Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[29]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[30]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[29]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-01-28 15:00:23.651
	1	+2017-01-28 15:00:23.0

Caselist.CitesClass[30]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,31 @@
	1	+1NC- CP
	2	+CP Text—Public colleges and universities in the US ought not restrict any constitutionally protected forms of speech except in the case of student government elections. Public colleges and universities should preserve expenditure limits on student government campaigns
	3	+Wright and Danetz 8: Demos attorneys Brenda Wright and Lisa J. Danetz joined David Aronofsky, University of Montana Legal Counsel, in defending the University's campaign spending limits in the Supreme Court. January 7, 2008. SUPREME COURT ALLOWS SPENDING LIMITS FOR STUDENT GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS AT UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA, REJECTING FIRST AMENDMENT CHALLENGE. Demos. http://www.demos.org/press-release/supreme-court-allows-spending-limits-student-government-elections-university-montana-r. RW
	4	+The Supreme Court today turned back a constitutional challenge to spending limits for student government campaigns at the University of Montana, denying review of a June 2007 ruling by the Ninth Circuit that upheld the limits. The Supreme Court's action is a victory for the Associated Students of the University of Montana ("ASUM") and the University, which argued that the limits on campaign spending serve to assure all students, regardless of their financial circumstances, an equal opportunity to win election to student government. Brenda Wright, Legal Director of Demos, a non-profit organization that assisted in defending the University's spending limits, called the ruling '"a victory for fair elections and educational opportunity," stating "the First Amendment was never designed to make made student government participation a function of a student's wealth." The case was brought in 2004 by former UM student Aaron Flint, who exceeded the $100 spending cap in his effort to win a seat on the ASUM Senate and was disqualified from taking his seat as a result of the violation. A nationally prominent opponent of campaign finance regulation, James Bopp, Jr., represented Flint and argued that the First Amendment guaranteed Flint the right to spend unlimited sums in his quest for a student government seat. The Ninth Circuit, however, found there is ample justification for ASUM's campaign limits, observing: "Imposing limits on candidate spending requires student candidates to focus on desirable qualities such as the art of persuasion, public speaking, and answering questions face-to-face with one's potential constituents. Students are forced to campaign personally, wearing out their shoe-leather rather than wearing out a parent's~-~-or an activist organization's~-~-pocketbook." The Supreme Court's ruling today means that the Ninth Circuit's decision will stand as the leading appellate precedent on the constitutionality of rules designed to foster fair access to student government participation. The Ninth Circuit includes Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington
	5	+
	6	+It’s competitive—we do the aff minus unlimited campaign expenditures by placing restrictions on the amount of money that can be spent in student elections—perms are severance which make the aff a moving target and make being neg impossible
	7	+Unlimited financial expenditure towards elections is a constitutionally protected form of speech on campuses—that replaces democratic values with market capitalism
	8	+PC 16: “Overturning the “Money as speech” Doctrine. 2016. ” Democracy is for the people—a Public Citizen project. http://www.democracyisforpeople.org/page.cfm?id=19. About Authors~-~- http://www.citizen.org/about/. RW
	9	+Even before its disastrous 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court had already developed a flawed reading of the First Amendment that struck down reforms designed to prevent corruption and to ensure that the voices of the powerful did not drown out “We the People” in the halls of our democratic institutions. Although the extraordinary threat of unlimited corporate money in elections is a new expansion of the doctrine that “money is speech”, decisions of the Court since the Watergate era have enabled the richest one percent of society to buy outsized influence in our government. For over a hundred years, democratic representatives have listened to public outcry to stop the super-wealthy and big businesses from buying our elections. Reform efforts in the first half of the 20th Century prohibited corporate and union contributions to candidates.i In the wake of the Watergate scandal and allegations of illegal contributions in the 1972 election, Congress passed sweeping campaign finance reforms in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). FECA enacted comprehensive limits on campaign fundraising and spending, expanded disclossure requirements, established public financing for Presidential elections, and created