Will Malson Delta_FC 1NR Page 1 of 3

K – Environmental Racism (word count is 1265)

A. AT: K’s are bad

1. His first Bennet card spews hatred of kritiks with no policy application. But, there’s no link – I have a
competitive policy option.
a) I’ve shown you how the government specifically targets Native Americans for waste sites.
b) Subseabed disposal is the opposite.
c) My CP avoids the kritik in a fiat-based sense as well as on the pre-fiat spectrum – it avoids
racism in a post-fiat world.

2. The k could exist entirely post-fiat. Environmental racism is happening in the squo, and my
counterplan avoids that. That makes it net beneficial.

3. Environmental racism is a very controversial topic particularly with regards to nuclear power. Not
only is it predictable, but it’s also an issue you would have to deal with in the real world. It’s not like
Heidegger; no one in Congress debates whether or not they have managerial actions. But they do
examine environmental racism – there’s even a National Environmental Justice organization devoted to
fighting environmental racism. “Political action” is on my side, not his.

4. Turn: It’s normative thought that’s bad, not K’s: 3 reasons.

(1/3) Normative legal thought functions without real-world political application; solvency that
exists on the flow fails to translate to reality. Schlag 98
Pierre Schlag [Professor of Law @ Univ. Colorado, J.D., UCLA School of Law; B.A., Yale College], “Laying Down the Law: Mysticism, Fetishism, and the
American Legal Mind”, Pages 28-29, Chapter: “The Top 10”, Section: “#6. Post-Modernist Shadow Boxing”, Publisher: NYU Press, October 1, 1998,
ISBN-10: 0814780547, ISBN-13: 978-0814780541, italics in original (HEG)

normative legal thought is so much in a hurry that it will tell you what to do even though there is
In fact,
not the slightest chance that you might actually be in a position to do it. For instance, when was the last time you were in
a position to put John Rawls’s difference principle9 into effect, or to restructure the doctrinal corpus of the first amendment? “In the future we should . . .”
When wa the last time you were in a position to rule whether judges should become pragmatists, efficiency purveyors, civic republicans, or Hercules
surrogates? Normative legal thought doesn't seem overly concerned with such worldly questions about the character and the
effectiveness ofits own discourse. It just goes along and proposes, recommends, prescribes, solves, and
resolves. Yet despite its obvious desire to have worldly effects, worldly consequences, normative legal thought remains
seemingly unconcerned that for all practical purposes, its only consumers are legal academics and perhaps a
few law students -- persons who are virtually never in a position to put any of its wonderful normative advice
into effect. The possibility that a significant umber of judges might actually be reading significant quantities of this academic literature is
undemonstrated and unlikely. The further possibility that judges might actually be persuaded by this academic literature to adopt a position not their own is
even more undemonstrated and even more unlikely.10

(2/3) Normative legal thought desensitizes us to the suffering of others; this speculative mindset of
“fiat” only rewards oppression and suffering of others. Mitchell 98
Gordon R. Mitchell [Professor of Communications @ Univ. of Pittsburg. An NDT top speaker now coaches debate at the University of Pittsburgh],
“PEDAGOGICAL POSSIBILITIES FOR ARGUMENTATIVE AGENCY IN ACADEMIC DEBATE”, Page 3, Argumentation & Advocacy, Vol. 35 Issue 2,
Page 43, 1998 (HEG)

The sense of detachment associated with the spectator posture is highlighted during episodes of
alienation in which debaters cheer news of human suffering or misfortune. Instead of focusing on the
visceral negative responses to news accounts of human death and misery, debaters overcome with the competitive

“Where is the end? Where is the end. I am afraid that the world has neutralized our testimony so you
can't tell the difference between the world and the church.”
Will Malson Delta_FC 1NR Page 2 of 3

show a tendency to concentrate on the meanings that such evidence might hold
zeal of contest round competition
for the strength of their academic debate arguments. For example, news reports of mass starvation might
tidy up the "uniqueness of a disadvantage" or bolster the "inherency of an affirmative case" (in the technical
parlance of debate-speak). Murchland categorizes cultivation of this "spectator" mentality as one of the most politically debilitating failures of contemporary
education: "Educational institutions have failed even more grievously to provide the kind of civic forums we need. In fact, one could easily conclude that the
principle purposes of our schools is to deprive successor generations of their civic voice, to turn them into mute and uncomprehending spectators in the
drama of political life" (1991, p. 8).

