Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[55]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[49]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[55]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-04-30 01:26:35.982
	1	+2017-04-30 01:26:35.0

Caselist.CitesClass[49]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,41 @@
	1	+==Part 1 is Framing==
	2	+Debate cannot be a discussion of ideal theory- it must be a discussion of tangible policies to reduce oppression.
	3	+Curry 14, Tommy, The Cost of a Thing: A Kingian Reformulation of a Living Wage Argument in the 21st Century, Victory Briefs, 2014,
	4	+Despite the pronouncement of debate as an activity and intellectual exercise pointing to the real world consequences of dialogue, thinking, and (personal) politics when addressing issues of racism, sexism, economic disparity, global conflicts, and death, many of the discussions concerning these ongoing challenges to humanity are fixed to a paradigm which sees the adjudication of material disparities and sociological realities as the conquest of one ideal theory "Ideal Theory as Ideology," Charles Mills outlines the problem contemporary theoretical-performance styles in policy debate and value-weighing in Lincoln-Douglass are confronted with in their attempts to get at the concrete problems in our societies. At the outset, Mills concedes that "ideal theory applies to moral theory as a whole (at least to normative ethics as against metaethics); ~~s~~ince ethics deals by definition with normative/prescriptive/evaluative issues, against factual/descriptive issues." At the most general level, the conceptual chasm between what emerges as actual problems in the world (e.g.: racism, sexism, poverty, disease, etc.) and how we frame such problems theoretically—the assumptions and shared ideologies we depend upon for our problems to be heard and accepted as a worthy "problem" by an audience—is the most obvious call for an anti-ethical paradigm, since such a paradigm insists on the actual as the basis of what can be considered normatively. Mills, however, describes this chasm as a problem of an ideal-as-descriptive model which argues that for any actual-empirical-observable social phenomenon (P), an ideal of (P) is necessarily a representation of that phenomenon. In the idealization of a social phenomenon (P), one "necessarily has to abstract away from certain features" of (P) that is observed before abstraction occurs. This gap between what is actual (in the world), and what is represented by theories and politics of debaters proposed in rounds threatens any real discussions about the concrete nature of oppression and the racist economic structures which necessitate tangible policies and reorienting changes in our value orientations. As Mills states: "What distinguishes ideal theory is the reliance on idealization to the exclusion, or at least marginalization, of the actual," so what we are seeking to resolve on the basis of "thought" is in fact incomplete, incorrect, or ultimately irrelevant to the actual problems which our "theories" seek to address. Our attempts to situate social disparity cannot simply appeal to the ontologization of social phenomenon—meaning we cannot suggest that the various complexities of social problems (which are constantly emerging and undisclosed beyond the effects we observe) are totalizable by any one set of theories within an ideological frame be it our most cherished notions of Afro-pessimism, feminism, Marxism, or the like. At best, theoretical endorsements make us aware of sets of actions to address ever developing problems in our empirical world, but even this awareness does not command us to only do X, but rather do X and the other ideas which compliment the material conditions addressed by the action X. As a whole, debate (policy and LD) neglects the need to do X in order to remedy our cast-away-ness among our ideological tendencies and politics. How then do we pull ourselves from this seeming ir-recoverability of thought in general and in our endorsement of socially actualizable values like that of the living wage? It is my position that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s thinking about the need for a living wage was a unique, and remains an underappreciated, resource in our attempts to impose value reorientation (be it through critique or normative gestures) upon the actual world. In other words, King aims to reformulate the values which deny the legitimacy of the living wage, and those values predicated on the flawed views of the worker, Blacks, and the colonized (dignity, justice, fairness, rights, etc.) used to currently justify the living wages in under our contemporary moral parameters.
	5	+Thus the standard is minimizing oppression.