the Federal Elections Commission to enforce the law. However, FECA was challenged in the 1976 Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo. In the Buckley decision, the Court upheld contribution limits, disclosure requirements, and presidential public financing. However, the Court struck down limits on “independent” expenditures and established the controversial idea that spending money for political campaigns purposes is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. This idea became known colloquially as “money equals speech.” The Court reached this conclusion by treating “the distribution of the humblest handbill or leaflet” the same as expensive, professional advertising in a nation “dependent on television, radio, and other mass media,” and by refusing to acknowledge the corrupting power of unlimited money being used to support and attack candidates.ii This paved the way for huge increases in political spending by groups that only need to avoid a technical definition of “coordination” with candidate campaigns. Subsequent Court rulings weakened or did away with other restrictions on campaign spending. Citizens United marked the culmination of this trend, taking an errant reading of the Constitution and a broken campaign-finance system to an extreme with the conclusion: that corporations should have a First Amendment right to spend limitless amounts to influence election outcomes. Buckley and the cases that follow it, including Citizens United, rest on a number of flawed assumptions about money and politics.iii In particular, the Buckley Court assumed: That each dollar spent directly leads to some increased “quantity of speech,” and therefore placing any limits on campaign spending is the same as placing limits on political speech as a whole. That politicians are less indebted to or corrupted by people who “independently” spend huge amounts of money to elect them than to those who contribute money directly to their campaign. That government has no compelling interest in fostering equal participation in the campaign process or stopping the corrosion of democratic ideals that results when election costs spiral out of control and only the super-wealthy have influence. Spending money in election-related contexts helps people express themselves and can lead to political speech. But money itself is not the equivalent of political speech.I A system that allows corporations and the wealthiest among us to drown out the voices of others, and ensures unequal access to and leverage over elected officials, undermines the First Amendment’s core purpose – to foster and protect a flourishing marketplace of democratic ideas.
	10	+
	11	+The CP also solves 100 of the case—the only type of constitutional speech we restrict is financial expenditures, which means people still have the ability to physically speak and say whatever they want—regardless, we’ll isolate three independent net benefits to expenditure limits:
	12	+
	13	+The “money as speech doctrine” reinforces the capitalist illusion of freedom—that makes speech meaningless and kills value to life—the CP solves
	14	+
	15	+Smith 14: R.C. Smith April 24, 2014 “POWER, CAPITAL and THE RISE OF THE MASS SURVEILLANCE STATE: ON THE ABSENCE OF DEMOCRACY, ETHICS, DISENCHANTMENT and CRITICAL THEORY” Heathwood Institute and Press http://www.heathwoodpress.com/power-capital-the-rise-of-the-mass-surveillance-state-on-the-absence-of-democracy-ethics-disenchantment-critical-theory/ JJN from file
	16	+One pressing issue, moreover, is that majority of the popular movements that have emerged in response to the Snowden leaks appear to be reformist in character. As a result, the discourse isn’t so much about fundamental system change; rather it becomes crafted into making mass surveillance less repulsive and more socially acceptable, even marketable. (Consider, for instance, the latest reforms proposed by President Barack Obama). For Adorno, this reformist inclination can be explained in part through an analysis of the logic of the system of capital. We read in Adorno how under modernity – i.e., capitalism – human beings are treated as commodities and the political-economy, which is principled on concentrations of power (i.e., ‘contradictory recognition’5), goes over the head of the individual, particularly as ‘coercive society’ aims to ‘shape people’ on behalf of the economic, social and political status quo.6 The system of capital, along with the instrumental use of Enlightenment ideals to promote a rational, efficient system7 have laid a foundation for society wherein the political-economy influences individuals and manufactures consent.8 Accordingly, people are seen as “substitutable entities valued merely for their instrumental uses or ability to command market resources,” and even where “commodification is resisted, the overriding pull of society is toward the status quo and those forms that are valued by society”. 