Summary

• Objects (2 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[8]
  • Caselist.RoundClass[9]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[6]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[8]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-11-20 13:46:16.66
	1	+2016-11-20 13:46:16.0

Caselist.RoundClass[9]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-11-20 13:47:20.488
	1	+2016-11-20 13:47:20.0

Caselist.CitesClass[6]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,48 @@
	1	+Inherency
	2	+Police officers handle massive numbers of IPV cases and aren’t providing sufficient protection Schuerman 16
	3	+Incidents of IPV domestic violence occur against women in the United States at epidemic rates.' Up to 60 of all married women suffer physical abuse at the hands of their spouses at some time during marriage.2 The fact that police officers spend more time responding to IPV domestic disturbances than to murders, rapes, and aggravated assaults reflects the pervasiveness of this problem. 3 At the same time, however, commentators often cite ineffective police response is as a chief reason for continuing high rates of IPV domestic violence.4 Traditionally, police response is limited to mediation, having the batterer temporarily leave the home, or referral to local community service agencies for counseling. 5 Most states make arrests are discretionary.6 As a consequence, it is rarely the favored response.7 Because city police departments deal with the majority of domestic violence calls, the problem is compounded by the fact that municipalities are generally immune from tort liability.8 Specifically, municipalities are and commonly not liable for the failure to provide police protection to individual members of the public.
	4	+Plan
	5	+Thus the plan: Resolved: The US congress ought model the Okin decision as federal policy in order to provide a clearly established limitation on qualified immunity Shtelmakher 10 :
	6	+In cases arising from domestic-violence IPV complaints, federal courts apply the state-created danger doctrine inconsistently. Therefore, Congress should enact legislation establishing a standard for determining whether an individual police officer's conduct constitutes state-created danger. Currently, 42 U.S.C. § 3796gg provides states with federal grants to combat violent crimes against women."' The purpose of § 3796gg is to help states "to develop and strengthen effective law enforcement and prosecution strategies to combat violent crimes against women, and to develop and strengthen victim services in cases involving violent crimes against women." 1 2 To further this purpose, Congress should make the adoption of the state-created danger law a condition of states receiving grants under 3796gg. The most important aspect of the law is that it should reflect the sensitive and unique nature of IPV domestic violence." 3 To this end, the law should be modeled after the Second Circuit's analysis in Okin.1 Specifically, the law should state that state-created danger exists when a police officer's affirmative act or omission creates or enhances the danger to the victim. However, the affirmative act or omission does not have to be explicit. Instead, an affirmative act by law enforcement may be implicit, such as when officers' conduct communicates to an abuser that the officers will not interfere to stop the private violence. Additionally, the law should reflect that state-created danger does not exist when the only action taken by an officer is responding to a domestic-violence call, with no interaction between the officer and the victim or the abuser. Furthermore, courts should not apply the state-created danger doctrine where doing so would place officers in a predicament that subjects them to liability whether they take action or fail to do so.
	7	+
	8	+Establishing a standard is key to allowing IPV survivors to sue Shtelmakher 2
	9	+Where a police officer is accused of violating an individual's due process rights, the officer is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity." This protects officials from liability unless they violate a law that was clearly established at the time of their conduct."6 According to the Supreme Court, "qualified immunity balances two important interests-the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably."" In any given case, the burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that qualified immunity does not apply." To accomplish this, the plaintiff must prove that his or her constitutional right has been violated and that the right was "clearly established" at the time of the conduct in question." The "clearly established" standard means that the legal principle must be settled with enough specificity that the officers were put on notice that their conduct was unlawful.60 This specificity requirement does not depend on a precedent existing in the same circuit in which the case arose, as long as the law is supported by a consensus of the circuits.' Furthermore, just because a case presents novel factual circumstances, the "clearly established" analysis is not automatically in favor of the officer.6 2 Rather, the analysis focuses on whether a reasonable person in the officer's position would have been aware of the law.63 Part of the battle against IPV domestic violence is to make adequate, and thus appropriate, action by police officers the "clearly established" law. To this end, different cities across the country have implemented programs to spread awareness regarding the most effective way to handle domestic-violence situations. For example, a county in northern California has organized a program whereby police officers responding to domestic-violence calls are accompanied by trained volunteers.' The volunteers are trained to speak with the victims at the scene and to fill out temporary restraining orders.65 In Farmington, New Mexico, the police department has given six officers specialized training to improve their communication with domestic-violence victims and to help them develop unique skills for collecting evidence.66 This training is especially useful when officers respond to situations where victims refuse to disclose the abuse." Furthermore, the added knowledge gives officers a safer way to approach each situation. Louisville, Kentucky, also implemented a domestic-violence awareness program. There, a council committee approved a separate domestic-violence court because these courts "make a difference in cutting down on violence and the number of murders" in the cities that utilize them.69 Despite the above and other programs, women suffer two million injuries at the hands of their intimate partners every year.o Implementing a national standard for state-created danger could be an effective tool for making police officers aware of the danger of domestic violence by making them accountable for their conduct
	10	+This is a limit of qualified immunity in that it reinforces the clearly established standard by create more specificities and limitations for police officers conduct in certain situations especially whent hey omit from action, thus any violation of the standard means that the officer can be brought to trial in the situation of IPV.
	11	+Advantage
	12	+Civil lawsuits are empirically capable of holding officers accountable. Schwartz 11
	13	+Joanna Schwartz 11 (Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law.) "What Police Learn from Lawsuits." Cardozo L. Rev. 33 (2011): 841.
