Recommendations” http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sjsj/vol8/iss1/12/ The relationship between theory and practice in LatCrit has been consistently narrated since the organization’s inception and has been published in many of the yearly symposia’s forewords and afterwords.11These narratives not only memorialize the historical moment of critical engagement, but also provide us with a historical “road map” that guides us through the contingent terrain of change and continuity that shapes the contours of LatCrit. As Francisco Valdes has noted, “LatCrit theory…is a project perpetually under construction, but one whose construction, at least in these formative moments, seems consciously guided by a progressive, inclusive and selfcritical theory about the purpose and experience of theory.”13 As a project under construction, LatCrit was envisioned as a concept, entity and community subjected to constant revision and change. Permanence and stability were not the end goals; on the contrary, change and questioning were conceived as important tools for growth. As we engaged in multiple processes of reflection throughout the better part of the year following LatCrit XIII, we found several theoretical discussions to be useful guides. Essays defining LatCrit as a democratic experiment, and works on critical coalition building and self-critique, shaped the contours of our collective understanding of the LatCrit project. These works also helped inspire the methodological and interpretive approaches we adopted when developing and conducting our internal selfstudy project. Since its inception, LatCrit has provided an intellectual space to engage in community and coalition building. For example, early debates framed the LatCrit project as an effort to both “form a regular scholarly venue for the discussion of social and legal issues especially germane to Latinas/os”12 and a critical space for coalition building that transgressed all essentializing socio-spatial boundaries. We believe that this contingent and fragile space provides both challenges and opportunities for critical praxis and the constant construction and critique of the LatCrit project. As Francisco Valdes has noted, “LatCrit theory…is a project perpetually under construction, but one whose construction, at least in these formative moments, seems consciously guided by a progressive, inclusive and selfcritical theory about the purpose and experience of theory.”13 As a project under construction, LatCrit was envisioned as a concept, entity and community subjected to constant revision and change. Permanence and stability were not the end goals; on the contrary, change and questioning were conceived as important tools for growth. As we engaged in multiple processes of reflection throughout the better part of the year following LatCrit XIII, we found several theoretical discussions to be useful guides. Essays defining LatCrit as a democratic experiment, and works on critical coalition building and self-critique, shaped the contours of our collective understanding of the LatCrit project. These works also helped inspire the methodological and interpretive approaches we adopted when developing and conducting our internal self-study project. We relied on Valdes’s seven guideposts for a LatCrit theory, outlined in the foreword to the first annual symposium proceedings, as the basis for a collective understanding of LatCrit’s core principles. These include a recognition of the political nature of legal scholarship; a call to conceptualize scholarship as a form of activism that can be used both inside and outside legal institutions; a focus on principles that foster coalition building, shared purpose, and collective solidarity; a concern with the egalitarian principles that foster commonalities while respecting differences; a commitment to the interrogation of past constructions that have enabled the subordination of historically-oppressed groups of people and the use of this knowledge to challenge continuing forms of oppression; and a continual engagement in self-critique.14 Of particular importance to our project was LatCrit’s commitment to continual self-critique and critical coalition building, which two key essays have defined in detail. The value of LatCrit—a self-critical project always in flux—is well delineated in “Latinas/os and the Politics of Knowledge Production.”15 In this piece, Margaret Montoya and Francisco Valdes describe LatCrit as a democratic experiment characterized by openness and the ample participation of diverse scholars in diverse situations. These concepts are important and fundamental to our Taskforce work because they provide guidelines for the creation of a space that enables critical dialogue. The idea of LatCrit as a work in progress necessarily implies the possibility of selfcriticality as a guiding principle. Self-criticality also includes the need for the constant questioning of our practices and the constant adjustments or modifications necessary to our principles in order to reconcile our practice with our theory and to evolve our theory in light of our practice. This is the core of democratic praxis. This

objective is not always easy to achieve, and it is not necessarily pleasant. It is sometimes conflictive and at times messy. Nevertheless, LatCrit’s democratic experiment challenges us to engage in selfcriticality as a basic precondition for the development of principled praxis. Through self-reflection and critique, the LatCrit community can work incrementally to refine these practices in order to advance, as best as we can, our common and basic commitment to antisubordination in multidimensional terms. This process of self-

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 91

reflection and critique does not yield linear progress or tidy solutions that satisfy our aspirations. Yet, this

practice—with its emphasis on represents an oppositional or “dissenting” LatCrit norm, which is key to the creation of a vibrant and self-sustaining democratic academic society within the still-mostly-imperial structures and biases of the legal academy of the U.S. To the undiscerning eye, the LatCrit experiment—and other democratic efforts—may appear to be “messy” when compared to the relatively familiar or controlled practices of the imperial or vanguardist models of academic community and scholarship. However, democratic unruliness is a reflection of the open intellectual society that the LatCrit community has sought to bring into existence.16 LatCrit theory seeks to not only explore the promise of democratic representation and the actual operations of power in society, but also integrates these as part of its internal dynamic. The creation of the Taskforce, and the board self-study process led by this group, then, were a direct result and remain a clear example of performing the theory of self-criticality. We believe that it is possible to agree on principled programmatic opportunities for junior scholars to develop and mature— today

convergences of interests that transcend the limits of liberal “consensus building.” Conscious of the limitations of centering a community on a single identity, we agree that it is possible to build coalitions that can be decentered from any particular identity and that build on the intersections of difference. Viewed in this way, critical coalition building can be tantamount to community building and can rest upon a foundation of principled interest convergences. Julie A. Su and Eric K. Yamamoto’s definition of critical coalitions and Valdes’s explanation of a forward-looking ethic guided our imagination and efforts in the Taskforce. In “Critical Coalitions: Theory and Praxis,” Su and Yamamoto explain that the future of coalition building efforts depend largely on the groups’ ability to combine theory with practice, a core tenet of the LatCrit project. Of particular significance to the Taskforce was Su and Yamamoto’s Change and Continuity 309 assertion that “among coalition partners, intergroup healing and reconciliation are sometimes a necessary first step to, and always an ongoing process in, forging lasting alliances.”17 They remind us, in fact, that the process of building sustainable critical coalitions is also “messy”; the joys of forging critical bonds are accompanied with the struggles of finding common ground. However, Su and Yamamoto’s piece provided much hope and insight to us in asserting that “a genuine sense of community often emerges only through engagement in, rather than avoidance of, nitty-gritty efforts to align.” In this vein, the Taskforce developed a process where we could survey and interview board members, thereby allowing them spaces of self-expression, especially in light of frustrations generated by misunderstandings and collective hurt. If Su and Yamamoto’s piece gave us the tools with which to create our internal self-study materials, Valdes’s piece on critical coalitions offered the language with which to conceive our future as an organization. Valdes’s most helpful perspectives come from his definition of a forward-looking ethic, which critical coalitions need in order to move beyond “issues of sameness and difference.” He encourages us to adopt a “post-subordination vision…by emphasizing a forward-looking basis for intergroup coalescence toward substantive security.”18 Rather than focus on sameness or difference, Valdes posits that we ask whether our “visions, agendas[,] and projects of substantive security” match so that the critical coalitions we foster become sustainable ones which can withstand the struggles that come with efforts to align. Once we rely on a vision as a method for critical coalition building, he continues, the forward-looking approach can solidify and further antisubordination theory and praxis. Valdes concludes: “By expanding the focus of outgroup coalitions beyond issues of sameness and difference with forward-looking assessments of hopes and aspirations, [the] postsubordination vision as jurisprudential method can help OutCrits to organize critical coalitions chiefly around the progressive principles and policies that will ensure social justice and substantive security for all.”19 Heeding this call to adopt a postsubordination vision towards critical coalition building, the Taskforce focused on looking towards events of the past that may have led to current frustrations amongst board members. We also asked board members to share their vision of LatCrit’s future projects and crafted

LatCrit theory has called upon us to not only develop an outsider jurisprudence that focuses on democratic values, but also to consider social justice issues from an antisubordination standpoint. We are called upon to commit to those values in our practices. Therefore, to “perform the theory” means to apply those theoretical commitments to intraand intergroup dynamics. As Valdes reminds us, “[o]ur commitment to personal, collective action in turn operates as a key method of recommendations based on a forward-looking ethic of our organization’s projects. Since its inception,

community-and-coalition building; laboring together in principled terms produces not only knowledge but also trust and solidarity.”20

Theory should not be divorced from practice. Openness and self-criticality are seen as the vehicles for creating honest, diverse, democratic, and trustworthy practices . They are understood to be vehicles for coalitionbuilding efforts. This constant questioning or critical self-revision inspired the work of the Taskforce and is tantamount to what Sumi Cho and Robert Westley have described as “performing the theory.”21 As Westley has described LatCrit, “It’s not a safe space in the sense that no one gets criticized. But it’s a safe space in that no topic is taboo.”22 Thus, to “perform the theory” in the LatCrit way means to face conflict in a self-critical, open, and democratic way. It includes an understanding of our members as multidimensional subjects who are outside the majority view and who share a common goal of working from an antisubordination standpoint. It is to recognize that our democratic experiment, our outsider project, is always under construction. And, because it is under constant construction, critique, and revision, we must be ever-vigilant in maintaining the democratic openness that defines LatCrit theory.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 92

A/T: Permutation – Co-option Reform gets coopted by elites—better to have individual scholarship Ramierez 2006 [Steven, Professor of Law and Director of the Business Law Center, Loyola University at Chicago. “Endogenous Growth Theory, Status Quo Efficiency, and Globalization,” 17 Berkeley La Raza Law Journal 1] Professor Derrick Bell posits that reform only occurs in accordance with the interests of those holding political and economic power. Bell has applied this "interest convergence" theory of reform to the judicial abolition of "separate but equal" and to the issue of affirmative action. 93 In a capitalist democracy, it is a truism that law is made in response to political and economic power.94 Other scholars have shown much the same dynamic in connection with the progressive era and the New Deal reforms.95 All reform requires coalitions of sufficient economic and political power to make any reform law.96 As such, "interest convergence" is not just a statement of historic fact, it also lights the way for future reformers. 97 Reform, however, need not be held hostage to the interests of those with power. With respect to reforms regarding the legal and regulatory structure underlying the economy, an additional dynamic is at play: the prospect of a macroeconomic disruption. 98 The Federal Reserve System exists as a creature of the Panic of 1907.99 The New Deal, which fundamentally re-worked the nation's system of financial regulation, occurred in the wake of the Great Depression. 00 Most recently, Congress enacted the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 in the face of a potential market meltdown arising from a crisis in investor confidence.101 Such macroeconomic events can shift political and economic interests in a way that makes a reform coalition possible. If elites overplay the hand of entrenchment, the risk of macroeconomic disruptions threatens their ability to stem reform. 102 A reform moment follows. Of course, making reform possible is not the same as making reform durable or effective. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act is an instance of ineffective and nondurable reform. Business interests successfully lobbied against some of the more significant reforms associated with that Act. 1 03 The Act imposed "quack corporate governance" according to respected scholars. 104 Most importantly, the Act preserves the CEO primacy model of corporate governance, so much so that recently a CEO of a public financial institution was able to disguise more than $400 million in questionable loans to an entity he controlled. 105 Many commentators have suggested that the string of scandals preceding the enactment of Sarbanes-Oxley was driven primarily by the drive of CEOs to enhance their compensation.,0 6 CEO compensation has increased unabated since the Act. 10 7 The reason Sarbanes-Oxley seems to have been so ill-founded may highlight the importance of ideology and discourse. Rightly or wrongly there was little support for using private litigation against business leaders as a means of reducing agency costs. 10 8 Instead, in accordance with a society with the highest incarceration rate in the world, enhanced criminality was the selected tool for meeting the wrongdoing.' 09 Ironically, the accounting industry also seemed to have significant control over the reform effort, and was able to guide reform in a way that resulted in enhanced revenues for audit firms. 110 But, there is reason to believe that the reform effort would have had a fundamentally different direction if a different administration or a different Congress had been in place."' The political ideology of the current governing political and economic coalition therefore matters in terms of the content of any reform, even if some macroeconomic disturbance creates sufficient energy for reform. 112 Sarbanes-Oxley illustrates a final point regarding the process of reform. An individual scholar was able to exploit the pressure created for reform to achieve significant reform with respect to the duties of counsel representing public corporations."l 3 This reform was achieved notwithstanding the prodigious political power of the attorneys subject to these new federal rules of professional responsibility."14 Therefore, one individual scholar with a focused and developed scholarly agenda

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 93

can reach out atomistically to those with power over a given reform to effect change. "' Consequently, Sarbanes-Oxley ultimately suggests that durable and effective reform is possible with respect to globalization despite the fact that there may be entrenched interests that may resist reform. These reform lessons bode well for the future of globalization. First, as previously shown, the current financial system is ill-founded and crisis prone."16 Recently, leading voices have expressed concern that a serious crisis looms." 7 Indeed, the system is blinking red. "8 The number of voices defending the status quo is dwindling and a new scholarly consensus is emerging in favor of reform.119 It is beyond the scope of this essay to either catalogue or assess the various proposals for reform; the point is that these proposals for reform will be accessible in the event of the next macroeconomic disruption resulting from the flawed model of globalization now being pursued. 120 Legal scholars wishing to promulgate proposals focusing upon human capital actualization, and the institutions necessary to achieve such actualization, need to demonstrate that such proposals would give rise to a more powerful global economy, however, in order to maximize the political viability of such proposals.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 94

A/T: Permutation – Economics Dominant economic models erase the fact that economic disadvantage and racial injustice are inextricably linked—because economic analysis is unidimensional, it is impossible to think how economics intersects with other axes of oppression so as to become invisible. Hernandez-Truyol, Harris, and Valdes, all are college professors, 6 (Berta, Professor at the University of Florida Law School, Angela, Professor and UC Berkeley Law School, and Francisco, Professor at the University of Miami Law School, Spring 2006, 26 Chicano-Latino L. Rev. 237, Lexis) At first glance, it might seem that LatCrit and economic analysis have little to say to one another. LatCrit's hallmark is an interest in identity, meaning, and the "problem of the subject," all issues usually accessed through methodologies associated with the humanities: narrative, close reading, "theory." n154 Traditional economic analysis, in contrast, employs a subject-the "rational maximizer"-for whom neither identity nor meaning is important, except insofar that these concepts imply preferences on which the actor will attempt to act. n155 Traditional economic analyses attempt to model and sometimes predict behavior using methods adapted from mathematics and the "hard" sciences. In fact, however, LatCrit/CRT theory and the economic analysis of law are beginning to converge in new and exciting ways. There are at least three reasons for this convergence. First, global racial injustice is closely tied to economic disadvantage. The beginning of capitalism as we know it coincided with a period of European colonialism and imperialism, and an international trade in African slave labor, that profoundly shaped international political and economic relations for centuries to come. Thus, black liberation movements in the United States [*288] have struggled since Reconstruction to untie the knot of race and class; immigration politics in the United States has always been inextricably intertwined with economic relations, with "culture," and with race-ethnicity; and post-colonialist movements in other nations struggle with problems of economic "underdevelopment" and marginalization that owe their genesis to European accounts of the gap between the "civilized" and the "savage." Second, we are living in a historical moment in which international capitalism seems newly invigorated. The developments that are collectively referred to as "globalization"-advances in technology that have permitted capital to be ever more mobile, ever more abstract and unrelated to the "real" economy, and ever more deeply inserted into political institutions and practices-are rapidly altering the global political economy and national domestic political economies in unforeseen and perhaps unforeseeable ways. Moreover, today there seems no alternative to capitalism. As Erik Olin Wright observes, talking about capitalism today is something like talking about the weather; everybody has a complaint about it, but nobody seriously thinks that any other form of life is possible. n156 Chantal Thomas quotes former U.S. President Bill Clinton: "Technology revolution and globalization are not policy choices, they are facts." n157 The final reason why LatCrit/CRT and economic analysis are beginning to converge is that both disciplines are moving beyond their original concerns. LatCrit/CRT scholars are increasingly interested in thinking about class relations and political economy, and they are increasingly incorporating economic analysis in their work, or offering important critiques of traditional economic analysis. At the same time, the kind of work that comprises "economic analysis of law" is rapidly changing. "Law and economics" began as a fairly narrow body of work focused on proving that common law rules are "wealth maximizing." Today, law and economics comprises a broad and eclectic group of approaches that collectively are challenging the basic assumptions of neoclassical economics,

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 95

and beginning to grope toward an understanding of the subject as more than just the sum of certain preferences.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 96

A/T: Coalitions Nontraditional forms of discussion are necessary to fight the injustice of Americas oppressive legal system. Only through embracing the “taboo” of policy debate can LatCrit ideology attempt to persuade the masses. Marc-Tizoc González et. all, 2012, J.D. University of California Berkeley and Assistant Professor of Law at St. Thomas University School of Law, Seattle Journal for Social Justice, “Afterword: Change and Continuity: An Introduction to the LatCrit Taskforce Recommendations” http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sjsj/vol8/iss1/12/ In the Coming Insurrection, the Invisible Committee reminds us that it is useless to wait for a catastrophe or the collapse of civilization to do something. The social and political catastrophe and the collapse of civilization is here, all that remains is for us to choose sides.41 For more than thirteen years, LatCrit has created a critical space that enables scholars and activists alike to choose sides against a longstanding legacy of oppression and exploitation. LatCrit has created a vibrant alternative space that offers the possibility for renewed community and coalition-building projects to continue to challenge the status quo. Today, we invite a collective dialogue that is also anchored on self-critical contributions. We invite a transparent debate, where nothing remains as “taboo,” and where we are all willing to assume principled responsibility over our actions. We also invite participants in this dialogue to engage in honest and transparent dialogue with the goal of contributing to the building of stronger communities and coalitions that can help us take sides against the tyrannical legacies of oppressive regimes and subordinating traditions. We invite participants to help us perpetuate a space where community and coalition building make it possible to take sides against oppression and exploitation. This invitation is also premised on a shared belief that critical coalitions need to move beyond the narrow confines of the legal academy and the ideological constraints presented by legal institutions. We invite participants to explore forms of praxis that draw upon local activists and community members, from the intersection of other disciplinary epistemologies, and from global sources that transgress nationalist ideologies. We invite current and future board members to consider the possibility of transgressing tradition and stepping into a fragile, fragmented, and strange future. We invite all participants in the LatCrit project to consider new possibilities and new directions for future projects.