9 As Kate Schick writes: The mind thus shapes itself into socially acceptable, marketable forms and freedom becomes an illusion, made all the more dangerous and difficult to resist because of the appearance of freedom. This is not the fault of Enlightenment ideals as such, but the instrumental use of these ideals in the promotion of a rational, efficient system: ‘The network of the whole is drawn ever tighter, modelled after the act of exchange’ (Adorno 1981: 21).10 Present in the logic of the system of capital itself is not an ‘emancipatory reason’ that aims toward universal guiding principles of an actually egalitarian democracy – i.e., Equality, Egalitarianism, Justice, Rights, etc. Rather, in modern capitalism, with its instrumental reason and positivist logic, such concepts lose their meaning. The social narrative no longer accommodates these fundamental principles or judges them to be delusions, because all concepts must be strictly functional in order to be considered “reasonable”.12 In turn, the ideals of a ‘good’ society, for example ideals toward an actual egalitarian democracy, become dependent on the “interests” of the dominant and governing system, which produces and reproduces the epistemic context of its own validity.13
	17	+
	18	+The CP corrects socio-economic disparities between students
	19	+Powers 9: David M. Powers. College Student Affairs Journal; 2009; 28, 1; ProQuest Central pg. 124. The Constitutional Implications of Expenditure Limits in Student Government Elections. RW
	20	+The university presented on main justification for the spending limit it imposed. The school contended that the main intent of the limits is to prevent student government from being diverted by interests other than ones educational" (Ftin4 2007, p. 835). The court accepted the school's contention, and asserted its own analysis: Imposing limits on candidate spending requires student candidates to focus on desirable qualities such as the art of persuasion, public speaking, and answering questions face-to-face with one's potential constituents. Students are forced to campaign personally, wearing our their shoe-leather rather than messing out parent's—or an activist organization's pocketbook (Diet, 2007, p. 835). In addition, the University President asserted further justification for the Limits: Unlimited spending in student government elections also would change the nature of the election process as a learning experience. The spending limits mean that students have to figure out no-con or low-cost ways of campaigning. They have to plan ahead to figure out their strategy, rather than just dumping a lot of money 1into advertising materials at the last minute. They have to make decisions about allocating their resources effectively. Without spending limits, the well-off students would nor have to face these constraints or make these kinds of decisions in the course of running for student government. 2007, P. 835). In regards to the tint interest, that the restriction equalizes socio-economic differences between students, the court rejected it under reasoning put forth in Bxelelry. The court wrote that the Beeklry decision "stands for the proposition that the desire to equalize the financial resources available to candidates does not justify the campaign finance limitation" (Welker, 2001, p. 1065). Secondly, the court rejected the interest that the restriction encouraged student's academic pursuits, because they found that the spending resvimion was not "narrowly tailored to that interest" (Welker, 2001, p. 1065-1066). Further, the court found that the expenditure limit was nor related in "any substantial sense" to its contended purpose of encouraging academic success, because managing a creative campaign (another of the school's alleged interests) takes just as much of the student's time as seeking financial contributions (Welker, 2001, p. 1066). The court also found that the interest of prohibiting undue corporate influence not narrowly tailored, became corporations could always endorse a specific canas didate, which could have the same influence as a financial contribution (Welker, 2001,p. 1066). Finally the noun rejected the university's contention that the restriction would foster creativity among students. The court found that the limitation was not narrowly tailored, and purported that it did not see the link connecting the cap on expenditures and fostering student candidate creativity in the election: For example, the court defined viewpoint neutrality as "the requirement that government not favor one speaker's message over anther's regarding the same topic" (Fiat, 2007, p. 833). Flaw contended that the expenditure limitation and did not constitute viewpoint discrimination because it applied equally to all candidates for student government (HA 2007, p. 833). The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the restriction was viewpoint discrimination on account that the limitation allowed "non.candidate students" to speak without any restrictions (Fint, 2007, p. 834). This would have been a stronger argument if the court would have adopted the Alabm Shulent dissent approach, and found the entire campus to be the forum, rather than the individual election. However, the argument was not valid since the university did not allow "non-candidate students" to speak in the forum (the election) (Fkni, 2007, p. 834). In making his argument, the plaintiff was assuming that if the court did undertake no forum analysis, they
