Tournament: Damus | Round: 2 | Opponent: West KA | Judge: Sarah Crucilla
A. Interpretation - The AFF may only garner offense from hypothetical enactment of the resolution 

This does not require the use of any particular style, type of evidence, or assumption about the role of the judge — only that the topic should determine the debate’s subject matter.  Solves their method good offense – they can read hauntology as a framework argument to justify a topical plan, there’s no reason voting off it is key.

“Resolved” in front of the resolution mandates a policy action. Parcher
(Jeff, Fmr. Debate Coach at Georgetown University, February, http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200102/0790.html)
(1) Pardon me if I turn to a source besides Bill. American Heritage Dictionary: Resolve: 1. To make a firm decision about. 2. To decide or express by formal vote. 3. To separate something into constituent parts See Syns at *analyze* (emphasis in orginal) 4. Find a solution to. See Syns at *Solve* (emphasis in original) 5. To dispel: resolve a doubt. - n 1. Frimness of purpose; resolution. 2. A determination or decision.  (2) The very nature of the word "resolution" makes it a question. American Heritage: A course of action determined or decided on. A formal statemnt of a deciion, as by a legislature. (3) The resolution is obviously a question. Any other conclusion is utterly inconcievable. Why? Context. The debate community empowers a topic committee to write a topic for ALTERNATE side debating. The committee is not a random group of people coming together to "reserve" themselves about some issue. There is context - they are empowered by a community to do something. In their deliberations, the topic community attempts to craft a resolution which can be ANSWERED in either direction. They focus on issues like ground and fairness because they know the resolution will serve as the basis for debate which will be resolved by determining the policy desireablility of that resolution. That's not only what they do, but it's what we REQUIRE them to do. We don't just send the topic committee somewhere to adopt their own group resolution. It's not the end point of a resolution adopted by a body - it's the prelimanary wording of a resolution sent to others to be answered or decided upon. (4) Further context: the word resolved is used to emphasis the fact that it's policy debate. Resolved comes from the adoption of resolutions by legislative bodies. A resolution is either adopted or it is not. It's a question before a legislative body. Should this statement be adopted or not. (5) The very terms 'affirmative' and 'negative' support my view. One affirms a resolution. Affirmative and negative are the equivalents of 'yes' or 'no' - which, of course, are answers to a question.

And the OED defines ought as “Used to indicate a desirable or expected state”
OED (Oxford Dictionary, Online Dictionary, "Ought”, No date.  

B. Violation: 

They defend _ instead of policy action by countries, which isn’t part of the resolution.   

C. Standards:  

     Engagement – there are infinite non-topical AFFs - a precise and predictable point of difference is key to effective dialogue.  Steinberg and Freeley 13
    Steinberg and Freeley 13, * David, Lecturer in Communication studies and rhetoric. Advisor to Miami Urban Debate League. Director of Debate at U Miami, Former President of CEDA. And  Austin, attorney who focuses on criminal, personal injury and civil rights law, JD, Suffolk University, Argumentation and Debate, Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making, 121-4.  NS from file

Debate is a means of settling differences, so there must be a controversy, a difference of opinion or a conflict of interest before there can be a debate. If everyone is in agreement on a feet or value or policy, there is no need or opportunity for debate; the matter can be settled by unanimous consent. Thus, for example, it would be pointless to attempt to debate "Resolved: That two plus two equals four,” because there is simply no controversy about this state¬ment. Controversy is an essential prerequisite of debate. Where there is no clash of ideas, proposals, interests, or expressed positions of issues, there is no debate. Controversy invites decisive choice between competing positions. Debate cannot produce effective decisions without clear identification of a question or questions to be answered. For example, general argument may occur about the broad topic of illegal immigration. How many illegal immigrants live in the United States? What is the impact of illegal immigration and immigrants on our economy? What is their impact on our communities? Do they commit crimes? Do they take jobs from American workers? Do they pay taxes? Do they require social services? Is it a problem that some do not speak English? Is it the responsibility of employers to discourage illegal immigration by not hiring undocumented workers? Should they have the opportunity to gain citizenship? Does illegal immigration pose a security threat to our country? Do illegal immigrants do work that American workers are unwilling to do? Are their rights as workers and as human beings at risk due to their status? Are they abused by employers, law enforcement, housing, and businesses? How are their families impacted by their status? What is the moral and philosophical obligation of a nation state to maintain its borders? Should we build a wall on the Mexican border, establish a national identification card, or enforce existing laws against employers? Should we invite immigrants to become U.S. citizens? Surely you can think of many more concerns to be addressed by a conversation about the topic area of illegal immigration. Participation in this “debate” is likely to be emotional and intense. However, it is not likely to be productive or useful without focus on a particular question and identification of a line demarcating sides in the controversy. To be discussed and resolved effectively, controversies are best understood when seated clearly such that all parties to the debate share an understanding about the objec¬tive of the debate. This enables focus on substantive and objectively identifiable issues facilitating comparison of competing argumentation leading to effective decisions. Vague understanding results in unfocused deliberation and poor deci¬sions, general feelings of tension without opportunity for resolution, frustration, and emotional distress, as evidenced by the failure of the U.S. Congress to make substantial progress on the immigration debate. Of course, arguments may be presented without disagreement. For exam¬ple, claims are presented and supported within speeches, editorials, and advertise¬ments even without opposing or refutational response. Argumentation occurs in a range of settings from informal to formal, and may not call upon an audi¬ence or judge to make a forced choice among competing claims. Informal dis¬course occurs as conversation or panel discussion without demanding a decision about a dichotomous or yes/no question. However, by definition, debate requires "reasoned judgment on a proposition. The proposition is a statement about which competing advocates will offer alternative (pro or con) argumenta¬tion calling upon their audience or adjudicator to decide. The proposition pro¬vides focus for the discourse and guides the decision process. Even when a decision will be made through a process of compromise, it is important to iden¬tify the beginning positions of competing advocates to begin negotiation and movement toward a center, or consensus position. It is frustrating and usually unproductive to attempt to make a decision when deciders are unclear as to what the decision is about. The proposition may be implicit in some applied debates (“Vote for me!”); however, when a vote or consequential decision is called for (as in the courtroom or in applied parliamentary debate) it is essential that the proposition be explicitly expressed (“the defendant is guilty!”). In aca¬demic debate, the proposition provides essential guidance for the preparation of the debaters prior to the debate, the case building and discourse presented during the debate, and the decision to be made by the debate judge after the debate. Someone disturbed by the problem of a growing underclass of poorly educated, socially disenfranchised youths might observe, “Public schools are doing a terri¬ble job! They' are overcrowded, and many teachers are poorly qualified in their subject areas. Even the best teachers can do little more than struggle to maintain order in their classrooms." That same concerned citizen, facing a complex range of issues, might arrive at an unhelpful decision, such as "We ought to do some¬thing about this” or, worse, “It’s too complicated a problem to deal with." Groups of concerned citizens worried about the state of public education could join together to express their frustrations, anger, disillusionment, and emotions regarding the schools, but without a focus for their discussions, they could easily agree about the sorry state of education without finding points of clarity or potential solutions. A gripe session would follow. But if a precise question is posed—such as “What can be done to improve public education?”—then a more profitable area of discussion is opened up simply by placing a focus on the search for a concrete solution step. One or more judgments can be phrased in the form of debate propositions, motions for parliamentary debate, or bills for legislative assemblies, The statements "Resolved: That the federal government should implement a program of charter schools in at-risk communities” and “Resolved; That the state of Florida should adopt a school voucher program" more clearly identify specific ways of dealing with educational problems in a manageable form, suitable for debate. They provide specific policies to be investigated and aid discussants in identifying points of difference. This focus contributes to better and more informed decision making with the potential for better results. In aca¬demic debate, it provides better depth of argumentation and enhanced opportu¬nity for reaping the educational benefits of participation. In the next section, we will consider the challenge of framing the proposition for debate, and its role in the debate. To have a productive debate, which facilitates effective decision making by directing and placing limits on the decision to be made, the basis for argument should be clearly defined. If we merely talk about a topic, such as ‘"homeless¬ness,” or “abortion,” Or “crime,” or “global warming,” we are likely to have an interesting discussion but not to establish a profitable basis for argument. For example, the statement “Resolved: That the pen is mightier than the sword” is debatable, yet by itself fails to provide much basis for dear argumen¬tation. If we take this statement to mean Iliad the written word is more effec¬tive than physical force for some purposes, we can identify a problem area: the comparative effectiveness of writing or physical force for a specific purpose, perhaps promoting positive social change. (Note that “loose” propositions, such as the example above, may be defined by their advocates in such a way as to facilitate a clear contrast of competing sides; through definitions and debate they “become” clearly understood statements even though they may not begin as such. There are formats for debate that often begin with this sort of proposition. However, in any debate, at some point, effective and meaningful discussion relies on identification of a clearly stated or understood proposition.) Back to the example of the written word versus physical force. Although we now have a general subject, we have not yet stated a problem. It is still too broad, too loosely worded to promote well-organized argument. What sort of writing are we concerned with—poems, novels, government documents, web¬site development, advertising, cyber-warfare, disinformation, or what? What does it mean to be “mightier" in this context? What kind of physical force is being compared—fists, dueling swords, bazookas, nuclear weapons, or what? A more specific question might be, “Would a mutual defense treaty or a visit by our fleet be more effective in assuring Laurania of our support in a certain crisis?” The basis for argument could be phrased in a debate proposition such as “Resolved: That the United States should enter into a mutual defense treaty with Laurania.” Negative advocates might oppose this proposition by arguing that fleet maneuvers would be a better solution. This is not to say that debates should completely avoid creative interpretation of the controversy by advo¬cates, or that good debates cannot occur over competing interpretations of the controversy; in fact, these sorts of debates may be very engaging. The point is that debate is best facilitated by the guidance provided

Outweighs:
A. Even if their method is good, it isn’t valuable if it’s not procedurally debatable – they don’t get access to any of their offense
B.  The best solutions are formed with critical contestation from multiple sides – it’s more likely we make a good liberation strategy if both debaters can engage and test it
C.  Debate is about process not content – we inevitably switch sides, even if it’s arguing against one method with another.  The individual ideas we learn, aren’t as valuable as learning how to effectively apply those ideas outside of round by engaging in precise discussions instead of just asserting opinions.
D.  They force the NEG to extremist generics – this is why cap and anthro are such common responses to their position  - which causes more evasion than if we had a substantive debate about nuclear power.
E.  It’s key to long term activism which turns case and outweighs because of existential threats. Lundberg 10

Christian O. Lundberg 10 Professor of Communications @ University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, “Tradition of Debate in North Carolina” in Navigating Opportunity: Policy Debate in the 21st Century By Allan D. Louden, p. 311

The second major problem with the critique that identifies a naivety in articulating debate and democracy is that it presumes that the primary pedagogical outcome of debate is speech capacities. But the democratic capacities built by debate are not limited to speech—as indicated earlier, debate builds capacity for critical thinking, analysis of public claims, informed decision making, and better public judgment. If the picture of modem political life that underwrites this critique of debate is a pessimistic view of increasingly labyrinthine and bureaucratic administrative politics, rapid scientific and technological change outpacing the capacities of the citizenry to comprehend them, and ever-expanding insular special-interest- and money-driven politics, it is a puzzling solution, at best, to argue that these conditions warrant giving up on debate. If democracy is open to rearticulation, it is open to rearticulation precisely because as the challenges of modern political life proliferate, the citizenry's capacities can change, which is one of the primary reasons that theorists of democracy such as Ocwey in The Public awl Its Problems place such a high premium on education (Dewey 1988,63, 154). Debate provides an indispensible form of education in the modem articulation of democracy because it builds precisely the skills that allow the citizenry to research and be informed about policy decisions that impact them, to sort through and evaluate the evidence for and relative merits of arguments for and against a policy in an increasingly information-rich environment, and to prioritize their time and political energies toward policies that matter the most to them. The merits of debate as a tool for building democratic capacity-building take on a special significance in the context of information literacy. John Larkin (2005, HO) argues that one of the primary failings of modern colleges and universities is that they have not changed curriculum to match with the challenges of a new information environment. This is a problem for the course of academic study in our current context, but perhaps more important, argues Larkin, for the future of a citizenry that will need to make evaluative choices against an increasingly complex and multimediated information environment (ibid-). Larkin's study tested the benefits of debate participation on information-literacy skills and concluded that in-class debate participants reported significantly higher self-efficacy ratings of their ability to navigate academic search databases and to effectively search and use other Web resources: To analyze the self-report ratings of the instructional and control group students, we first conducted a multivariate analysis of variance on all of the ratings, looking jointly at the effect of instmction/no instruction and debate topic . . . that it did not matter which topic students had been assigned . . . students in the Instnictional debate) group were significantly more confident in their ability to access information and less likely to feel that they needed help to do so----These findings clearly indicate greater self-efficacy for online searching among students who participated in (debate).... These results constitute strong support for the effectiveness of the project on students' self-efficacy for online searching in the academic databases. There was an unintended effect, however: After doing ... the project, instructional group students also felt more confident than the other students in their ability to get good information from Yahoo and Google. It may be that the library research experience increased self-efficacy for any searching, not just in academic databases. (Larkin 2005, 144) Larkin's study substantiates Thomas Worthcn and Gaylcn Pack's (1992, 3) claim that debate in the college classroom plays a critical role in fostering the kind of problem-solving skills demanded by the increasingly rich media and information environment of modernity. Though their essay was written in 1992 on the cusp of the eventual explosion of the Internet as a medium, Worthcn and Pack's framing of the issue was prescient: the primary question facing today's student has changed from how to best research a topic to the crucial question of learning how to best evaluate which arguments to cite and rely upon from an easily accessible and veritable cornucopia of materials. There are, without a doubt, a number of important criticisms of employing debate as a model for democratic deliberation. But cumulatively, the evidence presented here warrants strong support for expanding debate practice in the classroom as a technology for enhancing democratic deliberative capacities. The unique combination of critical thinking skills, research and information processing skills, oral communication skills, and capacities for listening and thoughtful, open engagement with hotly contested issues argues for debate as a crucial component of a rich and vital democratic life. In-class debate practice both aids students in achieving the best goals of college and university education, and serves as an unmatched practice for creating thoughtful, engaged, open-minded and self-critical students who are open to the possibilities of meaningful political engagement and new articulations of democratic life. Expanding this practice is crucial, if only because the more we produce citizens that can actively and effectively engage the political process, the more likely we are to produce revisions of democratic life that are necessary if democracy is not only to survive, but to thrive. Democracy faces a myriad of challenges, including: domestic and international issues of class, gender, and racial justice; wholesale environmental destruction and the potential for rapid climate change; emerging threats to international stability in the form of terrorism, intervention and new possibilities for great power conflict; and increasing challenges of rapid globalization including an increasingly volatile global economic structure. More than any specific policy or proposal, an informed and active citizenry that deliberates with greater skill and sensitivity provides one of the best hopes for responsive and effective democratic governance, and by extension, one of the last best hopes for dealing with the existential challenges to democracy in an increasingly complex world.
F. Discussion of racial policy making is more productive and outweighs their 1AC impacts. Reed 97
Reed, Prof of African American Studies and Poli Sci @ Uchicago, 97
(Adolph Jr, the Progressive Dec. 1997, Yackety-yak about race) EE from file

