Framework

The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater that presents the best policy option key to out of
round advocacy skills which can retake the ceded political.
Nixon 2K (Themba-Nixon, Makani. Executive Director of The Praxis Project, a nonprofit organization
helping communities use media and policy advocacy to advance health equity and justice,
Changing the Rules: What Public Policy Means for Organizing Colorlines 3.2, 2000) WW JA
1/15/16
This is all about policy," a woman complained to me in a recent conversation. "I'm an
organizer." The flourish and passion with which she made the distinction said everything. Policy is
for wonks, sell-out politicians, and ivory-tower eggheads. Organizing is what real, grassroots people
do. Common as it may be, this distinction doesn't bear out in the real world. Policy is more than law.
It is any written agreement (formal or informal) that specifies how an institution, governing body, or
community will address shared problems or attain shared goals. It spells out the terms and the
consequences of these agreements and is the codification of the body's values-as represented by
those present in the policymaking process. Given who's usually present, most policies reflect the
political agenda of powerful elites. Yet, policy can be a force for change-especially when we bring
our base and community organizing into the process. In essence, policies are the codification of
power relationships and resource allocation. Policies are the rules of the world we live in. Changing
the world means changing the rules. So, if organizing is about changing the rules and building
power, how can organizing be separated from policies? Can we really speak truth to power, fight the
right, stop corporate abuses, or win racial justice without contesting the rules and the rulers, the
policies and the policymakers? The answer is no-and double no for people of color. Today, racism
subtly dominates nearly every aspect of policymaking. From ballot propositions to city funding
priorities, policy is increasingly about the control, de-funding, and disfranchisement of communities
of color. Take the public conversation about welfare reform, for example. Most of us know it isn't
really about putting people to work. The right's message was framed around racial stereotypes of
lazy, cheating "welfare queens" whose poverty was "cultural." But the new welfare policy was about
moving billions of dollars in individual cash payments and direct services from welfare recipients to
other, more powerful, social actors. Many of us were too busy to tune into the welfare policy drama
in Washington, only to find it washed up right on our doorsteps. Our members are suffering from
workfare policies, new regulations, and cutoffs. Families who were barely getting by under the old
rules are being pushed over the edge by the new policies. Policy doesn't get more relevant than this.
And so we got involved in policy-as defense. Yet we have to do more than block their punches. We
have to start the fight with initiatives of our own. Those who do are finding offense a bit more fun
than defense alone. Living wage ordinances, youth development initiatives, even gun control and
alcohol and tobacco policies are finding their way onto the public agenda, thanks to focused
community organizing that leverages power for community-driven initiatives. - Over 600 local
policies have been passed to regulate the tobacco industry. Local coalitions have taken the lead by
writing ordinances that address local problems and organizing broad support for them. - Nearly 100
gun control and violence prevention policies have been enacted since 1991. - Milwaukee, Boston,
and Oakland are among the cities that have passed living wage ordinances: local laws that
guarantee higher than minimum wages for workers, usually set as the minimum needed to keep a
family of four above poverty. These are just a few of the examples that demonstrate how organizing
for local policy advocacy has made inroads in areas where positive national policy had been stalled
by conservatives. Increasingly, the local policy arena is where the action is and where activists are
finding success. Of course, corporate interests-which are usually the target of these policies-are
gearing up in defense. Tactics include front groups, economic pressure, and the tried and true: cold,
hard cash. Despite these barriers, grassroots organizing can be very effective at the smaller scale
of local politics. At the local level, we have greater access to elected officials and officials have a
greater reliance on their constituents for reelection. For example, getting 400 people to show up at
city hall in just about any city in the U.S. is quite impressive. On the other hand, 400 people at the
state house or the Congress would have a less significant impact. Add to that the fact that all 400
people at city hall are usually constituents, and the impact is even greater. Recent trends in
government underscore the importance of local policy. Congress has enacted a series of measures
devolving significant power to state and local government. Welfare, health care, and the regulation of
food and drinking water safety are among the areas where states and localities now have greater
rule. Devolution has some negative consequences to be sure. History has taught us that, for social
services and civil rights in particular, the lack of clear federal standards and mechanisms for
accountability lead to uneven enforcement and even discriminatory implementation of policies. Still,
there are real opportunities for advancing progressive initiatives in this more localized environment.
