Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[7]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[9]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[7]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-02-19 00:25:59.19
	1	+2017-02-19 00:25:59.0

Caselist.CitesClass[9]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,23 @@
	1	+Federal government funding is continuing to grow – there has been a steady increase over 15 years Camera, MA, 16
	2	+Lauren Camera, Education Reporter, 1-14-2016, "Federal Education Funding: Where Does the Money Go?," US News and World Report, http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2016/01/14/federal-education-funding-where-does-the-money-go VC
	3	+Government spending on education has surged over the last decade and a half, with money being funneled to federal programs for low-income students, students with disabilities and a slate of competitions that the Obama administration launched through the economic stimulus package. Since 2002, federal funding for education has increased by 36 percent, from $50 billion to $68 billion, according to an analysis by the Committee for Education Funding, a District of Columbia-based advocacy organization. It peaked in 2009 at $97 million, thanks to an injection of dollars from the economic stimulus, most of which went to staving off teacher layoffs. Total ED Discretionary Funding COMMITTEE FOR EDUCATION FUNDING By far, the biggest amount of federal education dollars goes toward funding the Pell Grant program, a tuition assistance initiative for low-income students. In fiscal 2016, the government is spending $22 billion to fund Pell Grants, twice what was spent in 2002, when the program garnered a little more than $11 billion. READ: Achievement Gap Between White and Black Students Still Gaping The explosion in the tuition assistance program was a result of more people qualifying for the grant, in part because of the Great Recession and in part because the Obama administration lowered the income threshold to qualify. Pell Grants-Discretionary Appropriation COMMITTEE FOR EDUCATION FUNDING The next-largest slice of overall education spending is going toward a grant program for school districts with large numbers of low-income students, known as Title I. Funding for the program also saw a big increase since 2002, going from $10.4 billion to $14.9 billion this year, an increase of 43 percent.
	4	+Previous rulings prove that speech codes are key to federal funding
	5	+Bernstein, MA, 03
	6	+David E. Bernstein, 8-27-2003, "Federal Ruling May Mark End of Speech Codes at Public Universities," Cato Institute, https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/federal-ruling-may-mark-end-speech-codes-public-universities VC
	7	+That ruling was made after male students at Santa Rosa Community College had posted explicit and sexually derogatory remarks about two female students on a discussion group hosted by the college’s computer network. Several aggrieved students filed a complaint against the college with the OCR. It found that the messages probably created a hostile educational environment on the basis of sex for one of the students. The college’s toleration of such offensive speech, the government said, would violate Title IX, the law banning discrimination against women by educational institutions that receive federal funding. To avoid losing federal funds, universities across-the-board were required to proactively ban offensive speech by students and diligently punish any violations of that ban. The OCR failed to explain how its rule complied with the First Amendment. Speech codes enacted by public universities clearly violate the First Amendment, even if the codes are enacted in response to the demands of the OCR. So, requiring public universities to enact speech codes or forfeit public funds is obviously unconstitutional. Nevertheless, public university officials ignored the First Amendment and enacted (or retained) speech codes in compliance with the OCR guidelines. While a few schools may have been truly concerned about the potential loss of federal funding, the prevailing attitude among university officials seemed to be that the OCR’s Santa Rosa decision provided a ready excuse to indulge their preference for speech codes. Indeed, some universities enacted speech codes so broad that, when taken literally, they are absurd. The University of Maryland’s sexual harassment policy, for example , bans “idle chatter of a sexual nature, sexual innuendoes, comments about a person’s clothing, body, and/or sexual activities, comments of a sexual nature about weight, body shape, size, or figure, and comments or questions about the sensuality of a person.” So, at the University of Maryland, saying “I like your shirt, Brenda” has been a punishable instance of sexual harassment. Further, under Maryland’s code the prohibited speech need not address an individual to constitute harassment — saying “I really like men who wear bow ties” is out of bounds, at least if a man who wears bow ties hears about it. Moreover, public university censorship has extended well beyond sex discrimination issues. Federal law also bans discrimination in education based on race, religion, veteran status, and other criteria, and universities argued that they needed to censor speech to prevent a hostile environment for groups protected by those laws. The Santa Rosa case affected private universities, too. Unlike public universities, private universities have the right to enact and enforce voluntary speech codes. However, the First Amendment prohibits the government from requiring private universities to administer speech codes. Nevertheless, based on the Santa Rosa ruling, the government threatened to strip private universities of federal funding if they didn’t enforce speech restrictions to ensure that their students are not exposed to a “hostile environment.”
	8	+
	9	+
	10	+Federal funding is necessary for the success of universities and for future initiatives. Yudof 10