So what the heck is a "national conversation on race," anyway? Like so much in what passes for public discussion in America these days, the notion soothes and reassures, conveying a sense of gravitas, while at the same time having no clear, practical meaning whatsoever. I remember hearing calls for this conversation a few years ago, first from former University of Pennsylvania President Sheldon Hackney, then from Lani Guinier and performance artist Anna Deveare Smith. At the time, it seemed to be just a well-intentioned soundbite, a way to express in newschat a concern with racial injustice and anger. As a mass-media metaphor, it seemed harmless enough: a way to evoke a national commitment to honesty and democracy. I couldn't imagine how this call could possibly translate into anything concrete, though. Who would participate in this conversation? Where would it be held? What would the ground rules be? And to what end? I certainly didn't suspect that the notion would go anywhere; I presumed that it would have the shelf life of slogans from political ads. You know, like "Where's the beef?" or "It takes a village . . ." Well, I didn't take into account the significance of a New South, psychobabbling baby boomer whose political opportunism comes with cybertechie, New Age flourishes. As it turns out, this national-conversation idea is just Bill Clinton's cup of herbal tea. Now that Clinton has glommed onto the national conversation, it won't just dissipate through the airwaves over time. He has decided to keep this strange idea alive by formalizing it into a Presidential race-relations advisory board. It just goes to show that Bipartisan Bill has the soul of a talk-show host. But the "conversation" also highlights the profound shift over the last generation in American liberals' ways of talking about racial inequality. It's impossible, for instance, to imagine Lyndon Johnson using the Presidential bully pulpit to call for a national conversation on race in 1964 or 1965. For all his limitations--the Vietnam War chief among them--Johnson understood that the point in pursuing racial justice is not to stimulate conversation. When people like Everett Dirksen protested that the struggle for black civil rights should rely on efforts to change whites' individual attitudes rather than on changing laws. Johnson made it clear that he was less interested in changing people's hearts than their public behavior. Johnson understood that assertive government action can define acceptable practices and behavior, and ultimately change the world in which attitudes are formed. The transformation of the South's racial politics has been incomplete, as the electoral success of governors Kirk Fordice in Mississippi and Fob James in Alabama demonstrate. The region nonetheless has undergone changes that would have seemed unimaginable thirty years ago. Blacks and whites can share public space more or less routinely, interact publicly in ways marked by the civility that presumes social equality, share work stations, and maintain the casual conviviality that normally pertains among co-workers. More than at any point in this century, white elites take for granted the need to take some notion of black interests into account when making public policy. What made these changes possible was civil-rights law, not attitude adjustment. Presenting white Southerners with a fait accompli was the only way to counter the cultural force of white-supremacist ideology. Prohibiting discrimination by law not only enforced blacks' civil and citizenship rights, though that certainly was its intent and most important consequence. It was also the only way to create an environment in which casual contact would occur between blacks and whites as presumptive equals. This interaction has begun to erode racist stereotypes and bigotry by establishing the basis for a shared mundane humanity in workplaces, schools, and other public venues. In the current anti-statist, market-worshipping climate, it is fashionable to deny that public authority can influence behavior and attitudes. Economists and others who worship market theology contend that slavery and racial discrimination would have been eliminated by the natural workings of the market if abolitionists and civil-rights activists had just been a little more patient. Some even blame attempts to preempt those market forces--through the Civil War and Reconstruction Amendments and 1964 Civil Rights Law and 1965 Voting Rights Law--for creating racism. Public intervention inevitably fails, so this twisted reasoning goes, because its artificiality breeds resentment. Civil-rights laws, and affirmative action in particular. just stir up white hostility, since they are coercive, and an affront to properly market-based notions of justice and equity. Besides (and here's where this sophistry most clearly approximates religion), the white South would eventually have eliminated slavery on its own because the system was irrational economically. Segregation and other forms of discrimination were already on the decline after World War II for the same reason, say the market moralists. Their argument boils down to this: Had there been no legal abolition of slavery, there would have been no white-supremacist restoration in the South, and had there been no civil-rights legislation, there would be no white racism. If exuberant reformers hadn't gone mucking around with the larger rationality of the system of individual choices and transactions that drive market forces, everything would have turned out fine. Never mind that the Confederacy fought tooth and nail to preserve slavery and that white southerners fought nearly as hard to maintain Jim Crow. A climate in which this kind of thought is credible makes twaddle like the need for a national conversation about race seem to make sense. It's the norm these days to make public issues a matter of personal feelings, and to separate beliefs from their social context. It is this climate that makes it possible for a supposedly progressive magazine like Mother Jones not only to attack affirmative action as divisive, but to call for its demise in order to "reestablish racial healing as a national priority." This brings us back to Bipartisan Bill s attraction to the conversation. It's an ideal vehicle for him to express his concerns about race, because it's not connected to any real substance. It's just part of the fundamentally empty rhetoric of multiculturalism: diversity, mutual awareness, respect for difference, hearing different voices. and the like. None of these notions is objectionable on its face, but that's partly because none of them means anything in particular. Several Southern state governments have embraced a brand of multiculturalism that treats foes and advocates of white supremacy as equivalent "voices" equally deserving of respect. So they grant state employees the option to choose either Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday or Robert E. Lee's as a mid-January holiday. We should accept the equal humanity of those who support Operation Rescue. the Promise Keepers, the Christian Coalition, or the militia movement, but that cannot mean that we grant the legitimacy of their reactionary political programs. And whether or not we are willing to talk with them about our differences is less important than that we defeat their political objectives and repudiate the larger social vision from which those objectives derive. No doubt Hackney and Guinier and others calling for this national conversation are well-intentioned. But that doesn't mean the idea is any less vapid--or potentially destructive. As we've seen, opponents of affirmative action also base their argument on their desire to stamp out "racial division." A generation ago, segregationists charged civil-rights activists with creating racial divisiveness. A century earlier, opponents of Reconstruction made the same claim against people who supported black citizenship. The saccharine language of multiculturalism and respect, diversity, awareness, and healing is wonderfully evanescent; it amounts to a kind of racial-equality lite. Ironically, the "conversation" also reinforces a fundamentally racist assumption: the idea that individuals automatically can articulate the mindset of a group is a vestige of Victorian notions of racial temperament. The problem isn't racial division or a need for healing. It is racial inequality and injustice. And the remedy isn't an elaborately choreographed pageantry of essentializing yackety-yak about group experience, cultural difference, pain, and the inevitable platitudes about understanding. Rather, we need a clear commitment by the federal government to preserve, buttress, and extend civil rights, and to use the office of the Presidency to indicate that commitment forcefully and unambiguously. As the lesson of the past three decades in the South makes clear, this is the only effective way to change racist attitudes and beliefs. Bill Clinton has absolutely no interest in that kind of talk, however, and it's easy to understand why. If he did, he'd have to explain why he and his Administration have repeatedly pandered to the resurgent racist tendencies he purports to bemoan. He'd have to explain why he made a central prop in his 1992 campaign an element of the lexicon of coded racism--his pledge to "end welfare as we know it" and his constant harping on an invidious distinction between those who supposedly "play by the rules" and those who supposedly don't. He'd have to explain his own half-hearted stand on affirmative action ("mend it, don't end it") and why he refused to provide any support for the mobilization against California's hideous Proposition 209. He'd have to explain why he proposed and pushed through a draconian crime bill that not only trades on the coded racist rhetoric of the anti crime hysteria but also disproportionately targets inner-city minorities. (Take, for example, the outrageous disparity in sentencing for possession of crack and powder cocaine. The only difference between the two forms of the drug is the racial breakdown of users.) He'd have to explain why he signed and supported the odious welfare-reform bill. He'd have to explain why his Administration resorts to the racialized language of inner-city pathology to justify its attack on the principle of providing public housing for poor people. It doesn't make sense to feel betrayed by Clinton, however. He's only doing what comes naturally. If progressives don't begin thinking in a more rigorous way about this kind of charade, we'll never stop talking in circles.

2.  Procedural Fairness  - Non topical advocacies mean they can defend anything outside the resolution which is unpredictable, and also defend uncontestable offense like racism is bad.  This kills NEG ground and thus equal access to the ballot.

This is an independent voting issue which outweighs:

A.  Evaluation – even if their arguments seem true, that’s only because they already had an advantage – fairness is a meta constraint on your ability to determine who best meets their ROB.
B.  Fairness is key to effective dialogue.  Galloway 07

Ryan, “DINNER AND CONVERSATION AT THE ARGUMENTATIVE TABLE: RECONCEPTUALIZING DEBATE AS AN ARGUMENTATIVE DIALOGUE”, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28 (2007)

Debate as a dialogue sets an argumentative table, where all parties receive a relatively fair opportunity to voice their position. Anything that fails to allow participants to have their position articulated denies one side of the argumentative table a fair hearing. The affirmative side is set by the topic and fairness requirements. While affirmative teams have recently resisted affirming the topic, in fact, the topic selection process is rigorous, taking the relative ground of each topic as its central point of departure. Setting the affirmative reciprocally sets the negative. The negative crafts approaches to the topic consistent with affirmative demands. The negative crafts disadvantages, counter-plans, and critical arguments premised on the arguments that the topic allows for the affirmative team. According to fairness norms, each side sits at a relatively balanced argumentative table. When one side takes more than its share, competitive equity suffers. However, it also undermines the respect due to the other involved in the dialogue. When one side excludes the other, it fundamentally denies the personhood of the other participant (Ehninger, 1970, p. 110). A pedagogy of debate as dialogue takes this respect as a fundamental component. A desire to be fair is a fundamental condition of a dialogue that takes the form of a demand for equality of voice. Far from being a banal request for links to a disadvantage, fairness is a demand for respect, a demand to be heard, a demand that a voice backed by literally months upon months of preparation, research, and critical thinking not be silenced. Affirmative cases that suspend basic fairness norms operate to exclude particular negative strategies. Unprepared, one side comes to the argumentative table unable to meaningfully participate in a dialogue. They are unable to “understand what ‘went on…’” and are left to the whims of time and power (Farrell, 1985, p. 114). Hugh Duncan furthers this line of reasoning: Opponents not only tolerate but honor and respect each other because in doing so they enhance their own chances of thinking better and reaching sound decisions. Opposition is necessary because it sharpens thought in action. We assume that argument, discussion, and talk, among free an informed people who subordinate decisions of any kind, because it is only through such discussion that we reach agreement which binds us to a common cause…If we are to be equal…relationships among equals must find expression in many formal and informal institutions (Duncan, 1993, p. 196-197). Debate compensates for the exigencies of the world by offering a framework that maintains equality for the sake of the conversation (Farrell, 1985, p. 114). For example, an affirmative case on the 2007-2008 college topic might defend neither state nor international action in the Middle East, and yet claim to be germane to the topic in some way. The case essentially denies the arguments that state action is oppressive or that actions in the international arena are philosophically or pragmatically suspect. Instead of allowing for the dialogue to be modified by the interchange of the affirmative case and the negative response, the affirmative subverts any meaningful role to the negative team, preventing them from offering effective “counter-word” and undermining the value of a meaningful exchange of speech acts. Germaneness and other substitutes for topical action do not accrue the dialogical benefits of topical advocacy.

C.  Links best to the role of the judge to determine the winner as per the ballot – that’s impossible if the round’s unfair.  Even if their method is good for education there’s no reason you vote on it, just as even if exercise is good for soccer players you don’t vote for the team that ran most.

3.  We solve all their offense -
All arguments are framework - we don’t have the power to impose a norm, only to persuade you that their arguments should be rejected.  Anderson 6 

Amanda Anderson, Caroline Donovan Professor of English Literature and Department Chair at Johns Hopkins University, Senior Fellow at the School of Criticism and Theory at Cornell University, holds a Ph.D. in English from Cornell University, 2006 (“Reply to My Critic(s),” Criticism, Volume 48, Number 2, Spring, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Project MUSE, p. 285-287)

Let's first examine the claim that my book is "unwittingly" inviting a resurrection of the "Enlightenment-equals-totalitarianism position." How, one wonders, could a book promoting argument and debate, and promoting reason-giving practices as a kind of common ground that should prevail over assertions of cultural authenticity, somehow come to be seen as a dangerous resurgence of bad Enlightenment? Robbins tells us why: I want "argument on my own terms"—that End Page 285 is, I want to impose reason on people, which is a form of power and oppression. But what can this possibly mean? Arguments stand or fall based on whether they are successful and persuasive, even an argument in favor of argument. It simply is not the case that an argument in favor of the importance of reasoned debate to liberal democracy is tantamount to oppressive power. To assume so is to assume, in the manner of Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, that reason is itself violent, inherently, and that it will always mask power and enforce exclusions. But to assume this is to assume the very view of Enlightenment reason that Robbins claims we are "thankfully" well rid of. (I leave to the side the idea that any individual can proclaim that a debate is over, thankfully or not.) But perhaps Robbins will say, "I am not imagining that your argument is directly oppressive, but that what you argue for would be, if it were enforced." Yet my book doesn't imagine or suggest it is enforceable; I simply argue in favor of, I promote, an ethos of argument within a liberal democratic and proceduralist framework. As much as Robbins would like to think so, neither I nor the books I write can be cast as an arm of the police. Robbins wants to imagine a far more direct line of influence from criticism to political reality, however, and this is why it can be such a bad thing to suggest norms of argument. Watch as the gloves come off: Faced with the prospect of submitting to her version of argument—roughly, Habermas's version—and of being thus authorized to disagree only about other, smaller things, some may feel that there will have been an end to argument, or an end to the arguments they find most interesting. With current events in mind, I would be surprised if there were no recourse to the metaphor of a regular army facing a guerilla insurrection, hinting that Anderson wants to force her opponents to dress in uniform, reside in well-demarcated camps and capitals that can be bombed, fight by the rules of states (whether the states themselves abide by these rules or not), and so on—in short, that she wants to get the battle onto a terrain where her side will be assured of having the upper hand. Let's leave to the side the fact that this is a disowned hypothetical criticism. (As in, "Well, okay, yes, those are my gloves, but those are somebody else's hands they will have come off of.") Because far more interesting, actually, is the sudden elevation of stakes. It is a symptom of the sorry state of affairs in our profession that it plays out repeatedly this tragicomic tendency to give a grandiose political meaning to every object it analyzes or confronts. We have evidence of how desperate the situation is when we see it in a critic as thoughtful as Bruce Robbins, where it emerges as the need to allegorize a point about an argument in such a way that it gets cast as the equivalent of war atrocities. It is especially ironic in light of the fact that to the extent that I do give examples of the importance of liberal democratic proceduralism, I invoke the disregard of the protocols of international adjudication in the days leading up to the invasion of Iraq; I also speak End Page 286 about concerns with voting transparency. It is hard for me to see how my argument about proceduralism can be associated with the policies of the Bush administration when that administration has exhibited a flagrant disregard of democratic procedure and the rule of law. I happen to think that a renewed focus on proceduralism is a timely venture, which is why I spend so much time discussing it in my final chapter. But I hasten to add that I am not interested in imagining that proceduralism is the sole political response to the needs of cultural criticism in our time: my goal in the book is to argue for a liberal democratic culture of argument, and to suggest ways in which argument is not served by trumping appeals to identity and charismatic authority. I fully admit that my examples are less political events than academic debates; for those uninterested in the shape of intellectual arguments, and eager for more direct and sustained discussion of contemporary politics, the approach will disappoint. Moreover, there will always be a tendency for a proceduralist to under-specify substance, and that is partly a principled decision, since the point is that agreements, compromises, and policies get worked out through the communicative and political process. My book is mainly concentrated on evaluating forms of arguments and appeals to ethos, both those that count as a form of trump card or distortion, and those that flesh out an understanding of argument as a universalist practice. There is an intermittent appeal to larger concerns in the political democratic culture, and that is because I see connections between the ideal of argument and the ideal of deliberative democracy. But there is clearly, and indeed necessarily, significant room for further elaboration here. 

Voter: Drop the debater on T – the round is already skewed from the beginning because their advocacy excluded by ability to generate NC offense– letting them sever doesn’t solve any of the abuse

Theory is an issue of competing interpretations because reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention based on preference rather than argumentation and encourages a race to the bottom in which debaters will exploit a judge’s tolerance for questionable argumentation.

No RVIs on T
a. They are incoherent; you shouldn’t be voted up simply for being topical
b. You can read theory on us in the 1AR, which checks any abuse. Outweighs because you can collapse to your shell in the 2AR.

Tournament: XX | Round: 1 | Opponent: XX | Judge: XX
Interp: All debaters who have attended at least 2 bid tournaments this season must disclose all broken positions on the NDCA 15-16 LD wiki.  The disclosure must includes summaries, tags, cites, and first 3 last 3 words from each piece of evidence. 

The disclosure must occur within 24 hours after the position is broken.

1.Resource equity:

2.  Research:
A. Disclosure provides a key body of accessible knowledge.  Nails 13

Nails 13 Jacob Nails (Debate Coach, Sacred Heart HS). “A Defense of Disclosure (Including Third-Party Disclosure).” NSDUpdate. October 10th, 2013. http://nsdupdate.com/2013/a-defense-of-disclosure-including-third-party-disclosure-by-jacob-nails/.  NS

I fall squarely on the side of disclosure...across the board. 

B.  Disclosure increases quality and quantity of research.  Nails 13

Nails 13 Jacob Nails (Debate Coach, Sacred Heart HS). “A Defense of Disclosure (Including Third-Party Disclosure).” NSDUpdate. October 10th, 2013. http://nsdupdate.com/2013/a-defense-of-disclosure-including-third-party-disclosure-by-jacob-nails/.  NS

In theory, the increased...a long time ago.

3. Academic honesty

4. Deliberation

A. Their aff fails without prior predictability. Mindset change, education, and portable skills come from internal reflection during pre-round preparation, not in-round debate. Goodin and Niemeyer 2003
(Robert E. Goodin, Australian National University philosophy prof, editor of Oxford Handbooks of Political Science, founding editor of Blackwell's Journal of Political Philosophy, and Simon J. Niemeyer, ANU political science research fellow, 2003, "When Does Deliberation Begin? Internal Reflection versus Public Discussion in Deliberative Democracy," POLITICAL STUDIES: 2003 VOL 51, 640–649, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0032-3217.2003.00450.x/pdf)

What happened in...approach an issue.

Deliberation is the internal link to gaining educational value from the debate, it is a prerequisite to preparing to respond - Discussion isn't an end in itself.
Goodin and Niemeyer 2003 (Robert E. Goodin, Australian National University philosophy prof, editor of Oxford Handbooks of Political Science, founding editor of Blackwell's Journal of Political Philosophy, and Simon J. Niemeyer, ANU political science research fellow, 2003, "When Does Deliberation Begin? Internal Reflection versus Public Discussion in Deliberative Democracy," POLITICAL STUDIES: 2003 VOL 51, 640–649, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0032-3217.2003.00450.x/pdf)

In all those...and so on

Tournament: Golden Desert | Round: 4 | Opponent: Lynbrook YZ | Judge: Donald Fagan
Surveillance operations by Predator drones key to Mexico border security-
RT ’14 (RT, “Drone surge: Predators patrol nearly half of US-Mexico border”, http://rt.com/usa/205343-cpb-mexico-border-drone-patrols/, November 13, 2014)
Predator drones are silently patrolling almost half of the United States’ border with Mexico, looking for illegal immigrants, human traffickers and drug cartels in desolated areas the government agents can’t realistically patrol. The unmanned aircraft fly over about 900 miles of rural areas where there are no US Customs and Border Patrol (CPB) agents, camera towers, ground sensors or fences along the 1,954-mile border, according to a new report by the Associated Press. The Predator Bs use a high-resolution video camera and then return within three days for another video in the same spot, two officials told the wire service. The two videos are then overlaid for analysts who use sophisticated software to identify tiny changes. There are changes in terrain in only eight percent of the drone missions under the current strategy ‒ known internally as “change detection” ‒ since it began in March 2013. Of those flagged missions, about four percent were false alarms, like tracks from livestock or farmers, and about two percent are inconclusive to the agents dispatched to the area to investigate. The remaining 2 percent offer evidence ‒ like footprints, broken twigs, trash ‒ of illegal crossings from Mexico, which typically results in ground sensors being planted for closer monitoring. In the last year and a half, CPB has operated about 10,000 drone flights, with much of their missions over Texas. Border missions fly out of Sierra Vista, home of the U.S. Army Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca, or Corpus Christi, Texas. They patrol at altitudes between 19,000 at 28,000 feet and between 25 and 60 miles of the border. The program is expected to expand the Canadian border by the end of 2015. The purpose is to assign agents where illegal activity is highest, R. Gil Kerlikowske, commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, the Border Patrol's parent agency, which operates nine unmanned aircraft across the country, told AP. "You have finite resources," he said in an interview. "If you can look at some very rugged terrain (and) you can see there's not traffic, whether it's tire tracks or clothing being abandoned or anything else, you want to deploy your resources to where you have a greater risk, a greater threat." Gregory McNeal, a law professor and drone expert at Pepperdine University, told NBC News in July that the money spent on drones is worth it. "This is a better way to patrol the border than helicopters," he said. "It’s not a comprehensive immigration solution or border security solution, but more surveillance time in the air will help plug gaps in the border." A typical Predator drone can fly for 12 hours before landing, compared to three for a standard helicopter. But the cost is much higher: Predator drones require a crew of between five to eight people ‒ plus maintenance staff ‒ to operate, coming out to about $3,000 an hour to fly. And each one has an $18 million price tag, NBC News reported. CPB began rolling out Predators in 2005, but rapidly expanded the unmanned aerial reconnaissance operation along the US-Mexico border at the beginning of this decade, the Washington Post reported in 2011. Michael Kostelnik, a retired Air Force general and former test pilot who is the assistant commissioner of CPB’s Office of Air and Marine, told the Post then that he had yet to be challenged in Congress about the appropriate use of domestic drones. “Instead, the question is: Why can’t we have more of them in my district?” Kostelnik said. In July, President Barack Obama requested $39.4 million for aerial surveillance, including troops, along the US-Mexican border. The emergency funding was for 16,526 additional drone and manned aircraft flight hours for border surveillance, and 16 additional drone crews to better detect and stop illegal activity, according to administration officials. The request was in response to the humanitarian crisis after tens of thousands of unaccompanied children and families illegally entered the country in the first half of the year. “Border Patrol wants the money and it wants the drones,” McNeal said. “This is the kind of crisis where, if you are Border Patrol, you seize the opportunity to get more funding from Congress.” The agency’s “unmanned and manned aircraft can continue to support ongoing border security operations, specifically regarding the tracking of illegal cross-border smuggling operations,” a CBP official told Nextgov. The president’s request was part of a larger funding appeal of $3.7 billion to deal with the illegal immigrants and border security problems. In January, CPB was forced to ground its entire fleet of drones after a mechanical function forced a crew to crash an unmanned aircraft valued at $12 million. The mishap lowered the number of agency drones to only nine.