	6	+Ideal theory strips away particularities making ethics inaccessible and epistemologically skewed
	7	+Mills 05, Charles, 2005, Ideal Theory" as Ideology,
	8	+The crucial common claim—whether couched in terms of ideology and fetishism, or androcentrism, or white normativity—is that all theorizing, both moral and nonmoral, takes place in an intellectual realm dominated by concepts, assumptions, norms, values, and framing perspectives that reflect the experience and group interests of the privileged group (whether the bourgeoisie, or men, or whites). So a simple empiricism will not work as a cognitive strategy; one has to be self-conscious about the concepts that "spontaneously" occur to one, since many of these concepts will not arise naturally but as the result of social structures and hegemonic ideational patterns. In particular, it will often be the case that dominant concepts will obscure certain crucial realities, blocking them from sight, or naturalizing them, while on the other hand, concepts necessary for accurately mapping these realities will be absent. Whether in terms of concepts of the self, or of humans in general, or in the cartography of the social, it will be necessary to scrutinize the dominant conceptual tools and the way the boundaries are drawn. This is, of course, the burden of standpoint theory—that certain realities tend to be more visible from the perspective of the subordinated than the privileged (Harding 2003). The thesis can be put in a strong and implausible form, but weaker versions do have considerable plausibility, as illustrated by the simple fact that for the most part the crucial conceptual innovation necessary to map nonideal realities has not come from the dominant group. In its ignoring of oppression, ideal theory also ignores the consequences of oppression. If societies are not oppressive, or if in modeling them we can abstract away from oppression and assume moral cognizers of roughly equal skill, then the paradigmatic moral agent can be featureless. No theory is required about the particular group-based obstacles that may block the vision of a particular group. By contrast, nonideal theory recognizes that people will typically be cognitively affected by their social location, so that on both the macro and the more local level, the descriptive concepts arrived at may be misleading.
	9	+Non-ideal theory necessitates consequentialism since instead of following rules that assume an already equal playing field; we take steps to correct material injustice.
	10	+
	11	+
	12	+==Part 2 is Advocacy ==
	13	+Plan text, Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech that criticizes the military's policies.
	14	+
	15	+
	16	+==Part 3 is Offense==
	17	+Patriotic Correctness on campuses runs rampant- dissent is charged with treason and lines of critical thought are silenced. Higher education has been coopted by the military industrial complex, reducing the roles of teachers to mere technicians. Members of college campuses are routinely fired if they criticize the military, causing a chilling effect on such discussion. Multiple empirical examples prove:
	18	+Wilson 15, John K., Ph.D candidate with dissertation on the history of academic freedom in America and author of three books, "Patriotic Correctness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies," Routledge, Nov 30, 2015
	19	+Compared to earlier "wartime" situations, academic freedom is far more protected today than at any time in the past. But the danger posed to academic freedom cannot be ignored. Efforts to silence faculty and students, even when they are unsuccessful, can make others around the country more reluctant to speak openly. Only by denouncing all efforts at censorship and vigorously defending the right of freedom on college campuses, can we continue to protect academic freedom. The cliché of our times, constantly repeated but often true, is that 9/11 "changed everything." One thing that it changed was academic freedom. The controversy over the limits of free speech on college campuses across the nation began immediately. On the morning of September 11, 2001, University of New Mexico history professor Richard Berthold joked with his class, "Anyone who would blow up the Pentagon would have my vote." Berthold received death threats, keeping him off campus. On September 27, an unidentified person left a message on the provost's voice-mail saying if Berthold were not "ousted" within 24 hours, Berthold would be ousted by other sources. Berthold was threatened in front of his home by a biker who came at him screaming obscenities, and he received several angry e-mails and letters with messages such as "I'd like to blow you up." New Mexico state representative William Fuller declared,"Treason is giving aide or comfort to the enemy. Any terrorist who heard Berthold's comment was comforted." In the end, Berthold was pressured to retire from his job because of those 11 words he spoke on 9/11.Mohammad Rahat, an Iranian citizen and University of Miami medical technician who turned 22 years old on September 11, 2001, declared in a meeting that day, "Some birthday gift from Osama bin Laden." Although Rahat said that he meant it "in a sarcastic way," Rahat was suspended and then fired on September 25, 2001. Paula Musto, vice