(3/3) Normative discourse based on “fiat” desensitizes us to the suffering of others, perpetuates
cruelty and justifies violence against the other. Delgado 91
Richard Delgado [Professor of Law @ The University of Colorado, J.D. 1974, University of California, Berkeley (Boalt Hall)], “SYMPOSIUM: THE
CRITIQUE OF NORMATIVITY: ARTICLE: NORMS AND NORMAL SCIENCE: TOWARD A CRITIQUE OF NORMATIVITY IN LEGAL THOUGHT”,
Pages 7-8, Copyright (c) 1991 The Trustees of The University of Pennsylvania, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 139 U. Pa. L. Rev. 933, April 1991 (HEG)
But what is the cash value of all this priest-talk in the law reviews, in the classrooms of at least the "better" schools, and in the opinions of at least some
judges? Are normativos better than other people? Are we better off for engaging in normative talk, either as speakers or listeners? Pierre Schlag, for
example, has described normativity as a zero -- as a vacuous, self-referential system of talk, all [*954] form and no substance, meaning nothing, and about
itself. n82 This description may be too generous. Normativity may be more than a harmless tic prevalent only in certain circles. 1. Permission to Ignore
Suffering The history of organized religion shows that intense immersion in at least certain types of normative system is no guarantee against cruelty,
intolerance or superstition. n83 In modern times, social scientists have tried to find a correlation between religious belief and altruistic behavior. In most
studies, the correlation is nonexistent or negative. In one study, seminary students were observed as they walked past a well-dressed man lying moaning on
the sidewalk. n84 Most ignored the man, even though they had just heard a sermon about the Good Samaritan. The proportion who stopped to offer aid was
lower than that of passersby in general. The researchers, commenting on this and other studies of religion and helping behavior, hypothesized that religious
We
people feel less need to act because of a sense that they are "chosen" people. n85 I believe this anesthetizing effect extends beyond religion.
confront a starving beggar and immediately translate the concrete duty we feel into a normative
(i.e., abstract) question. And once we see the beggar's demand in general, systemic terms, it is easy for
us to pass him by without rendering aid. n86 Someone else, perhaps society (with my tax dollars), will take
care of that problem. Normativity thus enables us to ignore and smooth over the rough edges of
our world, to tune out or redefine what would otherwise make a claim on us. In the legal system, the clearest
[*955] examples of this are found in cases where the Supreme Court has been faced with subsistence claims. For example, in Lindsey v. Normet, n87 the
Supreme Court considered a claim that housing is such a basic necessity that it could only be denied or subordinated when a state is able to show a
"compelling interest." The Court summarily upheld Oregon's streamlined eviction procedure, rejecting in emphatic tones the idea that there is a
constitutional right to shelter or that "the Constitution . . . provide[s] judicial remedies for every social and economic ill." n88 In San Antonio Independent
School District v. Rodriguez, n89 the Court followed Lindsey in holding that Texas's unequal school finance scheme did not deny children in tax-poor
districts the right to an education. Again, the Court responded by shaming the attorneys and litigants who had brought the novel claim. It declined to apply
strict scrutiny, ridiculed the idea that money can be equated with a good education and held that the plaintiffs were complaining, at most, of a relative
deprivation. n90 In Dandridge v. Williams, n91 the Court also rejected, even more emphatically than it had before, the idea that subsistence -- here, welfare
-- is a constitutional right. In Dandridge, a number of families challenged a state rule that provided a decreasing schedule of welfare support for each person
beyond the initial beneficiary and a fixed increment for families larger than ten. The welfare recipients challenged these provisions as a violation of equal
protection. A district court agreed with them, but the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the state's fee schedule, although it discriminated against large
families, was a legitimate exercise of economic/social legislation and had to be sustained if it had any reasonable basis. n92 These cases are telling because
they forced the judiciary to confront the harsh reality that our competitive free-market system creates losers as well as winners. What obligation do the
winners have to the losers? The answer, so far has been "none." We owe the poor no legal obligation because the legislature did not think so; the poor are
unreasonable; they are not poor enough; and money might not solve their problem anyway (you know how they are). [*956] 2. Justifying Cruelty Toward
Others Not only does normativity help us justify indifference to others' needs, but we sometimes use
it to rationalize treatment of others that would otherwise be seen as injurious, if not downright
cruel. As I pointed out earlier, those in a position to dictate norms rarely, if ever, see their own favorite
forms of behavior as immoral. n93 Rather, we stigmatize the conduct of our enemies, people who are unlike us or do things we do not
like, for example, drug-taking or congregating on street corners. Then, when we punish offenders from the other ("criminal") (sub-)culture, we are able to
tell ourselves that imposing punishment is not only good for society, but good for the offender. n94 Judges write with blood, n95 but normativity is the
Even
filter that prevents us from seeing this. If focuses our attention on abstraction, when it is particularity and real-world detail that alone move us. n96
when we do not pronounce outgroups' behavior positively vicious, we may declare it lazy and
indolent, so as to justify our own aggressive behavior. Warfaring nations, for example, often gain
ascendancy over more peaceloving nations (e.g., Native Americans). The conquerors then decide it was
their own spiritual, aesthetic, and ethical superiority that enabled them to prevail, not their
superior weapons, numbers, or bloodthirst. n97 Often, they declare the conquered guilty of waste, of failure to use their own
resources to the best advantage (e.g., by not clear-cutting the land), so that the takeover was a moral duty. n98