Mexican border instability hamstrings US hegemony- destroys military effectiveness
Kaplan ’12 – chief geopolitical analyst at Stratfor (Robert D., With the Focus on Syria, Mexico Burns, Stratfor, 3-28-2012, http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/focus-syria-mexico-burns)
While the foreign policy elite in Washington focuses on the 8,000 deaths in a conflict in Syria -- half a world away from the United States -- more than 47,000 people have died in drug-related violence since 2006 in Mexico. A deeply troubled state as well as a demographic and economic giant on the United States' southern border, Mexico will affect America's destiny in coming decades more than any state or combination of states in the Middle East. Indeed, Mexico may constitute the world's seventh-largest economy in the near future. Certainly, while the Mexican violence is largely criminal, Syria is a more clear-cut moral issue, enhanced by its own strategic consequences. A calcified authoritarian regime in Damascus is stamping out dissent with guns and artillery barrages. Moreover, regime change in Syria, which the rebels demand, could deliver a pivotal blow to Iranian influence in the Middle East, an event that would be the best news to U.S. interests in the region in years or even decades. Nevertheless, the Syrian rebels are divided and hold no territory, and the toppling of pro-Iranian dictator Bashar al Assad might conceivably bring to power an austere Sunni regime equally averse to U.S. interests -- if not lead to sectarian chaos. In other words, all military intervention scenarios in Syria are fraught with extreme risk. Precisely for that reason, that the U.S. foreign policy elite has continued for months to feverishly debate Syria, and in many cases advocate armed intervention, while utterly ignoring the vaster panorama of violence next door in Mexico, speaks volumes about Washington's own obsessions and interests, which are not always aligned with the country's geopolitical interests. Syria matters and matters momentously to U.S. interests, but Mexico ultimately matters more, so one would think that there would be at least some degree of parity in the amount written on these subjects. I am not demanding a switch in news coverage from one country to the other, just a bit more balance. Of course, it is easy for pundits to have a fervently interventionist view on Syria precisely because it is so far away, whereas miscalculation in Mexico on America's part would carry far greater consequences. For example, what if the Mexican drug cartels took revenge on San Diego? Thus, one might even argue that the very noise in the media about Syria, coupled with the relative silence about Mexico, is proof that it is the latter issue that actually is too sensitive for loose talk. It may also be that cartel-wracked Mexico -- at some rude subconscious level -- connotes for East Coast elites a south of the border, 7-Eleven store culture, reminiscent of the crime movie "Traffic," that holds no allure to people focused on ancient civilizations across the ocean. The concerns of Europe and the Middle East certainly seem closer to New York and Washington than does the southwestern United States. Indeed, Latin American bureaus and studies departments simply lack the cachet of Middle East and Asian ones in government and universities. Yet, the fate of Mexico is the hinge on which the United States' cultural and demographic future rests. U.S. foreign policy emanates from the domestic condition of its society, and nothing will affect its society more than the dramatic movement of Latin history northward. By 2050, as much as a third of the American population could be Hispanic. Mexico and Central America constitute a growing demographic and economic powerhouse with which the United States has an inextricable relationship. In recent years Mexico's economic growth has outpaced that of its northern neighbor. Mexico's population of 111 million plus Central America's of more than 40 million equates to half the population of the United States. Because of the North American Free Trade Agreement, 85 percent of Mexico's exports go to the United States, even as half of Central America's trade is with the United States. While the median age of Americans is nearly 37, demonstrating the aging tendency of the U.S. population, the median age in Mexico is 25, and in Central America it is much lower (20 in Guatemala and Honduras, for example). In part because of young workers moving northward, the destiny of the United States could be north-south, rather than the east-west, sea-to-shining-sea of continental and patriotic myth. (This will be amplified by the scheduled 2014 widening of the Panama Canal, which will open the Greater Caribbean Basin to megaships from East Asia, leading to the further development of Gulf of Mexico port cities in the United States, from Texas to Florida.) Since 1940, Mexico's population has increased more than five-fold. Between 1970 and 1995 it nearly doubled. Between 1985 and 2000 it rose by more than a third. Mexico's population is now more than a third that of the United States and growing at a faster rate. And it is northern Mexico that is crucial. That most of the drug-related homicides in this current wave of violence that so much dwarfs Syria's have occurred in only six of Mexico's 32 states, mostly in the north, is a key indicator of how northern Mexico is being distinguished from the rest of the country (though the violence in the city of Veracruz and the regions of Michoacan and Guerrero is also notable). If the military-led offensive to crush the drug cartels launched by conservative President Felipe Calderon falters, as it seems to be doing, and Mexico City goes back to cutting deals with the cartels, then the capital may in a functional sense lose even further control of the north, with concrete implications for the southwestern United States. One might argue that with massive border controls, a functional and vibrantly nationalist United States can coexist with a dysfunctional and somewhat chaotic northern Mexico. But that is mainly true in the short run. Looking deeper into the 21st century, as Arnold Toynbee notes in A Study of History (1946), a border between a highly developed society and a less highly developed one will not attain an equilibrium but will advance in the more backward society's favor. Thus, helping to stabilize Mexico -- as limited as the United States' options may be, given the complexity and sensitivity of the relationship -- is a more urgent national interest than stabilizing societies in the Greater Middle East. If Mexico ever does reach coherent First World status, then it will become less of a threat, and the healthy melding of the two societies will quicken to the benefit of both. Today, helping to thwart drug cartels in rugged and remote terrain in the vicinity of the Mexican frontier and reaching southward from Ciudad Juarez (across the border from El Paso, Texas) means a limited role for the U.S. military and other agencies -- working, of course, in full cooperation with the Mexican authorities. (Predator and Global Hawk drones fly deep over Mexico searching for drug production facilities.) But the legal framework for cooperation with Mexico remains problematic in some cases because of strict interpretation of 19th century posse comitatus laws on the U.S. side. While the United States has spent hundreds of billions of dollars to affect historical outcomes in Eurasia, its leaders and foreign policy mandarins are somewhat passive about what is happening to a country with which the United States shares a long land border, that verges on partial chaos in some of its northern sections, and whose population is close to double that of Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Mexico, in addition to the obvious challenge of China as a rising great power, will help write the American story in the 21st century. Mexico will partly determine what kind of society America will become, and what exactly will be its demographic and geographic character, especially in the Southwest. The U.S. relationship with China will matter more than any other individual bilateral relationship in terms of determining the United States' place in the world, especially in the economically crucial Pacific. If policymakers in Washington calculate U.S. interests properly regarding those two critical countries, then the United States will have power to spare so that its elites can continue to focus on serious moral questions in places that matter less.

ISIS threat through Mexico highest ever- qualified experts agree- will shut down the grid - extinction
WND 9/4 (WND, WorldNetDaily News Company, “ISIS THREAT LOOMS OVER U.S. HOMELAND”, http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/09/isis-threat-looms-over-u-s-homeland/, September 9, 2014)
*edited for language
'Militants expressing increased interest in notion they could infiltrate' ISIS bluster that threatens the U.S. Long-known al-Qaida links to south-of-the-border drug cartels. A porous U.S-Mexico border. Gunshots at a California power plant. The individual reports may not cause immediate alarm, but a panel of experts who have connected the dots on threats against the U.S. is warning that the nation needs to be looking at the big picture – and preparing its defenses appropriately. Now. The warnings come from a panel set up by the Secure the Grid Coalition at the Washington-based Center for Security Policy. At a National Press Club news conference this week were Frank Gaffney, former assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs and now president of the CSP; threat expert Dr. Peter Vincent Pry; Ambassador Henry F. Cooper; actress and activist Kelly Carson; and F. Michael Maloof, a former senior security policy analyst in the office of the secretary of defense and now a senior writer with WND. He’s authored “A Nation Forsaken” on the dangers to the U.S. from an attack on its power grid, especially from electromagnetic pulse. There have been multiple reports of ISIS terrorists in Iraq and Syria making statements threatening an attack on the U.S. homeland. And it’s well-documented that al-Qaida, the Muslim terror world’s bad boy before ISIS arrived, is linked closely with drug cartels, many of which have a presence inside some 1,200 of America’s large cities. Further, the U.S. southern border now easily can be crossed illegally. And there already may have been a “dry run” attack on the U.S. power grid, which, in a collapse, would leave America’s defense capabilities severely harmed handicapped. Such concerns have been underscored in recent days by an interview Judicial Watch had with U.S. intelligence officials and the Texas Department Safety. It confirmed that ISIS is present across the Texas border in Juarez, Mexico, where an intelligence unit has picked up increased “chatter” in recent days. While Mexican authorities have denied ISIS’ presence in Mexico and its ability to illegally enter the U.S., Maloof pointed out that three hardened Ukrainian criminals walked into the U.S. from Mexico undetected and have yet to be apprehended. Similarly, there has been evidence uncovered that various nationalities from Pakistan and various Arab countries have entered the U.S. undetected, taking advantage of the porous southern border. Put it all together, panel members said at a news conference in Washington on Wednesday, and the threat the U.S. is facing should be considered immediate and substantial. “It’s all related,” Maloof said. “One thing leads to another … It’s the domino effect.” He noted a series of incidents at a Metcalf power plant in San Jose, California, that suggest someone – still unknown – has been exploring what it takes to bring down a major component of the nation’s grid. Former Rep. Allen West bluntly called the situation a “‘dry run’ for something bigger.” WND reported the utility company, whose operation was disabled in the attack, has offered a $250,000 reward for the arrest and conviction of the perpetrators. West explained, “On April 16, 2013, snipers waged a 52-minute attack on a central California electrical substation. According to reports by Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, the sniper attack started when at least one person entered an underground vault to cut telephone cables, and attackers fired more than 100 shots into Pacific Gas and Electric’s Metcalf transmission substation, knocking out 17 transformers. Electric officials were able to avert a blackout, but it took 27 days to repair the damage,” he wrote. “My concern is that this may have been a dry run for something far bigger. We should be demanding an update on the investigation as to the perpetrators of this attack who escaped without detection,” he said. WB248Pry pointed out that jihadists already are aware of the vulnerability of a country’s grid system by having knocked out completely the entire grid of the country of Yemen last June. Read the book that’s documenting the worry about the EMP threat, “A Nation Forsaken.” The Metcalf attack came one day after the Boston Marathon bombing that killed three people and wounded 264 others. The Boston Marathon suspects are from the Russian North Caucasus, which prompted the Federal Bureau of Investigation to get involved in the investigation of the sniper attack on the transformers. There is a large community of Chechen and North Caucasus immigrants in the San Jose area. Chechen jihadists also have been very prominent in Syria where it is battling to overthrow the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. There also were reports only days after the California sniper attack of a shoot-out when a security guard at the TVA Watts Bar Nuclear Plant in Spring City, Tennessee, was confronted by a suspect at 2 a.m. “TVA spokesperson Jim Hopson said the subject traveled up to the plant on a boat and walked onto the property. When the officer questioned the suspect, the individual fired multiple shots at the officer. The officer shot back, and when he called for backup, the suspect sped away on his boat,” reports said. And just a few days ago, the California plant, after spending millions of dollars on heightened security, again was targeted by a break-in attempt, authorities have reported. Maloof explained after the news conference that the big picture “underscores the potential for an ISIS threat on the grid.” He pointed out how al-Qaida, which is known to have drug cartel links and likely sleeper agents in the United States through those organizations, has been morphing into ISIS, and the belligerent threats made against the U.S. by that group. And he noted that the U.S. grid remains vulnerable and taking it down in any significant way could cause calamities for the U.S., since the nation’s food, fuel, energy, banking and communications industries all are dependent on electricity. “Whenever you start tampering with the grid, you’re affecting the life-sustaining critical infrastructures,” Maloof said. “Our entire survival is based on technology and electronics that, in turn, are based on the electrical flow. If that’s interrupted for any period of time, there are catastrophes over a wide geographic area.” Reports just this week revealed social media chatter shows Islamic State militants “are keenly aware of the porous U.S.-Mexico border, and are ‘expressing an increased interest’ in crossing over to carry out a terrorist attack.” A law enforcement advisory said, “A review of ISIS social media messaging during the week ending August 26 shows that militants are expressing an increased interest in the notion that they could clandestinely infiltrate the southwest border of U.S., for a terror attack.” Maloof explained at the news conference that America’s enemies know “the vulnerabilities of our grid … they will at some point try” to attack. “The threat is there,” he said. “ISIS operatives can easily come through the southern border. And because they ISIS have proxies in the U.S.,” the potential for a catastrophe exists. “The president could take his pen and make the problem a priority,” he said. “At the federal level they don’t have a plan, so the state and local level won’t have a plan.”

Tournament: USC | Round: 2 | Opponent: Peninsula JL | Judge: Matthew Leivano
Public Universities and colleges should establish restrictions on hate speech consistent with Byrne’s proposal. This includes restrictions on otherwise protected free speech. They will remove all other restrictions on protected free speech.  Byrne 91

Byrne, J. Peter. Associate Professor, Georgetown University Law Center. "Racial Insults and Free Speech Within the University." Geo. LJ 79 (1990): 399.

This article examines the constitutionality of university prohibitions of¶ public expression that insults members of the academic community by directing¶ hatred or contempt toward them on account of their race. I Several¶ thoughtful scholars have examined generally whether the government can¶ penalize citizens for racist slurs under the first amendment, but to the limited¶ extent that they have discussed university disciplinary codes they have assumed¶ that the state university is merely a government instrumentality subject¶ to the same constitutional limitations as, for example, the legislature or¶ the police. 2 In contrast, I argue that the university has a fundamentally dif ferent relationship to the speech of its members than does the state to the speech of its citizens. On campus, general rights of free speech should be qualified by the intellectual values of academic discourse. I conclude that the protection of these academic values, which themselves enjoy constitutional protection, permits state universities lawfully to bar racially abusive speech, even if the state legislature could not constitutionally prohibit such speech throughout society at large. At the same time, however, I assert that the first amendment renders state universities powerless to punish speakers for advocating any idea in a reasoned manner. It is necessary at the outset to choose a working definition of a racial insult. This definition, however, is necessarily provisional; any such definition implies the writer's views on the boundaries of constitutionally protected offensive speech, and the reader cannot be expected to swallow the definition until she has had the opportunity to inspect the writer's constitutional premises. Having offered such a caution, I define a racial insult as a verbal or symbolic expression by a member of one ethnic group that describes another ethnic group or an individual member of another group in terms conventionally derogatory, that offends members of the target group, and that a reasonable and unbiased observer, who understands the meaning of the words and the context of their use, would conclude was purposefully or recklessly abusive. Excluded from this definition are expressions that convey rational but offensive propositions that can be disputed by argument and evidence. An insult, so conceived, refers to a manner of speech that seeks to demean rather than to criticize, and to appeal to irrational fears and prejudices rather than to respect for others and informed judgment. 3

The counterplan establishes checks on reverse enforcement, chilling effect, and slippery slope. 

Byrne, J. Peter. Associate Professor, Georgetown University Law Center. "Racial Insults and Free Speech Within the University." Geo. LJ 79 (1990): 399.