LatCrit analysis of multidimensionality is key to address the impact of a socially constructed racial identity on Latinas/os in the United States and make space for genuine coalitions Hayes, Professor of Law at University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, 1 [Enid Trucio, “Why ‘Race Matters:’ LatCrit Theory and Latina/o Racial Identity,” http://homepage.smc.edu/preciado_christina/Current/Sociology%2031/Readings/Why%20Race%20Mat ters%20LatCrit.pdf, date accessed: 07/02/13, LV] LatCrit Theory is an essential part of this coalition building project. LatCrit scholars face the serious challenge of recognizing that we, Latinas/os, are not all the same,271 while simultaneously attempting to construct community among Latinas/os and between Latinas/os and other communities of color.

LatCrit Theory is integral to identifying how the bipolar, Black-White model of race relations obstructs the ability to construct coalitions.272 Among the goals of LatCrit scholars and other progressive voices, is the construction of alliances that are built on a shared goal of a reordered society that eliminates the power of White supremacy. Latina/o leaders and scholars should assist in the development of a pan- Latina/o movement that includes a unified Non-White group identity.274 The racial experience of many Latinas/os as

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 97

Non-White is a reality that should not be ignored, and can be the effective link among diverse Latina/o national origin groups.275 It has been suggested that Latinas/os adopt a political racial identity.276 For example, Professor Angel Oquendo offers a theory that would shift the focus from a material to a "spiritual" concept of race that would incorporate culture rather than a material focus on phenotype.277 He provides two reasons for identifying Latinas/os as a racial group. First, most groups are identified as ethnic groups in official as well as ordinary descriptions, except for the African-American community.278 In this regard, Latinas/os should not reinforce the dominant perception that "what distances African-Americans is qualitatively different than what separates them [Latina/os] from the White majority.279 Second, a broader adoption by the Latina/o community of the idea of "La Raza" of indigenous people of North America prior to European conquest is part of Latina/o heritage 280 This indigenous ancestry continues to be an organizing factor for Latina/o political activism. There are models for community of color coalition-building that have worked in other countries. In South Africa, the challenge to the apartheid system required unification among communities of color and other allied groups, including members of the dominant class.282 Some people who were designated as "Colored" under apartheid chose to identify themselves as "Black" as a political statement.283 A

unified Non-White group racial identity may aid Latinas/os in building coalitions with other communities of color.284 For Latinas/os, this may be the first step toward the development of a model to address inter-minority conflict. Other scholars also have called for a more practical approach to race theory and an explicit focus on the empowerment of racial groups,285 new understandings and extensions of existing antidiscrimination law,286 and an alternative racial formation analysis to link conceptually the experiences of various groups of color in relation to White supremacy 287 A call for an alternative racial formation analysis or a broad understanding of racial identity that includes the Latina/o experience is necessary so we can begin to link our struggle with the struggles of other communities of color. Eric Yamamoto recently offered an ideal framework for developing an interracial justice jurisprudence, which views communities of color as occupying varying positions of situated power, as a way to combat the structures of White supremacy.289 Professor Yamamoto's framework holds communities of color responsible for their role in the reinforcement of (as second line guardians) of White supremacy because, while not fully autonomous, these groups of color operate as more than mere extensions of racially oppressive structures and operations.290 Communities

of color must acknowledge and endeavor to fully understand their complicity in maintaining racial hierarchy, and any attempt to develop links among communities of color must directly identify issues relating to interracial harms and injuries .291 As Professor Yamamoto asserts, it is only by addressing intergroup justice claims and rebuilding intergroup relationships that the healing processes necessary as a precursor to political or economic alliances across communities of color can occur.292 LatCrit Theory is critical to the development of an interracial justice jurisprudence organized around the identity issues that are faced collectively by Mexican-Americans, Puerto Ricans, and Cuban Americans, as the largest Latina/o communities in the United States,293 as well as by the other Latina/o national origin groups that are growing in number.294 LatCrit Theory seeks to address issues of central concern to this broader Latina/o community, such as 1) the transnational identity of our community295 and the impact of immigration;296 2) overarching similarities among Latina/o peoples, including language, in many instances, and a shared history of colonization and conquest by the United States in Latin America; and 3) "cultural resistance to Anglo assimilation." Scholars of LatCrit Theory must directly address the position in which Lninas/os are situated within the U.S. system of racial hierarchy.299 Latinas/os also must acknowledge responsibility for the way in which our group is viewed as an indeterminate racial group, and how this identification relates to the racial oppression o "all communities of color within a system of White supremacy. Such an analysis must include a candid assessment of the advantages gained by being perceived as an "indeterminate" racial group, as well as a realistic understanding of how this situated position impacts interracial community coalition building. Coalitions among various Latina/o national origin groups have been successful and further efforts to construct a group identity for Latinas/os in the United States should focus on the Non-White racial status of Latinas/os.300 These successes might become models for future efforts to bring the diverse community members together. Latinas/os

should not ignore the way in which the group identity has been socially and politically constructed, or accept the indeterminate racial identity that we have been accorded under law. Race is meaningful in the way that the Latina/o group is constructed in the United Sates, and the everyday lives of most Latinas/os in this country. 501 LatCrit scholars should begin to address more directly the impact of that socially constructed racial identity on Latinas/os in the United States.302 This approach would require that scholars identity the connection between the constructed racial identity of Latinas/os and other communities of color in

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 98

the United States, because group identity within a hierarchy structure is relationally defined.303 The identification of the Latina/o racial identity would further require the legal definitions of race to include how a group is socially constructed. In this way, Latinas/os are integral to the development of a new definition of race, one that includes more than biological connections, and reflects myriad of racisms to which Non-White people are subjected in the United States.304

Critique is a prerequisite to build space for coalitional politics. Nontraditional forms of discussion are necessary to fight the injustice of Americas oppressive legal system. Only through embracing the “taboo” of policy debate can LatCrit ideology attempt to persuade the masses. Marc-Tizoc González et. all, 2012, J.D. University of California Berkeley and Assistant Professor of Law at St. Thomas University School of Law, Seattle Journal for Social Justice, “Afterword: Change and Continuity: An Introduction to the LatCrit Taskforce Recommendations” http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sjsj/vol8/iss1/12/ In the Coming Insurrection, the Invisible Committee reminds us that it is useless to wait for a catastrophe or the collapse of civilization to do something. The social and political catastrophe and the collapse of civilization is here, all that remains is for us to choose sides.41 For more than thirteen years, LatCrit has created a critical space that enables scholars and activists alike to choose sides against a longstanding legacy of oppression and exploitation. LatCrit has created a vibrant alternative space that offers the possibility for renewed community and coalition-building projects to continue to challenge the status quo. Today, we invite a collective dialogue that is also anchored on self-critical contributions. We invite a transparent debate, where nothing remains as “taboo,” and where we are all willing to assume principled responsibility over our actions. We also invite participants in this dialogue to engage in honest and transparent dialogue with the goal of contributing to the building of stronger communities and coalitions that can help us take sides against the tyrannical legacies of oppressive regimes and subordinating traditions. We invite participants to help us perpetuate a space where community and coalition building make it possible to take sides against oppression and exploitation. This invitation is also premised on a shared belief that critical coalitions need to move beyond the narrow confines of the legal academy and the ideological constraints presented by legal institutions. We invite participants to explore forms of praxis that draw upon local activists and community members, from the intersection of other disciplinary epistemologies, and from global sources that transgress nationalist ideologies. We invite current and future board members to consider the possibility of transgressing tradition and stepping into a fragile, fragmented, and strange future. We invite all participants in the LatCrit project to consider new possibilities and new directions for future projects.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 99

A/T: Class Replacing race with class analysis obscures the everyday lived realities of discrimination for people of color and ethnic groups Moran, University of California School of Law Professor, 97 Rachel F.,Professor of Law, University of California School of Law, Published Fall, 1997, Harvard Latino Law Review, “Neither Black Nor White”, http://biblioteca.uprrp.edu/latcritcd/publications/publishedsymposium/lciharvardlat(1997)/lcimmoran. pdf, 2 Harv. Latino L. Rev. 61, Lexus, pg. 9-10, Accessed July 2 2013, JB) Although efforts to revisit the meaning of race under a civil rights model are important and provocative, they do suffer from [*89] potential pitfalls. In insisting on the malleability of race as a social construct, Latinos may seem insensitive to the experience of Blacks. Having been formally classified as White, Latinos probably enjoy racial capital that makes them assume more easily than Blacks that racial classifications can be dismantled or will diminish in importance. n77 Moreover, recent social science evidence suggests that if racial classifications change, the key shift may be from a White/non-White model to a Black/non-Black model. According to sociologist Mary Waters of Harvard University, "In the future, the differences among the Asian, Latino and non-Latino white populations of the United States -- among whom intermarriage rates are on the rise -- are apt to 'become like the differences among white ethnic groups now,' leaving blacks and perhaps some darkskinned Latinos on the disadvantaged side of the color line." n78 Rather than doing away with race, those who insist on its socially constructed nature may simply facilitate the redrawing of the color line. Efforts to reduce the significance of race could bolster the claims of those who would substitute class differences for racial ones in making public policy. Precisely because race seems a volatile, perilous, and contested terrain, policymakers will prefer an alternative that appears less explosive: socioeconomic status. In substituting class for race, officials could obscure the ongoing significance of race in the everyday lives of Americans and the ways in which it interacts with class to exacerbate the condition of the underclass. Efforts to substitute class for race presumably will damage that group for whom race historically has mattered most: Blacks. As a result, the push to diminish the significance of race [*90] may affect adversely efforts to build coalitions between African Americans and Latinos, who often confront similar barriers to social, economic, and political opportunity. Moreover, the effort to minimize the role of race potentially will harm the life chances of some Latinos who self-identify as Black, thereby damaging the internal cohesion of Latinos as a political group. n79

LatCrit helps to unlock systems of oppression that blur the lines between discursive and material Valdes, U of Miami Law Professor, 12’ (Francisco Valdes, Professor of Law and Co-Director, Center for Hispanic and Caribbean Legal Studies, University of Miami School of Law, 4-16-2012, Seattle Journal for Social Justice, Volume 8, Issue 1Fall/Winter 2009 Article 7, “Rebellious Knowledge Production, Academic Activism, & Outsider Democracy: From Principles to Practices in LatCrit Theory, 1995 to 2008”, http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sjsj/vol8/iss1/7/, Accessed 7/2/13’, NC) Finally, the fifth basic contribution in this brief sketch would be the collective or programmatic insistence that “class” and “identity” are not oppositional categories of analysis and action, and instead must be understood as “different” dimensions of the interlocking systems of oppression always under interrogation.91 This approach, in other words, emphasizes that “class” is itself an axis of sociolegal

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 100

identity and that, as such, it must be incorporated into multidimensional analyses of power in law and society. This approach has tempered the influence of dichotomies between “discursive” and “material” aspects of power based on identity politics92 and has positioned us to better understand how class and other forms of identity are mutually constitutive and mutually reinforcing, both in law and in society. These five sets of contributions, I recognize, delve into areas that have occupied the attention of antisubordination scholars of many stripes. I recognize, also, that these contributions accumulate in the form both of individual texts and of collective or programmatic actions.93 But I hope you will notice in the brief account above that, during the past dozen years, we have carefully crafted a distinctive approach to programmatic, collective knowledge production projects. During these past dozen years, we have programmatically refined previous breakthroughs, even as we organized our work around our own developing sense of democratic ethics and approaches regarding knowledge production and the four interrelated functions of theory mentioned earlier.94 In other words, apart from a straightforward, substantive application of OutCrit tools and concepts to new social or legal terrains, we have reassembled and cohered a legacy we inherited into a distinctive model of critical outsider jurisprudence and praxis. This distinctive model is organized around democratic conceptions and egalitarian practices, and thus we may usefully refer to it as a kind of “outsider democracy” in legal knowledge production.95 However, as with everything else that we do, we did not invent democratic knowledge production. As with everything else that we do, we have striven to learn from past efforts, including those of the Society of American Law Teachers (SALT) and the Law & Society Association (LSA), to mix and match the best from each and then add our own distinctive elements.96

Class and identity mutually reinforce each other in law and society Hernandez-Truyol et al., 06. Professor, University of Florida College of Law; Harris, Professor, University of California at Berkeley School of Law; Valdés, Professor, University of Miami School of Law (Berta, Angela, Francisco. 17 Berkeley La Raza L.J. 169 2006. Pg. 192-193. 7/2/13. KJ) Finally, the fifth basic contribution that we would put forth in this brief sketch would be the collective or programmatic insistence that "class" and "identity" are not oppositional categories of analysis and action and, instead, must be understood as "different" dimensions of the interlocking systems of oppression always under interrogation. 0 2 This approach, in other words, emphasizes that "class" is, itself, an axis of sociolegal identity and that, as such, it must be incorporated into multidimensional analyses of power in law and society. This approach, has tempered the influence of dichotomies between "discursive" and "material" aspects of power based on identity politics in LatCrit scholarship, 10 3 and has positioned us to better understand how class and other forms of identity are mutually constitutive and mutually reinforcing, both in law and in society.