president of university relations, declared that Rahat's "comments were deeply disturbing to his co-workers and superiors at the medical school. They were inappropriate and unbecoming for someone working in a research laboratory. He was fired because he made those comments, certainly not because of his ethnic background." Rahat had received only positive evaluation in 13 months working in the lab. 6 At the University of California at Los Angeles, library assistant Jonnie Hargis was suspended without pay for one week after sending an e-mail response criticizing American policies in Iraq and Israel. Hargis' union successfully pursued a grievance; Hargis was repaid for his lost income, the incident was stricken from his job record, and the university was forced to clarify its e-mail policies.7On September 13, 2001, two resident assistants in Minnesota complained to the dean of students that undergraduates felt fearful and uneasy because some professors questioned the competence of the Bush Administration. According to the resident assistants,"The recent attacks extend beyond political debate, and for professors to make negative judgments on our government before any action has taken place only fosters a cynical attitude in the classroom." The administration asked faculty to think hard about what they said. Greg Kneser, dean of students, declared:"There were students who were just scared, and an intellectual discussion of the political ramifications of this was not helpful for them. They were frightened, and they look to their faculty not just for intellectual debate" but as "people they trust."8 Even hypothetical discussions were suspicious. Portland Community College philosophy professor Stephen Carey challenged students in his critical thinking class to consider an extreme rhetorical proposition that would cause great emotion, like "Bush should be hung, strung up upside down, and left for the buzzards." One student's mother, misunderstanding the example, called the FBI and accused Carey of threatening to kill the President, and the Secret Service investigated him.9 When four leftist faculty at the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill (UNC) criticized U.S. foreign policy at a teach-in, Scott Rubush of FrontPage magazine, declared, "They're using state resources to the practical effect of aiding and abetting the Taliban."The magazine recommended that these faculty be fired. "Tell the good folks at UNC–Chapel Hill what you think of their decision to allow anti-American rallies on their state-supported campus," FrontPage urged. The administration received hundreds of angry e-mails, and was denounced on the floor of the North Carolina legislature. Several antiwar faculty members received death threats.10 In addition to phys i cal threats and attack s , A rab and Muslim students also faced enormous scru t i ny from the authori t i e s . An October 2001 survey by the Am e ri can Association of Collegiate Registrars and Ad m i s s i ons Officers found thatat least 220 colleges had been contacted by law enforcement in the weeks after 9/11. Police or FBI agents made 99 requests for private "n on - d i re c t o ry "i n f o rm a t i on ,s u ch as course sch e d u l e s , that under law cannot be released without student con s e n t , a s u b p o e n a , or a pending danger (on ly 12 of the requests had a subpoena, a l t h o u g h the Immigra t i on and Na t u ra l i za t i on Se rvice doesn't re q u i reconsent for inform a t i on on foreign students). Most requests were for individual students, although 16 requests for student re c o rds were "based on ethnicity. " Law enforcement re c e i ve d the inform a t i on from 159 sch o o l s , and on ly eight denied any re q u e s t s . I n response to the violence and persecution against Muslim and Arab students, some colleges did try to restrict offensive speech in ways that resulted in threats to academic fre e d om . At Orange Coast Com mu n i ty College (OCC) on September 20, 2001, government professor Ken Hearlson was suspended for 11 weeks after Muslim students accused him of being biased against them and calling them "terrorists." Hearlson denied the accusation. A tape recording of the class found that the most extreme statements were misheard, although Hearlson did apparently point a finger at Middle Eastern students while he blamed Arab countries for fomenting terrorism.11 In a case at Johns Hopkins University, Charles H. Fairbanks Jr., director of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), was demoted (but later reinstated) after a September 14 panel discussion on terrorism in which he criticized Iraq, Pakistan, and Palestinians.12 I n response to the violence and persecution against Muslim and Arab students, some colleges did try to restrict offensive speech in ways that resulted in threats to academic fre e d om . At Orange Coast Com mu n i ty College (OCC) on September 20, 2001, government professor Ken Hearlson was suspended for 11 weeks after Muslim students accused him of being biased against them and calling them "terrorists." Hearlson denied the accusation. A tape recording of the class found that the most extreme statements were misheard, although Hearlson did apparently point a finger at Middle Eastern students while he blamed