	11	+Yudof, Mark G. Former pres of UC Exploring a new role for federal government in higher education. University of California, Office of the President, 2010.
	12	+The scale of the mission and demands of the moment call out for an integrated national¶ strategy. It must be one that provides the institutions of higher education with a more reliable¶ funding stream — a prerequisite for educating more students and expanding the research that¶ will see us through the 21st century.¶ Some background is in order. The old model for higher education — in particular as it pertains¶ to public research universities — is being steadily abandoned. For a host of political and societal¶ reasons, states now find themselves with shrinking pools of funds available for so-called discretionary¶ programs. This includes higher education.¶ The trend in part is a byproduct of mounting levels of mandatory spending, most notably¶ Medicaid. According to the authors of “The Growing Imbalance: Recent Trends in U.S. Postsecondary¶ Education Finance,” between 1987 and 2006 Medicaid nationwide more than doubled¶ its share of state budget expenditures, from 10.2 percent to 21.5 percent.¶ Within the same window of time, support for higher learning across the country fell from¶ 12.3 percent of state budgets to 10.4 percent; in California the drop was even more dramatic,¶ from 15.2 percent to 11.5 percent, according to numbers drawn from the National Association¶ of State Budget Officers’ State Expenditure Reports.¶ Inevitably, as states have ratcheted down their investment in higher education, students have¶ been required to pick up an increasingly larger portion of the check. The oft-lamented increases¶ in tuition and fees link directly to dwindling state investment — and not to increases in the¶ actual cost of educating a student, a figure which has been essentially flat.¶ From 1998 to 2005, according to the Delta Cost Project (DCP), educational spending for a fulltime-equivalent¶ student, adjusted for inflation, rose by only two-tenths of 1 percent at public¶ research institutions. And yet, strikingly, tuition rose by more than one-third, 34.6 percent. These¶ higher bills paid by students, the DCP investigators noted, “primarily replaced lost state appropriations.”¶ The crunch placed on students is not unlike what befalls workers when their employers switch¶ to less-generous health plans. The cost of producing a prescription drug might stay the same,¶ but the patient’s co-payment goes up. That’s what is happening to American university students,¶ and it appears to be having an impact on enrollment.¶ The United States once led the world in the proportion of 20–29 year olds who were college educated.¶ It now ranks 14th.¶ The Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU) estimates that the production of¶ bachelor and associate degrees in this country would need to increase from 2.1 million in 2007-¶ 08 to 3 million in 2025 in order to match the proportion of young adults (25 to 34 years old)¶ with similar degrees in Canada and Japan. Those two countries stand as world leaders, with about 55 percent of their young adults earning¶ college degrees. The rate in the United States lags at 41.6 percent. For the country to catch up by¶ 2025, the APLU estimates, undergraduate enrollment must grow by about 42 percent, climbing¶ in less than two decades from 8.9 million FTE students to 12.6 million. An expansion of this scale¶ would require an additional $40.2 billion in higher education spending. To apply perspective,¶ that’s an increase of more than half of the $77 billion investment in higher learning made by all¶ states combined in 2006.¶ The sad irony is that this country was once considered the world leader in the development of¶ higher education. In California, we pioneered the model of state-funded, accessible, excellent¶ education for all eligible citizens, an approach which the Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Singapore¶ and many other nations are now trying to emulate even as we walk away from it.¶ Let’s linger for a moment on what the Republic of Korea has been doing. Since the mid-1990s,¶ the Korean government has shifted its national priorities to improve and diversify universities.¶ For instance, in 2009 alone, according to the Korean Ministry of Education, Science and Technology¶ (MEST), it will allocate 5.2 trillion won (approximately $4.1 billion) for higher education¶ funding — an increase of 14.2 percent over the previous year. Last year the Republic of Korea¶ launched an Educational Capacity Enhancement Project, which through grants seeks to ensure¶ that campuses can meet industrial demands for a high quality work force. And its Brain Korea 21¶ Project, instituted in the late 1990s, continues to pursue improvements in research infrastructure¶ and graduate-level training.¶ Contrast this push to the conclusions in a recent McKinsey and Co. report, “The Economic Impact¶ of the Achievement Gap in America’s Schools,” which described the true cost of the United¶ States’ under-investing in human capital as “lower earnings, poorer health and higher rates of¶ incarceration.”¶ The educational gaps between the United States and competing industrial nations, the study¶ found, “impose the equivalent of a permanent national recession…. The gross domestic product¶ in 2008 could have been $1.3 to $2.3 trillion higher (9 percent to 16 percent of GDP)” if the nation’s¶ academic achievement levels were equal to those of Finland or South Korea.¶ Robert Reich, former U.S. secretary of labor and current UC Berkeley professor, makes a¶ compelling argument that to attract jobs and capital, nations and states face two, quite different¶ choices: Build a low-tax, low-wage, highly deregulated economy (i.e., a smokestack, warehouse¶ economy); or, levy higher taxes and impose more regulation, but invest in the human capital¶ development necessary to sustain a highly productive labor force.