Greater local control can mean greater community power to shape and implement important social
policies that were heretofore out of reach. To do so will require careful attention to the mechanics of
local policymaking and a clear blueprint of what we stand for. Much of the work of framing what we
stand for takes place in the shaping of demands Getting It in Writing Much of the work of framing
what we stand for takes place in the shaping of demands. By getting into the policy arena in a
proactive manner, we can take our demands to the next level. Our demands can become law, with
real consequences if the agreement is broken. After all the organizing, press work, and effort, a
group should leave a decisionmaker with more than a handshake and his or her word. Of course,
this work requires a certain amount of interaction with "the suits," as well as struggles with the
bureaucracy, the technical language, and the all-too-common resistance by decisionmakers. Still, if
it's worth demanding, it's worth having in writing-whether as law, regulation, or internal policy. From
ballot initiatives on rent control to laws requiring worker protections, organizers are leveraging their
power into written policies that are making a real difference in their communities. Of course, policy
work is just one tool in our organizing arsenal, but it is a tool we simply can't afford to ignore. Making
policy work an integral part of organizing will require a certain amount of retrofitting. We will need to
develop the capacity to translate our information, data, stories that are designed to affect the public
conversation. Perhaps most important, we will need to move beyond fighting problems and on to
framing solutions that bring us closer to our vision of how things should be. And then we must be
committed to making it so.
The standard is combatting structural violence epistemologically precedes normative ethics.
Young 74. Iris Marion Young, Professor in Political Science at the University of Chicago since 2000,
masters and doctorate in philosophy in 1974 from Pennsylvania State University. Justice and the
Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press, 1990, Digital Copy.
Group representation, third, encourages the expression of individual and group needs and interests
in terms that appeal to justice, that transform an "I want" into an "I am entitled to," in Hannah Pitkin's
words. In Chapter 4 I argued that publicity itself encourages this transformation because a
condition of the public is that people call one another to account. Group representation adds to such
accountability because it serves as an antidote to self-deceiving self-interest masked as an impartial
or general interest. Unless confronted with different perspectives on social relations and events,
different values and language, most people tend to assert their perspective as universal. When
social privilege allows some group perspectives to dominate a public while others are silent, such
universalizing of the particular will be reaffirmed by many others. Thus the test of whether a claim
upon the public is just or merely an expression of self interest is best made when those making it
must confront the opinion of others who have explicitly with different, though not necessarily
conflicting, experiences, priorities, and needs (cf. Sunstein, 1988, p. 1588). As a person of social
privilege, I am more likely to go outside myself and have regard for social justice when I must listen
to the voice of those my privilege otherwise tends to silence.
Prefer consequence-based frameworks:
1. Intent and means-based frameworks reflect privilege and decenter oppressed voices
Utt 13. Jamie Utt is a writer and a diversity and inclusion consultant and sexual violence
prevention educator, Intent vs. Impact: Why Your Intentions Dont Really Matter, July 30,
2013
Imagine for a moment that youre standing with your friends in a park, enjoying a nice
summer day. You dont know me, but I walk right up to you holding a Frisbee. I wind up
and throw the disc right into your face. Understandably, you are indignant. Through a bloody
nose, you use a few choice words to ask me what the hell I thought I was doing. And my
response? Oh, I didnt mean to hit you! That was never my intent! I was simply trying to
throw the Frisbee to my friend over there! Visibly upset, you demand an apology. But I
refuse. Or worse, I offer an apology that sounds like Im sorry your face got in the way of my
Frisbee! I never intended to hit you. Sound absurd? Sound infuriating enough to give me a
well-deserved Frisbee upside the head? Yeah. So why is this same thing happening all of
the time when it comes to the intersection of our identities and oppressions or privileges?
Intent v. Impact From Paula Deen to Alec Baldwin to your annoying, bigoted uncle or friend,
we hear it over and over again: I never meant any harm It was never my intent I am
not a racist I am not a homophobe Im not a sexist I cannot tell you how often Ive
seen people attempt to deflect criticism about their oppressive language or actions by
making the conversation about their intent. At what point does the intent conversation stop
mattering so that we can step back and look at impact? After all, in the end, what does the
intent of our action really matter if our actions have the impact of furthering the
marginalization or oppression of those around us? In some ways, this is a simple lesson of
relationships. If I say something that hurts my partner, it doesnt much matter whether I
intended the statement to mean something else because my partner is hurting. I need to
listen to how my language hurt my partner. I need to apologize. And then I need to reflect
and empathize to the best of my ability so I dont do it again. But when were dealing with the
ways in which our identities intersect with those around us and, in turn, the ways our
privileges and our experiences of marginalization and oppression intersect this lesson
becomes something much larger and more profound. This becomes a lesson of justice. What
we need to realize is that when it comes to peoples lives and identities, the impact of our
actions can be profound and wide-reaching. And thats far more important than the question
of our intent. We need to ask ourselves what might be or might have been the impact of our
actions or words. And we need to step back and listen when we are being told that the
impact of our actions is out of step with our intents or our perceptions of self. Identity
Privilege and Intent For people of identity privilege, this is where listening becomes vitally
important, for our privilege can often shield us from understanding the impact of our actions.