LatCrit and economic analysis are uniquely connected in multiple ways Hernandez-Truyol et al., 06. Professor, University of Florida College of Law; Harris, Professor, University of California at Berkeley School of Law; Valdés, Professor, University of Miami School of Law (Berta, Angela, Francisco. 17 Berkeley La Raza L.J. 169 2006. Pg. 208-209. 7/2/13. KJ) At first glance, it might seem that LatCrit and economic analysis have little to say to one another. LatCrit's hallmark is an interest in identity, meaning, and the "problem of the subject," all issues usually accessed through methodologies associated with the humanities: narrative, close reading, "theory."' 154 Traditional economic analysis, in contrast, employs a subject-the "rational maximizer"-for whom neither identity nor meaning is important, except insofar that these concepts imply preferences on which the actor will attempt to act.' 55 Traditional economic analyses attempt to model and sometimes predict behavior using methods adapted from mathematics and the "hard" sciences. In fact, however, LatCrit/CRT theory and the economic analysis of law are beginning to converge in new and exciting ways. There are at least three reasons for this convergence. First, global racial injustice is closely tied to

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 101

economic disadvantage. The beginning of capitalism as we know it coincided with a period of European colonialism and imperialism, and an international trade in African slave labor, that profoundly shaped international political and economic relations for centuries to come. Thus, black liberation movements in the United States have struggled since Reconstruction to untie the knot of race and class; immigration politics in the United States has always been inextricably intertwined with economic relations, with "culture," and with race-ethnicity; and post-colonialist movements in other nations struggle with problems of economic "underdevelopment" and marginalization that owe their genesis to European accounts of the gap between the "civilized" and the "savage." Second, we are living in a historical moment in which international capitalism seems newly invigorated. The developments that are collectively referred to as "globalization"-advances in technology that have permitted capital to be ever more mobile, ever more abstract and unrelated to the "real" economy, and ever more deeply inserted into political institutions and practices-are rapidly altering the global political economy and national domestic political economies in unforeseen and perhaps unforeseeable ways. Moreover, today there seems no alternative to capitalism. As Erik Olin Wright observes, talking about capitalism today is something like talking about the weather; everybody has a complaint about it, but nobody seriously thinks that any other form of life is possible.'5 6 Chantal Thomas quotes former U.S. President Bill Clinton: "Technology revolution and globalization are not policy choices, they are facts.' 57 The final reason why LatCrit/CRT and economic analysis are beginning to converge is that both disciplines are moving beyond their original concerns. LatCrit/CRT scholars are increasingly interested in thinking about class relations and political economy, and they are increasingly incorporating economic analysis in their work, or offering important critiques of traditional economic analysis. At the same time, the kind of work that comprises "economic analysis of law" is rapidly changing. "Law and economics" began as a fairly narrow body of work focused on proving that common law rules are "wealth maximizing." Today, law and economics comprises a broad and eclectic group of approaches that collectively are challenging the basic assumptions of neoclassical economics, and beginning to grope toward an understanding of the subject as more than just the sum of certain preferences.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 102

A/T: Essentialism Our use of Latina/o incorporates ethnicity and diversity into the conversation. Wildman, Professor of Law, University of San Francisco School of Law, ’97 (Stephanie, published in the Harvard Latino Law Review.307, Copyright (c) 1997 Harvard Latino Law Review, Fall, 1997 “Panel: Races, Nationalities, Ethnicities: Mapping Latcrit (Dis)Continuities: Reflections on Whiteness and Latina/o Critical Theory”, page 3-5 http://biblioteca.uprrp.edu/latcritcd/Publications/PublishedSymposium/LCIHarvardLat(1997)/LCISWild man.pdf, accessed July 3, 2013, QDKM) [ Illuminating the blur and examining this cultural thinking is helped greatly when we turn the lens to focus on Latinas/os. I will say first that there is a downside to this lens, to naming Latinas/os as a group, because this act of naming essentializes a very diverse group, making it appear to be a homogeneous whole. [*311] The term essentializes the many different communities, the Cubanos, Puerto Riquenos, Chicanos, all into one lump. To talk about Latinas/os means ignoring the diversity and many-faceted groups encompassed in the term. The error of this homogenization is perhaps best illustrated by Berta Hernandez-Truyol story about trying to order a tortilla in New Mexico, thinking she would get an omelette and getting a white pancake-like bread. As she explained, "Same word, same language, different meaning." n6 Can we achieve a common language to talk about race and ethnicity? n7 A common language does not seem possible under the present dominant discourse construction of race as black and white. So by naming Latinas/os as a group perhaps we can be strategically essentialist in order to move the dialogue forward. The pitfalls of essentialism have been welldocumented by many people here. But strategic essentialism recognizes that we have to name things in order to talk about them and that sometimes we should. n8 I like using the terminology given to us by the Spanish language, even though I do not understand all the linguistic nuances, because the term "Latinas/os" has the potential to help us remember not to essentialize based on gender. The word "race", being genderless, is gendered male in most conversations, and the word race does not afford us this helpful linguistic reminder to avoid essentialism, even as we engage in trying to use essentialism strategically. Naming Latinas/os, being strategically essentialist, instead of relying on the umbrella categories "race" or "people of color", can help us reveal the hierarchies that exist within the category race. My friend Julianna Alvarez tells a story of working for a white [*312] woman from South Africa. This woman began an argument in which she was particularly abusive to Julianna. Julianna responded, "My skin may be dark, but I'm not Black. You can't treat me like that." After her anger had subsided, my friend realized she should have said, "You can't treat me like that just because I'm Latina and a person of color." Although she would not use these words to describe what she had done, she had incorporated the bipolar dominant discourse into her gut reaction. Such a reaction reinforced the privileging of whiteness. But she realized that she did not want to benefit from using a racial hierarchy, from positioning herself above other people of color. Being strategically essentialist in this way, naming Latinas/os as a particular community to be examined, ironically creates a less essentialist conversation within race theory in two significant ways: (1) it illuminates that there are different issues for different people of color, and (2) it reminds us that gender matters and is linked to the racial discourse. Of course critical race theorists never claimed all races are alike or that gender does not matter. But the problems of our language, the very word for race, encourages us to forget the complexity that must be part of the conversation. This creation of categories, like race, black, and white, may block the paths to creative thinking about the issues. So we have to be aware of the pitfalls of categories, even as we strategically use them. n9 ]

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 103

LatCrit Aff Core

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

No Links / Case Solves

Dunn/Davis Page | 104

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 105

Aff Solves – Generic Their critique doesn’t mean that the aff cannot solve—rather, it just means that we have to localize our approach to economic engagement. Porrata-Doria in 6 (Rafael A., Berkely La Raza Law Journal, “Economic Paradigms and Latin American Development Theory: The Search for Nirvana” p. EBSCO) If none of these paradigms is appropriate to resolve the problem of economic growth and "development" in Latin America, what are we to do? The problem is that these paradigms view the "process" of development in a very simpHstic way. The modemization theory views development as a natural and inevitable process that is primarily intemally driven and merely requires some "tweaking" by extemal actors in order to be successful. ^' To the import substitution theorists, development is a centrally planned and executed intemal process where government management takes the place of market forces. Its antithesis, the Chicago School, views development as a global process that should be exclusively market driven and where govemment should have a minimal role, if any. Instead, economic growth is a complicated process with many variables. ""' These variables are interconnected with each other and include economic, political, geographical, historical, technological, environmental, educational, population, cultural, and other factors."" The management of these variables requires comprehensive solutions which embrace their interconnections and which involve economic, political, social, cultural and environmental policies working together. As the ECLA experience teaches us, functioning and relatively free markets and private initiative cannot be ignored and are an essential component of economic growth. Appropriate govemmental regulations and policies, however, as seen in the Chilean experiment, are also essential to this process.'"^ Indeed, the optimal development paradigm is one that is adjusted to the individual situation of a particular country and which includes elements of all of the paradigms that we have discussed, together with those political, social, cultural and environmental policies that are appropriate for that country's conditions.

Free Trade improves all countries leads to specialization and economic efficiency Gonzalez, Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law, 2010 (Carmen G. 4/13/2010, Deconstructing the Mythology of Free Trade: Critical Reflections on Comparative Advantage, Berkeley La Raza Journal, Vol.17 pp. 65.68, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1588987, 7/02/2013, J.Y.) The theory of comparative advantage serves as the theoretical justification for the neoliberal economic model advocated by the IMF and the World Bank and promoted by the WTO.26 According to the theory of comparative advantage, each country should produce those goods for which it is relatively best suited by virtue of natural or historic circumstances and should trade such goods for those that the country produces less efficiently.27 Thus, countries with abundant natural resources and little capital should capitalize on their ―comparative advantage‖ in agricultural production and should trade with other countries for manufactured goods.28 Economic specialization, export-oriented trade policy, and the elimination of trade-distorting subsidies and import barriers will promote economic efficiency and will permit each nation to maximize both economic output and aggregate income.29 Neoclassical trade theory thus posits an even playing field, where every country, rich or poor, can benefit from international trade as long as government intervention in the market is either strictly prohibited or limited only to exceptional circumstances.30 The theory of comparative advantage plays a central role in legitimizing both the ideology of free trade and the legal edifice erected under the auspices of the WTO to implement that ideology.31 The underlying assumption of the proponents of

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 106

trade liberalization is that government intervention in trade and production distorts price signals, thereby leading a country to specialize in products for which it does not have a comparative advantage.32 Thus, the two basic principles of WTO/GATT doctrine—the ―most favored nation‖ principle in GATT Article I and the ―national treatment‖ principle in GATT article III—are designed to scale back state intervention in the market by ensuring equal treatment of traded goods regardless of their country of origin.33 Similarly, the GATT’s reduction of tariff and non-tariff barriers and prohibition of quotas are designed to promote efficiency by allowing market forces to dictate the flow of goods

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 107

Aff Solves – Institutional Development Institutional development solves the internal links to their critique Porrata-Doria in 6 (Rafael A., Berkely La Raza Law Journal, “Economic Paradigms and Latin American Development Theory: The Search for Nirvana” p. EBSCO) The ECLA created a Trade Committee in 1956 to analyze and recommend solutions to problems arising out of interregional trade. At its economic conference in Buenos Aires in 1959, the Trade Commission discussed the possibility of a common market or free trade zone, and its participants agreed on the desirability of a common market. ECLA then established a Working Group on the Latin American Common Market, which first met in Santiago, Chile in 1958. At an ECLA conference in Panama City, Panama in 1959, this Working Group presented a draft proposal, which was extensively discussed and then followed by intensive negotiations among the governments in the region.'*'' These discussions and negotiations resulted in the execution of the Treaty of Montevideo in I960,'''' which created the Latin American Free Trade Association ("LAFTA").'" LAFTA was the first effort to implement ECL A 's integration recommendations and create a generalized regional Latin American economic organization. For a number of reasons, it failed miserably and finally disbanded in 1980."^ Unfortunately, the ECLA/Prebisch model of economic development did not work either. The countries of Latin America that embraced this model found themselves no better off than under policies adopted under the modernization and development theory. There are a number of reasons why this model failed. First, the linchpin of the process, government, was generally not powerful, rational, technically competent, effective, efficient, honest and objective, as was presumed. Indeed, its institutions were often weak, incompetent and corrupt.''^ Furthermore, the infant industries that had been created under this model, protected from foreign competition and possessing a captive market, had no incentive to become competitive. Accordingly, they remained unprofitable and failed. The failure of regional integration schemes like LAFTA limited potential export markets for those industries that had been able to manufacture competitive products. Moreover, many of these industries were owned by a bloated public sector, which did not have enough resources to provide adequate financing for them or to construct or maintain the infrastructure they required. Technology transfer laws generated an unintended consequence: holders of intellectual property rights on new technology, for fear of losing these rights, avoided importing them into countries with transfer of technology regimes. Lastly, the imposition of high tariffs on foreign industrial imports generated retaliatory tariffs from industrialized countries, limiting exports and growth.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 108

No Link – State Their paranoia against the state by faming assistance as a lie is hyperbolic, constructed, and prevents effective reform of the state – Only the perm solves Subotnik, Works at the Law Department at the Touro Law Center, 1998 (Dan, 1/1/1998, “What’s Wrong with Critical Race Theory?: Reopening the Case for Middle Class Values”, Cornell Journal of Law and Policy, Vol. 7, pp. 716-719, J.Y.) If CRATs express displeasure over American culture generally, they are no less critical of those aspects of the culture that are specifically designed to enhance the comfort and standing of nonmajoritarian elements. The nation, for example, has honored Reverend Martin Luther King-and his African-American roots-with a national holiday. What is the CRAT response? "The holiday," says Geneva Crenshaw, Derrick Bell's fictional interlocutor, "is just another instance-like integrationthat black folks work for and white folks grant when they realize that it is mostly a symbol that won't cost them much and will keep us pacified."' 170 But since the holiday was resisted by some, does it not ultimately represent a victory for those who believe that Dr. King should be honored? 171 Derrick Bell has sown similar seeds of discord and dissension in the area of affirmative action: [A]ffirmative-action remedies have flourished because they offer more benefit to the institutions that adopt them than they do to the minorities .... Rather than overhaul [invalid] admissions criteria ... officials claimed they were setting lower standards for minority candidates. This act of self-interested beneficence had unfortunate results. Affirmative action now "connotes the undertaking of remedial activity beyond what would normally be required. It sounds in noblesse oblige, not in legal duty, and suggests the giving of charity rather than the granting of relief....-172 But in what way are white institutions advantaged by admitting members of minority groups? Because they avoid a potential uprising? Do colleges actually claim that they are "setting lower standards for minorities"? 173 Or do they announce that they are applying alternative criteria to determine academic potential? Should colleges abolish SAT and grade point requirements on the grounds of their invalidity or because some minorities are not competitive in those areas? 174 How would telling minority students that they were admitted because of legislative or judicial action help to make them feel more welcome? Finally, as Dennis Litowitz acutely asks, if "affirmative action benefited whites, why were [and are, we might add,] whites so resistant to [it]"? 175 But these are global concerns. What would Bell tell a majority student who, notwithstanding top grades and board scores, cannot get into Berkeley? That he is not such a hot student after all? That a minority student has accomplished more given his or her disadvantages? How would we go about measuring these disadvantages? By reference to family income? Family education? Age of parents? Teachers? I.Q.? Quality of parenting? Is defining away absolute achievement a prescription for psychological and social peace? Bell does not say. Under the circumstances, is not the better response one recently suggested by Christopher Edley, Jr.: though at odds with some key elements of American ideology, affirmative action should be seen as the best current solution to a horrific social problem that needs to be resolved?176 The most striking charge by CRATs relates to free speech, surely among America's greatest gifts to all minority and oppressed popula- tions.177 Not, however, in the eyes of CRATs. In theory, write Delgado and Stefancic, free speech is premised on the notion that we "can somehow control our consciousness despite limitations of time and positionality. 1 7Ts But, they claim, "modernist and postmodernist insights about language and the social construction of reality show that reliance on countervailing speech... is often misplaced .... [O]ur ability to escape the confines of our own preconceptions is quite limited." 179 The notion that more speech can counter racism is appealing, lofty, romantic-and wrong.180 In practice, free speech often makes matters far worse by encouraging culture-makers to be amoral because they believe that racist messages can be neutralized with antiracist ones.181 We are left

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 109

with a "parade of Sambos, mammies, coons, uncles-bestial or happy-go-lucky, watermelon-eatingAfrican-Americans."' 82 The problem, we are told, is not only the effect on the majority, but that minorities internalize the images, become demoralized, and blame themselves. 83 The effect of free speech on race in America is an enormously complicated matter that cannot be dealt with fairly in a short article. But is there not a central contradiction here? If words have no consequences, if they cannot allow us "to escape the confines of our own preconceptions," how can the images that the authors decry have caused any damage? If words do have consequences, if we have paid a heavy price for the imagery just referred to,184 why can we not combat these images through argument and counterimages? Why must we "deepen suspicion of remedies for deep-seated social evils that rely on speech and exhortation"? 185 If restrictions were to be imposed, moreover, who would decide what could be said by and about minorities? Finally, who gets more from free speech than a group for whom the truth-value of language seems to be of only secondary import?186

Optimistic views of institutions are key proves perm solves Subotnik, Works at the Law Department at the Touro Law Center, 1998 (Dan, 1/1/1998, “What’s Wrong with Critical Race Theory?: Reopening the Case for Middle Class Values”, Cornell Journal of Law and Policy, Vol. 7, pp. 751, J.Y.) Whites who involve themselves in matters of race will get a sometimes stormy reception. I know this from personal experience. But if one is not always welcome... does that mean that the moral call of America's racial problems has become any less urgent, that one should not try to do anything or that nothing can be done?333 And so I allow myself a dream, a dream for my troubled country. The dream is simple. It has no pyrotechnics or other special effects. It does not extend the range of American experience. If it were turned into a movie, it would be cropped so as to place the entire focus on the central tendency of our culture. I dream, in short, of a middle-class, even if somewhat drab and clich6d, America. So far, I am sure, I have said nothing to intrigue you. But stay with me-you may change your mind. For you see, unlike the CRATs who take pleasure in-and profit fromspreading gloom, I believe America, already offering rich possibilities, can be made even a better place. You could probably fill in the rest of the dream elements yourself. To begini, all you need is a good dictionary. Middle-class, as an adjective, connotes such traits as "a desire for stability and a high material standard of living, a respect for convention and the proprieties, and high ideals of education, professional competence and personal ambition. ' '334 Middle-class people have middle-class values. Can we say more about these values? A search for the key-word term "middle-class values" in an academic library is likely to turn up only one title, a twenty-nine-yearold book by the late James A. Michener.335 We should not be discouraged. No self-satisfied burgher, Michener's unlimited zest for life led him to write fifty books, the last of which he completed at age eightyseven. We could do a lot worse than have Michener as our guide.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 110