Disciplinary rules are the least effective way that a university can enhance¶ the quality of speech or foster racial tolerance among its members. The educational¶ program must celebrate and instruct its students in the beauty and¶ usefulness of graceful and accurate speech and writing; a liberal education¶ should leave students intolerant of propaganda and commercial manipulation,¶ and competent to directly and forcefully express coherent views as citizens.¶ Such teaching is not amoral; the graduate ought freely to prefer the¶ exercise of skill, reflective perception, and an abiding curiosity to desires for acquisition, consumption, and domination. Without the university's consistent¶ action on a commitment to reasoned discourse as central to its mission,¶ the university's attempt to prohibit insulting or lewd speech may seem a hypocritical¶ denial of its own failings.¶ Similarly, prohibiting racial insults will advance racial harmony on a campus¶ only when the university has effectively committed itself to educate lovingly¶ the members of every ethnic group. Although nearly every university¶ admits minority students using criteria that aspire in good faith to be fair,¶ many have failed to transform themselves into truly multi-ethnic institutions.¶ Not to have succeeded at this daunting task does not merit reproach; the¶ university's origins and traditions are explicitly European, growth and accommodation¶ to the extent required to create a multi-ethnic community¶ must take time and witness false steps. However, not to have made plain¶ that blacks, hispanics, Asians, Indians, and others who have been excluded in¶ the past are not only now welcome, but are requested to collaborate in shaping¶ new university structures and mores so that the benefits of advanced education¶ will be available without regard to birth and so that the university can¶ continue to spawn for a changing society a cosmopolitan culture based on¶ reason and reflection standing above tribal fears and blind desires, not to¶ have begun this work in earnest merits regret and will provoke anger. Universities¶ that pass rules against racial insults which are not part of a comprehensive¶ commitment to ethnic integration will serve only to exacerbate racial¶ tensions.¶ Schools that adopt prohibitions on racially offensive speech ought to enforce¶ them with restraint. Certainly, when students have sought to intimidate¶ or frighten other students with racial insults, the school should treat this¶ behavior as a fundamental breach of university standards meriting the¶ strongest punitive measures. But often insulting expressions will result from¶ insensitivity or ignorance; complaints about such behavior should be seen as¶ opportunities for teaching, and creative informal measures that make the offenders¶ aware of the harmful consequences and injustice of their behavior¶ should be pursued. The school should also provide succor to the victim¶ whose hurt and anger must be acknowledged and meliorated. But severely¶ punishing ignorant young people for expressions inherited from their parents¶ or neighborhoods may serve to harden. and focus their sense of grievance,¶ create martyrs, and prolong racial animosity. Deans who administer such¶ rules must overcome their personal repugnance at racist speech and enforce¶ the rules for the benefit of the entire community. Controversial interpretative¶ application of the rules should be placed in the hands of faculty and¶ students representative of the entire institution, and the accused, the victim,¶ and the dean should have an opportunity to express their perspectives.¶ A recurrent concern regarding rules against racial insults is their vague-ness and overbreadth. These, of course, were the bases upon which the University¶ of Michigan's policy was declared unconstitutional, although the¶ demonstrated propensity of the school to apply the policy to presumptively¶ protected speech appears to have steered the Court's conclusions on these¶ issues.17 6 In general, university disciplinary rules rarely are struck down for¶ vagueness; courts usually permit universities to regulate student conduct on¶ the basis of generally stated norms, so long as they give fair notice of the¶ behavior proscribed. 177 Courts generally are more strict regarding vagueness¶ in rules that affect speech, in no small part because of the distrust of the¶ competence and motives of the government censor.178¶ A central argument of this article has been that the university can be¶ trusted to administer rules prohibiting racial insults because it has the proper¶ moral basis and adequate expertise to do so. It is not surprising, therefore,¶ that I believe that vagueness concerns about such university rules are largely¶ misplaced. This is not to deny that a university should adopt safeguards to¶ protect accused students from the concerns that the courts have highlighted.¶ First, the rules should state explicitly that no one may be disciplined for the¶ good faith statement of any proposition susceptible to reasoned response, no¶ matter how offensive. The possibility that punishment is precluded by this¶ limitation should be addressed at every stage of the disciplinary process. Second,¶ some response between punishment and acquittal should be available¶ when the university concludes that the speaker was subjectively unaware of¶ the offensive character of his speech; these cases seem to present mainly educational¶ concerns. Third, all controversial issues of interpretation of the¶ rules should be entrusted to a panel of faculty and students who are representative¶ of the institution. Rules furthering primarily academic concerns about¶ the quality of speech and the development of students should be given meaning¶ by those most directly concerned with the academic enterprise rather¶ than by administrators who may register more precisely external political¶ pressures on the university. Given these safeguards and a comprehensible¶ definition of an unacceptable insult, such as the one ventured in the introduction¶ to this article,179 a court which accepts the underlying proposition that a¶ university has the constitutional authority to regulate racial insults should¶ not be troubled independently by vagueness.¶ A difficult prudential consideration is whether a university should decline¶ to regulate insults because of public criticism that censorship demeans the very intellectual virtues towards which the university strives, such as the superiority¶ of persuasion over compulsion. Obviously, the adoption of such¶ regulation has brought forth sincere and bitter criticism from many friends of¶ higher education-the Economist, for example, went so far as to call such¶ regulations "disgraceful."'' 80 To some extent these criticisms stem from misunderstanding¶ about the character of academic speech and the goals of¶ prohibitions on racial insult, but universities should admit that turning to¶ regulation marks a sad failure in civility. A failure already has occurred,¶ however, when students scurrilously demean other students because of their¶ race. The university at this point can only choose among evils. It would not¶ be true to its traditions if it did not come down on the side of protecting the¶ educational environment for blameless students against wanton and hurtful¶ ranting.
Hate speech codes are effective they create legal recognition which is key to challenge a culture of racism.
Michel Rosenfeld* Justice Sydney L. Robins Professor of Human Rights, Benjamin N. Cardozo School¶ of Law. 24 Cardozo L. Rev. 1523 2002-2003

-Article surveyed hate speech laws across US, UK, Canada, Germany

The principal disadvantages to the approach to hate speech¶ under consideration, on the other hand, are: that it inevitably has¶ to confront difficult line drawing problems, such as that between¶ fact and opinion in the context of the German scheme of¶ regulation; that when prosecution of perpetrators of hate speech¶ fails, such as in the British Southern News case discussed above,'30¶ regulation may unwittingly do more to legitimate and to¶ disseminate the hate propaganda at issue than a complete absence¶ of regulation would have;' that prosecutions may be too selective¶ or too indiscriminate owing to (often unconscious) biases¶ prevalent among law enforcement officials, as appears to have¶ been the case in the prosecutions of certain black activists under¶ the British Race Relations Act;'32 and, that since not all that may¶ appear to be hate speech actually is hate speech-such as the¶ documentary report involved in Jersild33 or a play in which a racist¶ character engages in hate speech, but the dramatist intends to¶ convey an anti-hate message-regulation of that speech may¶ unwisely bestow powers of censorship over legitimate political,¶ literary and artistic expression to government officials and judges.¶ In the last analysis, none of the existing approaches to hate¶ speech are ideal, but on balance the American seems less¶ satisfactory than its alternatives. Above all, the American¶ approach seems significantly flawed in some of its assumptions, in¶ its impact and in the message it conveys concerning the evils¶ surrounding hate speech. In terms of assumptions, the American¶ approach either underestimates the potential for harm of hate¶ speech that is short of incitement to violence, or it overestimates¶ the potential of rational deliberation as a means to neutralize calls¶ to hate. In terms of impact, given its long history of racial¶ tensions, it is surprising that the United States does not exhibit¶ greater concern for the injuries to security, dignity, autonomy and¶ well being which officially tolerated hate speech causes to its black¶ minority. Likewise, America's hate speech approach seems to¶ unduly discount the pernicious impact that racist hate speech may have on lingering or dormant racist sentiments still harbored by a¶ non-negligible segment of the white population.'34 Furthermore,¶ even if we discount the domestic impact of hate speech, given the¶ worldwide spread of locally produced hate speech, such as in the¶ case of American manufactured Neo-Nazi propaganda¶ disseminated through the worldwide web, a strong argument can¶ be made that American courts should factor in the obvious and¶ serious foreign impact of certain domestic hate speech in¶ determining whether such speech should be entitled to¶ constitutional protection. Finally, in terms of the message¶ conveyed by refusing to curb most hate speech, the American¶ approach looms as a double-edged sword. On the one hand,¶ tolerance of hate speech in a country in which democracy has been¶ solidly entrenched since independence over two hundred years ago¶ conveys a message of confidence against both the message and the¶ prospects of those who endeavor to spread hate.'35 On the other¶ hand, tolerance of hate speech in a country with serious and¶ enduring race relations problems may reinforce racism and¶ hamper full integration of the victims of racism within the broader¶ community.'36¶ The argument in favor of opting for greater regulation of hate¶ speech than that provided in the United States rests on several¶ important considerations, some related to the place and function¶ of free speech in contemporary constitutional democracies, and¶ others to the dangers and problems surrounding hate speech.¶ Typically, contemporary constitutional democracies are¶ increasingly diverse, multiracial, multicultural, multireligious and¶ multilingual. Because of this and because of increased migration,¶ a commitment to pluralism and to respect of diversity seem¶ inextricably linked to vindication of the most fundamental¶ individual and collective rights. Increased diversity is prone to¶ making social cohesion more precarious, thus, if anything,¶ exacerbating the potential evils of hate speech. Contemporary¶ democratic states, on the other hand, are less prone to curtailing free speech rights than their predecessors either because of deeper¶ implantation of the democratic ethos or because respect of¶ supranational norms has become inextricably linked to continued¶ membership in supranational alliances that further vital national¶ interests.¶ In these circumstances, contemporary democracies are more¶ likely to find themselves in a situation like stage four in the context¶ of the American experience with free speech rather than in one¶ that more closely approximates a stage one experience.'37 In other¶ words, to drown out minority discourse seems a much greater¶ threat than government prompted censorship in contemporary¶ constitutional democracies that are pluralistic. Actually, viewed¶ more closely, contemporary pluralistic democracies tend to be in a¶ situation that combines the main features of stage two and stage¶ four. Thus, the main threats to full fledged freedom of expression¶ would seem to come primarily from the "tyranny of the majority"¶ as reflected both within the government and without, and from the¶ dominance of majority discourses at the expense of minority ones.¶ If it is true that majority conformity and the dominance of its¶ discourse pose the greatest threat to uninhibited self-expression¶ and unconstrained political debate in a contemporary pluralist¶ polity, then significant regulation of hate speech seems justified.¶ This is not only because hate speech obviously inhibits the selfexpression¶ and oopportunity of inclusion of its victims, but also,¶ less obviously, because hate speech tends to bear closer links to¶ majority views than might initially appear. Indeed, in a¶ multicultural society, while crude insults uttered by a member of¶ the majority directed against a minority may be unequivocally¶ rejected by almost all other members of the majority culture, the¶ concerns that led to the hate message may be widely shared by the¶ majority culture who regard of other cultures as threats to their¶ way of life. In those circumstances, hate speech might best be¶ characterized as a pathological extension of majority feelings or¶ beliefs.¶ So long as the pluralist contemporary state is committed to¶ maintaining diversity, it cannot simply embrace a value neutral¶ mindset, and consequently it cannot legitimately avoid engaging in¶ some minimum of viewpoint discrimination. This is made clear by¶ the German example, and although the German experience has¶ been unique, it is hard to imagine that any pluralist constitutional¶ democracy would not be committed to a similar position, albeit to¶ a lesser degree.'38 Accordingly, without adopting German free speech jurisprudence, at a minimum contemporary pluralist¶ democracy ought to institutionalize viewpoint discrimination¶ against the crudest and most offensive expressions of racism,¶ religious bigotry and virulent bias on the basis of ethnic or national¶ origin

Tournament: Golden Desert | Round: 1 | Opponent: Harker RJ | Judge: Kris Kaya
1
State funding for public colleges is on a downward trajectory – donors make up for the loss. Harnisch ‘10/28
Thomas Harnisch serves as the Director of State Relations and Policy Analysis at the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) “Trending to Zero: The Lasting Impact of Total State Disinvestment from Public Higher Education.” The Evolution. October 28, 2016. https://evolllution.com/managing-institution/government_legislation/trending-to-zero-the-lasting-impact-of-total-state-disinvestment-from-public-higher-education/ JJN
The term “privatization” is frequently invoked to describe the current and future state of public higher education. The label is used as shorthand for the shift away from state funding and toward tuition and other private revenue streams. State funding cuts for public colleges and universities have produced an evolving administrative model increasingly influenced by corporate-style management, where market-driven metrics replace mission statements and where reliance on revenues from campus assets, donors, out-of-state student enrollment and other non-public sources fill the gap left by ever-diminishing state appropriations. Public university privatization has been years in the making. According to the Pell Institute, state funding efforts for public higher education today stand at 55 percent of what they were in 1980. While the presidential campaign—particularly Bernie Sanders’ proposal to make public colleges free—has created some political pressure in the opposite direction, absent a radical realignment of federal and state funding practices, the disinvestment trend is expected to accelerate due to projected growth in other state budget items. While states often increase funding for public higher education during stronger budget cycles, the increases typically do not make up for the cuts from difficult years, and state funding patterns suggest an inexorable downward trajectory.

Survival for most colleges relies on donor support. Vise ‘11
Daniel de Vise – Author and Journalist at Washington Post. “Public colleges tap private funds as state support dwindles.” Washington Post. July 2, 2011. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/public-colleges-tap-private-funds-as-state-support-dwindles/2011/06/29/AGHiWQvH_story.html?utm_term=.c4f99cada77a JJN
As state subsidies for higher education are dwindling, public colleges in the Washington region and elsewhere are learning they must tap private funds to survive. Fundraising by George Mason University rose from $3 million in 1990 to $32 million in 2010, according to an industry survey by the Council for Aid to Education. After adjusting for inflation, that amounts to a nearly four-fold increase. The survey showed donations to the University of Maryland Baltimore County surged from about $1 million to $8 million in that span. Towson University’s fundraising climbed from $1 million to $6 million. Such fundraising campaigns, echoed in other states, come as legislatures across the nation are cutting higher education budgets. Per-student state funding has dwindled from $8,035 in 2000 to $6,451 in 2010 nationwide, in inflation-adjusted dollars, according to the State Higher Education Executive Officers. The trend has spawned dark humor. Public colleges, some in the field say, have evolved from state-supported to state-assisted to state-located. “We are at, in the current fiscal year, the lowest funding level in 30 years. And it’s clearly going to get worse,” said Dan Hurley, director of state relations and policy analysis at the American Association of State Colleges and Universities. Young, ambitious state institutions such as George Mason are playing a desperate game of catch-up against an elite group of older universities with billion-dollar endowments and a long tradition of giving. Johns Hopkins University, Georgetown University and the University of Virginia each raise hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Even the flagship University of Maryland, a relative upstart, took in $87 million in fiscal year 2010. Legislatures are shifting the cost of college to students: public university tuition has nearly doubled nationwide in the past decade. Most public colleges have relied on state funding and student tuition for nearly all their revenue. Now, they are looking to build other funding sources, turning to private donors with unprecedented vigor. Flagship public universities are insulated against the state funding losses, partly on the strength of massive fundraising operations. Even before the decline in state funding, the University of Virginia drew only one quarter of its revenue from Richmond. Other state institutions are more vulnerable. State cuts drove Virginia Commonwealth University to an unprecedented 24 percent tuition increase in 2010. George Mason hasn’t raised faculty salaries in three years. Around the region, state universities are hiring fewer tenure-track professors, allowing class sizes to grow and pressing student lounges into use as teaching spaces. George Mason, a onetime U-Va. branch campus that gained independence in 1972, relied on the state for 60 percent of its operating budget as recently as a decade ago. Today, that share has fallen below 30 percent. Per-student state funding has dropped from $5,319 in 2001 to $3,238 in 2011, in constant dollars. Twenty years ago, “fundraising in any aggressive way was simply not on the radar screen” of regional state universities and younger research universities, said Gary Rubin, vice president for university advancement at Towson. The typical college raises private dollars largely from a small group of wealthy and older alumni. Plaques on ancient campus buildings bespeak the tradition of giving. 

Administrators need the ability to regulate speech to keep donors happy.  Press and Student Nation ‘16
ALEX PRESS is a PhD student in sociology based in Boston. STUDENTNATION First-person accounts from student activists, organizers and journalists reporting on youth-oriented movements for social justice, economic equality and tolerance. “Silence on Campus: Contingent Work and Free Speech.” The Nation. February 17, 2016. https://www.thenation.com/article/silence-on-campus-contingent-work-and-free-speech/ JJN
Corporatization creates a dilemma for higher education: College, unlike most businesses, serves a social function—the production and transfer of knowledge—the achievement of which requires an environment of intellectual freedom that can conflict with profit margins, as some actors central to the model, such as donors, may take issue with controversial speech. In the past, tenure resolved some of this tension—once professors gain tenure, they’re walled off from these pressures, at least theoretically. With the erosion of tenure and a slack academic job market, free speech disappears as professors become increasingly disposable. As Steven Vallas, a sociologist at Northeastern University who researches the changing nature of work, argues, a professor’s right to speak freely presumes a foundation of job stability. “If you have an expansion of the adjunct, precarious professoriate, than you really are eroding the proportion of people who can speak their mind.” In contrast to claims that censorious students are the central threat to the ability of college to serve as a marketplace of ideas, the silencing of speech that comes with a sense of one’s disposability appears much more powerful. Conceding the difficulty of capturing the preemptive stifling of debate that comes with disposable worker status, we can take the severity of repercussions visited upon those who don’t censor themselves as indicative of the problem. Take the case of Steven Salaita, an indigenous studies scholar whose offer of a position at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign was rescinded after he tweeted critically about Israel’s 2014 attack on Gaza. A violation of academic freedom that resulted in a rare formal censure from the AAUP, for Salaita, administrative censorship is no secret. “For the uninitiated, the levels of vitriol and retribution that attend criticism of Israel can be stunning,” he writes, referencing a report authored by the Center for Constitutional Rights and Palestine Legal that details hundreds of reported acts of suppression of pro-Palestine advocacy in under two years. Salaita sued the University of Illinois for violating his rights. While he settled out of court for $875,000, discovery findings from his lawsuit reveal the likelihood of donor influence on the decision to fire him, with the chancellor communicating with donors about Salaita’s tweets and his possible dismissal. As Salaita’s case demonstrates, the extent of donor pressure goes a long way to explain why administrations might choose to silence speech, explains William Robinson, a professor at the University of California–Santa Barbara. In 2009, Robinson caught the attention of outside organizations that then pressured UCSB administrators to charge him with violating the university’s academic code of conduct, according to Robinson’s account of the incident, as well as details published by his supporters. Explaining the role financial needs play in decisions to censor faculty in public higher education, Robinson argues, “As public funding is cut, the administration becomes more reliant on private donors. These donors then use that leverage, threatening to withdraw donations if an administration doesn’t act.” The problem is worsening as public funds for higher education are drying up across the country, according to a recent report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. As this money dwindles, administrations turn to wealthy donors, creating the conditions under which prestigious donors can sway administrator’s decisions on how to respond to controversial faculty, if those faculty can get hired in the first place.

