Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[3]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[4]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[3]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-02-24 09:05:15.652
	1	+2017-02-24 09:05:15.0

Caselist.CitesClass[4]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,9 @@
	1	+The affirmative leads to more student lawsuits against universities
	2	+Jensen 93. Ejner J. Jensen, ~Senate Assembly Chair~, 2-8-1993, "The pros and cons of a policy covering hate speech," The University Record, http://ur.umich.edu/9293/Feb08'93/8.htm AD
	3	+Universities have a right and duty to provide an educational environment, a climate of civility, where all students can learn and live free from bigotry. 2. A university’s objective is to educate and to instill within students fundamental values of human decency. 3. Numerous responses from students to the rights and responsibilities document last summer indicated that a significant proportion of the harassment experienced by U-M students comes from faculty. They described in-class harassment, racial harassment at a public event, harassment based on ethnic origin, and clear cultural bias in classroom settings. 4. Speech codes publicly announce a university’s support of civil rights and equal dignity of all persons; the failure to adopt a speech code implies that the University condones hate speech. 5. The University may be held liable for damages by persons who were subjected to harassment, if the University knowingly tolerates such conduct. 6. Faculty and staff, as well as students, should be prohibited from violating the rights of other members of the University community. 7. While harassment by faculty may be quite rare, it is important to have a mechanism for dealing with reported incidents and resolving misunderstandings that may be interpreted as harassment.
	4	+Increased lawsuits kill university budgets
	5	+Ryman 9. Anne Ryman, 12-20-2009, "Christian group wages fight against censorship on campus," The Arizona Republic, http://archive.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/12/20/20091220alliance1220.html
	6	+At a sprawling, glass-and-brick office complex in north Scottsdale, a dozen or so attorneys and colleagues gather each morning in a dim, ornate room to pray. The group of Christians is seeking God's guidance in an ongoing quest to preserve family values and freedom of religious expression. The group draws strength from prayers and from a well of assets: a $30 million annual budget, paid and volunteer lawyers across the country, and the organization's years of doing battle in court. That organization, the non-profit Alliance Defense Fund, is now undertaking a special campaign on a familiar front of the culture wars. Armed with a $9.2 million donation from an anonymous family plus its own matching funds, the group is stepping up efforts to combat what it says is widespread and unconstitutional censorship at public colleges. With an estimated three years of funding, the University Project, as it is called, will deploy more attorneys to defend students or student groups that feel they are being prevented from expressing socially conservative or religious views. The 15-year-old Alliance Defense Fund has long been involved in freedom-of-speech cases at universities, but members believe censorship is growing. The new project represents one of many areas in which the group and similar organizations are waging legal fights as a growing enforcement of anti-discrimination laws by governments and schools clashes with religious rights. The Defense Fund now has 55 legal cases in which it either sued a college or is working with student groups to assert their rights. The cases include issues such as students who feel their pro-life views were censored, a student who tangled with a professor over religious views in class, and an independent student newspaper whose distribution bins were removed from campus. The University Project will likely mean dozens more lawsuits at a time when college budgets are stretched thin because of state funding cuts. Some advocacy groups say the organization's effort is misguided because religious students have many opportunities to promote their beliefs on campuses. For their part, universities say their policies are crafted to both protect free speech and ensure a safe, respectful environment. At Arizona State University, for instance, a law professor worked closely with the American Civil Liberties Union to write guidelines to encourage free speech rather than to restrict it, said Nancy Tribbensee, staff attorney for the Arizona Board of Regents. Tribbensee said she hopes the Defense Fund also will seek constructive dialogue with institutions with which the group has concerns before launching into litigation.
	7	+Loss of funding kills quality of education – turns case
	8	+Mitchell et al 16. Mitchell, Michael~Michael Mitchell is a Senior Policy Analyst with the Center’s State Fiscal Policy division. Prior to joining the Center, Mitchell worked as a State Policy Fellow for the Washington State Budget and Policy Center, where he conducted research on state taxes and borrowing, the effects of budget cuts on communities of color, and the impacts of the recession on young adults. Mitchell holds a B.A. in Economics and Political Science from the University of Connecticut and an MPA from the Maxwell School at Syracuse University~ , Michael Leachman~Michael Leachman is Director of State Fiscal Research with the State Fiscal Policy division of the Center, which analyzes state tax and budget policy decisions and promotes sustainable policies that take into account the needs of families of all income levels. Since joining the Center in 2009, Leachman has researched a range of state fiscal policy issues including the impact of federal aid, the debt states owe in their Unemployment Insurance trust funds, and the wisdom of state spending limits. Prior to joining the Center, he was a policy analyst for nine years at the Oregon Center for Public Policy (OCPP), a member of the State Priorities Partnership. His work at OCPP included research on corporate income taxes, reserve funds, spending limits, the Earned Income Tax Credit, food stamps, and TANF. Earlier in his career, Leachman worked as a community organizer in Chicago and, during graduate school, conducted a range of research projects in collaboration with community organizations. Leachman holds a Ph.D. in sociology from Loyola University Chicago~, and Kathleen Masterson~Kathleen Masterson joined the Center as a Research Assistant for the State Fiscal Project in April 2015. Prior to joining SFP, she interned at the Center with the Food Assistance team, primarily tracking the implementation of the community eligibility provision. Masterson has also interned with the Arms Control Association and spent a year teaching English in China. She holds a MPIA from the University of Pittsburgh, and a B.A. in History and Political Science from The College of William and Mary~. "Funding Down, Tuition Up." Funding Down, Tuition Up. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 15 Aug. 2016. Web. 11 Dec. 2016. http://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/funding-down-tuition-up