After all, as a person of privilege, I can never fully understand the ways in which oppressive
acts or language impact those around me. What I surely can do is listen with every intent to
understand, and I can work to change my behavior. Because what we need to understand is
that making the conversation about intent is inherently a privileged action. The reason? It
ensures that you and your identity (and intent) stay at the center of any conversation and
action while the impact of your action or words on those around you is marginalized. So, if
someone ever tells you to check your privilege, what they may very well mean is: Stop
centering your experience and identity in the conversation by making this about the intent of
your actions instead of their impact. That is: Not everything is about you. What They Did
vs. What They Are The incredible Ill Doctrine puts it well when he explains the difference
between the What They Did conversation and the What They Are conversation, which you
can watch here. In essence, the intent conversation is one about what they are. Because
if someone intended their action to be hurtful and racist/sexist/transphobic/pickyourpoison,
then they must inherently be racist/sexist/transphobic/pickyourpoison. On the other hand, the
impact conversation is one about what they did. For you, it takes the person who said or
did the hurtful thing out of the center and places the person who was hurt in the center. It
ensures that the conversation is about how what they did hurts other people and further
marginalizes or oppresses people. And its important for people to understand the difference.
Just because you did something sexist doesnt mean that you are sexist. Just because you
said something racist doesnt mean that you are racist. When your actions are called into
question, its important to recognize that thats all that is being called into question your
actions, not your overall character. Listen. Reflect. Apologize. Do Better. It doesnt matter
whether we, deep down, believe ourselves to be -ist or whether we intended our actions to
be hurtful or _-ist. It. Doesnt. Matter. If the impact of our actions is the furthering of
oppression, then thats all that matters. So we need to listen, reflect, apologize, and work to
do better in the future. What does that look like? Well, to start, we can actually apologize. I
dont know about you, but I am sick of hearing the I am sorry your face got in the way of my
Frisbee! I never intended to hit you apologies. Whether its Paula Deen weeping on TV or
Alec Baldwin asking us to simply trust that hes not a homophobe, those are not apologies.
Thats why I was incredibly inspired and relieved to see a major organization do it well when
Kickstarter apologized and took full responsibility for their role in funding a creepy, rapey
seduction guide. They apologized earnestly and accepted the role they played in something
really terrible. hey pledged to never allow projects like this one to be funded in the future.
And then they donated $25,000 to RAINN. At the interpersonal level, we can take a cue from
Kickstarter. When we are told that the impact of our action, inaction, or words is hurtful and
furthers oppression, we can start by apologizing without any caveats. From there, we can
spend the time to reflect in hopes of gaining at least some understanding (however marginal)
of the harmful impact. And we can do our best to move forward by acting more accountably.
2. Intentions and states of being are non-falsifiable and can only be informed by hypothetical
consequences
3. Life is a prerequisite to moral agency and freedom justifies exceptions to their
hyperindividualistic ethics.
4. Material solutions are key abstraction reifies oppression.
Matsuda 89. Mari Matsuda, Associate Professor of Law, University of Hawaii, When the
First Quail Calls: Multiple Consciousness as Jurisprudential Method, 11 Womxn's Rts. L.
Rep. 1989
Abstraction and detachment are ways out of the discomfort of direct confrontation with the
ugliness of oppression. Abstraction, criticized by both feminists and scholars of color, is the,
method that allows theorists to discuss liberty, property, and rights in the aspirational mode
of liberalism with no connection to what those concepts mean in real people's lives. Much in
our mainstream intellectual training values abstraction and denigrates nitty-gritty detail.
Holding on to a multiple consciousness will allow us to op- erate both within the abstractions
of standard jurisprudential discourse, and within the details of our own special knowledge.
Whisperings at Yale and elsewhere about how deconstructionist heroes were closet fascists
remind me of how important it is to stay close to oppressed communities. High talk about
language, meaning, sign, process, and law can mask racist and sexist ugliness if we never
stop to ask: "Exactly what are you talking about and what is the implication of what you are
saying for my sister who is carrying buckets of water up five flights of stairs in a welfare
hotel? What do you propose to do for her today, not in some abstract future you are creating
in your mind?" If you have been made to feel, as I have, that such inquiry is theoretically
unsophisticated, and quaintly naive, resist! Read what Professor Williams, Professor
Scalesx-Trent, and other feminists and people of color are writing.' The reality and detail of
oppression are a starting point for these writers as they enter into mainstream debates about
law and theory.