Turns case – lack of financial backing kills quality of education. Webley 12
Kayla Webley, Kayla Webley is a Staff Writer at TIME., 1-25-2012, "Students Bear the Burden of State Higher Ed Cuts," TIME, http://business.time.com/2012/01/25/students-bear-the-burden-of-state-higher-ed-cuts/ MG
Over the past year, state funding for higher education has declined by nearly 8. In real terms, that amounts to $6 billion less being funneled into the nation’s public colleges and universities at a time when the demand for the degrees they provide is at an all-time high. According to the annual Grapevine report from the Center for the Study of Education Policy at Illinois State University, 41 states reduced funding as a result of the slow economic recovery and the end of federal stimulus funds. Of those, 29 states allocated less money in the 2011-12 school year than they did in the pre-recession 2006-07 school year. And further, 14 states reduced funds by more than 10. In the most extreme case, New Hampshire reduced public funding for its colleges and universities by 41; at the other end of the spectrum, North Carolina decreased funding by only 1, and nine states managed to increase total state spending for higher ed. (MORE: Which Cities Spend the Most on Snack Foods?) As state money declines, universities are left with no choice but to put more of the financial burden on students — the same students who are already taking on more debt than ever recorded. “There’s an awful lot of substitution of student money for state money,” said Dennis Jones, president of the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. “The first reaction is always to increase tuition.” At the same time, also as a result of the cuts, schools are curtailing need-based financial aid programs. “Students are being hit with a double whammy — higher cost and less help,” Jones added. But not only are students footing more of the bill, they are getting less bang for their buck. In order to compensate for the lack of funds, universities have made a host of significant changes — and almost none of them are good for students. To start, universities have been forced to scale back the number of enrollment slots they can offer in the first place and recruit more out-of-state (and thus higher-tuition paying) students to up their bottom lines. Here’s one way this scenario could play out: Since elite schools are the ones that most effectively recruit out-of-state students, we’ll start with Student A, a California resident, who is qualified to attend the University of California, Berkeley, but is shut out because out-of-state students have snapped up a larger portion of the enrollment slots than in years past. So, instead of Berkeley, Student A enrolls in a more mid-level state school, like UC Davis. As a result, Student B, who in the past would have been a shoo-in at Davis, is denied admission, and instead opts to attend a community college. Consequently, Student C, whose only option is community college, is shut out of higher education altogether. Those students who are lucky enough to get in often have a hard time finding space in the classes they need as universities slash classes and programs. “We’re seeing dramatic cases of students being enrolled in schools and then finding they can’t get into the courses they need to graduate,” said Paul Lingenfelter, president of the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association, the group that works with Grapevine to issue the report. “If you can’t provide seats in the classroom because you don’t have the money to hire faculty, that’s a denial of access for students.” (MORE: Students Bear the Burden of State Higher Ed Cuts) If they’re lucky enough to get into the classes they want, students are more likely to be taught by adjunct faculty instead of full-time professors. The potential negative for students in this scenario is that adjunct faculty, who may be good teachers, don’t shoulder the responsibility of advising and mentoring students. “It’s not unusual for adjuncts to come in, teach a class and be gone,” Jones said. “In California they call them freeway fliers because they may teach at several schools in order to make a living themselves.” According to Jones, the students most likely to have adjunct faculty are freshmen, meaning many students begin their college careers without seeing faculty who are permanent fixtures at the university. Of course, there are other ways to compensate for a lack of funds that don’t have a direct negative impact on students — including consolidating campuses, cutting programs with low-enrollment, scaling back administrative costs, being more energy efficient, etc. — but four years into the recession, most of the easy cuts have already been made, leaving raising tuition as the last option standing. But that’s not to say it’s a good option. “You have to worry most about the students who aren’t there that should be,” Lingenfelter said. “It’s very clear as cost has risen and aid has been stretched, that there are so many students who should be in higher education today that are not because they can’t afford to be.”

Tournament: Berkely | Round: 3 | Opponent: West GG | Judge: Robey Holland
New terror regulations stop campus attacks but OSU attack prove rising risk of campus terror. Bernstein 11/29
“Terror attack at Ohio State University prompts Senators to rethink 'extreme vetting,'” Leandra Bernstein, 11/29/16, KBOI2 (Associated Press).  
The violent attack at Ohio State University (OSU) on Monday, being investigated as an act of terror by a Somali refugee living legally in the United States, has led some in Congress to look favorably at the policies of the incoming Donald Trump administration, including the "extreme vetting" of individuals seeking entry to the country.¶ On Monday, an Ohio State student identified as Abdul Razak Ali Artan, drove his car into a group of people on the main campus in Columbus before attacking bystanders with a butcher knife. Artan was subdued by an Ohio State police officer who fatally shot him after he had injured 11 people.¶ As the event was unfolding on Monday, Trump issued a brief message of support to the students and faculty at OSU and first responders. As information about the apparently radicalized Somali-born suspect came in, it prompted many to reflect on Trump's campaign promises to strengthen the vetting of individuals coming to the country and also initiate a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." Prior to Trump's early campaign statement calling for an end to Muslim immigration to the United States (until U.S. representatives "can figure out what is going on"), Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced a bill to officially pause the resettlement of refugees entering the United States from 33 terror-prone countries, including Somalia. The bill also proposed strengthening the system of background checks.¶ On Tuesday, Paul told Sinclair Broadcast Group, "I am still for putting a pause" on resettlement. He explained that the pause should relate to specific goals, including putting in place a better system to monitor individuals who come into the country as immigrants or on a U.S. visa.¶ Even though his proposal to block terrorists from taking advantage of the U.S. visa and immigration system was defeated back in December 2015, Paul now sees an opportunity to revisit the proposal under a new administration that is "more inclined" to enforce laws that prevent the abuse of immigration and visa laws.¶ "Trump talked about 'extreme vetting,' and I think there needs to be more significant vetting of those who want to come to our country," Paul insisted. "We need to get a better handle on this." Former Trump rival, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) reacted to the the incident at Ohio State University, saying it is a reminder that the United States government "should not be letting people in this country who are security risks." Cruz noted that unlike the Obama administration, the incoming Trump administration is likely to work harder to prevent terrorists from entering the United States.¶ "I am optimistic that the new administration will put, as a far higher priority, keeping this country safe and protecting us against radical Islamic terrorism," Cruz said.¶ For Senate Homeland Security Committee chairman, Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Trump's pledge to secure the border is even more important than implementing a stricter vetting process for refugees.¶ "I am far more concerned about Islamic terrorists potentially coming through our incredibly porous southern border" Johnson said. "Which is why I am completely supportive of President-elect Trump's commitment to secure the border."¶ With little information about the suspect in the Ohio State University attack, now is not the time prejudge the incident or make broad-reaching policy decisions, according to some lawmakers.¶ Only 24 hours after the attack, it is just too soon to jump to conclusions about the suspect, says Ohio Democrat, Sherrod Brown.¶ "These attacks are always a tragedy for our community," he stated. "I want to know more about this young man's journey to the U.S., and his background... before making a judgment," Brown added. For others, like Georgia Senator Johnny Isakson (R), now is also not the right time to be reactive or push major policy changes. Although Isakson supported previous legislative efforts to curb refugee resettlement from Syria and Iraq, he advised on Tuesday not to let one incident determine changes in existing policy. ¶ The OSU attack "certainly raises the question about Somali refugees," Isakson noted, but the overall policy towards refugees should be reexamined on "an ongoing basis," not just in response to particular events.¶ Law enforcement officials have indicated that they are still a long way from establishing Artan's motives in carrying out the Monday assault. According to media reports, prior to carrying out the attack, Artan posted an anti-American rant on Facebook, where he praised the U.S. citizen turned Islamist cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, as a "hero," and referred to American officials' inability to stop "lone wolf attacks."¶ Law enforcement officials have not made any official findings connecting Artan to the Islamic State, but in a Tuesday internet posting, ISIS claimed the attacker was a "soldier" of the terrorist group. Earlier this month, ISIS issued instructions to its adherents abroad to carry out attacks using knives and cars. Preliminary reports indicate that Artan was born in Somalia and lived there until 2007, when he and his family resettled in Pakistan. Around 2014, the family arrived in the United States as refugees, staying in Dallas temporarily before relocating to Columbus, Ohio, a city with a sizable Somali community. Artan attended Columbus State Community College and graduated last spring before enrolling at OSU.¶ As the identity of the Ohio State attacker was revealed by state law enforcement officials, Ohio's openness to refugees, particularly of Somali origin, came under fire. Even though the states have little power to control refugee flows into their borders, many took to social media to blame Ohio Governor John Kasich, saying that the attack “is on you.” Though critical of the Obama administration's plan to accept additional Syrian refugees into the United States, Kasich has generally spoken favorably about integrating new citizens into his state. According to the Somali Association of Ohio, there are at least 38,000 Somali immigrants and refugees living in the Columbus metropolitan area, with an addition 200 immigrants expected to arrive monthly within the next four years.¶ Earlier this year, the Obama administration announced new targets for resettling refugees after settling 85,000 in FY 2016 and aiming for 110,000 in 2017. Obama's announcement followed on the heels of a heated reaction from the public and lawmakers to revelations that one of the suspects in the Nov. 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris has reportedly entered Europe as a refugee.¶ The Paris attack, which left 130 civilians dead, triggered U.S. officials to begin rethinking federal policies, it prompted changes in visa waiver laws, and a reconsideration of visa-free travel from Europe. It also led to dozens of state governors openly rejecting the resettlement of Syrian refugees in their states.¶ In a prescient testimony before the Senate Homeland Security Committee in 2015, national security analyst Peter Bergen warned that acts of violence perpetrated by homegrown extremists posted "a more immediate challenge" than the threat of foreign terrorists. He warned that the "more likely threat" to the United States came from individuals inspired by ISIS or other militant groups, and who may never even come into direct contact with these groups.¶ The threat of homegrown extremism prompted Obama's Department of Homeland Security to work on a new phase of domestic counter-terrorism efforts. In 2016, DHS stood up a number of community engagement programs, designed to work with members of at-risk communities, including American-Muslim communities, to identify and redirect potential lone wolf attackers, or individuals who could be heading down the path of radicalization.
FS zones k2 prevent campus terrorist attacks – it allows law enforcement to defend and prevent better. Zeiner 05
Zoned Out! Examining Campus Speech Zones, Carol L. Zeiner (Assistant Professor of Law, St. Thomas University School of Law, Miami Gardens, Florida; former College Attorney for Miami-Dade Community College (now Miami-Dade College)), Louisiana Law Review (Volume 66, No. 1), Fall 2005.
Unfortunately, the possibility of terrorist acts must be¶ considered as well as more general concerns under the heading of¶ campus safety and security. As pointed out in Part II.D,27 there¶ are risks posed by international and domestic terrorist groups.278¶ Obviously, large gatherings constitute a particularly attractive¶ target for terrorists, although any site on a university campus might¶ be considered attractive by those bent on attacking the American¶ way of life. On the one hand, this would seem to suggest that¶ campus speech zones enable terrorists to know which areas of¶ campus might be likely targets and suggests that campus speech¶ zones should be eliminated so that free speech events could occur¶ spontaneously anywhere on campus, and terrorists would not have¶ time to plan an attack. However, it does not take much advance¶ planning to carry a weapons-laden knapsack into a crowd. Thus,¶ perhaps it is more important for security personnel to have the¶ benefit of advance planning. Moreover, security features could be¶ designed into the physical characteristics of designated speech¶ zones more practically than could be accomplished if large¶ gatherings for speech activities could occur anywhere on campus.¶ 

Campus terror sends an ideological message globally – it encourages more terror and threatens education. Flanagin 15
“Why terrorists target schools and universities,” Jake Flanagin, 04/02/2015, The Quartz.
One reason that “terrorist organizations might choose to target educational institutions is that schools and school children act as powerful symbolic targets,” wrote Emma Bradford and Margaret A. Wilson, forensic psychologists at the University of Liverpool, in a 2013 analysis for the Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology. “Attacks on these targets evoke a strong emotional response.”¶ “Schools and other educational institutions represent ‘soft targets,’” they added. “A soft target is a relatively unguarded site where people congregate, normally in large numbers, thus offering the potential for mass casualties.” But practicalities aside, there are also specific, political and cultural reasons a terrorist cell might target a school or university. And this is where such acts diverge from the usual modes of modern terror.¶ Though bombing public transport takes months, if not years of intensive planning, it is intended to make the act appear random—anyone could become a victim by passing through at the wrong time. The terrifying power of this particular terror tactic is, after all, its unpredictability. An ideological message is usually announced in the aftermath.¶ Attacking schools, however, is predictable because the act is the message. Terrorists who attack schools intend to deplete the number of institutions disseminating philosophies ostensibly contradictory to their worldview; “Boko Haram,” roughly translated from the Hausa language means “Western education is forbidden.”¶ “They’re attacking what they see as the institutions of culture, and in particular the institutions of Western culture,” Ebrahim Moosa, professor of Islamic studies at the University of Notre Dame, told The Christian Science Monitor following the attacks in Peshawar. “They see that the process of Westernization begins at school, so schools that violate strict Islamic education become targets.”¶ It’s not difficult to see why Garissa was targeted. Kenyan schools consistently rank toward the best in the region, and the overall Kenyan population demonstrates one of the highest literacy rates on the continent. It is also a highly diverse place, with regards to religion and ethnicity, not unlike many African countries occupying the borderlands between Muslim-dominated North Africa and the Christian-dominated south. Consequently, Kenyan schools and universities are well-positioned for the maximal exchange of cultures, politics, and ideas—a concept that stands in direct opposition to the rigid ideologies of groups like al-Shabab.¶ Al-Shabab has a history of interfering in local education. In areas of Somalia under the group’s control, once co-ed schools have been gender segregated, with the majority of girls being intimidated against enrolling, if not forcibly removed from schools all together. Whole classes of boys have been pulled out of schools and conscripted into its ranks.¶ In an audio message released following the attack at Garissa, Ali Mohamoud Raghe, a spokesperson for al-Shabab, said, “the university had been targeted because it was educating many Christian students in ‘a Muslim land under colony,’” according to The New York Times, “a reference to the large ethnic Somali population in a part of Kenya that Somalia once tried to claim. He called the university part of Kenya’s ‘plan to spread their Christianity and infidelity.’” Which makes al-Shabab’s objective crystal-clear, and all too familiar: to wipe out a generation of ideological non-adherents.

Turns and outweighs case: terrorism reinscribes neoliberalism and militarism into education due to fear and backlash. Di Leo et al 14  
This excerpt from the chapter titled, "Twelve Theses on Education's Future in the Age of Neoliberalism and Terrorism," is taken from the book,  Neoliberalism, Education, Terrorism: Contemporary Dialogues, by Jeffrey R. Di Leo, Henry A. Giroux, Kenneth J. Saltman and Sophia A. McClennen

1. Neoliberalism is one of the greatest threats to the future of progressive education in the United States.¶ The goal of neoliberal education policies is not to improve education, but rather to increase the profits of private corporations. Profit-driven models for education directly contrast the goals of progressive educators. The goal of progressive education is to educate students to be productive participants in democratic culture and to engage actively in critical citizenship. Such goals are not supported by neoliberal educational policy mainstays such as teaching to the test and standardized testing. Because neoliberal education policy tends to be data-driven it works against the development of a student's ability to think critically, thereby undermining the formative culture and values necessary for a democratic society. As long as the United States continues to view educational policy and practice through the lens of market-based values, there is little hope that progressive education, with its aim of educating students for critical citizenship and social and economic justice, will survive.¶ 2. The war on terror and the discourse on terrorism have intensified the militarization of education.¶ The military–industrial complex should not be the driving force of education in the United States. However, the reaction to the tragic attacks of September 11, 2001, has become yet another excuse to allow the military-academic complex to drive United States educational policies, practices, and funding. Not only has funding been diverted from public education to support the war on terror, but there has also been a push to understand America and the world in a way that supports American imperial ambitions. The militarization of education encourages the rationalization of state-sanctioned violence as a social and political value and supports educational practices that validate this violence. The celebration of war as a sign of power and knowledge by the military-industrial complex obliterates the democratic values of equality, public debate of political problems, and respect for diversity. The militarized society eschews reasoned political resolutions to public problems in favor of eradication of the designated enemy/other. Hence, the war on terror is a war on democracy, difference, and thinking. Critical citizenship and democratic culture as the major goals of education cannot survive in a culture dominated by extreme fear and a war waged against an emotion, namely, terror.
   False claims of responsibility cause cyber terrorism to escalate into nuclear war. Fritz 09.
   Jason Fritz, (Bond University IR Masters) , “Hacking Nuclear Command and Control”, July 2009http:www.icnnd.org/latest/research/Jason_Fritz_Hacking_NC2.pdf
   This paper will analyse the threat of cyber terrorism in regard to nuclear weapons. Specifically, this research will use open source knowledge to identify the structure of nuclear command and control centres, how those structures might be compromised through computer network operations, and how doing so would fit within established cyber terrorists’ capabilities, strategies, and tactics. If access to command and control centres is obtained, terrorists could fake or actually cause one nuclear-armed state to attack another, thus provoking a nuclear response from another nuclear power. This may be an easier alternative for terrorist groups than building or acquiring a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb themselves. This would also act as a force equaliser, and provide terrorists with the asymmetric benefits of high speed, removal of geographical distance, and a relatively low cost. Continuing difficulties in developing computer tracking technologies which could trace the identity of intruders, and difficulties in establishing an internationally agreed upon legal framework to guide responses to computer network operations, point towards an inherent weakness in using computer networks to manage nuclear weaponry. This is particularly relevant to reducing the hair trigger posture of existing nuclear arsenals. All computers which are connected to the internet are susceptible to infiltration and remote control. Computers which operate on a closed network may also be compromised by various hacker methods, such as privilege escalation, roaming notebooks, wireless access points, embedded exploits in software and hardware, and maintenance entry points. For example, e-mail spoofing targeted at individuals who have access to a closed network, could lead to the installation of a virus on an open network. This virus could then be carelessly transported on removable data storage between the open and closed network. Information found on the internet may also reveal how to access these closed networks directly. Efforts by militaries to place increasing reliance on computer networks, including experimental technology such as autonomous systems, and their desire to have multiple launch options, such as nuclear triad capability, enables multiple entry points for terrorists. For example, if a terrestrial command centre is impenetrable, perhaps isolating one nuclear armed submarine would prove an easier task. There is evidence to suggest multiple attempts have been made by hackers to compromise the extremely low radio frequency once used by the US Navy to send nuclear launch approval to submerged submarines. Additionally, the alleged Soviet system known as Perimetr was designed to automatically launch nuclear weapons if it was unable to establish communications with Soviet leadership. This was intended as a retaliatory response in the event that nuclear weapons had decapitated Soviet leadership; however it did not account for the possibility of cyber terrorists blocking communications through computer network operations in an attempt to engage the system. Should a warhead be launched, damage could be further enhanced through additional computer network operations. By using proxies, multi-layered attacks could be engineered. Terrorists could remotely commandeer computers in China and use them to launch a US nuclear attack against Russia. Thus Russia would believe it was under attack from the US and the US would believe China was responsible. Further, emergency response communications could be disrupted, transportation could be shut down, and disinformation, such as misdirection, could be planted, thereby hindering the disaster relief effort and maximizing destruction. Disruptions in communication and the use of disinformation could also be used to provoke uninformed responses. For example, a nuclear strike between India and Pakistan could be coordinated with Distributed Denial of Service attacks against key networks, so they would have further difficulty in identifying what happened and be forced to respond quickly. Terrorists could also knock out communications between these states so they cannot discuss the situation. Alternatively, amidst the confusion of a traditional large-scale terrorist attack, claims of responsibility and declarations of war could be falsified in an attempt to instigate a hasty military response. These false claims could be posted directly on Presidential, military, and government websites. E-mails could also be sent to the media and foreign governments using the IP addresses and e-mail accounts of government officials. A sophisticated and all encompassing combination of traditional terrorism and cyber terrorism could be enough to launch nuclear weapons on its own, without the need for compromising command and control centres directly.