	14	+The practices of the departments in my study are distinct in two significant ways from expectations about the uses of litigation data underlying theories of deterrence. Deterrence theorists generally expect that settlements and judgments – financial penalties – inspire performance improvement efforts. Yet the police departments in my study that gather and analyze litigation data do not focus solely – or even primarily – on settlements and judgments. Instead, they pay particular attention to the allegations of misconduct in claims and lawsuits when they are first filed, and the information developed during the course of litigation. To be sure, departments in my study also pay attention to the resolution of suits in various ways. The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department tracks trends in settlements and judgments and has reviewed practices and units responsible for large payouts.115 And large settlements and judgments may focus attention on particular cases, particularly if they attract press or political attention.116 But the five departments in my study pay attention to lawsuits at the beginning and middle – as well as the end – of the litigation process. Second, deterrence theory expects that officials deciding which course of action to take weigh the costs of litigation against the benefits of the underlying conduct.117 Yet, the policies in place in the departments in my study do not facilitate this sort of weighing. Departments would not, for example, track lawsuits alleging chokeholds and then decide whether to retrain their officers about the impropriety of chokeholds based on the costs of these suits.118 Instead, departments in my study would use lawsuits, with other data, to identify chokeholds as behavior that triggered a concentration of suits, civilian complaints, and/or use of force reports. The department then would conduct an investigation and identify ways to address the underlying policy, training, or personnel problems.119 And when a department looks for trends in payouts, officials do not weigh those judgments and settlements against the costs of potential policy changes. Instead, the concentration of settlements and judgments is treated as an indication of an underlying problem that is then investigated and analyzed. By differentiating department practices from prevailing understandings of deterrence, I do not mean to suggest that these departments are immune to lawsuits’ deterrent effects. Indeed, the LASD’s elaborate efforts to track and reduce misconduct can be understood as a kind of end-product of deterrence. When the Board of Supervisors appointed the Kolts Commission to review LASD practices, they were motivated in part by a Los Angeles Times story that reported $32 million paid in settlements and judgments against the LASD over a five-year period.120 The Kolts Commission was instructed to find ways to reduce the costs of litigation against the department121 and a significant aim of Merrick Bobb’s reviews of the department remains to monitor the costs of lawsuits brought against the LASD.122 But the policies put in place by the Kolts Commission and Merrick Bobb reduce the costs of liability by understanding and addressing the underlying causes of police error and misconduct. And to achieve this understanding, the LASD and Bobb focus attention on the lessons that can be learned from lawsuits, regardless of an individual suit’s financial or political ramifications. The practices of departments in my study are more akin to those encouraged by those focused on the identification and reduction of error. Cognitive psychologists, organizational theorists, and systems engineers who study human error emphasize the importance of gathering and analyzing data about past performance at a systems level as a way of identifying the types of problems that lead to harm.123 A systems analysis approach has been used to improve safety in a number of fields including aviation safety, nuclear power, and medical care.124 In each industry, information about accidents and “near misses” is collected and analyzed for safety implications. As with efforts to improve safety in aviation, hospitals, and other industries, the departments in my study review information about past behavior from a variety of sources to identify personnel and policy failings and possible ways to improve.
	15	+LAWSUITS LEAD TO REFORMS and areNOT DEPENDENT ON A DETERRENT EFFECT
	16	+Schwartz, Joanna (Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law.) "What Police Learn from Lawsuits." Cardozo L. Rev. 33 (2011): 841.
	17	+My findings illustrate a previously overlooked vision of lawsuits’ role in performance improvement: as a source of information. Lawsuits identify allegations of misconduct that are investigated to determine whether officer discipline is appropriate, and are considered with other data for possible trends. The evidence developed in discovery and trial can offer a detailed picture of underlying events that is used to identify personnel and policy failures. Closed case files, compared with internal investigations, can identify weaknesses in internal procedures. And trends in settlements and judgments, like initial claim trends, can identify units or procedures that should be more carefully reviewed. Viewed in isolation or in conjunction with other data, lawsuits can offer insights about the incidence and causes of individual and organizational failings. And with these insights, departments can – and do – identify ways to improve. This view of litigation – as a source of information that can be used to identify and reduce harm and error – is distinct from prevailing understandings of the effect of lawsuits on decisionmaking. Lawsuits are generally believed to influence behavior through the incentivizing effects of deterrence.113 In oversimplified terms, the expectation is that threatened or actual penalties will discourage future misbehavior so long as the costs of harm avoidance are lower than the costs of liability. And, generally speaking – though not always – the costs of liability are viewed in terms of the dollars spent to satisfy settlements and judgments.114 So, the – again, oversimplified – logic goes, the higher the expected or exacted damages, the greater the care that will be taken to prevent those sorts of injuries in the future. The lower the damages, the lower the care.
	18	+Not allowing for violations and having IPV sensitive laws is the first step to providing equal justice for LGBTQ communities. Also means that the AC is nesseceary to change police bias towards IPV and allow them to see that It is intersectional. Crumrine writes :
	19	+. Adopt nondiscrimination and zero tolerance harassment policies in departments, educate officers on the policies, and hold them accountable for violating these policies. Consider creating LGBTQ liaisons, either as sworn or civilian employees of the department, who reach out to the LGBTQ community, listen to their concerns, and actively work toward solving issues. Reframe law enforcement’s thinking about IPV and sexual assault. Start by believing victims when they report, conducting thorough impartial investigations, and following the evidence. Leave preconceived myths or prejudices toward IPV, sexual assault, and the LGBTQ community out of the response and investigation. Train officers on how to identify the predominate aggressor in an IPV case and how to recognize the use of coercive control in the relationship. Understand the neurobiology of trauma and its effect on memory. Be compassionate in realizing that a victim’s lack of memory or disjointed memory in an IPV or sexual assault case is often the result of the biological effects of trauma, not his or her unwillingness to cooperate. Be sensitive to the unique reporting barriers and challenges present in the LGBTQ community such as fears of being marginalized, outed, abused, not believed, or ridiculed as a transgender person; lack of recognizing the abuse for what it is; and inability to accept that men can be victimized in an IPV case or that a woman can be as much of an aggressor as a man. Realize that the LGBTQ community is a close-knit community; when a victim reports, it is not uncommon for many in the community to know they filed a report and what type of response they received from law enforcement. Take steps to provide a safe and nurturing environment for LGBTQ victims to stay, as is done for heterosexual victims. Some communities do not have facilities that house male victims; therefore, they are placed in a hotel or motel in an effort to keep them safe. For many in the LGBTQ community, their support system is the community to which they belong. Isolating them in a hotel away from this community distances them from their support system and may lead to them failing to continue in the criminal justice process. Consider the accessibility of LGBTQ abusers to their victims. Since many LGBTQ victims and abusers are of the same sex, they both have equal access to facilities like bathrooms, gyms, and social settings. This accessibility may allow abusers to continue terrorizing their victims without law enforcement’s knowledge. Officers should be aware of this access and take steps to protect victims from their abusers. Be sensitive to the reluctance of some in the LGBTQ community to acknowledge or address IPV in an effort to avoid unfavorable political or societal scrutiny of LGBTQ families. Remember the first interaction between law enforcement and LGBTQ victims of IPV and sexual assault is crucial in establishing respect and trust and keeping the victim engaged in the criminal justice system so that perpetrators are held accountable. For years, the members of LGBTQ community have felt as though they were second-class citizens in the eyes of many in U.S. society; including the police. If law enforcement professionals want to effect a change in that perception and providing equal justice to all survivors victims of IPV, they need to change how officers interact with the LGBTQ community. With the June 2015 marriage equality decision from the U.S. Supreme Court, there will be an increase in victims being empowered to report their abuse.12 Law enforcement has an obligation to treat LGBTQ survivors victims with the same dignity and respect given to other citizens when they have the courage to report. All reports of IPV should be taken seriously and investigated in an impartial and unbiased manner by following the evidence and holding perpetrators accountable in order to provide equal justice to the entire community. ♦
	20	+The aff is key to accurate reporting since people won’t report to the police if they don’t trust them and the only way to break the cycle is to report. Other CPs can’t solve without police involvement. Shtelmakher 4:
	21	+When police officers have a more sensitive and understanding attitude toward domestic violence, their response to victims' calls for help will improve. In turn, victims survivors will have more trust in the police and, therefore, will call on them whenever violence erupts.127 This is extremely significant because one of the biggest problems with IPV domestic violence is that victims survivors do not report all the instances of abuse that they suffer.'28 Domestic violence is often described as a cycle.'29 The common notion that an unhappy victim would simply leave her abuser is a misconception."30 Victims stay for various reasons, including but not limited to lacking the financial means to leave,"' fearing retaliation by the abuser and others,'32 or being ashamed that society will judge them.'3 3 But when violence is reported, it increases the chances of breaking the cycle.' 34 Additionally, reporting is important because domestic violence IPV tends to escalates, and it is crucial for police to intervene early, before serious injury or even death results.' Finally, accurate reporting leads to accurate statistics, which allow governments to address IPV domestic-violence issues as effectively as possible.