Arab countries for fomenting terrorism.11 In a case at Johns Hopkins University, Charles H. Fairbanks Jr., director of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), was demoted (but later reinstated) after a September 14 panel discussion on terrorism in which he criticized Iraq, Pakistan, and Palestinians.12 Anti-military views expressed in an e-mail could put a professor's job at risk. At Chicago's St. Xavier University, history professor Peter Kirstein sent this response to an Air Force cadet asking him to help promote an Air Force event: "You are a disgrace to this country and I am furious you would even think I would support you and your aggressive baby killing tactics of collateral damage." Although Kirstein apologized for his e-mail, many called for his dismissal. On November 15, 2002, St. Xavier president Richard Yanikoski announced that Kirstein would be immediately suspended, receive a reprimand, and undergo a post-tenure review during a Spring 2003 sabbatical.13 Another tenured professor was suspended for responding rudely to an unsolicited e-mail and saying that killing is wrong. While conservatives contended that a few cases of censorship proved that left-wing thought police rule over college campuses, my extensive survey of academic freedom and civil liberties at American universities found the opposite: left-wing critics of the Bush Administration suffered by far the most numerous and most serious violations of their civil liberties. Censorship of conservatives was rare, and almost always overturned in the few cases where it occurred. Patriotic correctness—not political correctness—reigned supreme after 9/11.
	20	+History proves, anti-military dissent has always been silenced when the State is hell-bent on imposing its agenda and quieting opposition. Voting aff helps teach students to refuse complicity with militarism
	21	+Jaschik and Giroux 07, Henry Giroux and Scott Jaschik, 'The University in Chains', (Interview), 2007, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/08/07/giroux
	22	+Q: How do you think the state of academic freedom has changed since 9/11? A: Criticisms of the university as a stronghold of dissent have a long and inglorious history in the United States, extending from attacks in the 19th century by religious fundamentalists to anti-communist witch-hunts conducted in the 1920s, 1930s, and again in the 1950s, during the infamous era of McCarthyism. Harkening back to the infamous McCarthy era, a newly reinvigorated war is currently being waged by Christian nationalists, reactionary neoconservatives, and corporate fundamentalists against the autonomy and integrity of all those independent institutions that foster social responsibility, critical thought, and critical citizenship. While the attack is being waged on numerous fronts, the universities are where the major skirmishes are taking place. What is unique about this attack on academic freedom are the range and scope of the forces waging an assault on higher education. It is much worse today, because corporations, the national security state, the Pentagon, powerful Christian evangelical groups, non-government agencies, and enormously wealthy right-wing individuals and institutions have created powerful alliances — the perfect storm so to speak — that are truly threatening the freedoms and semi-autonomy of American universities. Higher education in the United States is currently being targeted by a diverse number of right-wing forces that have assumed political power and are waging an aggressive and focused campaign against the principles of academic freedom, sacrificing critical pedagogical practice in the name of patriotic correctness and dismantling the ideal of the university as a bastion of independent thought, and uncorrupted inquiry. Ironically, it is through the vocabulary of individual rights, academic freedom, balance, and tolerance that these forces are attempting to slander, even vilify, an allegedly liberal and left-oriented professoriate, to cut already meager federal funding for higher education, to eliminate tenure, and to place control of what is taught and said in classrooms under legislative oversight. There is more at work in the current attack than the rampant anti-intellectualism and paranoid style of American politics outlined in Richard Hofstadter's Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, written over 40 years ago. There is also the collective power of radical right-wing organizations, which in their powerful influence on all levels of government in spite of a democratically controlled Congress and most liberal social institutions feel compelled to dismantle the open, questioning cultures of the academy. Underlying recent attacks on the university is an attempt not merely to counter dissent but to destroy it and in doing so to eliminate all of those remaining public spaces, spheres, and institutions that nourish and sustain a culture of questioning so vital to a democratic civil society. Dissent is often equated with treason; the university is portrayed as the weak link in the war on terror by powerful educational agencies; professors who advocate a culture of questioning and critical engagement run the risk of having their names posted on Internet web sites while being labeled