Cyber terrorism would destroy the economy, cause food shortages, and extinction. Guterl 12.
Guterl, (executive editor) – Scientific American, 11/28/’12.
(Fred, “Armageddon 2.0,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists) The world lived for half a century with the constant specter of nuclear war and its potentially devastating consequences. The end of the Cold War took the potency out of this Armageddon scenario, yet the existential dangers have only multiplied. Today the technologies that pose some of the biggest problems are not so much military as commercial. They come from biology, energy production, and the information sciences -- and are the very technologies that have fueled our prodigious growth as a species. They are far more seductive than nuclear weapons, and more difficult to extricate ourselves from. The technologies we worry about today form the basis of our global civilization and are essential to our survival. The mistake many of us make about the darker aspects of our high-tech civilization is in thinking that we have plenty of time to address them. We may, if we're lucky. But it's more likely that we have less time than we think. There may be a limited window of opportunity for preventing catastrophes such as pandemics, runaway climate change, and cyber attacks on national power grids. Emerging diseases. The influenza pandemic of 2009 is a case in point. Because of rising prosperity and travel, the world has grown more conducive to a destructive flu virus in recent years, many public health officials believe. Most people probably remember 2009 as a time when health officials overreacted. But in truth, the 2009 virus came from nowhere, and by the time it reached the radar screens of health officials, it was already well on its way to spreading far and wide. "H1N1 caught us all with our pants down," says flu expert Robert G. Webster of St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee. Before it became apparent that the virus was a mild one, health officials must have felt as if they were staring into the abyss. If the virus had been as deadly as, say, the 1918 flu virus or some more recent strains of bird flu, the result would have rivaled what the planners of the 1950s expected from a nuclear war. It would have been a "total disaster," Webster says. "You wouldn't get the gasoline for your car, you wouldn't get the electricity for your power, you wouldn't get the medicines you need. Society as we know it would fall apart." Climate change. Climate is another potentially urgent risk. It's easy to think about greenhouse gases as a long-term problem, but the current rate of change in the Arctic has alarmed more and more scientists in recent years. Tim Lenton, a climate scientist at the University of Exeter in England, has looked at climate from the standpoint of tipping points -- sudden changes that are not reflected in current climate models. We may already have reached a tipping point -- a transition to a new state in which the Arctic is ice-free during the summer months. Perhaps the most alarming of Lenton's tipping points is the Indian summer monsoon. Smoke from household fires, and soot from automobiles and buses in crowded cities, rises into the atmosphere and drifts out over the Indian Ocean, changing the atmospheric dynamics upon which the monsoon depends -- keeping much of the sun's energy from reaching the surface, and lessening the power of storms. At the same time, the buildup of greenhouse gases -- emitted mainly from developed countries in the northern hemisphere -- has a very different effect on the Indian summer monsoon: It makes it stronger. These two opposite influences make the fate of the monsoon difficult to predict and subject to instability. A small influence -- a bit more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and a bit more brown haze -- could have an outsize effect. The Indian monsoon, Lenton believes, could be teetering on a knife's edge, ready to change abruptly in ways that are hard to predict. What happens then? More than a billion people depend on the monsoon's rains. Other tipping points may be in play, says Lenton. The West African monsoon is potentially near a tipping point. So are Greenland's glaciers, which hold enough water to raise sea levels by more than 20 feet; and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which has enough ice to raise sea levels by at least 10 feet. Regional tipping points could hasten the ill effects of climate change more quickly than currently projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Computer hacking. The computer industry has already made it possible for computers to handle a variety of tasks without human intervention. Autonomous computers, using techniques formerly known as artificial intelligence, have begun to exert control in virtually every sphere of our lives. Cars, for instance, can now take action to avoid collisions. To do this, a car has to make decisions: When does it take control? How much braking power should be applied, and to which wheels? And when should the car allow its reflex-challenged driver to regain control? Cars that drive themselves, currently being field tested, could hit dealer showrooms in a few years. Autonomous computers can make our lives easier and safer, but they can also make them more dangerous. A case in point is Stuxnet, the computer worm designed by the US and Israel to attack Iran's nuclear fuel program. It is a watershed in the brief history of malware -- the Jason Bourne of computer code, designed for maximum autonomy and effectiveness. Stuxnet's creators gave their program the best training possible: they stocked it with detailed technical knowledge that would come in handy for whatever situation Stuxnet could conceivably encounter. Although the software included rendezvous procedures and communication codes for reporting back to headquarters, Stuxnet was built to survive and carry out its mission even if it found itself cut off. The uranium centrifuges that Stuxnet attacked are very similar in principle to the generators that power the US electrical grid. Both are monitored and controlled by programmable-logic computer chips. Stuxnet cleverly caused the uranium centrifuges to throw themselves off-balance, inflicting enough damage to set the Iranian nuclear industry back by 18 months or more. A similar piece of malware installed on the computers that control the generators at the base of the Grand Coulee Dam would likewise cause them to shake, rattle, and roll -- and eventually explode. If Stuxnet-like malware were to insinuate itself into a few hundred power generators in the United States and attack them all at once, the damage would be enough to cause blackouts on the East and West Coasts. With such widespread destruction, it could take many months to restore power to the grid. It seems incredible that this should be so, but the worldwide capacity to manufacture generator parts is limited. Generators generally last 30 years, sometimes 50, so normally there's little need for replacements. The main demand for generators is in China, India, and other parts of rapidly developing Asia. That's where the manufacturers are -- not in the United States. Even if the United States, in crisis mode, put full diplomatic pressure on supplier nations -- or launched a military invasion to take over manufacturing facilities -- the capacity to ramp up production would be severely limited. Worldwide production currently amounts to only a few hundred generators per year. The consequences of going without power for months, across a large swath of the United States, would be devastating. Backup electrical generators in hospitals and other vulnerable facilities would have to rely on fuel that would be in high demand. Diabetics would go without their insulin; heart attack victims would not have their defibrillators; and sick people would have no place to go. Businesses would run out of inventory and extra capacity. Grocery stores would run out of food, and deliveries of all sorts would virtually cease (no gasoline for trucks and airplanes, trains would be down). As we saw with the blackouts caused by Hurricane Sandy, gas stations couldn't pump gas from their tanks, and fuel-carrying trucks wouldn't be able to fill up at refueling stations. Without power, the economy would virtually cease, and if power failed over a large enough portion of the country, simply trucking in supplies from elsewhere would not be adequate to cover the needs of hundreds of millions of people. People would start to die by the thousands, then by the tens of thousands, and eventually the millions. The loss of the power grid would put nuclear plants on backup, but how many of those systems would fail, causing meltdowns, as we saw at Fukushima? The loss in human life would quickly reach, and perhaps exceed,  After eight to 10 days, about 72 percent of all economic activity, as measured by GDP, would shut down,

Tournament: Berkely | Round: 1 | Opponent: St Francis DJ | Judge: Preston Stolte
Federal government funding is continuing to grow – there has been a steady increase over 15 years Camera, MA, 16
Lauren Camera, Education Reporter, 1-14-2016, "Federal Education Funding: Where Does the Money Go?," US News and World Report, http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2016/01/14/federal-education-funding-where-does-the-money-go VC
Government spending on education has surged over the last decade and a half, with money being funneled to federal programs for low-income students, students with disabilities and a slate of competitions that the Obama administration launched through the economic stimulus package. Since 2002, federal funding for education has increased by 36 percent, from $50 billion to $68 billion, according to an analysis by the Committee for Education Funding, a District of Columbia-based advocacy organization. It peaked in 2009 at $97 million, thanks to an injection of dollars from the economic stimulus, most of which went to staving off teacher layoffs. Total ED Discretionary Funding COMMITTEE FOR EDUCATION FUNDING By far, the biggest amount of federal education dollars goes toward funding the Pell Grant program, a tuition assistance initiative for low-income students. In fiscal 2016, the government is spending $22 billion to fund Pell Grants, twice what was spent in 2002, when the program garnered a little more than $11 billion. READ: Achievement Gap Between White and Black Students Still Gaping The explosion in the tuition assistance program was a result of more people qualifying for the grant, in part because of the Great Recession and in part because the Obama administration lowered the income threshold to qualify. Pell Grants-Discretionary Appropriation COMMITTEE FOR EDUCATION FUNDING The next-largest slice of overall education spending is going toward a grant program for school districts with large numbers of low-income students, known as Title I. Funding for the program also saw a big increase since 2002, going from $10.4 billion to $14.9 billion this year, an increase of 43 percent.
Previous rulings prove that speech codes are key to federal funding
Bernstein, MA, 03
David E. Bernstein, 8-27-2003, "Federal Ruling May Mark End of Speech Codes at Public Universities," Cato Institute, https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/federal-ruling-may-mark-end-speech-codes-public-universities VC
That ruling was made after male students at Santa Rosa Community College had posted explicit and sexually derogatory remarks about two female students on a discussion group hosted by the college’s computer network. Several aggrieved students filed a complaint against the college with the OCR. It found that the messages probably created a hostile educational environment on the basis of sex for one of the students. The college’s toleration of such offensive speech, the government said, would violate Title IX, the law banning discrimination against women by educational institutions that receive federal funding. To avoid losing federal funds, universities across-the-board were required to proactively ban offensive speech by students and diligently punish any violations of that ban. The OCR failed to explain how its rule complied with the First Amendment. Speech codes enacted by public universities clearly violate the First Amendment, even if the codes are enacted in response to the demands of the OCR. So, requiring public universities to enact speech codes or forfeit public funds is obviously unconstitutional. Nevertheless, public university officials ignored the First Amendment and enacted (or retained) speech codes in compliance with the OCR guidelines. While a few schools may have been truly concerned about the potential loss of federal funding, the prevailing attitude among university officials seemed to be that the OCR’s Santa Rosa decision provided a ready excuse to indulge their preference for speech codes. Indeed, some universities enacted speech codes so broad that, when taken literally, they are absurd. The University of Maryland’s sexual harassment policy, for example , bans “idle chatter of a sexual nature, sexual innuendoes, comments about a person’s clothing, body, and/or sexual activities, comments of a sexual nature about weight, body shape, size, or figure, and comments or questions about the sensuality of a person.” So, at the University of Maryland, saying “I like your shirt, Brenda” has been a punishable instance of sexual harassment. Further, under Maryland’s code the prohibited speech need not address an individual to constitute harassment — saying “I really like men who wear bow ties” is out of bounds, at least if a man who wears bow ties hears about it. Moreover, public university censorship has extended well beyond sex discrimination issues. Federal law also bans discrimination in education based on race, religion, veteran status, and other criteria, and universities argued that they needed to censor speech to prevent a hostile environment for groups protected by those laws. The Santa Rosa case affected private universities, too. Unlike public universities, private universities have the right to enact and enforce voluntary speech codes. However, the First Amendment prohibits the government from requiring private universities to administer speech codes. Nevertheless, based on the Santa Rosa ruling, the government threatened to strip private universities of federal funding if they didn’t enforce speech restrictions to ensure that their students are not exposed to a “hostile environment.”

Federal funding is necessary for the success of universities and for future initiatives. Yudof 10
Yudof, Mark G. Former pres of UC Exploring a new role for federal government in higher education. University of California, Office of the President, 2010.
The scale of the mission and demands of the moment call out for an integrated national¶ strategy. It must be one that provides the institutions of higher education with a more reliable¶ funding stream — a prerequisite for educating more students and expanding the research that¶ will see us through the 21st century.¶ Some background is in order. The old model for higher education — in particular as it pertains¶ to public research universities — is being steadily abandoned. For a host of political and societal¶ reasons, states now find themselves with shrinking pools of funds available for so-called discretionary¶ programs. This includes higher education.¶ The trend in part is a byproduct of mounting levels of mandatory spending, most notably¶ Medicaid. According to the authors of “The Growing Imbalance: Recent Trends in U.S. Postsecondary¶ Education Finance,” between 1987 and 2006 Medicaid nationwide more than doubled¶ its share of state budget expenditures, from 10.2 percent to 21.5 percent.¶ Within the same window of time, support for higher learning across the country fell from¶ 12.3 percent of state budgets to 10.4 percent; in California the drop was even more dramatic,¶ from 15.2 percent to 11.5 percent, according to numbers drawn from the National Association¶ of State Budget Officers’ State Expenditure Reports.¶ Inevitably, as states have ratcheted down their investment in higher education, students have¶ been required to pick up an increasingly larger portion of the check. The oft-lamented increases¶ in tuition and fees link directly to dwindling state investment — and not to increases in the¶ actual cost of educating a student, a figure which has been essentially flat.¶ From 1998 to 2005, according to the Delta Cost Project (DCP), educational spending for a fulltime-equivalent¶ student, adjusted for inflation, rose by only two-tenths of 1 percent at public¶ research institutions. And yet, strikingly, tuition rose by more than one-third, 34.6 percent. These¶ higher bills paid by students, the DCP investigators noted, “primarily replaced lost state appropriations.”¶ The crunch placed on students is not unlike what befalls workers when their employers switch¶ to less-generous health plans. The cost of producing a prescription drug might stay the same,¶ but the patient’s co-payment goes up. That’s what is happening to American university students,¶ and it appears to be having an impact on enrollment.¶ The United States once led the world in the proportion of 20–29 year olds who were college educated.¶ It now ranks 14th.¶ The Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU) estimates that the production of¶ bachelor and associate degrees in this country would need to increase from 2.1 million in 2007-¶ 08 to 3 million in 2025 in order to match the proportion of young adults (25 to 34 years old)¶ with similar degrees in Canada and Japan. Those two countries stand as world leaders, with about 55 percent of their young adults earning¶ college degrees. The rate in the United States lags at 41.6 percent. For the country to catch up by¶ 2025, the APLU estimates, undergraduate enrollment must grow by about 42 percent, climbing¶ in less than two decades from 8.9 million FTE students to 12.6 million. An expansion of this scale¶ would require an additional $40.2 billion in higher education spending. To apply perspective,¶ that’s an increase of more than half of the $77 billion investment in higher learning made by all¶ states combined in 2006.¶ The sad irony is that this country was once considered the world leader in the development of¶ higher education. In California, we pioneered the model of state-funded, accessible, excellent¶ education for all eligible citizens, an approach which the Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Singapore¶ and many other nations are now trying to emulate even as we walk away from it.¶ Let’s linger for a moment on what the Republic of Korea has been doing. Since the mid-1990s,¶ the Korean government has shifted its national priorities to improve and diversify universities.¶ For instance, in 2009 alone, according to the Korean Ministry of Education, Science and Technology¶ (MEST), it will allocate 5.2 trillion won (approximately $4.1 billion) for higher education¶ funding — an increase of 14.2 percent over the previous year. Last year the Republic of Korea¶ launched an Educational Capacity Enhancement Project, which through grants seeks to ensure¶ that campuses can meet industrial demands for a high quality work force. And its Brain Korea 21¶ Project, instituted in the late 1990s, continues to pursue improvements in research infrastructure¶ and graduate-level training.¶ Contrast this push to the conclusions in a recent McKinsey and Co. report, “The Economic Impact¶ of the Achievement Gap in America’s Schools,” which described the true cost of the United¶ States’ under-investing in human capital as “lower earnings, poorer health and higher rates of¶ incarceration.”¶ The educational gaps between the United States and competing industrial nations, the study¶ found, “impose the equivalent of a permanent national recession…. The gross domestic product¶ in 2008 could have been $1.3 to $2.3 trillion higher (9 percent to 16 percent of GDP)” if the nation’s¶ academic achievement levels were equal to those of Finland or South Korea.¶ Robert Reich, former U.S. secretary of labor and current UC Berkeley professor, makes a¶ compelling argument that to attract jobs and capital, nations and states face two, quite different¶ choices: Build a low-tax, low-wage, highly deregulated economy (i.e., a smokestack, warehouse¶ economy); or, levy higher taxes and impose more regulation, but invest in the human capital¶ development necessary to sustain a highly productive labor force.¶ “The only resource uniquely rooted in a national economy,” Reich says, “is its people — their¶ skills, insights, capacities to collaborate, and the transportation and communication systems that¶ link them together. Public investment is the key to attracting long-term private investment so¶ that a nation’s people can prosper.”¶ At present, though, America finds itself playing catch-up. There are needs on many fronts.¶ Pinpointing one key competitive indicator, the Lumina Foundation for Education has adopted a¶ “Big Goal” to increase the percentage of Americans with quality two- or four-year degrees to¶ 60 percent by 2025. Similarly, a recent study by the Public Policy Institute of California projects a shortage of 1 million¶ college graduates that will be needed to maintain the state’s 2025 work force. Unless policy changes¶ are made, only 35 of working-age adults in that year will hold a four-year degree, while 41 percent¶ of the jobs will require one.¶ Opening the tap to create more college graduates, however, is not a simple task. Among other¶ enhancements, it will require more qualified faculty, which in turn will trigger a need for more¶ graduate students. The growing demand for the research that is the province of our great¶ universities also will not be easily met. But it must.¶ Virtually all the research conducted by industrial research laboratories in the 1960s now takes¶ place at major universities. As John Wiley, chancellor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin, has¶ observed: “The future technologies our economy will depend on are being born in our university¶ research labs.”¶ In a draft paper entitled “Expanding Undergraduate Education to Meet National Goals: The Role¶ of Research Universities,” the APLU echoes Wiley’s assessment and asserts that public research¶ universities in particular must lead the charge to expand capacity for learning: “The areas of¶ study they offer correspond with national needs… including over half of all U.S. bachelor’s degrees¶ in natural resources, conservation and engineering.”¶ The APLU paper notes that public research universities also are a main pathway of opportunity¶ for low-income and minority students. In 2006, the last year measured in its study, more than¶ 26 percent of students enrolled at public research institutions received Pell grants, compared to¶ 15 percent at private research universities.¶ This leads to a larger point. The nation’s interest in quality higher education is not limited to¶ defense, economics and technology. It resides as well in the softer qualities that are engrained and¶ absorbed on a campus, traits necessary to preserve and nourish a great society — opportunity,¶ diversity, citizenship, a cultivated fascination with the march of ideas, an appreciation for the grace¶ notes of life, like a fine painting or a subtle poem.