	9	+Years of cuts in state funding for public colleges and universities have driven up tuition and harmed students’ educational experiences by forcing faculty reductions, fewer course offerings, and campus closings. These choices have made college less affordable and less accessible for students who need degrees to succeed in today’s economy. YEARS OF CUTS HAVE MADE COLLEGE LESS AFFORDABLE AND LESS ACCESSIBLE FOR STUDENTS.Though some states have begun to restore some of the deep cuts in financial support for public two- and four-year colleges since the recession hit, their support remains far below previous levels. In total, after adjusting for inflation, funding for public two- and four-year colleges is nearly $10 billion below what it was just prior to the recession. As states have slashed higher education funding, the price of attending public colleges has risen significantly faster than the growth in median income. For the average student, increases in federal student aid and the availability of tax credits have not kept up, jeopardizing the ability of many to afford the college education that is key to their long-term financial success. States that renew their commitment to a high-quality, affordable system of public higher education by increasing the revenue these schools receive will help build a stronger middle class and develop the entrepreneurs and skilled workers that are needed in the new century. Of the states that have finalized their higher education budgets for the current school year, after adjusting for inflation:2 Forty-six states — all except Montana, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming — are spending less per student in the 2015-16 school year than they did before the recession.3 States cut funding deeply after the recession hit. The average state is spending $1,598, or 18 percent, less per student than before the recession. Per-student funding in nine states — Alabama, Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina — is down by more than 30 percent since the start of the recession. In 12 states, per-student funding fell over the last year. Of these, four states — Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, and Vermont — have cut per-student higher education funding for the last two consecutive years. In the last year, 38 states increased funding per student. Per-student funding rose $199, or 2.8 percent, nationally. Deep state funding cuts have had major consequences for public colleges and universities. States (and to a lesser extent localities) provide roughly 54 percent of the costs of teaching and instruction at these schools.4 Schools have made up the difference with tuition increases, cuts to educational or other services, or both. Since the recession took hold, higher education institutions have: Increased tuition. Public colleges and universities across the country have increased tuition to compensate for declining state funding and rising costs. Annual published tuition at four-year public colleges has risen by $2,333, or 33 percent, since the 2007-08 school year.5 In Arizona, published tuition at four-year schools is up nearly 90 percent, while in six other states — Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, and Louisiana — published tuition is up more than 60 percent. These sharp tuition increases have accelerated longer-term trends of college becoming less affordable and costs shifting from states to students. Over the last 20 years, the price of attending a four-year public college or university has grown significantly faster than the median income.6 Although federal student aid and tax credits have risen, on average they have fallen short of covering the tuition increases. Tuition increases have compensated for only part of the revenue loss resulting from state funding cuts. Over the past several years, public colleges and universities have cut faculty positions, eliminated course offerings, closed campuses, and reduced student services, among other cuts. A large and growing share of future jobs will require college-educated workers.7 Sufficient public investment in higher education to keep quality high and tuition affordable, and to provide financial aid to students who need it most, would help states develop the skilled and diverse workforce they will need to compete for these jobs. Sufficient public investment can only occur, however, if policymakers make sound tax and budget decisions. State revenues have improved significantly since the depths of the recession but are still only modestly above pre-recession levels.8 To make college more affordable and increase access to higher education, many states need to supplement that revenue growth with new revenue to fully make up for years of severe cuts. But just as the opportunity to invest is emerging, lawmakers in a number of states are jeopardizing it by entertaining tax cuts that in many cases would give the biggest breaks to the wealthiest taxpayers. In recent years, states such as Wisconsin, Louisiana, and Arizona have enacted large-scale tax cuts that limit resources available for higher education. And in Illinois and Pennsylvania ongoing attempts to find necessary resources after large tax cuts threaten current and future higher education funding

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-02-24 09:05:15.936

Judge

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

Opponent

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

ParentRound

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

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Northwood Arnold Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+jan feb university funding da

Tournament

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