	22	+Affirming changes the cultural values in society and the police to better address intimate partner violence : Schtelmaker :
	23	+Proving state-created danger is only the first step in successfully alleging a substantive due process violation pursuant to § 1983. In addition, a domestic-violence victim IPV survivor has to demonstrate that the officer's conduct shocked the conscience. 45 This requirement exists because § 1983 permits a plaintiff to sue a state actor, such as a police officer, but does not create substantive rights or define what type of conduct creates a cause of action.46 The requirement also ensures that a constitutional violation does not occur "whenever someone cloaked with state authority causes harm" 47 and prevents the Fourteenth Amendment from becoming a "font of tort law to be superimposed upon whatever systems may already be administered by the States."48 As a result, liability thresholds for depriving an individual of constitutional rights must be stricter than state tort thresholds. 49 The lowest common denominator for tort liability is negligence, which is not enough to establish a constitutional violation.so On the other hand, the highest common denominator of tort liability, intentional conduct, is most likely enough." For actions that fall between the two ends of the spectrum, constitutional liability may occur when the state actor's conduct can be classified as deliberately indifferent.52 What constitutes deliberate indifference or shocks the conscience, however, is highly dependent on the circumstances of each case" and differs from court to court.54 Establishing a national standard for the state-created danger caused by officers responding inadequately to IPV domestic violence would heighten awareness about the dangers and prevalence of IPV domestic violence. Such awareness would force police officers, judges, and society as a whole to view the issues of IPV domestic violence differently. And in light of this new awareness, conduct that was once considered negligent or grossly negligent would, hopefully, be considered to shock the conscience. Nevertheless, victims survivors would still have another hurdle to overcome the police officers' defense of qualified immunity. C. The Qualified-Immunity Defense Where a police officer is accused of violating an individual's due process rights, the officer is entitled to the defense of qualified immunity." This protects officials from liability unless they violate a law that was clearly established at the time of their conduct."6 According to the Supreme Court, "qualified immunity balances two important interests-the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably."" In any given case, the burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that qualified immunity does not apply." To accomplish this, the plaintiff must prove that his or her constitutional right has been violated and that the right was "clearly established" at the time of the conduct in question." The "clearly established" standard means that the legal principle must be settled with enough specificity that the officers were put on notice that their conduct was unlawful.60 This specificity requirement does not depend on a precedent existing in the same circuit in which the case arose, as long as the law is supported by a consensus of the circuits.' Furthermore, just because a case presents novel factual circumstances, the "clearly established" analysis is not automatically in favor of the officer.6 2 Rather, the analysis focuses on whether a reasonable person in the officer's position would have been aware of the law.63 Part of the battle against domestic violence is to make adequate, and thus appropriate, action by police officers the "clearly established" law. To this end, different cities across the country have implemented programs to spread awareness regarding the most effective way to handle domestic-violence situations. For example, a county in northern California has organized a program whereby police officers responding to domestic-violence calls are accompanied by trained volunteers.' The volunteers are trained to speak with the victims at the scene and to fill out temporary restraining orders.65 In Farmington, New Mexico, the police department has given six officers specialized training to improve their communication with domestic-violence victims and to help them develop unique skills for collecting evidence.66 This training is especially useful when officers respond to situations where victims refuse to disclose the abuse." Furthermore, the added knowledge gives officers a safer way to approach each situation." Louisville, Kentucky, also implemented a domestic-violence awareness program. There, a council committee approved a separate domestic-violence court because these courts "make a difference in cutting down on violence and the number of murders" in the cities that utilize them.69 Despite the above and other programs, women suffer two million injuries at the hands of their intimate partners every year.o Implementing a national standard for state-created danger could be an effective tool for making police officers aware of the danger of domestic violence by making them accountable for their conduct.
	24	+IPV is perpetuated by a lack of education – educational spaces must condemn IPV to start prevention – this has tangible impacts. Wolfe and Jaffe 99
	25	+Wolfe, David A. Research Professor and Scholar, Western University, and Peter G. Jaffe Peter Jaffe is the Founding Director (1975-2001) and Special Advisor on Violence Prevention of the Centre for Children and Families in the Justice System of the London Family Court Clinic; member of the Clinical Adjunct Faculty for the Departments of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of Western Ontario; former chair of the Board of Directors of the Battered Women's Advocacy Centre; and past Chairperson and a founding board member of the Board of Directors for the Centre for Research on Violence Against Women and Children. He gives presentations on violence and facilitates over 50 workshops a year for teachers, students, lawyers, judges, police, doctors, clergy and various community groups. Dr. Jaffe is the recipient of many awards and grants, author of numerous research articles, and co-author of four books dealing with children exposed to domestic violence. "Emerging strategies in the prevention of domestic violence." The future of children (1999): 133-144.