Insert turns the case arg

Education is key to US Soft power. Nye 05
Joseph Nye, Joseph Nye is University Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University and served as dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government there from 1995 to 2004. Nye also has served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs and chair of the National Intel- ligence Council. His most recent books include Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (2004), an antholo- gy, Power in the Global Information Age (2004), and a novel, The Power Game: A Washington Novel (2004). 2005, "Soft Power and Higher Education" https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp0502s.pdf MG
Colleges and universities can help raise the level of discussion and advance American foreign policy by cultivating a better understanding of power and how the world has changed in important ways over the last 20 to 30 years. We can work to instill in our students and in the broader pub- lic a better appreciation of both the realities of our inter- connected global society and the conceptual framework that must be understood to successfully navigate the new landscape we face. Many observers agree that American higher education produces significant soft power for the United States. Sec- retary of State Colin Powell, for example, said in 2001: “I can think of no more valuable asset to our country than the friendship of future world leaders who have been educated here.” The Cold War was fought with a combination of hard and soft power. Academic and cultural exchanges between the United States and the Soviet Union, starting in the 1950s, played a significant role in enhancing American soft power. American skep- tics at the time feared that visiting Sovi- et scientists and KGB agents would “steal us blind”; they failed to notice, however, that the visitors vacuumed along with the scientific secrets. Because exchanges affect elites, one or two key contacts may have a major political effect. For example, Aleksandr Yakovlev was strongly influ- enced by his studies with the political scientist David Tru- man at Columbia University in 1958. Yakovlev eventually went on to become the head of an important institute, a Politburo member, and a key liberalizing influence on the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. From 1958 to 1988, 50,000 Russians visited the Unit-ed States as part of formal exchange programs. Contrast that to today, when restrictive visa policies have caused a precipitous drop in applications from foreign students to study in the United States. The long-term implications are that talented foreign students seeking a quality higher education will go elsewhere, and thus America will lose the opportunity to both influence and learn from foreign students. This will diminish American’s awareness of cultural differences precisely when we must become less parochial and more sensitive to foreign perceptions. Higher education leaders need to continue to press for less restrictive student visa policies and for more expeditious handling of visa requests. Further, colleges and universities can assess their internal policies concerning foreign enrollment and evaluate whether that enrollment is high enough to meet the needs of our glob- al society. Conclusion The U.S. government invests a little over a billion dollars a year on soft power, including the State Depart- ment’s public diplomacy programs and U.S. international broadcasting. The nation’s defense budget is over $400 billion a year and rising. Thus, we are spending approxi- mately .25 percent of the military budget on soft power, or, put another way, 400 to 450 times more on hard power than on soft power. Americans—and others—face an unprecedented challenge from the dark side of globalization and the priva- tization of war that have accompanied new technologies. Our success in this changed world will depend upon developing a deeper understanding of the nature of power and the role of soft power, and achieving a better balance of hard and soft power in our foreign policy. Smart power is neither hard nor soft. It is both. 

Soft Power solves multiple extinction scenarios.  Nye 07
Nye and Armitage, 2007 − Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University and President of Armitage International
(Joseph and Richard, *Note: Report was in collaboration with about 50 other congressmen, “CCIS Commission of Smart Power – A Smarter, more Secure America”, http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/071106_csissmartpowerreport.pdf)
Today’s Challenges The twenty-first century presents a number of unique foreign policy challenges for today’s decisionmakers. These challenges exist at an international, transnational, and global level. Despite America’s status as the lone global power, the durability of the current international order is uncertain. America must help find a way for today’s norms and institutions to accommodate rising powers that may hold a different set of principles and values. Furthermore, countries invested in the current order may waiver in their commitment to take action to minimize the threats posed by violent non-state actors and regional powers who challenge this order. The information age has heightened political consciousness, but also made political groupings less cohesive. Small, adaptable, transnational networks have access to tools of destruction that are increasingly cheap, easy to conceal, and more readily available. Although the integration of the global economy has brought tremendous benefits, vectors of prosperity have also become vectors of instability. Threats such as pandemic disease and the collapse of financial markets are more distributed and more likely to arise without warning. The threat of widespread physical harm to the planet posed by nuclear catastrophe has existed for half a century, though the realization of the threat will become more likely as the number of nuclear weapons states increases. The potential security challenges posed by climate change raise the possibility of an entirely new set of threats for the United States to consider. The next administration will need a strategy that speaks to each of these challenges. Whatever specific approach it decides to take, two principles will be certain: First, an extra dollar spent on hard power will not necessarily bring an extra dollar’s worth of security. It is difficult to know how to invest wisely when there is not a budget based on a strategy that specifies trade-offs among instruments. Moreover, hard power capabilities are a necessary but insufficient guarantee of security in today’s context. Second, success and failure will turn on the ability to win new allies and strengthen old ones both in government and civil society. The key is not how many enemies the United States kills, but how many allies it grows. States and non-state actors who improve their ability to draw in allies will gain competitive advantages in today’s environment. Those who alienate potential friends will stand at greater risk. Terrorists, for instance, depend on their ability to attract support from the crowd at least as much as their ability to destroy the enemy’s will to fight. Exporting Optimism, Not Fear Since its founding, the United States has been willing to fight for universal ideals of liberty, equality, and justice. This higher purpose, sustained by military and economic might, attracted people and governments to our side through two world wars and five decades of the Cold War. Allies accepted that American interests may not always align entirely with their own, but U.S. leadership was still critical to realizing a more peaceful and prosperous world. There have been times, however, when America’s sense of purpose has fallen out of step with the world. Since 9/11, the United States has been exporting fear and anger rather than more traditional values of hope and optimism. Suspicions of American power have run deep. Even traditional allies have questioned whether America is hiding behind the righteousness of its ideals to pursue some other motive. At the core of the problem is that America has made the war on terror the central component of its global engagement. This is not a partisan critique, nor a Pollyannaish appraisal of the threats facing America today. The threat from terrorists with global reach and ambition is real. It is likely to be with us for decades. Thwarting their hateful intentions is of fundamental importance and must be met with the sharp tip of America’s sword. On this there can be no serious debate. But excessive use of force can actually abet terrorist recruitment among local populations. We must strike a balance between

Tournament: USC | Round: 4 | Opponent: Marlbourgh GN | Judge: Adam Bistagne
Title IX investigations are increasing. Kingkade 16.
Tyler Kingkade. “There Are Far More Title IX Investigations Of Colleges Than Most People Know”. Huffington Post. June 16, 2016. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/title-ix-investigations-sexual-harassment_us_575f4b0ee4b053d433061b3d AGM
The growing backlog of federal Title IX investigations into colleges and universities has now topped 300, but many people, including students at the schools under scrutiny, aren’t aware of those reviews. As of Wednesday, there were 246 ongoing investigations by the U.S. Department of Education into how 195 colleges and universities handle sexual assault reports under the gender equity law. A Freedom of Information Act request by The Huffington Post revealed another 68 Title IX investigations into how 61 colleges handle sexual harassment cases. This puts the total number of Title IX investigations officially dealing with sexual harassment at 315. (Under civil rights statutes, sexual assault is defined as an extreme form of sexual harassment.) But dozens of those Title IX reviews receive no publicity because they don’t specifically deal with sexual assault. If a school is being investigated for allegedly mishandling harassment cases, but not reports of assault, it doesn’t appear on the list regularly given to reporters by the Education Department. Major educational institutions — including New York University, the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, Georgia State University, Florida AandM University, Rutgers University, Howard University, the University of Oklahoma, Kent State University and the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse — have escaped public scrutiny because Title IX investigations into their actions haven’t been highlighted by the government or the schools themselves.SUNY Broome Community College is under three investigations that haven’t been previously disclosed.  The Education Department has no plans to regularly issue a list of cases involving sexual harassment only, an official told HuffPost.

AFF guts effectiveness of Title IX – it causes first amendment opportunism. Schauer 04
Schauer, Frederick David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law. "The boundaries of the First Amendment: A preliminary exploration of constitutional salience." Harvard Law Review (2004): 1765-1809.
In addition to the properties of First Amendment claims that may¶ make them less likely to appear legally frivolous, the First Amend-¶ ment's magnetism may assist in ensuring that those claims will not¶ arise in isolation. There will often be multiple lawyers, multiple liti-¶ gants, and multiple public actors who perceive the virtues of the same¶ opportunistic strategy at roughly the same time, or who even may be¶ in active coordination with each other - as with the multiple chal-¶ lenges to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, the proliferation of First¶ Amendment rhetoric surrounding legal arguments regarding computer¶ source code, and the panoply of parallel claims about First Amend-¶ ment limitations on copyright. When this is the case, the multiplicity¶ of individually tenuous claims may produce a cascade effect160 such¶ that the claims no longer appear tenuous. The combination of, say,¶ four scarcely plausible but simultaneous court challenges and twenty¶ scarcely plausible public claims of a First Amendment problem could make all these individually implausible claims seem more credible¶ than they actually are.161 From the standpoint of an interest group¶ seeking to achieve change and to mobilize public support or the sup-¶ port of other interest groups,162 winning is better than losing publicly,¶ but losing publicly is perhaps still preferable to being ignored.¶ Once the claim or argument achieves a critical mass of plausibility,¶ the game may be over. Even if individual courts reject the claim, the¶ multiplicity of now-plausible claims may give the issue what is re-¶ ferred to in inside-the-Beltway political jargon as "traction" and in¶ newsroom jargon as "legs." Interestingly, this phenomenon sometimes¶ survives even authoritative rejection of the claim. With respect to the¶ argument that hostile-environment sexual harassment enforcement has¶ serious First Amendment implications, for example, neither the Su-¶ preme Court's rejection of this argument in dicta in R.A. V v. City of¶ St. Paul163 nor the Court's silent dismissal of the same claim in Harris¶ v. Forklift Systems, Inc.164 has slowed the momentum of those who¶ would wage serious First Amendment battle against hostile-¶ environment sexual harassment law.'65 Similarly, decades of judicial¶ rejection of the argument that copyright law must be substantially re-¶ stricted by the commands of the First Amendment have scarcely dis-¶ couraged those who urge otherwise; and in some respects the Supreme¶ Court's recent decision in Eldred v. Ashcroftl66 can be considered not a¶ defeat, but rather one further step toward the entry of copyright into¶ the domain of the First Amendment: the Supreme Court did grant cer-¶ tiorari, in part to determine "whether ... the extension of existing and¶ future copyrights violates the First Amendment;"'67 and the seven-¶ Justice majority, as well as Justice Breyer in dissent,'68 acknowledged¶ that the First Amendment was not totally irrelevant.
Title IX is currently effective against harassment – this dramatically increases access to higher education.  Musil 07

Caryn Musil, Scaling the Ivory Towers, MS Magazine Fall 2007: The Triumphs of Title IX, http://www.feminist.org/education/TriumphsOfTitleIX.pdf.  NS

The contrast between her academic landscape and mine could not be more dramatic. And Title IX is the primary cause for the seismic shifts. The law’s impact has been elemental. Not only has it helped eliminate blatant discriminatory practices across educational institutions, but it has helped root out subtler methods of holding women back by closing the gap between men’s and women’s financial aid packages, improving housing opportunities for women students (a lack of women’s dorms was once used to restrict women’s admissions) and combating sexual harassment. Just before Title IX was signed into law, women were underrepresented as undergraduates, at just over 40 percent of all students. And it wasn’t that easy for them to get into those ivied halls. Young women typically had to make higher grades and SAT scores than young men to gain college admission, and often faced quotas limiting the number of women admitted. Once they got on campus, there were few women role models—less than one in five faculty members were women, and a mere 3 percent of college presidents. In some fields, even the women students were barely visible: About 1 percent of master’s degrees in engineering, 1 percent of doctoral dental degrees, and under 2 percent of master’s degrees in mathematics were awarded to women in 1970. The barriers were formidable, and sex discrimination unashamedly open and normative. In the years since Title IX, however, all of those numbers have risen tremendously. Take college enrollment, for starters: By 2005, women students comprised almost three out of five undergraduates, with some of this growth due to increased access for women of color (who have more than doubled their share of degrees since 1977, when they earned just over 10 per- cent). Women have not simply in- creased their numbers in academia, though: They have also moved into fields formerly dominated by men, particularly business and the sciences (see chart on page 45). These are the sorts of fields that lead women into higher-paying jobs after graduation. Bucking the rising trend, however, are computer and information sci- ence, where numbers peaked in 1984 before declining, and engineering and engineering technologies, in which the numbers of women grew and then leveled off. Certain fields have continued to be women-dominant from 1980 until 2005—health professions other than physicians and related inical sciences (currently more than 86 percent women) and education (about 79 percent women), but this isn’t the best news for economic equity, since wages tend to stay low in fields with few men. In graduate and professional schools, too, young women have enjoyed far greater access thanks to Title IX. In 1970, women earned only 14 percent of doctoral degrees, but today earn nearly half. Yet women’s doctorates are still not distributed evenly across disciplines: They range from a low of about 19 percent in engineering and engineering technologies to a high of about 71 per- cent in psychology. The most dramatic gains are in the professional schools. In 1971, just about 1 of 100 dental school graduates were women, while in 2005 that number grew nearly fortyfold. In medical schools the numbers jumped from less than 10 percent to nearly 50 percent, and law school numbers from about 7 percent to nearly 49 percent. There’s been quite a psychological benefit, too. As my older daughter, Rebecca, says of her experience at New York University Law School, “Women were more than half of the students, so sex discrimination was not something we ever worried about. ... It’s not that we don’t think about equality, but that we don’t have to think about it as much because of what’s already been done.” Armed with their professional degrees in medicine and law, women have entered those professions at steadily increasing rates. Yet their numbers—and in law firms, their advancement—still lag behind. In 2006, women made up 33 percent of lawyers but just 16 percent of partners in law firms. Similarly, in medicine only 27 percent of doctors are women, and they’re unevenly spread across specialties, the top three choices being internal medicine, pediatrics and general family medicine. The news is also mixed about women in academic leadership. By 1986 the number of women college presidents had tripled from 1970 to almost 10 percent, and by 2006 reached 23 percent, with a large proportion serving as presi- dents of community colleges. But most of the progress occurred between 1986 and 2001 and now has slowed considerably. Furthermore, today’s presidents re- main much less diverse by race, gender and ethnicity than the students, faculty or administrators who report to them: Only 4 percent of the respondents in a recent survey of college presidents identified as “minority women.” Women also tend to be more qualified and make more sacrifices than men in order to gain leadership; they’re far less likely than men presidents to be married and have children, and significantly more likely to hold an advanced degree. On faculties, women have increased across every rank but continue to move up more slowly than men. In 2006 they accounted for nearly 40 percent of full- time faculty and nearly 50 percent of part-timers. Young women benefit extraordinarily from all these women role models. As my daughter Emily says, “Women professors looked out for me the whole time ... and that is where I got my career counseling.” But women professors are not employed equally across institutional types—they’re just over half the faculty at institutions offering associate degrees, but only 34 percent at doctoral institutions. While women are increasing their numbers in tenure-track positions (nearly 45 percent), they still face the accumulated disad-vantages of sex discrimination over time and represent only about 31 per- cent of currently tenured faculty. “People change faster and more easily than institutions,” explains Yolanda T. Moses, associate vice chancellor for diversity at the University of California, Riverside. While the most blatant violations have been eliminated, Moses argues that the next level of work is even more complicated: “Systems can undermine progress ... and we need to unearth those behaviors that sabotage even our best intentions.” A search committee in physics or engineering, for example, may profess to be seeking more women, but make no efforts to break out of all-men, frequently all- white, networks to identify strong women candidates. These are the sorts of challenges that still remain, yet Title IX has gone a long way toward making campuses more hospitable. By offering legal protection from hostile work and learning environments, it helped draw attention to sexism in the classroom and opened the door for change. The fields of science, tech- nology, engineering and math were among the most chilly toward women, so Title IX helped usher in a period of serious self-study that has led to the adoption of more women-friendly teaching practices and programs, and thus a rise in women taking courses formerly dominated by men.
Gender equality in higher education and the workforce is key to climate science and innovation.  Gender Summit 13

Gender Summit 3 — North America, Diversity Fueling Excellence in Research and Innovation:
Conference Report, 11/13/13, https://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/activities/gendersummit/GS3-ConfReport.pdf.  NS