¶ “The only resource uniquely rooted in a national economy,” Reich says, “is its people — their¶ skills, insights, capacities to collaborate, and the transportation and communication systems that¶ link them together. Public investment is the key to attracting long-term private investment so¶ that a nation’s people can prosper.”¶ At present, though, America finds itself playing catch-up. There are needs on many fronts.¶ Pinpointing one key competitive indicator, the Lumina Foundation for Education has adopted a¶ “Big Goal” to increase the percentage of Americans with quality two- or four-year degrees to¶ 60 percent by 2025. Similarly, a recent study by the Public Policy Institute of California projects a shortage of 1 million¶ college graduates that will be needed to maintain the state’s 2025 work force. Unless policy changes¶ are made, only 35 of working-age adults in that year will hold a four-year degree, while 41 percent¶ of the jobs will require one.¶ Opening the tap to create more college graduates, however, is not a simple task. Among other¶ enhancements, it will require more qualified faculty, which in turn will trigger a need for more¶ graduate students. The growing demand for the research that is the province of our great¶ universities also will not be easily met. But it must.¶ Virtually all the research conducted by industrial research laboratories in the 1960s now takes¶ place at major universities. As John Wiley, chancellor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin, has¶ observed: “The future technologies our economy will depend on are being born in our university¶ research labs.”¶ In a draft paper entitled “Expanding Undergraduate Education to Meet National Goals: The Role¶ of Research Universities,” the APLU echoes Wiley’s assessment and asserts that public research¶ universities in particular must lead the charge to expand capacity for learning: “The areas of¶ study they offer correspond with national needs… including over half of all U.S. bachelor’s degrees¶ in natural resources, conservation and engineering.”¶ The APLU paper notes that public research universities also are a main pathway of opportunity¶ for low-income and minority students. In 2006, the last year measured in its study, more than¶ 26 percent of students enrolled at public research institutions received Pell grants, compared to¶ 15 percent at private research universities.¶ This leads to a larger point. The nation’s interest in quality higher education is not limited to¶ defense, economics and technology. It resides as well in the softer qualities that are engrained and¶ absorbed on a campus, traits necessary to preserve and nourish a great society — opportunity,¶ diversity, citizenship, a cultivated fascination with the march of ideas, an appreciation for the grace¶ notes of life, like a fine painting or a subtle poem.
	13	+
	14	+Insert turns the case arg
	15	+
	16	+Education is key to US Soft power. Nye 05
	17	+Joseph Nye, Joseph Nye is University Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University and served as dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government there from 1995 to 2004. Nye also has served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs and chair of the National Intel- ligence Council. His most recent books include Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (2004), an antholo- gy, Power in the Global Information Age (2004), and a novel, The Power Game: A Washington Novel (2004). 2005, "Soft Power and Higher Education" https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp0502s.pdf MG
	18	+Colleges and universities can help raise the level of discussion and advance American foreign policy by cultivating a better understanding of power and how the world has changed in important ways over the last 20 to 30 years. We can work to instill in our students and in the broader pub- lic a better appreciation of both the realities of our inter- connected global society and the conceptual framework that must be understood to successfully navigate the new landscape we face. Many observers agree that American higher education produces significant soft power for the United States. Sec- retary of State Colin Powell, for example, said in 2001: “I can think of no more valuable asset to our country than the friendship of future world leaders who have been educated here.” The Cold War was fought with a combination of hard and soft power. Academic and cultural exchanges between the United States and the Soviet Union, starting in the 1950s, played a significant role in enhancing American soft power. American skep- tics at the time feared that visiting Sovi- et scientists and KGB agents would “steal us blind”; they failed to notice, however, that the visitors vacuumed along with the scientific secrets. Because exchanges affect elites, one or two key contacts may have a major political effect. For example, Aleksandr Yakovlev was strongly influ- enced by his studies with the political scientist David Tru- man at Columbia University in 1958. Yakovlev eventually went on to become the head of an important institute, a Politburo member, and a key liberalizing influence on the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. From 1958 to 1988, 50,000 Russians visited the Unit-ed States as part of formal exchange programs. Contrast that to today, when restrictive visa policies have caused a precipitous drop in applications from foreign students to study in the United States. The long-term implications are that talented foreign students seeking a quality higher education will go elsewhere, and thus America will lose the opportunity to both influence and learn from foreign students. This will diminish American’s awareness of cultural differences precisely when we must become less parochial and more sensitive to foreign perceptions. Higher education leaders need to continue to press for less restrictive student visa policies and for more expeditious handling of visa requests. Further, colleges and universities can assess their internal policies concerning foreign enrollment and evaluate whether that enrollment is high enough to meet the needs of our glob- al society. Conclusion The U.S. government invests a little over a billion dollars a year on soft power, including the State Depart- ment’s public diplomacy programs and U.S. international broadcasting. The nation’s defense budget is over $400 billion a year and rising. Thus, we are spending approxi- mately .25 percent of the military budget on soft power, or, put another way, 400 to 450 times more on hard power than on soft power. Americans—and others—face an unprecedented challenge from the dark side of globalization and the priva- tization of war that have accompanied new technologies. Our success in this changed world will depend upon developing a deeper understanding of the nature of power and the role of soft power, and achieving a better balance of hard and soft power in our foreign policy. Smart power is neither hard nor soft. It is both.