	21	+That independently outweighs—Capitalism’s grip on the academy causes massive structural violence—democratic practices fostered during student elections are key
	22	+Giroux 15: (Henry A high-school social studies teacher in Barrington, Rhode Island, for six years,2 Giroux has held positions at Boston University, Miami University, and Penn State University. In 2005, Giroux began serving as the Global TV Network Chair in English and Cultural Studies at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.34 He has published more than 50 books and more than 300 academic articles, and is published widely throughout education and cultural studies literature.5 "The curse of totalitarianism and the challenge of critical pedagogy" http://philosophersforchange.org/2015/10/13/the-curse-of-totalitarianism-and-the-challenge-of-critical-pedagogy/)
	23	+The forces of free-market fundamentalism are on the march ushering in a terrifying horizon of what Hannah Arendt once called “dark times.” Across the globe, the tension between democratic values and market fundamentalism has reached a breaking point. 1 The social contract is under assault, neo-Nazism is on the rise, right wing populism is propelling extremist political candidates and social movements into the forefront of political life, anti-immigrant sentiment is now wrapped in the poisonous logic of nationalism and exceptionalism, racism has become a mark of celebrated audacity, and a politics of disposability comes dangerously close to its endgame of extermination for those considered excess. Under such circumstances, it becomes frightfully clear that the conditions for totalitarianism and state violence are still with us smothering critical thought, social responsibility, the ethical imagination, and politics itself. As Bill Dixon observes: The totalitarian form is still with us because the all too protean origins of totalitarianism are still with us: loneliness as the normal register of social life, the frenzied lawfulness of ideological certitude, mass poverty and mass homelessness, the routine use of terror as a political instrument, and the ever growing speeds and scales of media, economics, and warfare. 2 In the United States, the extreme right in both political parties no longer needs the comfort of a counterfeit ideology in which appeals are made to the common good, human decency, and democratic values. On the contrary, power is now concentrated in the hands of relatively few people and corporations while power is global and free from the limited politics of the democratic state. In fact, the state for all intent and purposes has become the corporate state. Dominant power is now all too visible and the policies, practices, and wrecking ball it has imposed on society appear to be largely unchecked. Any compromising notion of ideology has been replaced by a discourse of command and certainty backed up by the militarization of local police forces, the surveillance state, and all of the resources brought to bear by a culture of fear and a punishing state aligned with the permanent war on terror. Informed judgment has given way to a corporate controlled media apparatus that celebrates the banality of balance and the spectacle of violence, all the while reinforcing the politics and value systems of the financial elite.3 Following Arendt, a dark cloud of political and ethical ignorance has descended on the United States creating both a crisis of memory and agency. Thoughtlessness has become something that now occupies a privileged, if not celebrated, place in the political landscape and the mainstream cultural apparatuses. A new kind of infantilism and culture of ignorance now shapes daily life as agency devolves into a kind of anti-intellectual cretinism evident in the babble of banality produced by Fox News, celebrity culture, schools modeled after prisons, and politicians who support creationism, argue against climate change, and denounce almost any form of reason. Education is no longer viewed as a public good but a private right, just as critical thinking is devalued as a fundamental necessity for creating an engaged and socially responsible citizenship. Politics has become an extension of war, just as systemic economic uncertainty and state sponsored violence increasingly find legitimation in the discourses of privatization and demonization which promote anxiety, moral panics, fear and undermine any sense of communal responsibility for the well-being of others. Too many people today learn quickly that their fate is solely a matter of individual responsibility, irrespective of wider structural forces. This is a much promoted hyper-competitive ideology whose message is that surviving in a society demands reducing social relations to forms of social combat. People today are expected to inhabit a set of relations in which the only obligation is to live for one’s own self-interest and to reduce the responsibilities of citizenship to the demands of a consumer culture. Yet, there is more at work here than a flight from social responsibility, if not politics itself. Also lost is the importance of those social bonds, modes of