as un-American; and various right-wing individuals and politicians increasingly attempt to pass legislation that renders critical analysis a liability and reinforces, with no irony intended, a rabid anti-intellectualism under the call for balance and intellectual diversity. Genuine politics begins to disappear as people methodically lose those freedoms and rights that enable them to speak, act, dissent, and exercise both their individual right to resistance and a shared sense of collective responsibility. While higher education is only one site, it is one of the most crucial institutional and political spaces where democratic subjects can be shaped, democratic relations can be experienced, and anti-democratic forms of power can be identified and critically engaged. It is also one of the few spaces left where young people can think critically about the knowledge they gain, learn values that refuse to reduce the obligations of citizenship to either consumerism or the dictates of the national security state, and develop the language and skills necessary to defend those institutions and social relations that are vital to a substantive democracy. As the philosopher Hannah Arendt insisted, a meaningful conception of politics appears only when concrete spaces exist for people to come together to talk, think critically, and act on their capacities for empathy, judgment, and social responsibility. What the current attack on higher education threatens is a notion of the academy that is faithful to its role as a crucial democratic public sphere, one that offers a space both to resist the "dark times" in which we now live and to embrace the possibility of a future forged in the civic struggles requisite for a viable democracy.
	23	+2 impacts
	24	+
	25	+
	26	+===A. Cultural shift-===
	27	+ The aff teaches students to refuse the myth of militarism- this creates a cultural shift away from the glorification of violence
	28	+**Chatterjee and Maira 14** ~~Piya Chatterjee, Backstrand Chair and Professor of Feminist, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Scripps College, Sunaina Maira, Professor of Asian American Studies at UC Davis, "The Imperial University: Academic Repression and Scholarly Dissent," University of Minnesota Press, 2014~~ JW
	29	+State warfare and militarism have shored up deeply powerful notions of patriotism, intertwined with a politics of race, class, gender, sexuality, and religion , through the culture wars that have embroiled the U.S. academy. The fronts of "hot" and "cold" wars—military, cultural, and academic— have rested on an ideological framework that has defined the "enemy" as a threat to U.S. freedom and democracy. This enemy produced and propped up in the shifting culture wars— earlier the Communist, now the (Muslim) terrorist— has always been both external and internal. The overt policing of knowledge production, exemplified by right-wing groups such as ACTA, reveals an ideological battle cry in the "culture wars" that have burgeoned in the wake of the civil rights movement— and the containment and policing demanded within the academy. Defending the civilizational integrity of the nation requires producing a national subject and citizen by regulating the boundaries of what is permissible and desirable to express in national culture— and in the university. As Readings observed, "In modernity, the University becomes the model of the social bond that ties individuals in a common relation to the idea of the nation-state." 46 Belonging is figured through the metaphor of patriotic citizenship, in the nation and in the academy, through displays of what Henry Giroux has also called "patriotic correctness": "an ideology that privileges conformity over critical learning and that represents dissent as something akin to a terrorist act." 47 This is where the recent culture wars have shaped the politics of what we call academic containment. For right-wing activists, the nation must be fortified by an educational foundation that upholds, at its core, the singular superiority of Western civilization. A nation-state construed as being under attack is in a state of cultural crisis where any sign of disloyalty to the nation is an act of treachery, including acts perceived as intellectual betrayal. The culture wars have worked to uphold a powerful mythology about American democracy and the American Dream and a potent fiction about freedom of expression that in actuality contains academic dissent. This exceptionalist mythology has historically represented the U.S. nation as a beacon of individual liberty and a bulwark against the Evil Empire or Communist bloc ; Third Worldist and left insurgent movements, including uprisings within the United States in the 1960s and 1970s and in Central America in the 1980s; Islamist militancy and anti-imperial movements since the 1980s ; and the threat posed by all of these to the American "way of life." The battle against Communism, anti-imperial Third Worldism, and so-called Islamofascism entailed regulating and containing movements sympathetic to these forces at home, including intellectuals with left-leaning tendencies and radical scholars or students— all those likely to contaminate young minds and indoctrinate students in "subversive" or "anti-American" ideologies.