	26	+This perspective suggests that domestic violence IPV is learned behavior that is modeled, rewarded, and supported by families and/or the broader culture. Analyses based on this theory focus on the ways children learn that aggression is appropriate to resolve conflicts, especially within the context of intimate relationships.11 Researchers have found that batterers are much more likely to have had violent fathers than are nonbatterers.12 Developmental research shows that early intervention with children from violent households may restore normal developmental processes, such as empathy and selfcontrol, and minimize the risk of further harm caused by exposure to abusive adult models.13 Societal Structure Theory According to this view, domestic violence IPV is caused by an underlying power imbalance that can be understood only by examining society as a whole. The analysis focuses on patriarchy or male domination over women and children through physical, economic, and political control. Domestic violence IPV reflects women’s inequality in the culture and the reinforcement of this reality by various institutions.14 Commonalities Across Causation Theories Despite the diversity of views regarding the underlying causes of domestic violence, there are some beliefs common to all these theories. They include: (1) that domestic violence IPV has been ignored as a major social problem until recently and remains poorly understood;15 (2) that domestic violence is a complex problem impacted by multiple variables;16 (3) that childhood trauma, either through exposure to violence or some other trauma, influences the likelihood of domestic violence;17 and (4) that as long as domestic violence is condoned as its accepted behavior by public attitudes and institutions, there is little chance of preventing it involves attempts to minimize the course of a problem once it is already clearly evident and causing harm. Primary prevention strategies can introduce to particular population groups new values, thinking processes, and relationship skills that are incompatible with violence and that promote healthy, nonviolent relationships. For example, resources can be used to focus on respect, trust, and supportive growth in relationships.19 These efforts can be targeted at populations that may be at risk for violence in their intimate relationships but who have not yet shown symptoms of concern, or they can be directed universally at broad population groups, such as school-age children or members of a particular community. In contrast to a population-based focus, secondary prevention efforts in domestic violence address identified individuals who have exhibited particular behaviors associated with domestic violence. An example of secondary prevention is a clear protocol for the way teachers can assist students who have discussed witnessing domestic violence in their homes but who do not show serious signs of harm.20 Tertiary prevention efforts are the most common and emphasize the identification of domestic violence and its perpetrators and victims, control of the behavior and its harms, punishment and/or treatment for the perpetrators, and support for the victims. Intensive collaboration and coordinated services across agencies may be vital in tertiary prevention efforts to address chronic domestic violence and to help prevent future generations of batterers and victims. However, tertiary efforts can be very expensive and often show only limited success in stopping domestic violence, addressing long-term harms, and preventing future acts of violence.21 Table 1 uses the primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention paradigm to categorize a broad range of domestic violence prevention strategies. Several of the strategies mentioned in the table are described in greater detail in the following section, which discusses innovative primary and secondary prevention strategies currently being tried in the United States and Canada. (For information regarding tertiary prevention efforts for children exposed to domestic violence, see the articles by Lemon, by Findlater and Kelly, by Saathoff and Stoffel, by Culross, and by Groves in this journal issue.) Innovative Primary and Secondary Prevention Efforts Existing primary prevention efforts are often directed toward particular population groups, and secondary efforts toward identified individuals within those groups. Programs for children typically target specific age groups and utilize, in their design, what is known about child development at that particular age. As a result, programs for very young children are markedly different from programs for adolescents, for example. Unfortunately, there is no information currently available regarding the total number of primary and secondary prevention programs that address domestic violence. The programs described below are highlighted because they illustrate the points being discussed, not because they necessarily represent the most successful programs. Comprehensive, evaluative information with regard to domestic violence prevention programs is also very limited but is presented when available. Infants and Preschool-Age Children (0 to 5 Years) Primary and secondary prevention strategies for infants and preschool children focus on ensuring that children receive a healthy start, including freedom from emotional, physical, and sexual abuse, and from the trauma of witnessing domestic violence. Development of such strategies begins by defining the principles of a healthy childrearing environment. Though there are differing opinions about the details of such a healthy environment,22 all experts agree that in order for very young children to thrive and grow to be nonviolent, productive adults, they must be cared for by supportive and nurturing adults, have opportunities for socialization, and have the freedom within protective boundaries to explore their world.23 Prevention programs targeting infants and preschool children have developed from the public health and nursing fields. They involve efforts to provide support for new parents through home visiting programs.24 (For more information on home visiting programs, see the spring/summer 1999 issue of The Future of Children.) Home visiting support and assistance can be delivered on a universal basis whereby all new parents receive basic in-home services for a specified time period. However, no pro grams with a universal approach currently exist in North America.25 Alternatively, home visiting services can be delivered to selected groups, such as families or neighborhoods, that are at greater risk for domestic violence. There are home visiting programs that currently target families identified as being at risk for child abuse,26 and include efforts to improve parenting skills27 and to prevent social isolation.28 Hawaii’s Healthy Start Program is a wellknown example of a prevention effort, with home visits provided to infants born to high-risk families to help prevent the incidence of child abuse and to promote other aspects of healthy child development. (See Box 1.) To date, home visitation programs have not focused on domestic violence prevention. Yet, such programs hold promise in this area because of their emphasis on creating a healthy environment for children and because many of the families served who are at risk for child abuse are also at risk for domestic violence. Moreover, families at risk for domestic violence may be more receptive to home visitation, with its focus on healthy relationships and family strengths, than to more directive or punitive approaches through child welfare services or law enforcement.20 However, there are potential problems with the use of home visiting programs to address domestic violence. These include concern for the safety of the home visitor and the victim, and the possibility that any trust between the home visitor and the family will be breached if domestic violence is discussed.29 School-Age Children (6 to 12 Years) Schools are ideal places in which to introduce primary prevention programs to wide ranges of children, because most children attend school. In addition, much of children’s social learning takes place in schools, and research has shown that social learning can play a role in the development of behaviors and attitudes that support domestic violence. Teachers, who typically represent the second most important influence in the lives of children, are in an ideal position to motivate students to consider new ways of thinking and behaving.30 In a 1998 comprehensive review of model programs for battered mothers and their children, several community agencies reported the development of primary prevention efforts in collaboration with schools.31 One of the