Permutation – Generic Perm: do both. We should strive for a pragmatic synthesis of classical economics and critical theory. This is especially important at the level of pedagogy: learning pragmatics in debate translates to real world change. Guerra-Pujol 2006 [Franscisco, Associate Professor at Catholic University of Puerto Rico School of Law, “Cornel West, Meet Richard Posner: Towards a Critical-Neoclassical Synthesis,” 17 Berkeley La Raza Law Journal 39] Thus far we have seen that a critical-neoclassical synthesis is feasible. Critical theory can benefit from borrowing the methodologies of economics, while at the same time, the rational choice and efficiency assumptions of neoclassical theory are not incompatible with the goals of critical scholars. But when it comes to policy, no real synthesis appears to be possible. Posnerian economics and critical theory are just too far apart on matters of policy: the pro-market, free trade policies of neoclassical theory are radically different from the collectivist and communitarian policies of critical theory. In fact, while there are some irreconcilable differences, especially over distributional issues, in this section I hope to show that the divergence over policy is more apparent than real. Most commentators tend to automatically associate neoclassical theory with a particular set of politico-legal policies, specifically, the primacy of markets and free trade and the sanctity of private property. This 'guilt by association' is certainly understandable. Neoclassical economists frequently employ their theories and models to justify promarket solutions to social problems. In reality, however, neoclassical economics is actually quite pragmatic and instrumental when it comes to policy. For example, neoclassical theory admits the possibility of 'market failures' and recognizes that, in such cases, markets and property rights may not necessarily produce the greatest amount of social wealth. Accordingly, if it can be shown that collective ownership of a particular resource (such as a public park or a lighthouse) is more efficient or cost-effective than private ownership, then neoclassical theory, in principle, favors the collective solution. Even Oliver Wendell Holmes, a champion of Social Darwinism, eugenics, and laissez-faire economics, recognized this point: 'I have no a priori objection to socialism any more than to polygamy. Our public schools and our post office are socialist, and whenever it is thought to pay I have no objection'.29 This quote captures the pragmatic nature of neoclassical policy. 30 Notice that the same pragmatic analysis also applies to such broad concepts as property rights, political freedom, and individual liberty. People often have the misconception that neoclassical theory is about economic freedom and property rights. But neoclassical economics is not absolutist; it does not value freedom or private property for its own sake. There are times when liberty and property rights must be restricted for the greater good. For example, there can be no doubt that compulsory seat-belt laws or compulsory vaccinations restrict people's freedom. But if it can be shown that these freedom-reducing policies are a cost-effective and practical way of reducing accident costs and the spread of dangerous epidemics, then the economic approach will not object to the reduction in freedom in these cases. Critical theory could thus adopt this same pragmatic approach as a point of departure on matters of policy. Critical scholars must recognize that there are many possible ways of achieving the goals of anti-subordination and community building and that some ways are more cost-effective and more positive-sum than others. Just as neoclassical theory must be open to the possibility of non-market solutions and collective ownership (i.e., when such methods are shown to be more cost-effective than the market for producing social wealth), critical theory must also be open to market exchange and property rights, especially when such methods are shown to be effective methods for diminishing subordination and oppression. In addition to public policy at the 'macro' level, LatCrit guru Francisco Valdes has often talked about the need for 'performing the theory' (i.e. putting into practice what we

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 111

preach).31 After all, there is no point in talking about antisubordination if we don't engage in this behavior ourselves. For instance, as critical scholars, we like to emphasize the larger academic, family, and cultural communities that we belong to. So, one type of policy question that naturally arises is, what type of academic communities do we want to belong to? Don't we want to build a more nurturing and supportive community of scholars, one embracing a more rich diversity of peoples and viewpoints? In this respect, both critical scholars and economists could learn from the example of Aaron Director, a remarkable scholar who died at the age of 102 in 2004. Aaron Director is considered one of founders of the Chicago school of 'law and economics' (along with Henry Simons, who we met earlier, and Ronald Coase, William Landes, and Richard Posner). After Henry Simon's untimely death in 1946, Director was appointed to the law school at Chicago, where he taught antitrust and established the Journal of Law and Economics, the first of its kind. According to Gary Becker, Director was deeply concerned by the problem of wealth inequality, though he was deeply skeptical of legal intervention in many areas of the economy, such as rent control and minimum wage laws.32 But Director's greatest contribution was the true sense of community he built at Chicago. Instead of publishing articles or remaining aloof from his students and peers, Director established close personal relationships with his students and colleagues, mentoring them, always willing to listen and engage in conversation. It is said that 'Director was at his best in a conversation with one or a few people' and that 'he was an extraordinary conversationalist'.33 Furthermore, he was noted for his deep thought, wide reading, and careful observation. Although he published very little during his lifetime, because of his conversational style and selfless mentorship he was able to influence two generations of lawyereconomists and build a cohesive 'law and economics' community (at a time when free markets were out of fashion). Towards the end of his active teaching days, he would later exert a great influence on a young Richard Posner, one of his last students.34 In many ways, then, Director could serve as a role model for the type of academic community-building that critical scholars have rightly championed.

Immigrants need some institutional guidance—they must invariably adapt to new values while keeping their values—civic integration key Skerry’ 04, (Peter Skerry is the professor of government at Claremont McKenna College, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and author of Counting on the Census? Race, Group Identity, and the Evasion of Politics http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/articles/2003/1/winter%20immigration%20skerry/w inter_immigration_skerry.pdf. pg.27-28) To succeed in the United States—to make their way through the thicket of choices that they and their children encounter—immigrants need some sort of institutional guidance. This assertion may raise hackles, because while immigrants obviously bring certain values with them, they must invariably adapt those values to their new circumstances. While some social scientists still refer to this process as assimilation , others find the term misleading or objectionable. I will use integration to denote this process, in order to emphasize that it is not necessary—and in fact not desirable—for immigrants torrid themselves of many aspects of the cultures they bring here with them. As Mead emphasizes, the native-born poor who need “help and hassle” typically accept conventional values, but have difficulties closing the gap between those values and their daily lives. Precisely because immigrants are less attached to conventional American values, their need for “help and hassle” is arguably greater. Such guidance might conceivably come from the media or other impersonal means of communication. But a more reliable source would be the face-to-face interactions where immigrants live and work—the same primary group relationships, embedded in transnational networks,29 that enables immigrants with few resources and little worldly knowledge to traverse long distances, find jobs and shelter, and then move back and forth between America and their countries of origin. A

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 112

more balanced approach to immigrant policy can and should be pursued under the rubric of “civic integration.” Properly understood, such an approach would address the strengths and weaknesses of both perspectives in the immigrant-policy debate. To the advocates, it holds the promise of addressing immigrants’ material needs and self-interest, while also taking into account their broader responsibilities to the political community, even if they are not citizens. To the skeptics, it takes advantage of those institutions, which are already self-consciously committed to the inculcation of values. In particular, religious and faith-based institutions seem well suited to promote the civic integration of immigrants

The perm is the multicultural inclusion of the negatives critique to go beyond the either/or mentality. Wildman, Professor of Law, University of San Francisco School of Law, ’97 (Stephanie, published in the Harvard Latino Law Review.307, Copyright (c) 1997 Harvard Latino Law Review, Fall, 1997 “Panel: Races, Nationalities, Ethnicities: Mapping Latcrit (Dis)Continuities: Reflections on Whiteness and Latina/o Critical Theory”, page 6 http://biblioteca.uprrp.edu/latcritcd/Publications/PublishedSymposium/LCIHarvardLat(1997)/LCISWild man.pdf, accessed July 3, 2013, QDKM) All of these conditions are related to the assumption that I belong and will fit into the social norm. Since so many Latinas/os are also white, a consideration of these conditions reveals the construction of race is not about race at all, but about power. Critical Race Theory does address this notion of inside and outside. But distinct recognition time, studying the operation of this power in terms of Latinas/os adds force to the analysis. It is necessary for all of us, Latina/o or not, to pay specific attention to the operation of the construction of race in relation to Latinas/os. If we do not turn this lens specifically, it evaporates. It is in the dominant cultural interest to have it evaporate, to keep control of the blur, so that we will not see the issues raised: issues about the meaning of race and ethnicity, passing, and what is in a name.The assumption about me, implicit in my list of conditions -- that I belong -- shows the power of the dominant culture's value in assimilation; belonging is everything, and belonging is defined as sameness and in not being the other. This empty value in assimilation reveals why a multicultural perspective, one that honors [*315] difference and does not require assimilation, is so important. It is an incredible strength to be bi- or tri-lingual, to understand more cultures than just the dominant norm. These real advantages possessed by Latinas/os are viewed by the dominant culture as disadvantages. This is a crime. The dominant culture has been fond in these times of battles around affirmative action of appropriating the language of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., saying we must judge people by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin. However, the dominant culture fails to value the multicultural ability of Latinas/os as a measure of their character. The failure to acknowledge the importance of multi-culturalism, to treat it as some PC fad, is the failure to acknowledge or value the Latina/o existence. The affirmative action critique also ignores the existence of privileges based on whiteness, maleness, heterosexuality, and class. Recognizing privilege would require seeing that the debates about merit are not waged on a level playing field.Consider this notion of so-called merit. What if we defined as an aspect of merit for law school admissions the ability to speak more than one language -- the ability to be bi- or tri- lingual? What if we required knowledge of a non-English language as part of graduation requirements, so students could serve a wider client base? Who would then be the experts sought after in study groups? The operation of white privilege makes such a scenario unlikely, but promoting such requirements might be a worthwhile project.Writing this list of conditions did reveal some gender commonalities, and some other commonalities, to the extent Jewish people are othered by this dominant culture. And so this effort made me realize that I had to think more complexly about all

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 113

the identity categories. Adrienne Davis, Trina Grillo and I offered the koosh ball as a metaphor for the multi-dimensional way we need to learn to think about the intersections of all of our attributes. n15 Multi-culturalism also seeks to encourage us to move beyond linear [*316] thinking and the either/or choices that the dominant culture seems to mandate. Looking at our multi-faceted selves will help us to see commonalities and to construct bonds bridged upon them, instead of learning about socially constructed difference and exclusion. Latinas are important leaders in this effort. I want to give one example from within the legal academy concerning work that remains to be done. Recently, at a conference about including these issues within our classrooms (where the audience was a group receptive to these concerns rather than the usual audience of law professors), Margaret Montoya rose and spoke in Spanish and English. She described the difficulty of finding her voice at this conference of supposed companeros that was so alienating to her. She spoke of the speech patterns that favor those who are pushy and jump in front of others, of the lack of time to be thoughtful, to process and really hear what people were saying. She said that these patterns excluded voices like her own -- Latina voices.And as I listened to her, tears streamed down my face, because I too have a history of trouble in making my voice heard, in classrooms as a student and teacher, at conferences, and at meetings. A multicultural perspective in conferences -- one that recognizes other ways of being in the world, besides the dominant cultural norms -- would be more inclusive to Latinas, but also to many others. Protocols for conferences are just one baby step that we desperately need. We need to rearrange the furniture. We need also to think about our classrooms, who we are including, who is being heard. Classrooms are the first place we can effect with a multi-cultural perspective in what we study and in how we discuss the issues that are raised.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 114

Permutation – Trade Liberalization Perm solves Comparative advantage is not necessarily bad only the way its utilized now the aff is a step away Gonzalez, Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law, 2010 (Carmen G. 4/13/2010, Deconstructing the Mythology of Free Trade: Critical Reflections on Comparative Advantage, Berkeley La Raza Journal, Vol.17 pp. 65.68, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1588987, 7/02/2013, J.Y.) The foregoing critique of the theory of comparative advantage, as applied to the agricultural sector by the proponents of neoliberal economic orthodoxy, must not be construed as a defense of Northern protectionism. On the contrary, my work has consistently decried the devastating impact of Northern agricultural subsidies and import barriers on small farmers in the global South, and has called for agricultural trade liberalization in the North as the necessary prerequisite to poverty alleviation in the South. 162 Agricultural trade

liberalization is necessary to advance the interests of the global South, but it is by no means sufficient to overcome the economic dislocation produced by centuries of colonial exploitation and decades of Northern protectionism.163

Perm solves Gonzalez, Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law, 2010 (Carmen G. 4/13/2010, Deconstructing the Mythology of Free Trade: Critical Reflections on Comparative Advantage, Berkeley La Raza Journal, Vol.17 pp. 65.68, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1588987, 7/02/2013, J.Y.) Rather than recommending further trade liberalization in accordance with abstract theories and one-size-fits-all economic models, it is important to tailor policy recommendations to the concrete social and ecological challenges facing the global South. For example, countries with a large rural population and an abundance of unskilled labor may be better served by labor intensive ecologically sustainable agricultural production than by ―modern‖ capital-intensive ecologically harmful industrial agriculture. In addition to generating rural

employment and protecting the natural resource base necessary for food production, environmentally friendly farming techniques have demonstrably boosted food production in Asia, Africa and Latin America.164

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 115

Guantanamo Link Turn Guantanamo Bay is key to continuing colonialism in Latin America Guadalupe T. Luna, 2010, Professor of Law at Northern Illinois University College of Law, Copy write by American University Journal of Gender Social Policy and the Law, “The Introductory Comments of Guadalupe T. Luna* to essays by Ming H. Chen, M. Katherine Baird Darmer, Richael Faithful, Ernesto Hernandez-Lopez, Orlando I. Martinez-Garcia, Lupe S. Salinas, and Janelle Martinez” http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/? Professor Ernesto Hernandez-Lopez's essay addresses the plight of "outsiders" currently held by the United States in a questionable leasing arrangement in the sovereignty of the nation of Cuba. Sovereignty denotes supreme self-rule, but here this notion is in tension with the use of Cuban soil by the United States to hold "prisoners." Hernandez-Lopez's essay studies the problem from within the contextual framework of American Imperialism. The essay reveals how racial hierarchies are employed to justify the continuation of the United States' colonization of another sovereign. It further tackles how racial hierarchies are used to justify the imprisonment of individuals on land not held in fee simple ownership. In much appreciated detail, Professor Hernandez-Lopez's essay, "Guantanamo Outside and Inside the U.S.: Why is a Base a Legal Anomaly?" brings to this Cluster a substantive analysis of the prisoners within Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. n52 The unequal relationship between Cuba and the United States expedited the United States' ability to build and maintain an "insider empire" within the geographical borders of another country. In essence, Professor Hernandez-Lopez details the full scope of American imperialism on the prisoners held inside of Guantanamo. Incorporating the "Outsiders Inside" theme of this year's LatCrit, the author lays out a disturbing number of facts that underscore a "legal black hole." n53 This innovative article brings to the forum of law a much needed discussion and engagement on the anomaly of a U.S. naval military base in Guantanamo. At its core the author highlights the extent to which the naval station is simultaneously outside and inside American law. n54 The author breaks down and illustrates how the United States fundamentally needs Guantanamo to perpetuate its continued colonialism of Cuba and the region.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 116