	30	+Militarism is part of the culture, making people disposable- justifying and creating everyday violence against the Middle Eastern Other. The aff allows student and professors to refuse this culture.
	31	+**Chatterjee and Maira 2** ~~Piya Chatterjee, Backstrand Chair and Professor of Feminist, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Scripps College, Sunaina Maira, Professor of Asian American Studies at UC Davis, "The Imperial University: Academic Repression and Scholarly Dissent," University of Minnesota Press, 2014~~ JW
	32	+The strategic co-optation of the language of pluralism for academic containment is nowhere more evident than in the assault on progressive scholarship in Middle East studies and postcolonial studies and in the intense culture wars over Islam, the War on Terror, and Israel-Palestine. The 9/ 11 attacks and the heightened Islamophobia they generated allowed Zionist and neoconservative groups to intensify accusations that progressive Middle East studies scholars and scholars critical of U.S. foreign policy were guilty of bias and " one-sided" partisanship , as observed in accounts of censure, suspicion, and vilification by Abowd, De Genova, and Salaita. The post-9/ 11 culture wars conjured up new and not-sonew phantoms of enemies— in particular , the racialized specter of the "terrorist." This figure, and the racial panic associated with it, has been sedimented in the national imaginary as synonymous with the "Muslim" and the "Arab" since the Iranian Revolution of 1978– 1979 and the First Intifada against Israeli occupation in the late 1980s. The War on Terror consolidated Orientalist caricatures of Muslim fanatics and Arab militants , but it is important to note that these also dredged up avatars of a historical logic of containment and annihilation of indigenous others. 59 The native, the barbarian, and the foreigner converge in this cultural imaginary that legitimizes violence against anti-Western, uncivilized regions incapable of democratic self-governance and that is produced by expert knowledge of other peoples and regions. The wars in Iraq and "Af-Pak" and the global hunt for terrorists entailed an intensified suspicion and scrutiny of ideologies that supported militant resistance or "anti-American" sentiments and necessitated academic research on communities that were supposedly "breeding grounds" for terrorism. The post-9/ 11 panic about Muslim terrorists and enemy aliens increasingly focused on the threat of "homegrown terrorism" as the War on Terror shifted its focus to "radicalized" communities within the United States, especially Muslim American youth. At the same time, as Godrej observes, the criminalization of those considered threats to national security has included the violent repression of Occupy activists and student protesters and indefinite detention authorized by the PATRIOT (Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act and the National Defense Authorization Act. Protests focused on higher education thus blur into dissent against U.S. warfare and the homeland security state in a climate of heightened campus securitization and university collaboration with the FBI in the interest of "public safety." Anarchists are considered domestic terror threats to be contained, and Muslim or Arab American students (or faculty) who are also anarchists are subjected to multiple levels of containment and scrutiny, as suggested in the chapter by Falcón et al. Academic containment is clearly part of a larger politics of repression and policing in the national security state that affects faculty and students as well as the campus climate in general.