key values inherent in all of these primary prevention programs is the belief that every student needs to be aware of domestic violence and related forms of abuse. Even if students never become victims or perpetrators of domestic violence, they may have opportunities in the future, as community members, to help others in preventing or stopping it.32 Because these programs consider domestic violence a community and societal problem, many of them also involve parents and other members of the broader community. One of the first programs to document efforts to prevent domestic violence by working with children in the schools was implemented by the Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women.33 (See Box 2.) The ideas and successes of this early program have spawned similar efforts across North America.34 Preliminary evaluations of these newer programs are promising and indicate that key elements of successful school-based programs include: identifying relationship violence as a form of societal violence; acknowledging that domestic violence is an abuse of power and control; creating a high enough level of trust so that children can disclose exposure to domestic violence and teachers can make appropriate referrals; teaching safety skills about what to do when domestic violence occurs; and encouraging the development of social skills such as anger management and conflict resolution as alternatives to violence.35 Adolescents (13 to 18 Years) Adolescence is a time of important cognitive and social development. Teens learn to think more rationally and become capable of thinking hypothetically. They also develop a greater understanding of the possible risks and consequences of their behaviors and learn to balance their own interests with those of their peers and family members. Conformity to parental opinions gradually decreases throughout adolescence, while peers become increasingly influential until late adolescence.36 Romantic relationships become more important by mid-adolescence.37 Thus, early- and mid-adolescence offer unique windows of opportunity for primary prevention efforts that make teens aware of the ways in which violence in relationships can occur, and that teach healthy ways to form intimate relationships.38 When offered opportunities to explore the richness and rewards of relationships, youths become eager to learn about choices and responsibilities. Clear messages about personal responsibility and boundaries, delivered in a blame-free manner, are generally acceptable to this age group, whereas lectures and warnings are less helpful.39 Primary prevention programs delivered universally through high schools often involve activities aimed at increasing awareness and dispelling myths about relationship violence. Such activities might include school auditorium presentations involving videotapes, plays, professional theater groups, or speeches from domestic violence or teen dating violence survivors; classroom discussions facilitated by teachers or domestic violence services professionals; programs and curricula that encourage students to examine attitudes and behaviors that promote or tolerate violence; and peer support groups. Some school-based programs have resulted in youth-initiated prevention activities such as theatrical presentations to younger children, and marches and other social protests against domestic violence.40 Preliminary data from evaluations of six school-based dating violence prevention programs report increases in knowledge about dating violence issues, positive changes in attitudes about dating violence, and self-reported decreases in the perpetration of dating violence. Though preliminary, these data indicate that adolescents are receptive to school-based prevention programs.41 In addition to school-based programs for adolescents, there are also community based programs with primary prevention goals similar to those of the school-based programs. Many of the community based programs also provide secondary prevention services to teens who have displayed early signs of violence. (See Box 3.)
	27	+
	28	+Framework
	29	+The role of the judge is to vote for the debater that provides the best post-fiat policy option for reducing violence. Smith ’13: (Elijah Smith. “A Conversation in Ruins: Race and Black Participation in Lincoln Douglas Debate.” Vbriefly. September 6, 2013)
	30	+At every tournament you attend this year look around the cafeteria and take note of which students are not sitting amongst you and your peers. Despite being some of the best and the brightest in the nation, many students are alienated from and choose to not participate in an activity I like to think of as homeplace. In addition to the heavy financial burden associated with national competition, the exclusionary atmosphere of a debate tournament discourages black students from participating. Widespread awareness of the same lack of participation in policy debate has led to a growing movement towards alternative styles and methods of engaging the gatekeepers of the policy community, (Reid-Brinkley 08) while little work has been done to address or even acknowledge the same concern in Lincoln Douglas debate. Unfortunately students of color are not only forced to cope with a reality of structural violence outside of debate, but within an activity they may have joined to escape it in the first place. We are facing more than a simple trend towards marginalization occurring in Lincoln Douglas, but a culture of exclusion that locks minority participants out of the ranks of competition. It will be uncomfortable, it will be hard, and it will require continued effort but the necessary step in fixing this problem, like all problems, is the community as a whole admitting that such a problem with many “socially acceptable” choices exists in the first place. Like all systems of social control, the reality of racism in debate is constituted by the singular choices that institutions, coaches, and students make on a weekly basis. I have watched countless rounds where competitors attempt to win by rushing to abstractions to distance the conversation away from the material reality that black debaters are forced to deal with every day. One of the students I coached, who has since graduated after leaving debate, had an adult judge write out a ballot that concluded by “hypothetically” defending my student being lynched at the tournament. Another debate concluded with a young man defending that we can kill animals humanely, “just like we did that guy Troy Davis”. Community norms would have competitors do intellectual gymnastics or make up rules to accuse black debaters of breaking to escape hard conversations but as someone who understands that experience, the only constructive strategy is to acknowledge the reality of the oppressed, engage the discussion from the perspective of authors who are black and brown, and then find strategies to deal with the issues at hand. It hurts to see competitive seasons come and go and have high school students and judges spew the same hateful things you expect to hear at a Klan rally. A student should not, when presenting an advocacy that aligns them with the oppressed, have to justify why oppression is bad. Debate is not just a game, but a learning environment with liberatory potential. Even if the form debate gives to a conversation is not the same you would use to discuss race in general conversation with Bayard Rustin or Fannie Lou Hamer, that is not a reason we have to strip that conversation of its connection to a reality that black students cannot escape.
	31	+Morality must start from the non-ideal circumstances we have inherited. We can never achieve the ideal consequences that ethical theories aspire for without a focus on social reality
	32	+Mills 05 Charles W. Mills, “Ideal Theory” as Ideology, 2005
	33	+I suggest that this spontaneous reaction, far from being philosophically naïve or jejune, is in fact the correct one. If we start from what is presumably the uncontroversial premise that the ultimate point of ethics is to guide our actions and make ourselves better people and the world a better place, then the framework above will not only be unhelpful, but will in certain respects be deeply antithetical to the proper goal of theoretical ethics as an enterprise. In modeling humans, human capacities, human interaction, human institutions, and human society on ideal-as-idealized-models, in never exploring how deeply different this is from ideal-as-descriptive-models, we are abstracting away from realities crucial to our comprehension of the actual workings of injustice in human interactions and social institutions, and thereby guaranteeing that the ideal-as-idealized-model will never be achieved.