collective reasoning, public spheres and cultural apparatuses crucial to the formation of a sustainable democratic society. With the return of the Gilded Age and its dream worlds of consumption, privatization, and deregulation, both democratic values and social protections at risk. At the same time, the civic and formative cultures that make such values and protections central to democratic life are in danger of being eliminated altogether. As market mentalities and moralities tighten their grip on all aspects of society, democratic institutions and public spheres are being downsized, if not altogether disappearing. As these institutions vanish—from public schools to health care centers– there is also a serious erosion of the discourses of community, justice, equality, public values, and the common good. One consequence is a society stripped of its inspiring and energizing public spheres and the “thick mesh of mutual obligations and social responsibilities to be found in” any viable democracy.5 This grim reality marks a failure in the power of the civic imagination, political will, and open democracy. 6 It is also part of a politics that strips the social of any democratic ideals and undermines any understanding of higher education as a public good and pedagogy as an empowering practice, a practice which acts directly upon the conditions which bear down on our lives in order to change them when necessary. At a time when the public good is under attack and there seems to be a growing apathy toward the social contract, or any other civic minded investment in public values and the larger common good, education has to be seen as more than a credential or a pathway to a job. It has to be viewed as crucial to understanding and overcoming the current crisis of agency, politics, and historical memory faced by many young people today. One of the challenges facing the current generation of educators and students is the need to reclaim the role that education has historically played in developing critical literacies and civic capacities. There is a need to use education to mobilize students to be critically engaged agents, attentive to addressing important social issues and being alert to the responsibility of deepening and expanding the meaning and practices of a vibrant democracy. At the heart of such a challenge is the question of what education should accomplish in a democracy? What work do educators have to do to create the economic, political, and ethical conditions necessary to endow young people with the capacities to think, question, doubt, imagine the unimaginable, and defend education as essential for inspiring and energizing the citizens necessary for the existence of a robust democracy? In a world in which there is an increasing abandonment of egalitarian and democratic impulses, what will it take to educate young people to challenge authority and in the words of James Baldwin “rob history of its tyrannical power, and illuminate that darkness, blaze roads through that vast forest, so that we will not, in all our doing, lose sight of its purpose, which is after all, to make the world a more human dwelling place.”7 What role might education and critical pedagogy have in a society in which the social has been individualized, emotional life collapses into the therapeutic, and education is relegated to either a private affair or a kind of algorithmic mode of regulation in which everything is reduced to a desired measureable economic outcome. Feedback loops now replace politics and the concept of progress is defined through a narrow culture of metrics, measurement, and efficiency.8 In a culture drowning in a new love affair with empiricism and data, that which is not measurable withers. Lost here are the registers of compassion, care for the other, the radical imagination, a democratic vision, and a passion for justice. In its place emerges what Goya in one of his engravings termed “The Sleep of Reason Produces Monster.” Goya’s title is richly suggestive particularly about the role of education and pedagogy in compelling students, to be able to recognize, as my colleague David Clark points out, “that an inattentiveness to the never-ending task of critique breeds horrors: the failures of conscience, the wars against thought, and the flirtations with irrationality that lie at the heart of the triumph of every-day aggression, the withering of political life, and the withdrawal into private obsessions.”9 Given the multiple crises that haunt the current historical conjuncture, educators need a new language for addressing the changing contexts and issues facing a world in which there is an unprecedented convergence of resources–financial, cultural, political, economic, scientific, military, and technological–that are increasingly used to concentrate powerful and diverse forms of control and domination. Such a language needs to be political without being dogmatic and needs to recognize that pedagogy is always political because it is connected to the struggle over agency. In this instance, making the pedagogical more political means being vigilant about those very “moments in which identities are being produced and groups are being