Starter Pack - Opening Discussion Will repko – Michigan State University

… but, wait… Kirby is confused

Opening thoughts: The Opening Starter back can be confusing. The goal of this discussion is to boost your familiarity for practice speeches. To this end: Feel free to ask questions – I won’t feel like you are interrupting. In fact, your questions are the whole point. If there’s something that confuses you in the starter pack, it’s very likely to be something that others have questions about as well. So, ask.

TLDR Version – Four Key Concepts: Here’s an explanation of the Packet Aff in four TLDR statements:

Key Concept #1 Concept #1– Understanding the “status quo” (the current system) Currently, trans- students aren’t guaranteed access to bathrooms that corresponds with the gender identity. Some schools require trans- students use a bathroom that corresponds with the sex they were assigned at birth.

Key Concept #2 Concept #2 - Understanding what the Aff plan does: The Affirmative plan has the Supreme Court require schools provide bathroom access that corresponds with gender identity (instead of sex assigned at birth). Here, the Affirmative can claim an advantage about how it is bad to discriminate against those that identity as trans- .

Key Concept #3 Concept # 3 - Understanding “Precedents” and “Deference”: By ruling in favor of trans- students, the Affirmative would also be ruling against a legal concept called “judicial deference”. Judicial deference says Courts shouldn’t tell US Agencies (like the EPA or The US Dept of Education) that they are wrong. Ruling against judicial deference could have many upsides that are unrelated to the trans- bathroom question.

Key Concept #4 Concept #4 – Understanding “Excess State Flex”: Ruling in favor of trans- bathroom access might also stop a trend toward “excessive state flexibility”. The Affirmative can argue that if State Governments are given the right to prohibit trans- restroom access, they might also start to roll-back other civil rights. This might include anti-discrimination protections that are unrelated to trans- justice – like anti-discrimination laws on racism, sexual orientation, etc.

Concept #1 – Explaining the Status Quo

A few Court cases involving trans- students: Whitaker v. Kenosha unified school district – out of Wisconsin. Here. The 7th Circuit (Federal Circuit) ruled in favor of the trans- student. Evancho v. Pine-Richland School District - out of Pennsylvania…. Here, a District court ruled in favor of a trans- student. Gloucester County School Board v. G.G. (Gavin Grimm) – in the 4th Circuit (Virginia).

How Federal Courts Work: District Courts… Then Federal Circuit Courts How Federal Courts Work: District Courts… Then Federal Circuit Courts.. Then “SCOTUS”.

Gavin Grimm’s winding legal road: Step One – The Gloucester County School Board says Grimm cannot use the bathroom that corresponds to his gender identity (can’t use the boys room – and instead uses the bathroom used by the high school’s nurse) Step Two – Grimm makes a legal appeal – and loses in district court. Step Three – Grimm makes another appeal – and wins in Federal Circuit Court Step Four - Gloucester County School Board appeals to SCOTUS. And they accept. … but wait – there’s more:

Concept #2 – What the Aff plan does

How this Supreme Court Decision might work : What they would rule: On what basis might they rule (the “grounds” for the decision) : Equal Protection – 14th Amendment Language:

Suppose the Spartan Debate Institute has the following policy: "The SDI has zero-tolerance for sex discrimination" Take a second and think about whether these examples violate that policy: #1 - Maggie gets fired - and the stated reason is because she is wearing a red shirt. # 2 - Maggie gets fired - and the stated reason is that "she should dress differently and conduct herself in a manner that is more classically "feminine".

About Title IX The difference between “biological sex” and “gender” The word “sex discrimination”… and does it apply to “gender” ?...

Concept #3– Understanding “Precedents” and “Deference”

Consider another hypothetical : The Principal at your school has the final say on changes to school policy. The principal at your school has previous statement (a “precedent”). It says: School policy won’t change unless Teachers, students and parents can agree. In instances where there is a conflict, the principal will “defer” to teachers – but only on matters that involve teacher-expertise on questions of learning. Now suppose that some teachers at your school desperately want to shift the lunch break. Instead of it going from 11:15am – Noon, they want it to go from 9:45am – 10:15am. Parents and students strongly object. What might the teachers do if they wanted to get their way ?...

The branches of government

About the Executive Branch Where the agencies are

About the Legislative Branch : Filibuster and the US Senate The “60 vote” threshold. Trump doesn’t have 60 votes in the US Senate Obama didn’t have 60 votes in the US Senate for most of his time in office.

What the Obama-era Agencies Said about “sex discrimination”:

What the new Trump Agencies said about “sex discrimination and trans- restrooms : The State’s Rights rationale:

So… Back to Gavin Grimm Gavin Grimm won the right to use the boys room BECAUSE the Obama Administration (and their *agencies* like the Dept of Education) said: “not letting trans- students use the bathroom that corresponds ot their gender identity is SEX DISCRIMINATION” Gavin Grimm then lost the right to use the boys room BECAUSE the Trump administration said: “this is an issue of State’s Rights”

Agency Deference - explained

Concept #4 - “Excess State Flex” - explained

5th Concept – The Negative arguments

Negative case arguments: Social Trends Target Stores Does anti-discrimination law work and the Trans- Pessimism Kritk

Federalism - explained

Topicality Issues

Additional Negative arguments

Where to go from here: Get lunch – you should really eat lunch Eat with someone you don’t know. Lab starts at 1:30pm