	33	+This militaristic mindset is used to squash movements
	34	+**Gossett 14** Lambda Literary Writer Retreat Fellow, black genderqueer and femme fabulous activist and writer (Che, "We will not rest in peace AIDS activism, black radicalism, queer and/or trans resistance," Queer Necropolitics, Edited by Jim Haritaworn, Adi Kuntsman, and Silvia Posocco, Q Routledge
	35	+The prison industrial complex is an always already anti-black, violently antiqueer and anti-transgender enterprise that perpetuates what Saidiya Hartman names the 'afterlife of slavery' (Hartman 2008: 6). It institutionalizes forms of restricted life: following 're-entry', a formerly incarcerated person loses access to public housing, benefits and federal educational loans and faces chronic joblessness due to stigma. Incarceration has been historically employed as a means of maintaining an anti-black and white supremacist sociopolitical and racial capitalist order from antebellum 'black codes' that criminalized vagrancy (Dru Stanley 125 126) post-'emancipation', to more recent attempts to extinguish the spirit and destroy the momentum of black liberationist movements in the United States (ranging from surveillance and sabotage of the Revolutionary Action Movement, to COINTELPRO, to the current renewed targeting of Assata Shakur). Journalist Shane Bauer (2012) has documented how in California, the mere possession of black radical literature results in being criminalized as gang related and put in solitary housing units (SHU) - a form of torture from which exit is uncertain, whose administration is often based on whether one informs on other incarcerated people (Bauer 2012: 1-4). Prisons thus continue the logic of COINTELPRO, which aimed to neutralize and eliminate black freedom movement(s). The prison industrial complex is at once a manifestation of a disciplinary and of a control society. The prison is one of the central and proliferating oppressive technologies through which bio- and necropolitical violence and the apparatuses of surveillance that reinforce it are naturalized. The insidious morphology of the carceral is such that even as it is dismantled via lobbying for decriminalization and decarceration, on the one hand, it proliferates via extended modes of surveillance and control — ankle bracelets, probation and parole — on the other. Carceral violence is maintained in various penal registers and forms.
	36	+
	37	+
	38	+===B. Political Spillover===
	39	+Academics have used state resources and their own academic freedom to create positive policy change proving that liberalizing the university creates concrete material impacts
	40	+**Slaughter 88** ~~Sheila Slaughter, associate professor in the Center for the Study of Higher Education and director of the Division of Educational Foundations and Administration, The University of Arizona, "Academic Freedom and the State: Reflections on the Uses of Knowledge," The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 59, No. 3 (May - Jun., 1988), pp. 241-262~~ JW
	41	+In the 1960s and 1970s, definitions of academic knowledge began to broaden. The university curriculum came to include subjects previously treated only in an incidental way-black studies, women's stud- ies, ethnic studies, and multiculturalism. Even China studies reentered the curriculum. The works of Marxists, feminists, anar- chists, and critical thinkers were included in social science courses where more conventional thought had once dominated. Methodologi- cal debates raged: the very possibility of objective knowledge and value-free science was seriously questioned ~~20, 38~~. The expanded, heavily state-funded university provided in large part the resource base for the growth of diverse forms of knowledge. Funds were available for the new departments and new courses, jour- nals, and library subscriptions. Professors were able to sustain these new areas with resources generated within the university. Professors representing broader forms of knowledge were able to make their presence felt in professional associations, many of which developed radical and feminist caucuses in the late 1960s and 1970s ~~9, 36~~. Professors engaged in generating alternative forms of knowledge also exchanged expertise with those outside the university, often using the university as their primary resource base. These external groups contributed symbolic support, some resources and very often used professors' expertise to fuel reform. Professors developing expertise in complementarity with these groups usually offer ideological and technical alternatives to current policy. In the area of foreign policy, for example, professors have worked with a wide variety of external groups to curb United States interventionist policies in Central America, particularly in Nicaragua. In many cases, these groups do more than simply call for an end to war; they present carefully thought-out policy alternatives for the region. Thus, the Institute for Policy Stud- ies drew on a number of professors in writing Policy Alternatives for the Caribbean and Central America. A great many professors have endorsed this long-term development plan for the Caribbean Basin. Academics have exchanged expertise with the Institute for Food and Development Policy in attempts to help Central American countries become self-sustaining in terms of food production. organizations such as Americas Watch and Amnesty International of- fer resources for new forms of expertise in Central America as do religious organizations such as Witness for Peace and Pledge of Resis- tance. Central America is only a single instance. State-supported professors exchange expertise with a wide variety of external groups trying to change prevailing policy. Examples of such exchanges are seen in professorial work with critical intellectual centers such as Public In- terest Research Groups, the Council on Economic Priorities, and the Union for Radical Political Economics; with special interest groups such as nuclear disarmament and pro-choice organizations; and with religious groups trying to create new theologies.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-04-30 01:26:38.552

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Chris Castillo

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Ridge SK

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+55

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+West Ranch Won Aff

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+JANFEB - TOC R2 AC

Tournament

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