constituted, or objects are being created.”10 At the same time it means educators need to be attentive to those practices in which critical modes of agency and particular identities are being denied. For example, the Tuscon Unified School District board not only eliminated the famed Mexican American Studies Program, but also banned a number of Chicano and Native American books it deemed dangerous. The ban included Shakespeare’s play “The Tempest,” and “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” by the famed Brazilian educator Paulo Freire. This act of censorship provides a particularly disturbing case of the war that is being waged in the United States against not only young people marginalized by race and class but also against the very spaces and pedagogical practices that make critical thinking possible. Such actions suggest the need for faculty to develop forms of critical pedagogy that not only inspire and energize. They should also be able to challenge a growing number of anti-democratic practices and policies while also resurrecting a radical democratic project that provides the basis for imagining a life beyond a social order immersed in inequality, degradation to the environment, and the elevation of war and militarization to national ideals. Under such circumstances, education becomes more than an obsession with accountability schemes, an audit culture, market values, and an unreflective immersion in the crude empiricism of a data-obsessed market-driven society. It becomes part of a formative culture in which thoughtlessness prevails providing the foundation for what the curse of totalitarianism. At a time of increased repression, it is all the more crucial for educators to reject the notion that higher education is simply a site for training students for the workforce and that the culture of higher education is synonymous with the culture of business. At issue here is the need for educators to should recognize the power of education in creating the formative cultures necessary to both challenge the various threats being mobilized against the ideas of justice and democracy while also fighting for those public spheres, ideals, values, and policies that offer alternative modes of identity, thinking, social relations, and politics. In both conservative and progressive discourses pedagogy is often treated simply as a set of strategies and skills to use in order to teach prespecified subject matter. In this context, pedagogy becomes synonymous with teaching as a technique or the practice of a craft-like skill. Any viable notion of critical pedagogy must grasp the limitations of this definition and its endless slavish imitations even when they are claimed as part of a radical discourse or project. In opposition to the instrumental reduction of pedagogy to a method—which has no language for relating the self to public life, social responsibility or the demands of citizenship–critical pedagogy illuminates the relationships among knowledge, authority, and power.11 Central to any viable notion of what makes pedagogy critical is, in part, the recognition that pedagogy is always a deliberate attempt on the part of educators to influence how and what knowledge and subjectivities are produced within particular sets of social relations. This approach to critical pedagogy does not reduce educational practice to the mastery of methodologies, it stresses, instead, the importance of understanding what actually happens in classrooms and other educational settings by raising questions regarding: what the relationship is between learning and social change, what knowledge is of most worth, what does it mean to know something, and in what direction should one desire? Pedagogy is always about power, because it cannot be separated from how subjectivies are formed, desires mobilized, how some experiences are legitimated and other are not or how some knowledge is considered acceptable while other forms are excluded from the curriculum. Pedagogy is a moral and political practice because it offers particular versions and visions of civic life, community, the future, and how we might construct representations of ourselves, others, and our physical and social environment. But it does more; it also “represents a version of our own dreams for ourselves, our children, and our communities. But such dreams are never neutral; they are always someone’s dreams and to the degree that they are implicated in organizing the future for others they always have a moral and political dimension.”12 It is in this respect that any discussion of pedagogy must begin with a discussion of educational practice as a particular way in which a sense of identity, place, worth, and above all value is informed by practices which organize knowledge and meaning.13 Central to my argument is the assumption that politics is not only about the exercise of economic and political power, but also, as Cornelius Castoriadis points out, “has to do with political judgements and value choices,”14 indicating that questions of civic education and critical pedagogy (learning how to become a skilled citizen) are central to the struggle over political agency and democracy.