Rights Turn Government Intervention and commitments to civil rights are key to solve Moran, University of California School of Law Professor, 97 Rachel F.,Professor of Law, University of California School of Law, Published Fall, 1997, Harvard Latino Law Review, “Neither Black Nor White”, http://biblioteca.uprrp.edu/latcritcd/publications/publishedsymposium/lciharvardlat(1997)/lcimmoran. pdf, 2 Harv. Latino L. Rev. 61, Lexus, pg. 8, Accessed July 2 2013, JB) For the foreseeable future, the civil rights and immigration models are apt to dominate law and policy that affect Latinos. For Latinos, the pressing question is how they can extricate themselves from the strictures of models of opportunity that fail to contemplate their special history and circumstances. Under the civil rights model, Latinos must show that a steady influx of immigrants presents new dangers of ethnic stereotyping. Rather than diminishing civil rights concerns, the rising prejudice that greets Latino newcomers requires a renewed commitment to principles of anti-discrimination in education, employment, and housing. n70 Moreover, Latinos must clearly show that they lag behind Whites not only because some Latinos are immigrants with limited education and skills but also because even Latinos who acquire training and experience receive a lower rate of return on their investment than Whites. n71 This ongoing discrimination based on ethnicity is precisely the sort of harm that the civil rights model is dedicated to eradicating. In addition to enforcing an individual's right to be free of discrimination based on race or ethnicity, the civil rights movement has long demanded equity in education, employment, and housing not only as a corrective for past injustice but also to ensure that disadvantaged populations enjoy meaningful access to the American dream. Calls for improved public schools, job training programs, and affordable and safe housing -- all represent a vision of equity and opportunity that does not turn on individualized claims of harm. For Latinos, programs that expand opportunity are vital. Latinos are a youthful population increasingly segregated in low-income, [*87] urban areas. Like Blacks and unlike Whites, low-income Latinos disproportionately confront conditions of concentrated poverty that make it inordinately difficult to obtain education and employment. The containment of Blacks and Latinos in depressed urban ghettoes makes it less likely than ever that intergenerational upward mobility will happen naturally for immigrants. Without government intervention to reduce the terrible costs of living in racial, ethnic, and economic isolation, Latinos are not apt to participate fully in the American dream. n72

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 117

Immigration Reform Turn Immigration reform solves Moran, University of California School of Law Professor, 97 Rachel F.,Professor of Law, University of California School of Law, Published Fall, 1997, Harvard Latino Law Review, “Neither Black Nor White”, http://biblioteca.uprrp.edu/latcritcd/publications/publishedsymposium/lciharvardlat(1997)/lcimmoran. pdf, 2 Harv. Latino L. Rev. 61, Lexus, pg. 10, Accessed July 2 2013, JB) Latinos also must acknowledge that with the rise of a global economy, the categories of immigrants have proliferated and will likely grow increasingly complex. Many Latinos have entered the United States under temporary work programs without an expectation that they will become citizens. Moreover, even with these programs in place, a number of Latinos continue to come as undocumented immigrants without any formal protection from exploitation and abuse. To improve the treatment of immigrants, Latinos must demand that policymakers fully address the complexity of these catego ries. Congress should not treat noncitizens as a monolithic class modeled on the permanent resident alien when debating immigrant entitlements and obligations while in the United States. Such an approach simply delegitimates and marginalizes large numbers of Latinos whose presence here is a direct product of federal immigration policy. To protect immigrants participating in the promise of a global economy, Latinos should press for the regularization of the status of transnational workers . The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 relied on legalization to address this problem, but Latinos have to face the hard political reality that a demand that all temporary workers be eligible for naturalization and citizenship is unlikely to prevail in policymaking circles any time soon. In the meantime, a rigid insistence on making legalization available to all formally admitted immigrants could perpetuate a shadow class of undocumented workers who enjoy little or no protection from gross mistreatment. Latinos should openly debate the propriety of expanding temporary work programs and conditioning employers' [*92] participation in the programs on meeting certain minimally adequate working conditions. Many Latinos are understandably reluctant to embrace such initiatives because of the sordid history of the bracero program in the 1950s. Yet, the stark conditions of the undocumented require Latinos at least to take a second look at temporary worker programs. n81

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 118

Alternative Answers

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 119

No Solvency – Must Engage the State American Institution has weakened immigrant advancement—lacking the fundamental tools toward guidance Skerry’ 04, (Peter Skerry is the professor of government at Claremont McKenna College, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and author of Counting on the Census? Race, Group Identity, and the Evasion of Politics http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/articles/2003/1/winter%20immigration%20skerry/w inter_immigration_skerry.pdf. pg.27-28) While typically presented as alternatives, a synthesis of these two perspectives is both desirable and possible. For while immigrants need specific rights and programmatic benefits, these would be of greatest help if provided within the context of communal and institutional settings providing the structure and guidance that we all need to make intelligent use of the choices— whether as consumers or as citizens —that material resources and rights afford us. Yet precisely because immigrant communities are characterized by mobility and transience, such institutional guidance is often lacking, even nonexistent. Moreover, the unfolding of American individualism has weakened or destroyed many of the institutions that in the past aided immigrant advancement. For example, urban political machines—however imperfectly—used to serve this function. In a different way, settlement houses similarly provided authoritative guidance to immigrants making their way in our cities. Labor unions were another such locus of institutional guidance. Unlike the machines and settlement houses, unions are resurgent among today’s immigrants, but they remain embattled. Similarly, community organizations building Civic Integration of Immigrants28 The Responsive Community • Winter 2003/04on the work of the legendary Saul Alinsky struggle to provide such support to today’s immigrants. The problem here has been highlighted by Christopher Jencks: America’s laissez-faire economy is unusually productive, but its laissez-faire culture produces an unusually high level of short-sighted, anti-social, and self-destructive behavior…while unskilled immigrants seem able to benefit from America’s economy without succumbing to the social ills that afflict other poor Americans, these immigrants’ children do not enjoy the same kind of immunity. As a Mexican immigrant activist, a veteran of neighborhood controversies between immigrants and non-immigrants in metropolitan Chicago, once declared to me: “I wish to hell someone would make it clear how we’re supposed to act here!” Or as Lawrence Mead, architect of 1990s welfare reform, has put it, the poor and welfare-dependent need both “aid and structure…help and hassle.” So, too, do unskilled, poorly educated immigrants and their children.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 120

No Solvency – Generic LatCrit fails to address the root cause of the construction of oppressive systems Mutua, Associate Professor of Law at the University at Buffalo Law School, 6 [Athena D. , 2006, "The Rise, Development and Future Directions of Critical Race Theory and Related Scholarship" , Denver University Law Review, JC] Nevertheless, several scholars including critical race scholars themselves have criticized CRT scholarship for its focus on the words, discourse, and discursive patterns that support race, gender, and sexual consciousness as opposed to the material determinants of these social systems [*378] of subordination. n247 Specifically these scholars, in a variety of ways, have called for analyses of the class system in U.S. society and the way in which race, gender, and other forms of oppression mutually construct and are constructed by it. n248 Although these calls may critique CRT for ignoring "material factors," which Delgado defines as "issues that turn on tangible events in the social or physical world," n249 they more often refer to and include 1) calls for exploring the economics of race, a call that narrows the concept of materiality to ideas about the economy as a significant determining factor in racial outcomes, or 2) calls for specifically exploring the class system as the product of economic relations and economic ordering -- the product of the production and distribution of goods and services. n250 While much of CRT scholarship seems focused on discourse, race as a function of ideas, and race as culture, individual CRT and LatCrit scholars have consistently focused on the class/materialist elements of race, such as John Calmore's focus on housing, n251 Enrique Carrasco's focus on development, n252 and Kevin Johnson's focus on immigration; n253 [*379] while others have written one or more class-related articles. n254 Further, LatCrit has periodically, but repeatedly, focused on class, economic inequality, and the economics of race in their conferences, n255 as have CRT scholars in symposia such as the Washington and Lee Symposium "CRT and the Next Frontier." n256 In addition, promising new work in the area of class and race has emerged in law and in other fields. n257 However, a systematic analysis of class, particularly as a product of economic ordering, as well as its relationship to race has not yet emerged, even though critical race scholars have argued for years that the class system in the U.S. mutually constructs race, gender, and other forms of oppression. Below I briefly proffer a number of reasons that may explain why CRT and related scholarship has not yet developed a more systematic analysis of class. I then posit that the critical study of law and class or classcrits, while open to further definition, is necessary to examine the ways in which class mutually constructs race, further grounds analyses of racism, and guides antisubordination praxis.

LatCrit scholarship fails to provide any quality discussion and fails to be recognized lack of direction and focus, high quality scholarship, and lack of mainstream attention Aoki , Professor of Law at UC Davis, Johnson, Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies at UC Davis, 8 [Keith and Kevin R. , Fall 2008 , " Latinos and Latinas at the Epicenter of Contemporary Legal Discourses: Latinos and Latinas in the Legal Academy: An Assessment of LatCrit Theory Ten Years After" , Indiana Law Journal , JC] Time has passed since this defense was penned. LatCrit unquestionably has had scholarly achievements. However, LatCrit theory has failed to catch fire in legal scholarship generally and, in our estimation, has lost its (cutting) edge in certain respects. Importantly, to this point, LatCrit theory arguably has not added its own lasting scholarly imprimatur on critical studies. Along these lines, despite the continuous proliferation of the annual symposia, the current focus and direction of LatCrit scholarship is far from clear. LatCrit now is the home to a great diversity of legal theorists and theoretical approaches, with some of the scholarship regularly failing to fully engage the history or scholarship of

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 121

LatCrit theory. n84 Radically different analytical approaches can be found in any of the lengthy LatCrit symposium issues. As a result, it is difficult to ascertain what LatCrit stands for except for the broadest principles (anti- essentialism, anti-subordination, praxis, and coalition building, to name four examples). Although we hardly endorse a lockstep [*1170] approach to LatCrit scholarship, we would hope that LatCrit theory would strive to stand for something more specific. True, the LatCrit annual symposia have helped build a body of critical race scholarship. However, as mentioned previously, we believe that the commitment to generally publish all submissions-with little screening of the articles and a limit on page lengths of the articles in order to have room to publish all submissions-has contributed to a distinctly uneven quality in the final product. Accepting and publishing virtually all submissions has meant that scholars lack an incentive to write their highest quality scholarship. n85 The rejection of a submission is generally unlikely to occur. The lack of any meaningful disciplining device, we believe, has almost inevitably resulted in a certain laxness in LatCrit scholarship. Strict page limits of about twenty pages, necessary to publish almost all of the submissions received, have meant that the analysis of some LatCrit symposium contributions appears somewhat superficial. The strict page limits may explain, in part, the failure to cite and refer to LatCrit scholarship or to provide in-depth analysis of issues that warrant-and, indeed, demand-such inquiry. n86 Whatever the reason, the care, detail, and depth of analysis of some LatCrit scholarship has lagged. Over the years, a number of scholars within LatCrit have candidly admitted to the authors of this article that this is the case. Disputes with the student law reviews over the quality of the submissions and the length of the symposium issue, occur regularly, if not annually. One co-author of this Article worked with the U.C. Davis Law Review, which published the papers prepared in connection with the LatCrit IV annual symposium, n87 and intervened when student editors complained about the length of the symposium (875 pages) and wanted to reject some of the contributions due to quality concerns. Although fearing that the students had legitimate complaints about the size of the issue and the quality of some of the contributions, this co-author, under pressure from LatCrit organizers, defended LatCrit's commitment to inclusiveness and insisted on compliance with the contractual agreement to publish all symposium submissions. In the end, the student editors acquiesced, and the LatCrit IV symposium issue published all of the submissions. One of the things that has been most striking has been the near wholesale ignorance of LatCrit scholarship by the mainstream. Externally, mainstream scholarship has failed to engage, much less challenge, LatCrit theory. This stands in stark contrast to the aggressive criticism-perhaps attacking and vilification are better descriptors-of Critical Race Theory by mainstream scholars. n88 Indeed, there has not been much of a response to LatCrit scholarship except in some scholarship of LatCrit theorists. Even some scholars who touch on issues analyzed in LatCrit scholarship, such as immigration, n89 often ignore that scholarship and write as if the critical scholarly slate [*1171] were clean. n90 Moreover, although LatCrit theory is mentioned in some articles in mainstream law reviews by those engaged in the movement, n91 it at times has been largely ignored by those involved in LatCrit theory in articles on topics that have been the subject of LatCrit analysis. n92 In sharp contrast, Critical Race Theory provoked a heated response, obviously striking a nerve, if not a chord, in the mainstream. n93 LatCrit has not, apparently failing to demonstrate fresh insights and intellectual relevance to many observers analyzing the most pressing social justice issues of our times. Nor has it benefited from the scholarly give-and-take in the academic marketplace that critical scrutiny would bring. n94 Why has LatCrit scholarship largely been ignored? LatCrit evidently has failed to convince mainstream scholars of its staying power or its intellectual coherence; put simply, it has not established the need to engage this new brand of scholarship. Perhaps it is only civil rights discourse falling into the Black/White paradigm that attracts the attention of mainstream scholars. n95 This might well be the case, suggesting that LatCrit theorists must continue in their efforts to destabilize the Black/White paradigm. It further suggests that LatCrit, to this point in time, has failed to dislodge the Black/White paradigm of civil rights in dominant legal scholarship. n96 Although nothing is as common as resistance to new genres of scholarship, it should be

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 122

candidly admitted that the mega-symposia of short articles produced by critical Latina/o theorists have not resulted in the kind of the groundbreaking work of leading Critical Race Theorists-relatively early in that movement-such as Derrick Bell, n97 Kimberle Crenshaw, n98 Richard Delgado, n99 Mari Matsuda, n100 and Patricia Williams. n101 This may seem as if it is asking too much of a nascent scholarly movement. It is [*1172] important, however, to set high scholarly goals for which to strive and to acknowledge when goals have not been achieved. Most of the foundational, path-breaking writings of CRT were published in mainstream law reviews as stand-alone pieces subject to the same quality and other selection standards employed in legal academia, not short contributions to huge symposia issues prepared with publication virtually guaranteed. There have been a few Critical Race Theory symposia n102 but nothing at all resembling the LatCrit symposium issues of hundreds of pages, with no independent student (or, for that matter, any meaningful) screening or evaluation of the submissions. Like it or not, publishing the annual LatCrit symposia in non-elite law reviews may be a contributing factor to the lack of attention paid to LatCrit scholarship. It is difficult to dispute that little LatCrit scholarship has been published in the most cited law reviews. Consequently, LatCrit scholarship may lag in citations for that reason. This may not be "fair" but it is a reality of modern legal academia. Moreover, senior scholars do not as fully participate as junior scholars in LatCrit scholarship. For example, one of the most prolific, and most cited, legal scholars of his generation, Richard Delgado, n103 has never published in a LatCrit symposium issue (even though he has participated in the annual conferences). Neither has the unofficial dean of Latina/o law professors, Michael Olivas, or civil rights icon Cruz Reynoso. n104 The LatCrit conferences currently tend to be more of a junior faculty event, with the body of the symposium issues generally dominated by untenured faculty. Senior scholars generally are more likely to provide an introduction to the symposium, an introduction to a cluster of essays, or some concluding remarks. n105 Still, some junior scholars may avoid publication in LatCrit symposia because of the uneven reputation of the symposium issues. Unlike its early days, senior scholars are somewhat distant from LatCrit scholarship. This creates scholarly room for junior scholars. Whatever the reason, senior LatCrit professors do not appear as deeply engaged in the scholarship published in the LatCrit symposia. At the same time, they are central to the organization of the annual conferences and other LatCrit events and activities. Many have been very productive from a research perspective in other venues. All in all, the published symposia in recent years has lacked the overall energy, ambition, and intellectual rigor of LatCrit's promising early days. Although disappointing, the current malaise is not uncommon as scholarly movements mature. We fervently believe that the next few chapters in LatCrit scholarship will be critical to its future intellectual influence-indeed, its very academic survival. [*1173]

Multiple shortcoming to LatCrit mean that it has achieved “far from” good results Valdes, U of Miami Law Professor, 12’ (Francisco Valdes, Professor of Law and Co-Director, Center for Hispanic and Caribbean Legal Studies, University of Miami School of Law, 4-16-2012, Seattle Journal for Social Justice, Volume 8, Issue 1Fall/Winter 2009 Article 7, “Rebellious Knowledge Production, Academic Activism, & Outsider Democracy: From Principles to Practices in LatCrit Theory, 1995 to 2008”, http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sjsj/vol8/iss1/7/, Accessed 7/2/13’, NC) While this brief sketch outlines some important gains or advances of our collective record during the past thirteen years, these efforts and exertions have not registered picture-perfect results; far from it. While our labors have no doubt added value to the cumulative accomplishments of critical outsider jurisprudence, or OutCrit legal studies, the reach and impact of our endeavors have been checked—or at least challenged—by shortcomings and limitations that include historical, material, structural,

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 123

personal, and other circumstances. Two sets of examples, spanning both substance and method, illustrate this aspect of our collective record thus far.