	34	+
	35	+Focus on the empirical world means that the debate needs to be a question of resolving material injustice. Pappas 16
	36	+Gregory Fernando Pappas Texas AandM University “The Pragmatists’ Approach to Injustice”, The Pluralist Volume 11, Number 1, Spring 2016,
	37	+In Experience and Nature, Dewey names the empirical way of doing philosophy the “denotative method” (LW 1:371).18 What Dewey means by “denotation” is simply the phase of an empirical inquiry where we are con- cerned with designating, as free from theoretical presuppositions as possible, the concrete problem (subject matter) for which we can provide different and even competing descriptions and theories. Thus an empirical inquiry about an injustice must begin with a rough and tentative designation of where the injustices from within the broader context of our everyday life and activities are. Once we designate the subject matter, we then engage in the inquiry itself, including diagnosis, possibly even constructing theories and developing concepts. Of course, that is not the end of the inquiry. We must then take the results of that inquiry “as a path pointing and leading back to something in primary experience” (LW 1:17). This looping back is essential, and it neverends as long as there are new experiences of injustice that may require a revi- sion of our theories.¶ Injustices are events suffered by concrete people at a particular time and in a situation. We need to start by pointing out and describing these prob- lematic experiences instead of starting with a theoretical account or diagnosis of them. Dewey is concerned with the consequences of not following the methodological advice to distinguish designation from diagnosis. Definitions, theoretical criteria, and diagnosis can be useful; they have their proper place and function once inquiry is on its way, but if stressed too much at the start of inquiry, they can blind us to aspects of concrete problems that escape our theoretical lenses. We must attempt to pretheoretically designate the subject matter, that is, to “point” in a certain direction, even with a vague or crude description of the problem. But, for philosophers, this task is not easy because, for instance, we are often too prone to interpret the particular problem in a way that verifies our most cherished theories of injustice. One must be careful to designate the subject matter in such a way as not to slant the question in favor of one’s theory or theoretical preconceptions. A philosopher must make an honest effort to designate the injustices based on what is experienced as such because a concrete social problem (e.g., injustice) is independent and neutral with respect to the different possible competing diagnoses or theories about its causes. Otherwise, there is no way to test or adjudicate between competing accounts.¶ That designation precedes diagnosis is true of any inquiry that claims to be empirical. To start with the diagnosis is to not start with the problem. The problem is pretheoretical or preinquiry, not in any mysterious sense but in that it is first suffered by someone in a particular context. Otherwise, the diagnosis about the causes of the problem has nothing to be about, and the inquiry cannot even be initiated. In his Logic, Dewey lays out the pattern of all empirical inquiries (LW 12). All inquiries start with what he calls an “indeterminate situation,” prior even to a “problematic situation.” Here is a sketch of the process:¶ Indeterminate situation → problematic situation → diagnosis: What is the problem? What is the solution? (operations of analysis, ideas, observations, clarification, formulating and testing hypothesis, reasoning, etc.) → final judgment (resolution: determinate situation)¶ To make more clear or vivid the difference of the starting point between Anderson and Dewey, we can use the example (or analogy) of medical prac- tice, one that they both use to make their points.19 The doctor’s startingpoint is the experience of a particular illness of a particular patient, that is, the concrete and unique embodied patient experiencing a disruption or prob- lematic change in his life. “The patient having something the matter with him is antecedent; but being ill (having the experience of illness) is not the same as being an object of knowledge.”20 The problem becomes an object of knowledge once the doctor engages in a certain interaction with the patient, analysis, and testing that leads to a diagnosis. For Dewey, “diagnosis” occurs when the doctor is already engaged in operations of experimental observation in which he is already narrowing the field of relevant evidence, concerned with the correlation between the nature of the problem and possible solu- tions. Dewey explains the process: “A physician . . . is called by a patient. His original material of experience is thereby provided. This experienced object sets the problem of inquiry. . . . He calls upon his store of knowledge to sug- gest ideas that may aid him in reaching a judgment as to the nature of the trouble and its proper treatment.”21¶ Just as with the doctor, empirical inquirers about injustice must return to the concrete problem for testing, and should never forget that their con- ceptual abstractions and general knowledge are just means to ameliorate what is particular, context-bound, and unique. In reaching a diagnosis, the doc- tor, of course, relies on all of his background knowledge about diseases and evidence, but a good doctor never forgets the individuality of the particular problem (patient and illness).¶ The physician in diagnosing a case of disease deals with something in- dividualized. He draws upon a store of general principles of physiology, etc., already at his command. Without this store of conceptual material he is helpless. But he does not attempt to reduce the case to an exact specimen of certain laws of physiology and pathology, or do away with its unique individuality. Rather he uses general statements as aids to direct his observation of the particular case, so as to discover what it is like. They function as intellectual tools or instrumentalities. (LW 4:166)¶ Dewey uses the example of the doctor to emphasize the radical contex- tualism and particularism of his view. The good doctor never forgets that this patient and “this ill is just the specific ill that it is. It never is an exact duplicate of anything else.”22 Similarly, the empirical philosopher in her in- quiry about an injustice brings forth general knowledge or expertise to an inquiry into the causes of an injustice. She relies on sociology and history as well as knowledge of different forms of injustice, but it is all in the service of inquiry about the singularity of each injustice suffered in a situation.¶ The correction or refinement that I am making to Anderson’s character- ization of the pragmatists’ approach is not a minor terminological or scholarly point; it has methodological and practical consequences in how we approach an injustice. The distinction between the diagnosis and the problem (the ill- ness, the injustice) is an important functional distinction that must be kept in inquiry because it keeps us alert to the provisional and hypothetical aspect of any diagnosis. To rectify or improve any diagnosis, we must return to the concrete problem; as with the patient, this may require attending as much as possible to the uniqueness of the problem. This is in the same spirit as Anderson’s preference for an empirical inquiry that tries to “capture all of the expressive harms” in situations of injustice. But this requires that we begin with and return to concrete experiences of injustice and not by starting with a diagnosis of the causes of injustice provided by studies in the social sciences, as in (5) above. For instance, a diagnosis of causes that are due to systematic, structural features of society or the world disregards aspects of the concrete experiences of injustice that are not systematic and structural.¶ Making problematic situations of injustice our explicit methodological commitment as a starting point rather than a diagnosis of the problem is an important and useful imperative for nonideal theories. It functions as a directive to inquirers toward the problem, to locate it, and designate it before venturing into descriptions, diagnosis, analysis, clarifications, hypotheses, and reasoning about the problem. These operations are instrumental to its ame- lioration and must ultimately return (be tested) by the problem that sparked the inquiry. The directive can make inquirers more attentive to the complex ways in which such differences as race, culture, class, or gender intersect in a problem of injustice. Sensitivity to complexity and difference in matters of injustice is not easy; it is a very demanding methodological prescription because it means that no matter how confident we may feel about applying solutions designed to ameliorate systematic evil, our cures should try to address as much as possible the unique circumstances of each injustice. The analogy with medical inquiry and practice is useful in making this point, since the hope is that someday we will improve our tools of inquiry to prac- tice a much more personalized medicine than we do today, that is, provide a diagnosis and a solution specific to each patient.