	24	+Activism through protest is immediately shut down by college administrators—working through student government is key to reshape policies and affect real change on campus
	25	+Singh 13: Sejal Singh, 2013. Know your IX: Empowering students to stop sexual violence. Tips from the ground: how to be a student government ally. http://knowyourix.org/activism/tips-from-the-ground-how-to-be-a-student-government-ally/. RW
	26	+
	27	+One of the biggest obstacles anti-sexual violence organizers have faced is a society that constantly tries to silence the voices of survivors. Survivors who talk about being sexually assaulted often face backlash and victim-blaming from other students, and schools sometimes try to intimidate survivors and activists who speak out. All of this means that there’s a culture of silence around sexual assault and survivors’ voices are rarely at the center of the conversation. As a student leaders, your job is to amplify those voices, not to drown them out. If a reporter calls you to ask about sexual assault or your policy, put them in touch with survivors and activists (but always check to make sure they’re okay with that first!). If administrators are holding an important meeting to discuss your sexual assault policy and procedures, make sure that student survivors and activists will be there. Ultimately, your the goal should be to make sure that leaders people who publicly identify as survivors are always centrally involved in the conversation. This can be tricky, since many survivors don’t want to speak publicly about their experiences (and you might be a survivor of sexual assault yourself). When in doubt, make sure to check in with survivors about whether they’d want to participate in a given meeting or article. Don’t sensationalize anyone’s story and, if at all possible, always let survivors speak for themselves. It goes without saying that sexual violence is an incredibly personal issue, so make sure you’re not inadvertently co-opting someone’s trauma and always let survivors tell their stories on their own terms. Never pressure anyone to tell their story publicly if they’re uncomfortable with it. Definitely never tell anyone else’s story unless they’ve given you the go ahead! Of course, you might be a survivor yourself. If you are, that can definitely give you a lot of valuable insight into ways your school’s climate, procedures, and resources may be failing survivors. But it’s still important to listen to other survivors who may have different experiences, ideas, and insights. Other survivors may have faced different challenges because they have a different relationship with the school, because they’re LGBTQ, because they’re differently abled, or for a whole host of other reasons. Remember that sexual assault affects many, many different kinds of people: there should never be just one face of the movement at your school. Bureaucracy is a major barrier to effective student activism — students will be directed from office to office, given meaningless meetings, or spend lots of time sitting down with officials who never pass their conversations on to the people actually in charge. If you’re in Student Government, you probably have a lot of experience navigating byzantine University systems and can help direct activists to the people who will actually make decisions. You also probably know who’s receptive to student ideas, who’ll be up front with activists, and who won’t make any firm commitments. You have lots of specialized knowledge and can be a great resource! Student Government members may have access to Deans, Trustees, or University Presidents, but it can be very hard for other students to meet with them or even get their emails read. Your their job is not to speak for survivors but to help foster a meaningful dialogue between survivors and key decision-makers. Use your access to make sure administrators listen to all the concerns and goals laid out by survivors. Push decision-makers to hold public forums about sexual assault, to read policy proposals, and most importantly, to meet directly with activists and survivors. Set up open meetings with administrators about consent education, resources, or policy reform that anyone can come to, or put activists in touch with administrators and request that they meet. Since you’re elected to represent students, you may be invited to meetings about reforming sexual misconduct policies, expanding resources, or improving accountability. Remember that no one can understand sexual assault if they haven’t experienced it, and that those people need to be at the table. Many schools will try to keep survivors or activists out of key conversations. That might just be an oversight, or they may be intentionally trying to shut survivors out of the conversation — either way, it’s not okay! If you’re invited to a meeting about sexual assault on your campus, make sure to ask what other students will be there. See if any of those students publicly identify as survivors and check with student activist groups to see if any of their members have been invited. If survivors haven’t been invited to those meetings, insist that they be included. Help make survivors voices heard!