The alt fails because it doesn’t hold international law to the same standard Heinze, Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science and the Department of International and Area Studies, No Date [Eric, no date, Bepress, “Inside the Outsider: Human Rights, Critical Race Theory, and LatCrit”, http://works.bepress.com/eric_heinze/2/, 7-9-13] Both movements claim to employ a “legal realist” jurisprudence. Scholars such as Mari Matsuda, Celina Romany or Berta Esperanza Hernández-Truyol claim that legal norms cannot be taken at face value, but must be understood in political and historical context. For example, they show how the black letter of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection of the law, while the long history of conquest, slavery, segregation and ongoing discrimination reveals entrenched patterns of brutality and inequality. A number of them embrace what Matsuda calls a “bipolar” analysis: they condemn the brutality of American law, while applauding the alternatives offered, in particular, by international human rights law. In citing international human rights law, however, they entirely abandon their legal realist approach. They dismantle simplistic myths about American law, but then promote equally simplistic myths about international human rights. They praise the black letter of international norms, without any examination of the brutal histories and politics of many of the powerful countries that have advocated those norms. They fail to hold international human rights law to the same critical standard to which they hold American law. That double standard leads them to construct a false dichotomy between supposedly regressive American positions and the supposedly progressive views of the ‘international community’. Matsuda, for example, endorses hate speech bans supported in the 1960s by the Soviet Union and other socialist states, yet she fails to examine those states’ oppression of ethnic and other minorities throughout their own histories. During that period, minorities in socialist states often fared far worse than those in the United States, despite what Matsuda sees as those countries’ progressive stance. Romany and Hernández-Truyol advocate a wholesale replacement of American civil liberties with an international regime of human rights that includes comprehensive social and economic protections. However, they avoid any legal-realist questions about the success of such rights in other countries, as well as their possible effects on Latino communities throughout the Americas. I argue that Critical Race Theory and LatCrit should certainly continue their critique of American law, but should apply the same critical standards to the alternatives they find either in international law or in other normative schemas. Failure to do so is a betrayal of their movements’ own stated aims.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 124

Cede the Political Their criticism becomes co-opted into a shallow search for authenticity, promotes dangerous distrust, and cedes the political Subotnik, Works at the Law Department at the Touro Law Center, 1998 (Dan, 1/1/1998, “What’s Wrong with Critical Race Theory?: Reopening the Case for Middle Class Values”, Cornell Journal of Law and Policy, Vol. 7, pp. 710-712, J.Y.) A recent video of life at Berkeley High School provides an instructive answer. Filmed during the 1993-94 school year, School Colors137 tells a story about one of the first high schools to voluntarily integrate, a school that today is 38 percent white, 35 percent African American, 11 percent Asian-Pacific Islander, 9 percent Hispanic, and 7 percent mixed race, a school that has an Afro-American Studies department that sponsors fifteen courses ranging from black economics to Swahili.'38 One cannot be sure of the extent to which the film accurately represents the school, or to which the school represents urban America, but to the extent that these are representative, School Colors gives its viewers pause about Williams's and Peller's prescriptions. Here are some vignettes from the video. A Hispanic student says it is an insult to be called an American. A black teacher tells his AfricanAmerican students that "America denotes the nation you live in... but the African part is your essence." 139 A Chinese-American boy is labeled "whitewashed" because he has white friends. A Hispanic girl breaks down when she is accused of betraying her group by dating a white boy. A white boy describes himself as "White, real white" and goes on to say he "likes to promote whiteness." 140 A Hispanic boy complains of the Greek statue overlooking the campus, while the narrator explains that owing to concerns about ethnocentrism, "Toga Day" is now "Ethnicity Day."141 These sentiments, as could be expected, are reflected in Berkeley High geography. A student, pointing, says, "This is Africa."'142 "That's Europe. I don't care to go over there. I stay here, maybe [at the] snack bar, something like that, but, that's about it."' 143 "Berkeley High is like the real world," says another. "And the real world is totally segregated. No such thing as integration when it comes to America. We all want to be with our own kind and that's the way humans are."'144 "I mean you come here and it's nothing in the middle; it's just black, white, Asian," says a white girl. "[lt's really hard."'145 It is not surprising that several students complained about being attacked by members of other groups. To be sure, inter-ethnic harmony is not necessarily the highest social value. So we turn to the academic side; how are the kids doing? The answer is not reassuring. Eighty-five percent of the advanced placement kids, we learn, are white and Asian, while 85 percent of those in the lowest levels are black and Hispanic; in fact, the D and F rate for the latter groups is three times higher than for the former.14 6 This is not the place to discuss grading-or tracking. Our subject is what pursuing an authentic lifestyle might actually mean for young blacks-and for the rest of our community. Consider that in America today only a tiny fraction of our Ph.D.s in physics, astronomy, and mathematics are black. 147 If, as a result, science comes to be seen as a white thing, what will induce our brightest black students to enter these professions? 148 It is not only that to stay competitive we Americans need all the highly trained scientists we can get, but, to be brutally realistic, if minorities are not represented in the highest-prestige, highest-visibility occupations, what will counter the destructive conclusion that their absence stems not from lack of desire but from lack of ability? In short, can this country afford a definition of authenticity that amounts to a reification of the racial status quo? A drive for authenticity will come at no smaller cost in the humanities. Here is what Judge, a young black student at Berkeley High, has to say to Tiaye, who has just argued for the importance of knowing and using standard grammar: "Elijah Mohammed, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Huey Newton-they didn't speak what you wanna call functioning grammar-they, they function in this world. You ain't gotta speak the cracker language to live in a cracker world." 149 The accuracy of the premise aside, is this a

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 125

conclusion that our students should be drawing in school? Is Judge on his way to Columbia Law School? Would even Williams want him as her student? Black economist Glenn Loury has drawn what seems to be the logical conclusion. "Anything that either incites other Americans to look upon inner-city blacks as different from themselves, or suggests to the inner city blacks that their future is in any place other than the mainstream, is a dangerous thing." 150 Once again, it is not clear whether Berkeley High is representative of the American urban high school. But even without further data one has to wonder whether life at Berkeley High as depicted in School Colors is not the natural consequence of the fear of cultural annihilation so promiscuously spread by CRATs.151

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 126

LatCrit Fails – Political Change The lack of focus in the LatCrit movement destroys the key theories that LatCrit is built upon- Praxis and responses to institutional power are subject to limitless interpretations Aoki and Johnson, Professors of Law @ UC Davis, 2008 [Keith Aoki & Kevin R. Johnson, October 2008, “An Assessment of LatCrit Theory Ten Years After”, UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper Series Research Paper No. 151 October 2008, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1286181, 31, chip] Importantly, the lack of focus in LatCrit scholarship may be undermining the LatCrit, Inc., project of helping new scholars of color build their scholarly careers. As stated earlier, it appears that some, perhaps even many, junior and senior scholars who have been or are associated with LatCrit withhold their most important scholarship from publication in LatCrit symposia.159 In our opinion, as a whole, it appears that LatCrit scholarship has lost its edge . The metaphor of a blurry camera image, becoming fuzzier and increasingly out of focus, comes to mind. This may be partially due to Latcrit theory’s near-unconditional acceptance of an increasingly broad variety of approaches and styles, including some from disciplines outside the legal academy. Yet at this point in time, when forces of retrenchment are that do not share foundational assumptions are ascendant in the legal academy, it is all the more important that progressive legal scholarship possess qualities of methodological rigor, precision, and clarity. The following sections of this article identify recurring dichotomies upon which LatCrit scholarship has floundered: (1) the tension between theory and practice, which purports to be resolved by invoking “praxis,” which remains susceptible to multiple, sometimes contradictory, wildly varying meanings; (2) deep tensions between identitybased and post-identity approaches that call LatCrit’s self-avowed anti-essentialism into question; and (3) tensions between impulses toward centralization and decentralization of institutional power within LatCrit that give rise to confusing, multiple, and contradictory theoretical iterations under the increasingly large, but disorderly, LatCrit scholarly tent. At this juncture, LatCrit, Inc., might be analogized to a big top circus with multiple acts/entertainers performing at the same time, thereby drawing the audience’s focus in many different directions at once.

The inexperienced and unorganized nature of the LatCrit movement fractures the scholarship and prevents genuine political change Aoki and Johnson, Professors of Law @ UC Davis, 2008 [Keith Aoki & Kevin R. Johnson, October 2008, “An Assessment of LatCrit Theory Ten Years After”, UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper Series Research Paper No. 151 October 2008, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1286181, 9-10, chip] Today, LatCrit theory appears rudderless without direction, often serving as an umbrella for the publication of eclectic approaches to a diverse array of social justice questions. Variety may be the spice of life, but a lack of intellectual focus in a scholarly movement unquestionably is a flaw.36 As one influential critical scholar has observed, LatCrit scholarship, as well as much Critical Race Theory scholarship, has devolved into too much discourse about discourse, while failing too frequently to directly and constructively engage the most serious social justice issues of our times. Importantly, although scholarly discourse unquestionably has its place,38 it will not remedy the material deprivation facing so many in today’s world, the nativist hysteria that grips the U.S. immigration debate, the mortgage crisis dramatically impacting communities of color, persistent educational

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 127

inequality, and the lack of adequate health care, to name just a few of the pressing issues of contemporary concern. Put bluntly, a fair question is what besides putting the Black/white paradigm into question has LatCrit theory given to legal scholarship? There is another development within LatCrit scholarship worthy of critical note. Symposia articles have become more of a junior scholar activity with senior scholars more likely to remain on the sidelines. More senior scholars write some kind of introduction to, or commentary on, the LatCrit symposium articles than stand-alone scholarship. The good news is that junior scholars enjoy publication venues and there are no true “stars” within LatCrit theory. However, there are relatively few senior scholars actively participating in the primary venue for LatCrit scholarship.40 Given the uneven quality of the symposia, senior scholars may well shy away from them; indeed, some have told us bluntly that they declined to publish in the LatCrit symposia precisely for that reason. Some junior scholars, we have been told, have even been advised to avoid placements in LatCrit symposium issues given their shaky scholarly reputation.

LatCrit fails because its doesn’t produce analysis with fresh insights or intellectual relevance to current political discourse Aoki and Johnson, Professors of Law @ UC Davis, 2008 [Keith Aoki & Kevin R. Johnson, October 2008, “An Assessment of LatCrit Theory Ten Years After”, UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper Series Research Paper No. 151 October 2008, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1286181, 21-22, chip] One of the things that has been most striking has been the near wholesale ignorance of LatCrit scholarship by the mainstream. Externally, mainstream scholarship has failed to engage, much less challenge, LatCrit theory. This stands in stark contrast to the aggressive criticism—perhaps attacking and vilification are better descriptors—of Critical Race Theory by mainstream scholars.87 Indeed, there has not been much of a response to LatCrit scholarship except in some scholarship of LatCrit theorists. Even some scholars who touch on issues extensively analyzed in LatCrit scholarship, such as immigration,88 often ignore that scholarship and write as if the critical scholarly slate were clean.89 Moreover, although LatCrit theory is mentioned in some articles in mainstream law reviews by those engaged in the movement,90 it at times has been largely ignored by those involved in LatCrit theory in articles on topics that have been the subject of LatCrit analysis.91 In sharp contrast, Critical Race Theory provoked a heated response, obviously striking a nerve, if not a chord, in the mainstream.92 LatCrit has not, apparently failing to demonstrate fresh insights and intellectual relevance to many observers analyzing the most pressing social justice issues of our times. Nor has it benefited from the scholarly give-and-take in the academic marketplace that critical scrutiny would bring.93 Why has LatCrit scholarship largely been ignored? LatCrit evidently has failed to convince mainstream scholars of its staying power or its intellectual coherence and the simple need to engage this new brand of scholarship. Perhaps it is only civil rights discourse falling into the Black/white paradigm that attracts the attention of mainstream scholars.94 This might well be the case, suggesting that LatCrit theorists must continue in their efforts to destabilize the Black/white paradigm. It further suggests that LatCrit, to this point in time, has failed to dislodge the Black/white paradigm of civil rights in dominant legal scholarship.95 Although nothing is as common as resistance to new genres of scholarship, it should be candidly admitted that the mega-symposia of short articles produced by critical Latina/o theorists have not resulted in the kind of the groundbreaking work of leading Critical Race Theorists—relatively early in that movement—such as Derrick Bell,96 Kimberlé Crenshaw,97 Richard Delgado,98 Mari Matsuda,99 and Patricia Williams.100 This may seem as if it is asking too much of a nascent scholarly movement. It is

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 128

important, however, to set high scholarly goals for which to strive and to acknowledge when goals have not been achieved.

LatCrit’s disengagement from mainstream critical race studies hinders its ability to influence conventional scholarship and embrace a post-identity politics Aoki and Johnson, Professors of Law @ UC Davis, 2008 [Keith Aoki & Kevin R. Johnson, October 2008, “An Assessment of LatCrit Theory Ten Years After”, UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper Series Research Paper No. 151 October 2008, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1286181, 41-42, chip] First, LatCrit scholarship has seemingly been disengaged from or unaware of some of the scholarly debates occurring in the post-CRT, post-civil rights era—so much so that LatCrit scholarship seems to have stalled. Why this is, is far from clear. Is it because Yoshino is at Yale and Ford is at Stanford and LatCrit scholarship, for better or worse, has exhibited an anti-elitist strand (an outgrowth, although not a necessary outgrowth, of the inclusionary beginnings of LatCrit)? Is it a “battle” of mutual “ignorances”? After all, there is nary a mention of LatCrit scholarship in either Ford’s or Yoshino’s work, and vice versa. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then surely ignoring an entire body of scholarly work may be a passive-aggressive insult, or even an implicit statement of contempt or irrelevance. Remember the turrets of the big guns that turned on the first generation of CLS and CRT scholars; those scholars were vigorously and substantively involved in engaging with the critique of the critique.219 Second, Ford’s and Yoshino’s works are relevant to LatCrit scholarship because LatCrit has been one of the major scholarly sites where the meaning of citizenship and its relation to identity, racial and otherwise, has been deeply interrogated. Although Yoshino’s scholarship does incorporate his experience being raised in both Japan and the United States, his focus is resolutely on the construction and contestation of U.S. domestic identi(ies). Yoshino focuses primarily on sexual orientation. However, his framework of “covering demands” could easily be expanded to include nationality, country of origin, accent, religion, language, and much more. Meanwhile, Ford explicitly situates himself in the U.S. experience of race that includes a history of slavery and Jim Crow that is partially responsible for producing the skewed distribution of resources in this country. This exposes a problem with the “let’s create an alternate (scholarly) universe” approach, discussed earlier,220 which LatCrit, Inc., encourages. Such an approach represents an alternative to engaging with elitist hegemony using the powerful tools of critique. The consequences of this move—intentional or unintentional—is that it not only weakens LatCrit scholarship but it also leaves elitist hegemony relatively uninformed by, and disengaged from, important topics and subject areas about which LatCrit scholarship is (or should be) concerned. For example, part of the reason why Ford’s and Yoshino’s post-identity theories may fail to speak to the dynamics of immigration is because the dominant analysis in conventional immigration law scholarship is to view it as a body of law that has developed apart from U.S. race relations law.221 Although race as an area of legal discourse is increasingly bracketed, the two dominant approaches in U.S. immigration law are a center-left liberal reformist strand and a conservative right exclusionist strand that has worked to steadily pull the reformist strand to the right; both of which operate to minimize the salience of race in U.S. immigration law and policy. LatCrit scholarship has the potential to intervene in, and disrupt, this dynamic, but only if LatCrit scholars are willing to engage substantially in what may lead to some heated academic battles. Certainly, there have been calls to arms, but only by marshaling academic capital and credibility can such substantive engagement occur.222 With regard to Yoshino and Ford, where are the challenges and engagements with their post-identity, yet

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 129

startlingly nation/state-bound visions? Surely constructive critique and engagement can deepen and expand their ideas by incorporating the increasingly ubiquitous subjectivity of the immigrant, undocumented or otherwise, into a post-CRT, post-civil rights vision of progressive social struggle, within and without U.S. borders.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 130

LatCrit Fails – Scholarship LatCrit produces bad articles- no quality control- This implicates the power of LatCrit to effect mainstream discourse Aoki and Johnson, Professors of Law @ UC Davis, 2008 [Keith Aoki & Kevin R. Johnson, October 2008, “An Assessment of LatCrit Theory Ten Years After”, UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper Series Research Paper No. 151 October 2008, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1286181, 13-14, chip] Unfortunately, the scholarship emerging from the LatCrit movement—especially in recent years—has not been as successful as the mentoring and community- and institution- building functions. Uneven quality regularly mars the annual symposia, which are the primary venue for the publication of LatCrit scholarship.51 We believe that these problems stem in no small part from the nearly unqualified, egalitarian commitment to inclusiveness and the virtual guarantee of publication to any and all symposium contributions, without meaningful review or screening of submissions.52 Perhaps due to the quality issues, the body of LatCrit scholarship unfortunately has reached a relatively limited audience primarily of like-minded critical theorists.53 To make matters worse, the scholarship often fails to recognize or cite to relevant LatCrit scholarship.54 If LatCrit theorists themselves fail to fully engage LatCrit scholarship, it should not be much of a surprise that it has not been engaged by the mainstream. And, in the final analysis, unlike Critical Race Theory, LatCrit theory, for the most part, has not been seriously engaged by mainstream legal scholarship.55 A body of mainstream scholarship expressed deep hostility to Critical Race Theory (CRT), its intellectual claims about the centrality of race to the fabric of the law, and its innovative methodology—especially narrative scholarship.56 As a result, much CRT scholarship was forged from intense dialogue, conflict, and confrontation over what, as a normative matter, CRT contended about its foundational ideas and positions.57 Pushback from the mainstream has been missing for the most part from the evolution of LatCrit theory. The lack of meaningful dialogue appears to be reflected in a certain softness and lack of focus, as well as urgency, to LatCrit scholarship.58 Consequently, the scholarship is not as strong as it might be.