“Where is the end? Where is the end. I am afraid that the world has neutralized our testimony so you
can't tell the difference between the world and the church.”
Will Malson Delta_FC 1NR Page 3 of 3

B. Links

1. Aff is complacent with the racism that is happening now. Instead of providing a policy option to avoid
this controversial issue (inherently part of the nuclear power debate in the real world), he does nothing.

2. Yucca directly affects Native Americans. NCAI 2k

Comments of the National Congress of American Indians on the Department of Energy Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain,
Nevada Test Site, February 28, 2000, http://www.ncai.org/ncai/advocacy/nr/docs/NCAIYuccaMtncomments.htm (HEG)

Introduction The National Congress of American Indians submits the following policy and procedural
issues that are among the many concerns of tribal governments in evaluating the Department of Energy (DOE) Office
of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management's (OCRWM) for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for a geologic repository for the
disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada Test Site. Comments 1.
The impacts of this federal action upon indigenous peoples, lands, and resources is critical to the human
rights of the people to reside in their homelands. The NCAI does not believe that the impacted tribal
governments of this federal action have had an ample opportunity to analyze and respond to the full
inventory of technical studies performed at Yucca Mountain. This is not to say they have not received notice of the studies
and progress reports done during the site characterization. Without exception, tribal governments in the Yucca Mountain region have not had the luxury of
acquiring a team of technical experts to assess the data and conclusions. The DOE is well aware of the fiscal barriers which prevents tribes from assembling
a research team. The NCAI believes the DOE has a fiduciary responsibility to provide the Yucca Mountain area tribes with resources that would enable them
to respond to the Draft EIS.

3. He didn’t refute my 1NC links – that means Native Americans are specifically targeted to host waste
dumping sites. Conceded; don’t let him contest this later.

C. Impacts

1. Both of my impacts were dropped. That means if I win the link, the impacts, whether pre-fiat or post-
fiat, come about, no question.

2. Use a sharpie and put them on your flow:

a) Natives are dooped into accepting waste for racist reason – the government promotes Indian
sovereignty in an attempt to engage in environmental racism.
b) Forcing Indians to accept waste allows the rich to wipe their hands clean while genocide is
ongoing.
D. Alt

1. False. Cross-apply my responses of my CP above: this kind of racism is inherent in aff plan, but not in
my counterplan. I could claim kritikal advantages off of this. (oh wait, I just did.)

“Where is the end? Where is the end. I am afraid that the world has neutralized our testimony so you
can't tell the difference between the world and the church.”