	38	+To say that the “aff is a bad idea” because it causes white people to backlash and vote for Trump deflects blame and locks us into the status quo. Politics scenarios just re-entrench anti-blackness and inhibit the struggle for freedom.
	39	+King 63 (Martin Luther King Jr. "Letter from a Birmingham Jail King, Jr." April 1963 AFRICAN STUDIES CENTER - UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA)
	40	+I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward of freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. "I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured." "In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning of time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: stating "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity."
	41	+Debate should seek to design concrete alternatives.
	42	+Bryant 12 (EDITED FOR GENDERED LANGUAGE – the author said “she” and it was replaced with the word “to” – Levi Bryant is currently a Professor of Philosophy at Collin College. In addition to working as a professor, Bryant has also served as a Lacanian psychoanalyst. He received his Ph.D. from Loyola University in Chicago, Illinois, where he originally studied 'disclosedness' with the Heidegger scholar Thomas Sheehan. Bryant later changed his dissertation topic to the transcendental empiricism of Gilles Deleuze, “Critique of the Academic Left”, http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/underpants-gnomes-a-critique-of-the-academic-left/)
	43	+The problem as I see it is that this is the worst sort of abstraction (in the Marxist sense) and wishful thinking. Within a Marxo-Hegelian context, a thought is abstract when it ignores all of the mediations in which a thing is embedded. For example, I understand a robust tree abstractly when I attribute its robustness, say, to its genetics alone, ignoring the complex relations to its soil, the air, sunshine, rainfall, etc., that also allowed it to grow robustly in this way. This is the sort of critique we’re always leveling against the neoliberals. They are abstract thinkers. In their doxa that individuals are entirely responsible for themselves and that they completely make themselves by pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, neoliberals ignore all the mediations belonging to the social and material context in which human beings develop that play a role in determining the vectors of their life. They ignore, for example, that George W. Bush grew up in a family that was highly connected to the world of business and government and that this gave him opportunities that someone living in a remote region of Alaska in a very different material infrastructure and set of family relations does not have. To think concretely is to engage in a cartography of these mediations, a mapping of these networks, from circumstance to circumstance (what I call an “onto-cartography”). It is to map assemblages, networks, or ecologies in the constitution of entities.¶ Unfortunately, the academic left falls prey to its own form of abstraction. It’s good at carrying out critiques that denounce various social formations, yet very poor at proposing any sort of realistic constructions of alternatives. This because it thinks abstractly in its own way, ignoring how networks, assemblages, structures, or regimes of attraction would have to be remade to create a workable alternative. Here I’m reminded by the “underpants gnomes” depicted in South Park:¶ The underpants gnomes have a plan for achieving profit that goes like this:¶ Phase 1: Collect Underpants¶ Phase 2: ?¶ Phase 3: Profit!¶ They even have a catchy song to go with their work:¶ Well this is sadly how it often is with the academic left. Our plan seems to be as follows:¶ Phase 1: Ultra-Radical Critique¶ Phase 2: ?¶ Phase 3: Revolution and complete social transformation!¶ Our problem is that we seem perpetually stuck at phase 1 without ever explaining what is to be done at phase 2. Often the critiques articulated at phase 1 are right, but there are nonetheless all sorts of problems with those critiques nonetheless. In order to reach phase 3, we have to produce new collectives. In order for new collectives to be produced, people need to be able to hear and understand the critiques developed at phase 1. Yet this is where everything begins to fall apart. Even though these critiques are often right, we express them in ways that only an academic with a PhD in critical theory and post-structural theory can understand. How exactly is Adorno to produce an effect in the world if only PhD’s in the humanities can understand him? Who are these things for? We seem to always ignore these things and then look down our noses with disdain at the Naomi Kleins and David Graebers of the world. To make matters worse, we publish our work in expensive academic journals that only universities can afford, with presses that don’t have a wide distribution, and give our talks at expensive hotels at academic conferences attended only by other academics. Again, who are these things for? Is it an accident that so many activists look away from these things with contempt, thinking their more about an academic industry and tenure, than producing change in the world? If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, it doesn’t make a sound! Seriously dudes and dudettes, what are you doing?¶ But finally, and worst of all, us Marxists and anarchists all too often act like assholes. We denounce others, we condemn them, we berate them for not engaging with the questions we want to engage with, and we vilify them when they don’t embrace every bit of the doxa that we endorse. We are every bit as off-putting and unpleasant as the fundamentalist minister or the priest of the inquisition (have people yet understood that Deleuze and Guattari’s Anti-Oedipus was a critique of the French communist party system and the Stalinist party system, and the horrific passions that arise out of parties and identifications in general?). This type of “revolutionary” is the greatest friend of the reactionary and capitalist because they do more to drive people into the embrace of reigning ideology than to undermine reigning ideology. These are the people that keep Rush Limbaugh in business. Well done!¶ But this isn’t where our most serious shortcomings lie. Our most serious shortcomings are to be found at phase 2. We almost never make concrete proposals for how things ought to be restructured, for what new material infrastructures and semiotic fields need to be produced, and when we do, our critique-intoxicated cynics and skeptics immediately jump in with an analysis of all the ways in which these things contain dirty secrets, ugly motives, and are doomed to fail. How, I wonder, are we to do anything at all when we have no concrete proposals? We live on a planet of 6 billion people. These 6 billion people are dependent on a certain network of production and distribution to meet the needs of their consumption. That network of production and distribution does involve the extraction of resources, the production of food, the maintenance of paths of transit and communication, the disposal of waste, the building of shelters, the distribution of medicines, etc., etc., etc.¶ What are your proposals? How will you meet these problems? How will you navigate the existing mediations or semiotic and material features of infrastructure? Marx and Lenin had proposals. Do you? Have you even explored the cartography of the problem? Today we are so intellectually bankrupt on these points that we even have theorists speaking of events and acts and talking about a return to the old socialist party systems, ignoring the horror they generated, their failures, and not even proposing ways of avoiding the repetition of these horrors in a new system of organization. Who among our critical theorists is thinking seriously about how to build a distribution and production system that is responsive to the needs of global consumption, avoiding the problems of planned economy, ie., who is doing this in a way that gets notice in our circles? Who is addressing the problems of micro-fascism that arise with party systems (there’s a reason that it was the Negri and Hardt contingent, not the Badiou contingent that has been the heart of the occupy movement). At least the ecologists are thinking about these things in these terms because, well, they think ecologically. Sadly we need something more, a melding of the ecologists, the Marxists, and the anarchists. We’re not getting it yet though, as far as I can tell. Indeed, folks seem attracted to yet another critical paradigm, Laruelle.