	28	+
	29	+That turns and outweighs the case—Absent a political candidate to rally behind, student protest reinforces neoliberal ideologies by fracturing systemic, campus-wide problems into individualized social narratives—that makes change impossible and causes their impacts
	30	+Tannock 14 Mayssoun Sukarieh and Stuart Tannock ( Senior Lecturer @ IOE - Education, Practice and Society, UCL Institute of Education), "Education, Protest, and the Continuing Extension of Youth," in Youth Rising?: The Politics of Youth in the Global Economy (Critical Youth Studies), 2014 AZ
	31	+Some commentators have argued that the limitations in the demands and vision of recent student protesters reflect a deficit particular to the current generation of youth: a lack of historical memory and ideology, and an overly individualised way of looking at the world (e.g.. Aitehison and Gilbert. 2012; Mason. 2012). “For all their faults," writes Paul Mason (2011), "the children of 1968 started out with something you don't find much of in the current generation of student protesters -a coherent vision of the kind of society they would like to create." But this critique risks removing “youth" from the social, cultural, political and economic structures in which it has been constructed and situated in contemporary capitalist society and economy. As Gavin Brown (2013. p. “9) points out. it is not just the current generation of student protesters who have tended to frame their demands within a "particular form of neoliberal social hope based around promoting individualized social mobility." but several decades of state social and educational policy as well (see also Ram». 2009). Indeed, as we argue above, the very extension of youth as a social category in contemporary society is based on the spread of this neoliberal politics of education and aspiration for social mobility across global capitalist society and economy. The problem of limitation of vision, then, is less a generational issue than a structural one. Ironically, despite the apparent disruptiveness and oppositional nature of the post-global financial crisis student protest movements, these movements, rather than being a radical rejection of the contemporary model of education in society, are better understood as both its ultimate realization and demonstration of its inherent contradictions. As Nicholas Somma (2ol2. p. 296) puts it, in the context of Chile, the recent student movements can be seen as the “unintended byproduct" of neoliberal society, as “the expansion of tertiary education…which tool: place under an educational market system during the last three decades, created both the critical mass of organized students and the frustrations and inequalities that fueled mobilization" (see also Salinas 8c Fraser. 2012). Similarly. Gavin Brown (2M3. p. 4l9) argues that the student protests in the United Kingdom in 2oW both reveal and are the result of “the success of…policy interventions around raising young people's aspirations and the limits of the politics of aspiration" (italics in original). Writing at the end of the 1960s: about the student movements of that era, Ralph Turner 0969. p. 44") once argued that “youth are unlikely to go so far as to dismantle the ‘credential society, since the movement leadership will be largely recruited from those who are earning credentials that entitle them to favoured positions in bureaucracies. "At the same time, Turner also suggested that “the passive, mutinized, hierarchical, and continuous nature of the passage through schooling and bureaucratic employment will assuredly be a continuing target in the developing student movements." the developing student movements." due to the inequalities. injustices, insecurities and alienation that this passage repeatedly generates (p. 40). Despite the radical differences between the student movements of Turner's era and the current period-in the 196os. Concerns about tuition fees, student debt, graduate unemployment, and underemployment played almost no role in generating student protest-Turner's observed contradiction retains its relevance today. For the majority of the recent student protest movements are not challenging or questioning the basic vision of the education for social mobility model—that, after all, underlies the very expansion of education, extension of youth and construction of student identity in the contemporary period in the first place- but the structural obstacles they perceive to be threatening their ability to realize this vision for themselves. As Giorgio Jackson, one of the student protest leaders in Chile, explains the eruption of protest there: The promise of youth and expansion in higher education came without the regulatory framework that is necessary to prevent this huge pp between the expectations of students and their families that were created by expending millions in advertising and a much less promising reality (quoted in Salinas 8 From; 2012. p. J7). The problem with this focus of protest is that, so long as student demands are stuck within the frame of access to education for individual mobility, growing numbers of young people around the world are likely to be stuck for ever lengthening periods of time in a prolonged state of precariousness, uncertainty, risk and-to use the term of youth studies researchers in the global South-waithood.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-01-28 15:00:24.259

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Nadia Hussein

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Kinkaid JY

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+15

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+3

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Lexington Weiler Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+JANFEB- CP- Campaign Expenditure

Tournament

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