	19	+
	20	+Soft Power solves multiple extinction scenarios. Nye 07
	21	+Nye and Armitage, 2007 − Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University and President of Armitage International
	22	+(Joseph and Richard, *Note: Report was in collaboration with about 50 other congressmen, “CCIS Commission of Smart Power – A Smarter, more Secure America”, http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/071106_csissmartpowerreport.pdf)
	23	+Today’s Challenges The twenty-first century presents a number of unique foreign policy challenges for today’s decisionmakers. These challenges exist at an international, transnational, and global level. Despite America’s status as the lone global power, the durability of the current international order is uncertain. America must help find a way for today’s norms and institutions to accommodate rising powers that may hold a different set of principles and values. Furthermore, countries invested in the current order may waiver in their commitment to take action to minimize the threats posed by violent non-state actors and regional powers who challenge this order. The information age has heightened political consciousness, but also made political groupings less cohesive. Small, adaptable, transnational networks have access to tools of destruction that are increasingly cheap, easy to conceal, and more readily available. Although the integration of the global economy has brought tremendous benefits, vectors of prosperity have also become vectors of instability. Threats such as pandemic disease and the collapse of financial markets are more distributed and more likely to arise without warning. The threat of widespread physical harm to the planet posed by nuclear catastrophe has existed for half a century, though the realization of the threat will become more likely as the number of nuclear weapons states increases. The potential security challenges posed by climate change raise the possibility of an entirely new set of threats for the United States to consider. The next administration will need a strategy that speaks to each of these challenges. Whatever specific approach it decides to take, two principles will be certain: First, an extra dollar spent on hard power will not necessarily bring an extra dollar’s worth of security. It is difficult to know how to invest wisely when there is not a budget based on a strategy that specifies trade-offs among instruments. Moreover, hard power capabilities are a necessary but insufficient guarantee of security in today’s context. Second, success and failure will turn on the ability to win new allies and strengthen old ones both in government and civil society. The key is not how many enemies the United States kills, but how many allies it grows. States and non-state actors who improve their ability to draw in allies will gain competitive advantages in today’s environment. Those who alienate potential friends will stand at greater risk. Terrorists, for instance, depend on their ability to attract support from the crowd at least as much as their ability to destroy the enemy’s will to fight. Exporting Optimism, Not Fear Since its founding, the United States has been willing to fight for universal ideals of liberty, equality, and justice. This higher purpose, sustained by military and economic might, attracted people and governments to our side through two world wars and five decades of the Cold War. Allies accepted that American interests may not always align entirely with their own, but U.S. leadership was still critical to realizing a more peaceful and prosperous world. There have been times, however, when America’s sense of purpose has fallen out of step with the world. Since 9/11, the United States has been exporting fear and anger rather than more traditional values of hope and optimism. Suspicions of American power have run deep. Even traditional allies have questioned whether America is hiding behind the righteousness of its ideals to pursue some other motive. At the core of the problem is that America has made the war on terror the central component of its global engagement. This is not a partisan critique, nor a Pollyannaish appraisal of the threats facing America today. The threat from terrorists with global reach and ambition is real. It is likely to be with us for decades. Thwarting their hateful intentions is of fundamental importance and must be met with the sharp tip of America’s sword. On this there can be no serious debate. But excessive use of force can actually abet terrorist recruitment among local populations. We must strike a balance between

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-02-19 00:26:01.984

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Preston Stolte

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+St Francis DJ

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+7

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+1

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Harvard Westlake Berliin Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+JanFeb - DA - Title IX

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Berkely