The scholarship generated LatCrit is heavily politicized and disgenuine Aoki and Johnson, Professors of Law @ UC Davis, 2008 [Keith Aoki & Kevin R. Johnson, October 2008, “An Assessment of LatCrit Theory Ten Years After”, UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper Series Research Paper No. 151 October 2008, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1286181, 18-19, chip] This article is far from the first critical assessment of LatCrit theory. Richard Delgado,78 who has attended and participated in several of the annual LatCrit conferences,79 harshly questioned the scholarship generated by the LatCrit movement.80 He specifically stated: The annual Lat/Crit conferences . . . have generated [by that date] no fewer than five symposium issues of various reviews, some running over 1200 pages and replete with articles addressing the mainstay issues of the discourse school [that is, according to Delgado, intellectual discourse about discourse rather than scholarship analyzing the material problems endemic to American social life]. Even a symposium on Lat/Crit theory in a world of economic inequality [LatCrit V] was no exception, featuring articles on such topics as communicative praxis, the appropriation of Latino pop music, the social construction of Latino gangs, and crime thrillers in Chicano cinema. Might it be the lure of easy publication, not to mention that of attending an annual conference where one might meet one’s friends and relax in spa-like splendor,

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 131

that accounts for the proliferation of discourse scholarship . . . ? And, from the dean’s perspective, is it not safer to fund scholarship that examines literary tropes than that which has the effrontery to propose that America’s proudest moment—Brown v. Board of Education[, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)]—came about because white folks decided to do themselves a favor? From the perspective of the young scholar seeking tenure, it is certainly safer to attack a word or media image than law school hiring, the Supreme Court, or the Pioneer Fund. A media image cannot fight back or send a letter to one’s dean.81 Committed to the scholarship and other goals of LatCrit theory, one of the coauthors of this article defended LatCrit theory against Professor Delgado’s attacks, emphasizing the important successes of the movement, as well as the need for caution in the tone employed in constructive scholarly criticism: The LatCrit project is fully committed to scholarship. To that end, each annual LatCrit conference publishes its full proceedings in an issue of a national law review. Although this innovation results in a certain variation in quality among the contributions to the symposia, it avoids the creation of a star system in LatCrit, which some claim to have marred [Critical Race Theory]. . . . . None of this discussion is meant to suggest that LatCrit scholarship should not be criticized . . . . Constructive engagement and dialogue are essential to the scholarly mission. However, we must be fair as well as critical, knowing that tone and manner affect the intended audience’s willingness to listen.82

LatCrit is directionless and lax in scholarship Aoki and Johnson, Professors of Law @ UC Davis, 2008 [Keith Aoki & Kevin R. Johnson, October 2008, “An Assessment of LatCrit Theory Ten Years After”, UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper Series Research Paper No. 151 October 2008, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1286181, 19-20, chip] Along these lines, despite the continuous proliferation of the annual symposia, the current focus and direction of LatCrit scholarship is far from clear. LatCrit now is the home to a great diversity of legal theorists and theoretical approaches, with some of the scholarship regularly failing to fully engage the history or scholarship of LatCrit theory.83 Radically different analytical approaches can be found in any of the lengthy LatCrit symposium issues. As a result, it is difficult to ascertain what LatCrit stands for except for the broadest principles (anti-essentialism, anti-subordination, praxis, and coalition building, to name four examples). Although we hardly endorse a lockstep approach to LatCrit scholarship, we would hope that LatCrit theory would strive to stand for something more specific. True, the LatCrit annual symposia have helped build a body of critical race scholarship. However, as mentioned previously, we believe that the commitment to generally publish all submissions—with little screening of the articles and a limit on page lengths of the articles in order to have room to publish all submissions—has contributed to a distinctly uneven quality in the final product. Accepting and publishing virtually all submissions has meant that scholars lack an incentive to write their highest quality scholarship.84 The rejection of a submission is generally unlikely to occur. The lack of any meaningful disciplining device, we believe, has almost inevitably resulted in a certain laxness in LatCrit scholarship. Strict page limits of about twenty pages, necessary to publish all of the submissions received, have meant that the analysis of some LatCrit symposium contributions appears somewhat superficial. The strict page limits may explain, in part, the failure to cite and refer to LatCrit scholarship or to provide in-depth analysis of issues that warrant—and, indeed, demand—such inquiry.85 Whatever the reason, the care, detail, and depth of analysis of some LatCrit scholarship has lagged. Over the years, a number of scholars within LatCrit have candidly admitted to the authors of this article that this is the case.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 132

LatCrit Fails – Infighting LatCrit engages in a form of identity assassination that directly the anti-essentialist message of the movement and marginalizes those that don’t fit under “Latino” Aoki and Johnson, Professors of Law @ UC Davis, 2008 [Keith Aoki & Kevin R. Johnson, October 2008, “An Assessment of LatCrit Theory Ten Years After”, UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper Series Research Paper No. 151 October 2008, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1286181, 25-26, chip] The challenge in the article in question unfortunately was couched, at least in part, on nothing less than what we term here “identity assassination,” an attack upon an individual’s racial identity in a subtle attempt to discredit his or her scholarship. As we use the phrase here, “identity assassination” constitutes a form of microaggression—a subtle, yet unmistakeable, “put-down,”109 by questioning an individual’s bona fides as a person of color. Such conduct is antithetical to LatCrit’s stated commitments to of anti-essentialism—the recognition of the heterogeneity of the Latina/o community— and inclusiveness, the embrace of people of different backgrounds.110 It further undercuts efforts at community-building. The article specifically stated: Off-hand, I can only think of two Chicanas that are visible in LatCrit, Margaret Montoya and Mary Romero. Montoya is a law professor from New Mexico, and Romero is a sociologist in criminal justice at Arizona State University and CoChair of LatCrit for next year. Laura Gomez . . . has a joint Sociology/Law degree from Stanford and was in attendance. She does really good work but does not attend the meetings regularly and is not that visible in LatCrit. She was at the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law and just moved back to Albuquerque, New Mexico, her hometown. What is shocking is that there are virtually no Chicanos of prominence in LatCrit, except for Steve Bender and Kevin Johnson, who are half white, and Kevin did not attend. Richard Delgado attends occasionally, but stays in the background, [and] also did not attend this year. There are two Latinos who occupy key positions in LatCrit, Frank Valdes (Cuban), one of the fathers of LatCrit and Pedro Malavet (Puerto Rican), who used to run the LatCrit website. Both Valdes and Malavet teach in Florida.111 As we readily acknowledge, there are important points to be made about the proper place of Chicana/os in LatCrit theory.112 Despite the fact that Chicana/os constitute the largest group of Latina/os in the United States,113 they are not as prominent as they might be in critical Latina/o theory. Importantly, more LatCrit scholarship arguably should focus on the status of Chicana/os in the United States. Some LatCrit observers have gone further in this critique, claiming that, because of its zealous commitment to inclusiveness, LatCrit theory fails to focus sufficiently on Latina/os and the Latina/o condition. As one commentator bluntly noted, “I am aware that some of the old-timers . . . have been openly asking important questions like ‘ where is the ‘Lat’ in LatCrit? ’”114 Despite the substance to the critique, the personal details included in the LatCrit symposium article quoted above obfuscate and sting, rather than elucidate and ameliorate. The personal nature of the marginalizing snubs in the above-quoted paragraph are problematic in too many ways to analyze in depth here. Still, a few are worth highlighting for purposes of this article. Two LatCrit theorists, including one of the co-authors of this article, who have been involved in LatCrit since its inception115 are marginalized by name as “half white.” The implicit question being raised is not difficult to discern: are they true Chicana/os (like the author of the article)? Do they “count” as Chicanos for purposes of their participation in LatCrit theory? This, of course, raises highly contested issues of racial classification and identity for persons of mixed race backgrounds.116 These deeply personal issues cut to the core of one’s very being and thus should not be randomly tossed out for public consumption in an insensitive way, especially in a genre of scholarship that is ostensibly committed to community-building, inclusiveness, and racial sensitivity. One of the co-authors named in the text

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 133

cannot fully explain the sorrow and grief experienced upon reading the questioning, if not attack, on his racial identity in print. Issues of racial identity had plagued him for his entire life and have been a subject of some of his scholarship.117 Questions about his racial identity contributed to his initial uncertainty about whether he should even attend LatCrit I in 1996. LatCrit theory had come to be a “safe” place for him, which no longer can be the case. Reading this passage brought to mind the kind of “spirit-murder” identified in the Critical Race Theory literature.118 To make matters worse, the lack of a response of any kind in the rest of the symposium issue to this personal attack was disheartening, devastating, and as hurtful as the original comment itself.119 To make matters worse, the relevance of thinly-veiled name calling to the overall point of the essay is left unclear, as are many references in this passage. What do the following personal facts about individual law professors (and the naming of names) have to do with the main point of the essay? The reference to one professor’s move from UCLA to “her hometown” in New Mexico, another prominent professor’s “stay[ing] in the background,” and that two non-Chicano Latino law professors “teach in Florida.” LatCrit’s commitment to inclusion, and antiessentialism,120 is seriously undermined by personal attacks that some scholar s—LatCrit and otherwise—would claim fail to constitute legitimate scholarly inquiry. Indeed, such attacks in a LatCrit symposium tarnish the very legitimacy of LatCrit scholarship generally and put into question the entire movement at a time when it vies for scholarly legitimacy and acceptance.121 It further lends support to the critics of narrative scholarship.122 Inexplicably, despite the personal nature of the comments, neither the Foreword nor Afterword to the LatCrit X symposium issue mention, much less address, the passage in question, or the more general points being raised by it. They in effect ignore the article,123 which alone suggests much about its scholarly quality. Ironically enough, both the Foreword (more than 60 pages) and Afterword (sixteen pages) discuss, among other things, the importance of communitybuilding to the LatCrit project, a goal certainly not fostered by this article.124 Unfortunately, in seventyfive pages of commentary on the various contributions to the symposium, the attacks on this “half white” co-author went unaddressed, unrebutted, and ignored, with the personal damage left fully intact. Of course, the authors of the symposia forewords and afterwords face a difficult task of seeking to promote inclusivity and encouraging participation in the LatCrit movement as well as commenting on the scholarship. It is a fine line, however, between supporting the production of LatCrit scholarship and allowing poor scholarship to go unquestioned and its errors and ommissions unaddressed. At a bare minimum, we would err on the side of identifying clearly problematic scholarship and attempt to ensure some modicum of quality control. At a minimum, a truly scholarly movement should seek to deter personal attacks and other snubs inappropriate for a scholarly community and intellectual endeavor. Such intervention is necessary, we contend, to ensure the highest quality in a genre of scholarship that we wholeheartedly support, and necessary to ensure that LatCrit achieves its stated scholarly goals.125

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 134

LatCrit Fails – Identity Politics Advocates focus material needs of immigrants insufficiently attentive to the American political tradition and reduces their obstacles to a casual preoccupation with racism Skerry’ 04, (Peter Skerry is the professor of government at Claremont McKenna College, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and author of Counting on the Census? Race, Group Identity, and the Evasion of Politics http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/articles/2003/1/winter%20immigration%20skerry/w inter_immigration_skerry.pdf. pg.27) Both perspectives have strengths and weaknesses. Advocates are not wrong to focus on the material needs of immigrants, but as advocates tend to be, they are insufficiently attentive to the concerns of the broader political community. Moreover, the advocates’ emphasis on immigrant rights may place their demands squarely within the American political tradition, but nevertheless it reduces the array of obstacles confronting immigrants to a monocausal preoccupation with racial discrimination. While this perspective affords immigrant advocates the considerable moral capital of the civil rights movement, it fails to address the need for the structure and order that most of us—but especially economically marginal and geographically uprooted immigrants—need. For their part, immigrantpolicy skeptics tend to ignore the material deprivations and institutional barriers with which many immigrants struggle—even while they take advantage of the genuine opportunities available to them in this country. Many skeptics ignore what increasing numbers of observers now understand to be greater gaps in skills and education between immigrants and native-born Americans today than was true in our past. Moreover, the skeptics’ emphasis on the importance of communal values and the duties and obligations of immigrants is important, but by itself becomes a tone-deaf recitation of high-minded principles that neglects day-to-day realities in immigrant families and neighborhoods.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 135

Coalitions Fail Coalitions Fail- hierarchies of race and oppression within create a divide Roman Florida Interantional University Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law 7 (Ediberto, Mercer Law Review, “Coalitions and Collective Memories: A Search for Common Ground” http://www2.law.mercer.edu/lawreview/getfile.cfm?file=58203.pdf, pg 5 (641) accessed 7-9-13 KR) The search for common ground, though a foundational component of any coalition effort, is nonetheless often fraught with pitfalls. These pitfalls may be manifested in a variety of ways. For instance, in an effort to find commonalities, the realities of different histories of racial and ethnic groups may arise.29 Finding rallying points between different groups with different experiences has historically proven to be difficult.30 Many coalitions fail because of what is known as the zerosum game—the gain of one minority group at the expense of another.31 Both supporters and detractors of coalitions raise the specter of such hierarchies within minority groups.32 Professor Enid Trucios-Haynes, an advocate of coalition building, acknowledges “the hierarchies of race and oppression must be overcome to form effective intra-group and intergroup coalitions.”33 On the other end of the coalitional divide, Professor Richard Delgado, one of the legal academy’s leading scholars, is skeptical of inter-minority group coalitions.34 Delgado questions whether diverse minority groups will “be able to work together toward mutual goals—or [will] the current factionalism and distrust continue into the future . . . .”35 Echoing one of the challenges raised by Yen Le Espiritu, Delgado observes the inevitability that within any given coalition there is likely to be at least one high-status, influential, and relatively assimilated group that expects to assume a position of power and authority over the coalition.36 Delgado argues that “[t]his practice not only adopts the master’s tools and thus unwittingly strengthens his house, but it also weakens the coalition.” 37 As a metaphor for his skepticism, Delgado looked to the game of baseball, arguing that when fighting for social justice, outsider groups may more closely resemble a solitary batter instead of a member of the team playing the field.38 In other words, Delgado suggests that outsider groups may be better off undertaking reform efforts individually rather than using concerted action.¶