¶ I would love, just for a moment, to hear a radical environmentalist talk about his ideal high school that would be academically sound. How would he provide for the energy needs of that school? How would he meet building codes in an environmentally sound way? How would she provide food for the students? What would be her plan for waste disposal? And most importantly, how would she navigate the school board, the state legislature, the federal government, and all the families of these students? What is your plan? What is your alternative? I think there are alternatives. I saw one that approached an alternative in Rotterdam. If you want to make a truly revolutionary contribution, this is where you should start. Why should anyone even bother listening to you if you aren’t proposing real plans? But we haven’t even gotten to that point. Instead we’re like underpants gnomes, saying “revolution is the answer!” without addressing any of the infrastructural questions of just how revolution is to be produced, what alternatives it would offer, and how we would concretely go about building those alternatives. Masturbation.¶ “Underpants gnome” deserves to be a category in critical theory; a sort of synonym for self-congratulatory masturbation. We need less critique not because critique isn’t important or necessary– it is –but because we know the critiques, we know the problems. We’re intoxicated with critique because it’s easy and safe. We best every opponent with critique. We occupy a position of moral superiority with critique. But do we really do anything with critique? What we need today, more than ever, is composition or carpentry. Everyone knows something is wrong. Everyone knows this system is destructive and stacked against them. Even the Tea Party knows something is wrong with the economic system, despite having the wrong economic theory. None of us, however, are proposing alternatives. Instead we prefer to shout and denounce. Good luck with that.
	44	+The state is inevitable- policymaking is the only way to create change.
	45	+Coverstone 05 Alan Coverstone (masters in communication from Wake Forest, longtime debate coach) “Acting on Activism: Realizing the Vision of Debate with Pro-social Impact” Paper presented at the National Communication Association Annual Conference November 17th 2005 Powerful personal narratives unconnected to political power are regularly co-opted by those who do learn the language of power. One need look no further than the annual state of the Union Address where personal story after personal story is used to support the political agenda of those in power. The so-called role-playing that public policy contest debates encourage promotes active learning of the vocabulary and levers of power in America. Imagining the ability to use our own arguments to influence government action is one of the great virtues of academic debate. Gerald Graff (2003) analyzed the decline of argumentation in academic discourse and found a source of student antipathy to public argument in an interesting place. I’m up against…their aversion to the role of public spokesperson that formal writing presupposes. It’s as if such students can’t imagine any rewards for being a public actor or even imagining themselves in such a role. This lack of interest in the public sphere may in turn reflect a loss of confidence in the possibility that the arguments we make in public will have an effect on the world. Today’s students’ lack of faith in the power of persuasion reflects the waning of the ideal of civic participation that led educators for centuries to place rhetorical and argumentative training at the center of the school and college curriculum. (Graff, 2003, p. 57) The power to imagine public advocacy that actually makes a difference is one of the great virtues of the traditional notion of fiat that critics deride as mere simulation. Simulation of success in the public realm is far more empowering to students than completely abandoning all notions of personal power in the face of governmental hegemony by teaching students that “nothing they can do in a contest debate can ever make any difference in public policy.” Contest debating is well suited to rewarding public activism if it stops accepting as an article of faith that personal agency is somehow undermined by the so-called role playing in debate. Debate is role-playing whether we imagine government action or imagine individual action. Imagining myself starting a socialist revolution in America is no less of a fantasy than imagining myself making a difference on Capitol Hill. Furthermore, both fantasies influenced my personal and political development virtually ensuring a life of active, pro-social, political participation. Neither fantasy reduced the likelihood that I would spend my life trying to make the difference I imagined. One fantasy actually does make a greater difference: the one that speaks the language of political power. The other fantasy disables action by making one a laughingstock to those who wield the language of power. Fantasy motivates and role-playing trains through visualization. Until we can imagine it, we cannot really do it. Role-playing without question teaches students to be comfortable with the language of power, and that language paves the way for genuine and effective political activism. Debates over the relative efficacy of political strategies for pro-social change must confront governmental power at some point.
	46	+Meta-studies prove that police accountability and legitimacy stops the culture of fear and spillovers to decrease overall violence.
	47	+Mazerolle et al 13, Lorraine, Sarah Bennett, Jacqueline Davis, Elise Sargeant and Matthew Manning, 2013, Legitimacy in Policing: A Systematic Review, http://thecapartnership.org/cms/assets/uploads/2016/02/Mazerolle_Legitimacy_Review-1.pdf
	48	+The systematic search found 163 studies that reported on police led interventions, and a final set of 30 studies contained data suitable for meta-analysis. The direct outcomes analyzed were legitimacy, procedural justice, and citizen cooperation/compliance and satisfaction/confidence in the police. In addition, an indirect outcome, reoffending, was also analyzed. The main finding of this review is that police interventions that comprised dialogue with a procedural justice component (or stated specifically that the intervention sought to increase legitimacy) did indeed enhance citizens’ views on the legitimacy of the police, with all direct outcomes apart from legitimacy itself being statistically significant. Our review shows that by police adopting procedurally just dialogue, they can use a variety of interventions to enhance legitimacy, reduce reoffending, and promote citizen satisfaction, confidence, compliance and cooperation with the police.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-11-20 13:47:22.397

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+on tabroom

Opponent

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

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+9

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Strake Jesuit Herrera Aff

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+IPV AC

Tournament

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