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 136

Identity Turn Identity is a fluidic classification - The creation of a system of identity classification through race or ethnicity replicates the very harms that keeps bodies oppressed Porras , Associate Professor, University of Utah College of Law , 97 [Ileana M. , Winter 1996-1997 , "A LATCRIT SENSIBILITY APPROACHES THE INTERNATIONAL: REFLECTIONS ON ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS AS THIRD GENERATION SOLIDARITY RIGHTS" , The University of Miami InterAmerican Law Review, JC] One of the fascinating things about the Latino/a identity, as we have discovered over the past series of discussions (the first LatCrit Conference in La Jolla and earlier discussions at this Colloquium), is that the Latino/a identity cannot be reduced to any of the other identity categories. Persons who self-identify as Latino/a include individuals who also identify with either gender, every race, every ethnicity, every nationality, and every manner of sexual orientation. In this sense the Latino/a identity is truly sui generis. Unique, not in that all other identities are somehow simpler or in fact more homogeneous, but rather that the Latino/a identity contains already and visibly within itself an irreducible confusion which begs the question of "identity." Such a claim may at first seem both naive and dangerous. After all, it may be argued, while it is true that identity is constructed, the construction of a Latino/a identity is constrained because it emerges within a U.S. context entirely occupied by a black and white Pdigm. Furthermore, the legal protections achieved in the United States will only protect Latinos/as, if to be identified as Latino/a is to make a claim to a race or an ethnicity. It would, therefore, be irresponsible to insist on a nonethnic, nonracial classification. How can Latinos/as hold to their sense of an identity which is always breaking down the classifications of race, ethnicity, gender, class, sexual orientation, etc., while pursuing particular political or social agendas which appear to require the reduction of our Latino/a identity to [*418] either race or ethnicity? This is where adopting a distinctive LatCrit theoretical perspective may help us out of the apparent impasse. A LatCrit perspective permits us to characterize Latino/a as a race or an ethnicity if it is strategically important to do so. It is, after all, that too. A LatCrit perspective is not dogmatic and is open to all possibilities. But a LatCrit perspective also requires us to step back and remember that Latino/a is not only a race or an ethnicity. It allows us not to be overly attached to any of these identity classifications and reminds us that they are themselves fluid and constructed. Further, a LatCrit theoretical perspective should remind us that, while short term benefits may be occasionally derived from playing from within a system that relies on single characteristic identity classification, ultimately we may simply be reinforcing the very system that oppresses Latinos/as. To enter naively into the game of proper classification is to become entangled in a discourse of distinguishing, parsing, and discriminating to determine who is in and who is out. What I am suggesting is that the LatCrit theoretical perspective should stand for a politics of inclusion. Our shared constructed Latino/a identity requires that we value our differences as well as our commonalities. A LatCrit perspective should recognize and celebrate the simultaneity of identities. We must therefore seek to be as unconstraining and nonexclusive as possible. Rather than expend our energies trying to delimit the contours of our Latino/a identity, we should leave the boundaries of that identity as vague as possible. At a time when identity politics seems to be inexorably leading us to narrower and narrower forms of distinctiveness through particularism, a LatCrit perspective reminds us of the impossibility of achieving perfectly bounded identities while offering us a vision of the multifaceted forms of connection and relatedness that is always available.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 137

Immigration Turns Immigrants don’t need any merit to become part of American society—immigrantpolicy skeptics agree Skerry’ 04, (Peter Skerry is the professor of government at Claremont McKenna College, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and author of Counting on the Census? Race, Group Identity, and the Evasion of Politics http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/articles/2003/1/winter%20immigration%20skerry/w inter_immigration_skerry.pdf. pg.26) For some time now, the debate over U.S. immigrant policy (which addresses the needs of immigrants already residing here, as opposed to immigration policy, which concerns how many and which immigrants should be admitted) has been stuck in an unproductive and divisive pattern. On one side are immigrant advocates, a relatively well-defined and cohesive coalition of civil rights organizations, immigrant activists, minority spokesmen and elected officials, human rights activists and civil libertarians, religious and church groups, and most recently labor unions—all of whom have been pushing for increased programmatic benefits and expanded rights for immigrants. On the other side are the immigrant-policy skeptics, a diffuse and disparate lot of fiscal conservatives, cultural conservatives, and business interests, who tend to embrace high levels of immigration but are not very enthusiastic about programs to support immigrants once they are here. What these skeptics share is the pervasive laissez-faire ideology that today’s immigrants, just like yesterday’s, can and do fend for themselves in taking advantage of the opportunities America affords them. In other words, immigrants do not need or merit any special help to become part of American society.

The Alt doesn’t develop the Latina/o critical conscious making no necessary change— TRP proves Skerry’ 04, (Peter Skerry is the professor of government at Claremont McKenna College, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and author of Counting on the Census? Race, Group Identity, and the Evasion of Politics http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/articles/2003/1/winter%20immigration%20skerry/w inter_immigration_skerry.pdf. pg.29). The Resurrection Project (TRP) is a community organization based in 14 Catholic parishes in the heavily Latino neighborhoods of southwest Chicago: Pilsen, Little Village, and Back of the Yards. Founded in 1990, TRP now has an annual budget of about $2.3 million. Its leaders originally focused on reducing crime but soon shifted to the more manageable goal of improving the stock of neighborhood housing. Since its founding TRP has built over 140 new, owner-occupied homes for lowand moderate-income families; renovated 12 buildings to create 156 rental units that it owns and manages; helped to close almost 300 housing-related loans; became involved in commercial real estate development projects, through which it provides employment opportunities to local workers and community contractors; founded the Resurrection Construction Cooperative to help local contractors develop their own firms; and claimed credit for having generated more than $70 million in community investment. Like many outfits with roots in Alinsky organizing, TRP is wary of getting embroiled in the provision of social services. As a result, it has partnered with more experienced agencies that actually operate TRP’s programs—including one for homeless single mothers; another called Esperanza Familiar (Family Hope) which helps immigrant parents improve their child-rearing skills; and finally, two family community centers providing day-care for over 400 children, as well as an after-school program, and an arts center. TRP’s latest venture is a community-based college

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 138

dormitory for area youth. Described thus, TRP sounds like an admirably successful but perhaps unexceptional community Development Corporation. But it is more than that, because along with “help,” it does provide “hassle. “The organization’s roots are in the Alinsky tradition, which means that TRP is wary of getting drawn into the mere provision of services. As long-time executive director Raul Raymundo puts it, TRP is not merely a builder of bricks and mortar but also “a builder of leaders. “Or as a pastor working with TRP observes: The biggest challenge is forming people and [their] critical consciousness….When we serve somebody, we want that person to be involved. And we have to have the structure for the involvement, we have to have a formation so they understand [what we’re about] and get committed….If they just come for a basket of food and they get the basket and they go away….what difference have we made? Worthy sentiments, to be sure, but how does TRP act on them? Well, in addition to helping people become homeowners, the organization maintains a network of block clubs to sustain a sense of neighborhood. In Raymundo’s words, “When our residents buy one of our houses, they are buying part of our community.”

The transition into the domestic arena is a springboard into wider civic life, rather than an inhibition to civic participation Skerry’ 04, (Peter Skerry is the professor of government at Claremont McKenna College, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and author of Counting on the Census? Race, Group Identity, and the Evasion of Politics http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/articles/2003/1/winter%20immigration%20skerry/w inter_immigration_skerry.pdf. pg.27-28) In classic Alinsky fashion, TRP uses material self-interest to teach broader lessons about community and the public good. While hardly on a grand scale, these lessons have real meaning and tangible consequences often missing from the lofty abstractions taught in formal citizenship classes. This perspective is similar to that of Jane Addams, who according to Jean Bethke Elshtain saw “the domestic arena…as a springboard into wider civic life rather than an inhibition to matters civic.” As Addams well knew, the terrain between the private realm of face-to-face, primary group relations and the public domain of secondary, instrumental ties is particularly daunting for poor, uneducated immigrants. Similarly, political scientist Michael Foley describes how the bonding social capital that holds immigrant communities together differs from the bridging kind that facilitates Civic Integration of Immigrants32 The Responsive Community • Winter 2003/04 entry into the wider society. Indeed, the strength of the former typically inhibits the growth of the latter. But one way or another, bridges do get built. In their study of immigrant home-ownership patterns, David and Barbara Listokincite the role of “cultural brokers” who “both understand how credit agencies and underwriters think and also understand the applicant’s language, culture, and situation.” Cultural brokers can play a positive role by anticipating misunderstandings that typically arise between lenders and immigrant clients. But such brokers have a downside, as the Listokins also explain: Because ethnic and family networks are so insular, fewer competitive market forces are at work. Therefore, the broker often demands outlandish fees, points, interest rates, and the like, adding thousands of dollars to the cost of obtaining a home loan and keeping families from realizing home-ownership. The lack of alternative sources of information in these communities also means that cultural brokers often trade in misinformation that can in turn thwart home-ownership.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 139

Black/White Paradigm Misc In the status quo there’s a Black-White paradigm that excludes the experiences of Latinas/os and makes them subpar to anyone within the paradigm Hayes, Professor of Law at University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, 1 [Enid Trucio, “Why ‘Race Matters:’ LatCrit Theory and Latina/o Racial Identity,” http://homepage.smc.edu/preciado_christina/Current/Sociology%2031/Readings/Why%20Race%20Mat ters%20LatCrit.pdf, date accessed: 07/02/13, LV] Latinas/os are indeterminately raced because racial identity in the United States occurs within a Black-White Paradigm, and this paradigm does not incorporate the experiences of Latinas/os and other groups of color.46 The Black-White paradigm has been described as "the reduction of race relations in American society and law to the relations between 'White' Euro-Americans and to 'black' African-Americans."47 Racial inequality in this country is assessed through the prism of the Black-White paradigm and Latinas/os are rendered invisible in this construct of race relations.48 It is a by-product of White supremacy because it explicitly accepts that White racial group identification is preferred to a Black racial group identification.49 Because the BlackWhite paradigm establishes rigid categories in which racial identity is fixed by a Black-White dividing line, persons who are not perceived as either Black or White become subordinated to this dividing line.50 The Black-White paradigm is so dominant that it shapes "our understanding of what race and racism mean and the nature of our discussions about race."51 The analysis of race in our society using this Black-White divide (where White dominates over Black) is reflected in legislative and judicial decisionmaking.52 The Latina/o critique of the Black-White paradigm and its relevance to the Latina/o experience is also a critique of the Critical Race Theory scholarship because of its focus on racial discrimination against Blacks and its effect of excluding other groups of color from analysis.53 The Black-White paradigm excludes Latinas/os from full participation in racial discourse because Latinas/os are neither Black nor White within the BlackWhite paradigm.54 The foundational structure of the United States embodied in the U.S. Constitution reflects the Black-White paradigm and White supremacy. Blacks at the inception of this country were excluded from participation as citizens of the United States through the institution of slavery.55 After the Civil War, Blacks were rendered subordinate to Whites through a system of constitutionally validated structures such as aejure segregation and other forms of institutionalized discrimination 56 All other Non- Whites were also denied full participation in U.S. socio-political-legal life because citizenship remained racially limited to free White persons, although later expanded to include persons of African nativity or descent. Those involved in race discourse in law and politics must include the different experiences of racialization in the United States.58 Any broad framework used to understand race in the United States must include those issues relevant not only to the African-American community, but also the Latina/o and other communities of color59 because although their experiences are rendered invisible within the Black-White paradigm, these communities are still subject to the system of White supremacy in the United States.60

The US has refused to recognize Latinas/os and their struggle – the way the government defines origin and race makes Latinas/os the “other” in society Hayes, Professor of Law at University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, 1 [Enid Trucio, “Why ‘Race Matters:’ LatCrit Theory and Latina/o Racial Identity,” http://homepage.smc.edu/preciado_christina/Current/Sociology%2031/Readings/Why%20Race%20Mat ters%20LatCrit.pdf, date accessed: 07/02/13, LV]

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 140

The U.S. Census has consistently imposed the limited racial categories recognized within the BlackWhite paradigm on the Latina/o community. Latinas/os have been asked to identify themselves as either Black, Hispanics, or White Hispanics, without recognition that perhaps a Latina/o might be an Amerindian Hispanic or Asian Hispanic.93 This lack of recognition for other categories of racial identification among "Hispanics" clearly indicates an effort to force Latinas/os into the dominant racial paradigm that limits its focus on Black and White racial groups in the United States. 94 The Latina/o community has been reluctant to adopt a specific racial classification of Hispanic. A separate Latina/o race category had been proposed for the 1980 census.95 However, organizations representing Latina/o interests vigorously opposed the designation of Latinas/os as a distinct racial group.96 The willingness of the U.S. government to recognize a separate racial category for Latinas/os and the reticence of the dominant political organizations advocating Latina/o interests also illustrates the contested racial group identification of Latina/os.97 Latinas/os had been designated for Census purposes as White in the Censuses of 1940 and 1950, unless definitely Native American or some other race besides White.98 The 1960 Census also coded Latinas/os as White unless they were Black, Native American or some other race.99 In an attempt to identify the Latina/o population of the U.S. and determine the percentage of Latinas/os in the United States in response to the Latina/o interest group pressure, the 1970 Census focused on the "Spanish heritage population" defined as those with a Spanish surname or Spanish language usage in the five southwestern states, those born in Puerto Rico or within the three Mid- Atlantic states, and those Spanish speaking individuals in the rest of the United States The 1980 Census attempted to cure the deficiencies of the 1970 Census, which vas viewed as identifying Hispanics too broadly and inaccurately.101 The 1980 Census asked individuals to indicate their national origin or ancestry (descent) as Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban or other Spanish/Hispanic Origin.102 A significant number of latinas/os responding to this census indicated their national origin group in the "other" box for race.' 3 The 1990 Census sought to address this unanticipated response from latinas/os by requesting a separate racial and ethnicity identification.104 The 2000 Census contained five racial categories: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African-American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander and White 105 There were two categories for ethnicity: "Hispanic or Latino," and "Not Hispanic or Latino."106 For census purposes, it is clear that a narrow, biological racial identification is implicit and, as a result, Latinas/os may not be correctly counted.107 This difficulty

is

node clear by the fact that "no single set of racial categories has been used in more than two censuses, and most were only used once."108 The Census Bureau has reported that 40% of Latina/o respondents in 1980 and 1990 "failed to check both a race and an ethnicity box... and it is estimated that over 97% of the persons reporting in the "other race" category were Hispanic.109 One problem is that Latinas/os responding to the census may not identify with the racial categories reflected in the Black-White paradigm and incorporated in the census, although Latinas/os may view themselves as a separate racial group since the overwhelming Latina/o identification as an "other

race" (neither Black nor White) implies that Latinas/os possess a racial identity that is not reflected in the Census questions. One study found that regardless of how the question is asked about Latina/o origin on the census form, a percentage of Latinas/os did not identify with any of the racial categories listed on the Census Form because they saw themselves as an "Other" race and outside of the distinctive U.S. racial construct."1 Another way in which the legal system structures Latinas/os as an indeterminate race is reflected in the narrow definition of race that focuses on biology in antidiscrimination law."2 Race viewed as a biological trait cannot include changeable and voluntarily adopted cultural aspects of identity such as language, accent and customs."3 The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment similarly protects Latinas/os only to the extent there is discrimination based on national origin as described above.114 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also provides protection against employment discrimination based on national origin that has been interpreted as synonymous with ancestry.115 Currently, the constitutional and statutory protection against national origin discrimination represents the best vehicle for Latinas/os to challenge discrimination, because Latinas/os are not recognized by the Supreme Court as a biological race."6 However, the legal interpretation of national origin is at odds with the plain meaning of the term.117

National origin means the place of one's birth and is not the same as one's ancestry, which refers to one's family history."8 Latinas/os born in the United States, who possess a U.S. national origin, are only protected if there is discrimination based on some characteristic tied to their ancestry. This

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2013 LatCrit

Dunn/Davis Page | 141

means that the courts must focus on ethnic traits such as language difference, surname, accent, or other similar characteristic. Latinas/os are not fully protected by anti-discrimination law because they do not fit within a narrow biological definition of race that focused on color and bloodlines, yet they are considered an insider racial group in public policy debates about government benefits, immigration law, affirmative action, and other issues.120 The

Supreme Court has yet to recognize that culture biases and discrimination against Latinas/os based on language ability, presumed foreignness as non-citizens, and other experiences, are a form of racial discrimination.121 A key factor in discrimination that has been challenged by Latinas/os is related to Spanish language usage.122 However national origin protection under Title VII has not included language discrimination because language, as a changeable trait, is not considered an immutable characteristic 123 Recent challenges to English-only rules in places of employment have contested the idea that language usage is a choice and that an individual can choose to speak only one language when he or she is bilingual or multilingual.124