Ms. Jarrett noted that gender equality in STEM is not just a women's issue, but one that affects all scientists and researchers. The incorporation of the gender dimension into research and innovation benefits everyone. Diversity in STEM brings innovation; it drives science forward and benefits society as a whole. She pointed out that GS3 is more than just about women: it is about our societies and tapping into the power of women to unlock the full potential of global communities. If we truly want to champion innovation and expand the capacity for discovery, everyone has to be involved. President Obama’s administration is committed to ensuring that our women and girls are in a position to lead in the future. The President has been quoted as saying, "When women succeed, nations are safer, more secure and more prosperous.”  Ralph Cicerone, PhD President, US National Academy of Sciences and Chair, National Research Council, USA emphasized (a) the importance of utilizing the full capacity of creative, talented and dedicated people; (b) the collective responsibility for ensuring that women scientists and engineers flourish and that they are supported and encouraged; and (c) the need to confront existing obstacles along their career paths. He stated that the Academy remains committed to enhancing gender inclusion by supporting the creation of networks around the world, including Africa, Latin America and Europe. Establishing these networks and collaborations promotes the creation of goals and strategies for implementation and an awareness of the efforts of others that can bring value to our own. To underscore the importance of gender incorporation within global research and development, former NSF Director Subra Suresh, PhD President, Carnegie Mellon University, USA stated that diversity in education and the workplace accelerates innovation because people have different life experiences that allow them to address the same issue from different vantage points. Diversity fostering global research is becoming more popular. In May 2012 the Global Research Council was established at NSF as a virtual organization to collectively engage in the development of principles governing scientific merit review, research integrity, pathways for open access to publications and data and mobility of researchers. Nearly 100 countries participated in the most recent meeting where the topics included the mobility of researchers, as well as a discussion of strategic planning for collective action in the near future. Wanda E. Ward, PhD Head, Office of International and Integrative Activities, National Science Foundation, USA posited that North America stood ready to further integrate and leverage the gender dimension in forging new and transformative discoveries and in fostering a diverse and inclusive scientific community. Importantly, the greater inclusion of biological sex and gender considerations in disciplinary and interdisciplinary frameworks is significant as all nations increase their investments in science and technology. Working collaboratively to ensure that scientific research is beneficial to women and men is a transformative moment for the shifting landscape of the scientific enterprise. This time of collective commitment for gender considerations in science and engineering will be beneficial to society at large as North America embraces the new opportunities of the shifting landscape of science innovation marked by emerging fields of science and the demographic changes of the scientific workforce. Attention was given to the fact that the more than 650 registrants comprised a diverse group of women and men interested in women’s issues, as well as diversity within the group of women who represent every stage of STEM workforce development, advancement and success. Dr. Ward’s presentation highlighted the NSF’s gender considerations in research design and analysis, as well as the Foundation’s emphasis on gender equity in the STEM workforce. This Summit was considered exemplary for engaging women of all backgrounds in imagining future work at the frontiers of science and in realizing their full potential in the scientific enterprise. Additionally, pending the availability of funding, NSF is pursuing four major areas for multinational collaboration: o discovery/frontier research for knowledge generation and translation, o human capacity/talent development and advancement, o institutional transformation in higher education systems and practices and o equity in stewardship activities, such as the merit review process, evaluation and assessment. Across the participating partners, there are compelling examples of individual contributions of women in basic research, as well as in the advancement of applied research within a gender- focused context. There are also success stories of policy changes and transformative practices emanating from the leadership, mentoring and advocacy roles of well-known women scientists and engineers. The shared commitment for framing a multi-national strategy was continued with input from the European Commission, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the National Council on Science and Technology of Mexico, and the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa. Europe is working aggressively to change the workforce environment by encouraging more females to study science and engineering and to go on to research careers.  MarieGeoghegan-Quinn Commissioner of Research, Innovation and Science, European Commission stressed that because gender issues are not unique to Europe, it is important to tackle issues jointly. She stated that we need all of our talented scientists working toward research and innovative efforts and that there is no tradeoff between promoting gender equity and excellence in science. She expressed much interest in collaborating with North America. She stressed that it is logical, for both scientific and economic reasons, to work collaboratively to tackle common challenges. She also highlighted Horizon 2020, Europe’s new research funding program, which will champion gender equality in three ways: integrating the gender dimension into funded programs, encouraging balanced participation of men and women on funded research teams and ensuring gender balance in advisory groups and in teams that evaluate applications for funding.  Oldřich Vlasák Vice-President of the European Parliament stressed the importance of (a) research and development in future economic growth and (b) investing effectively, given the frequent scarcity of financial and human resources to support research. He stated that both the US and Europe need to invest more and do a better job with regard to human capital: “we can’t afford to waste research talent, which means we should not discourage any part of the population from participating in research and innovation.” Quoting U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, he said that “no team can ever win if half of its players are on the bench.” Measures to ensure gender equality should be considered an investment in future economic growth, rather than a cost. He stated that “what we pay today will generate returns for the economy as a whole in the medium- and long-term by reducing the ineffectiveness associated with inequality.” The gender imbalances are not a self-correcting phenomenon, and Vlasák encouraged discussions during the third Gender Summit to view these issues as a matter of research potential and social justice. Remarks by Dominique Ristori Director General, European Commission Directorate General Joint Research Council focused on the importance of science and society, the latest developments in Europe’s gender equality policy and the European interest in a gender focused multi-national collaboration. He described the motivation and challenges for global research and innovation in the context of climate change, clean energy and the improved health and well-being of all citizens. Ensuring gender balance is a necessary condition for the achievement of the objective of Europe’s 2020 strategy for 75 employment, an objective that cannot be reached without strong commitment to gender equality, he stated.

Climate innovations are the primary key to solve warming.  Moniz 15

Ernest Moniz (U.S. Secretary of Energy), Interviewed by David Biello, Accelerated Innovation Is the Ultimate Solution to Climate Change, Scientific American, 12/11/15, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/accelerated-innovation-is-the-ultimate-solution-to-climate-change/.  NS

PARIS—From "clean coal" evangelists to solar power enthusiasts, most experts at the U.N. climate talks here agree that solving climate change means transforming how the world produces and uses energy—and as quickly as possible. Such a transformation would be unprecedented. It would require enormous investments. To help make it happen, the U.S. Department of Energy, which for decades has spent billions of dollars to develop and deploy advanced energy technologies (not always clean), will play a major role in the new "Mission Innovation." The initiative is an effort announced by 20 major countries at the COP 21 negotiations here to significantly accelerate clean-energy improvements. On December 9, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz sat down with Scientific American to explain how innovation and transformation might be sped up to meet the climate challenge, which requires a world without carbon dioxide pollution, soon. An edited transcript of the interview follows. How do we get to 80 percent cuts in CO2 emissions in 35 years, the Obama administration's long-term goal? And beyond that, to meet a Paris deal that might even require "zero carbon" by then. Obviously, innovation is going to be central. We're very pleased that our French hosts put innovation on the front burner: having Innovation Day, following Energy Day. And of course, the announcement on the very first day by 20 countries, including Pres. Obama, French Pres. Hollande, India Prime Minister Modi and others, of Mission Innovation. Then the Bill Gates announcement on the parallel Breakthrough Energy Coalition initiative. There is no question that the world now understands that innovation is the core to meet the INDCs national climate action plans, known as "intended nationally determined contributions". We've had a lot of cost reduction and innovation and deployment increases. That virtuous cycle has put us in a pretty good spot to meet a 10-year horizon, maybe a 15-year horizon. For sure, as we go to the longer time periods and extraordinarily low levels of greenhouse gas emissions being discussed, we're going to have to keep that going. I just came from a meeting of the Mission Innovation countries. There is a tremendous amount of enthusiasm. The resonance of the Mission Innovation agenda was so great because it largely fits with the directions that so many countries were going in. It's crystallized that—given that a very explicit framework. We are the dog that caught the car. And now we're laughs figuring out what to do with the car. Some people argue that we can meet the goal with the technology we already have, whether it be CO2 capture and storage for fossil fuels and nuclear power or more renewables or all of the above, to use a phrase. Others say we really need a breakthrough. You're on the breakthrough side? In some sense, the answer is yes. What we're talking about is this cycle of innovation, deployment, cost reduction. They all go hand in hand. We have seen that explicitly in the last six years. Continued cost reduction in clean technologies is going to be important. And new enabling technologies are going to be important. So, for example, with wind and solar, we still are not at the point where we can have a large scale-up of energy storage. We are still not at the stage where we really have incorporated information technology, like computers and the Internet extensively into the energy infrastructure in the way we're going to need. We also have qualitatively new directions to go in. One is the Makani flying wind turbines. Or now the Google X flying wind turbine; it’s so novel that we don't understand exactly how it could have a big, major transformative impact. But it sure looks like it would if it became a widespread technology.
Warming leads to extinction – multiple scenarios prove. Roberts ‘13
David Roberts - staff writer for Grist. “If you aren’t alarmed about climate, you aren’t paying attention.” Grist. January 10, 2013. http://grist.org/climate-energy/climate-alarmism-the-idea-is-surreal/ JJN
There was recently another one of those (numbingly familiar) internet tizzies wherein someone trolls environmentalists for being “alarmist” and environmentalists get mad and the troll says “why are you being so defensive?” and everybody clicks, clicks, clicks. I have no desire to dance that dismal do-si-do again. But it is worth noting that I find the notion of “alarmism” in regard to climate change almost surreal. I barely know what to make of it. So in the name of getting our bearings, let’s review a few things we know. We know we’ve raised global average temperatures around 0.8 degrees C so far. We know that 2 degrees C is where most scientists predict catastrophic and irreversible impacts. And we know that we are currently on a trajectory that will push temperatures up 4 degrees or more by the end of the century. What would 4 degrees look like? A recent World Bank review of the science reminds us. First, it’ll get hot: Projections for a 4°C world show a dramatic increase in the intensity and frequency of high-temperature extremes. Recent extreme heat waves such as in Russia in 2010 are likely to become the new normal summer in a 4°C world. Tropical South America, central Africa, and all tropical islands in the Pacific are likely to regularly experience heat waves of unprecedented magnitude and duration. In this new high-temperature climate regime, the coolest months are likely to be substantially warmer than the warmest months at the end of the 20th century. In regions such as the Mediterranean, North Africa, the Middle East, and the Tibetan plateau, almost all summer months are likely to be warmer than the most extreme heat waves presently experienced. For example, the warmest July in the Mediterranean region could be 9°C warmer than today’s warmest July. Extreme heat waves in recent years have had severe impacts, causing heat-related deaths, forest fires, and harvest losses. The impacts of the extreme heat waves projected for a 4°C world have not been evaluated, but they could be expected to vastly exceed the consequences experienced to date and potentially exceed the adaptive capacities of many societies and natural systems. my emphasis Warming to 4 degrees would also lead to “an increase of about 150 percent in acidity of the ocean,” leading to levels of acidity “unparalleled in Earth’s history.” That’s bad news for, say, coral reefs: The combination of thermally induced bleaching events, ocean acidification, and sea-level rise threatens large fractions of coral reefs even at 1.5°C global warming. The regional extinction of entire coral reef ecosystems, which could occur well before 4°C is reached, would have profound consequences for their dependent species and for the people who depend on them for food, income, tourism, and shoreline protection. It will also “likely lead to a sea-level rise of 0.5 to 1 meter, and possibly more, by 2100, with several meters more to be realized in the coming centuries.” That rise won’t be spread evenly, even within regions and countries — regions close to the equator will see even higher seas. There are also indications that it would “significantly exacerbate existing water scarcity in many regions, particularly northern and eastern Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia, while additional countries in Africa would be newly confronted with water scarcity on a national scale due to population growth.” Also, more extreme weather events: Ecosystems will be affected by more frequent extreme weather events, such as forest loss due to droughts and wildfire exacerbated by land use and agricultural expansion. In Amazonia, forest fires could as much as double by 2050 with warming of approximately 1.5°C to 2°C above preindustrial levels. Changes would be expected to be even more severe in a 4°C world. Also loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services: In a 4°C world, climate change seems likely to become the dominant driver of ecosystem shifts, surpassing habitat destruction as the greatest threat to biodiversity. Recent research suggests that large-scale loss of biodiversity is likely to occur in a 4°C world, with climate change and high CO2 concentration driving a transition of the Earth’s ecosystems into a state unknown in human experience. Ecosystem damage would be expected to dramatically reduce the provision of ecosystem services on which society depends (for example, fisheries and protection of coastline afforded by coral reefs and mangroves.) New research also indicates a “rapidly rising risk of crop yield reductions as the world warms.” So food will be tough. All this will add up to “large-scale displacement of populations and have adverse consequences for human security and economic and trade systems.” Given the uncertainties and long-tail risks involved, “there is no certainty that adaptation to a 4°C world is possible.” There’s a small but non-trivial chance of advanced civilization breaking down entirely. Now ponder the fact that some scenarios show us going up to 6 degrees by the end of the century, a level of devastation we have not studied and barely know how to conceive. Ponder the fact that somewhere along the line, though we don’t know exactly where, enough self-reinforcing feedback loops will be running to make climate change unstoppable and irreversible for centuries to come. That would mean handing our grandchildren and their grandchildren not only a burned, chaotic, denuded world, but a world that is inexorably more inhospitable with every passing decade. Take all that in, sit with it for a while, and then tell me what it could mean to be an “alarmist” in this context. What level of alarm is adequate?

Tournament: Berkely | Round: 5 | Opponent: Loyola AD | Judge: Sarah Sheets
UN Security Council vote put US-Israeli relations on the brink Collinson et al 12/24
“US abstains as UN demands end to Israeli settlements,” Stephen Collinson, David Wright, Elise Labott, 12/24/16, CNN.
The United States on Friday allowed a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlement construction to be adopted, defying extraordinary pressure from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government in alliance with President-elect Donald Trump. The Security Council approved the resolution with 14 votes, with the US abstaining. There was applause in the chamber following the vote, which represented perhaps the final bitter chapter in the years of antagonism between President Barack Obama's administration and Netanyahu's government. In an intense flurry of diplomacy that unfolded in the two days before the vote, a senior Israeli official had accused the United States of abandoning the Jewish state with its refusal to block the resolution with a veto.Trump had also inserted himself in the diplomatic drama, in defiance of the convention that the United States has only one president at a time, by calling on the Obama administration to wield its Security Council veto. Israel's UN ambassador, Danny Danon, reacted angrily to the vote and issued a sharp parting shot at the Obama administration's role. "It was to be expected that Israel's greatest ally would act in accordance with the values that we share and that they would have vetoed this disgraceful resolution. I have no doubt that the new US administration and the incoming UN Secretary General will usher in a new era in terms of the UN's relationship with Israel," he said. In a statement, Netanyahu's office accused the Obama administration of "colluding" with the UN and said it looked forward to working with Trump, as well as Israel-friendly members of Congress, "to negate the harmful effects of this absurd resolution." The US ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, raised her hand to abstain in the chamber when the resolution was put to a vote. Power argued after the vote that opposing settlement expansion was consistent with the bipartisan consensus accepted by every single US president of both parties since Ronald Reagan, in comments that could be seen as a criticism of Trump's position. "This resolution reflects trends that will permanent destroy the two state solution if they continue on their current course," Power said in a speech before the chamber. "Our vote today does not in any way diminish the United States' steadfast and unparalleled commitment to the security of Israel," Power said. The Palestinians were delighted by their rare diplomatic coup. "This is a victory for the people and for the cause, and it opens doors wide for the demand of sanctions on settlements," said Mustafa Barghouti, a Palestinian leader. "This is a bias towards justice and international law." But Trump -- who has vowed to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and has nominated an ambassador in David Friedman who is supportive of settlers -- pledged that the Palestinians would no longer have a platform at the UN when he is inaugurated next month. "As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th," Trump wrote on Twitter.

BDS harms future US-Israeli relations, indicates lack of trust in future of country
“Heed the storm warnings in U.S.-Israel relationship,” Mike Abrams, 10/10/16. http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article107403007.html#storylink=cpy
In the United States, universities are often seen as the road to the future. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement on college campuses is well organized and growing at a disturbing rate. Between 2014 and 2015, there was an estimated 31 percent increase in anti- Israel activities on campuses across the United States. The automatic support of Israel based on the Holocaust, historical anti-Semitism and Arab state aggression is a thing of the past. Sadly, many millennials view Israel as a military and economic super-power who is bullying its weaker Palestinian neighbors. Somehow, the fact that Israel is the only democratically government in region that treats its Jewish, Christian and Muslim citizens equally is lost in the dialogue. The repression of women and gays in Arab states has also failed to make an impression some millennials. BDS support among some African-American students is reminiscent of the heartbreaking black/Jewish political divide of the 1960s, that only fully healed with the election of President Obama. Finally, the respected Pew Research Center’s study of Jewish Americans is fascinating and may inform American-Israeli policy in the future. The central feature of being Jewish in America is a tradition of secularism. Over 60 percent of American Jews believe being Jewish is mainly a matter of ancestry and culture, while only 15 percent believe it is mainly a matter of religion. This helps explain that while 70 percent of American Jews have an affinity for Israel, less than 40 percent believe Israel is sincere in trying to make peace with Palestine.

Strong US-Israel alliance k2 ME stability, ME nuke war, counterterrorism, US heg, cybertech, US competitiveness, food security. Eisenstadt 15  
Resetting the U.S.-Israel Alliance, Michael Eisenstadt (Kahn Fellow and director of the Military and Security Studies Program at The Washington Institute), 2/05/15, The Washington Institute  http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/resetting-the-u.s.-israel-alliance
Klass takes a minimalist view of the benefits to the United States of its alliance with Israel. But the reality is that, relative to its small size, few countries contribute in so many diverse and significant ways to America's ability to meet the hard security (military) and soft security (cyber, economic competitiveness, and sustainability) challenges of today and the future. In each of these areas, Israel punches way above its weight. And while the relationship is in no way symmetrical -- the United States has provided Israel with indispensable diplomatic, economic, and military support totaling more than $125 billion since 1949 -- it is a two-way partnership whose military, economic, and political benefits to the United States have been substantial (see "Friends with Benefits: Why the U.S.-Israeli Alliance Is Good for America"). In geopolitical terms, Israel is a bulwark against the spread of radical Islamism in the Levant and a quiet but effective ally of Egypt and Jordan in their struggles against this common enemy. Israel has thwarted efforts by Iraq and Syria to acquire nuclear weapons, and it has worked quietly with the United States to use a variety of means (including cyber sabotage) to disrupt Iran's nuclear ambitions. Moreover, Israel is the only country actively working to halt potentially destabilizing Syrian and Iranian arms transfers to Hizballah and to limit Iranian influence in the Levant. In each of these cases, by pursuing its own interests, Israel also advanced those of the United States and its Arab allies. Israel has made important contributions to American "hard security" in a number of areas. These include: counterterrorism cooperation, the sharing of intelligence and military lessons-learned, military-industrial cooperation (such as the joint development and/or production of unmanned aerial vehicles, defensive systems for armored vehicles, and rocket and missile defenses), and the sharing of lessons-learned and technology to defend the U.S. homeland against terrorist threats since 9/11. Israel also has contributed to America's "soft security": Advances in cyber technology, water security, high-tech agriculture, medical RandD, and cleantech have helped maintain American economic competitiveness and promoted sustainable development in the United States and abroad. With a high-tech community second only to Silicon Valley, Israel's cooperation with U.S. information technology companies has been crucial to their success. As Bill Gates observed in 2006, the "innovation going on in Israel is critical to the future of the technology business." Thus, more than 150 leading U.S. companies including Intel, IBM and Google have set up research and development centers there in order to benefit from Israel's culture of innovation. (In 2013, the World Economic Forum ranked Israel third in the world in terms of its capacity for innovation.) Intel has a particularly strong presence, and many of the company's most successful microprocessors were designed and produced in Israel. Israeli high-tech start-ups have particular appeal for U.S. companies looking to expand their competitive advantage, as evidenced by Google's 2013 acquisition of the Israeli traffic navigation start-up Waze for a reported $1 billion. Israeli innovators also have arrived at novel solutions to water and food security challenges, pioneering widely used techniques of conserving or purifying water now being used or produced in America, including drip irrigation and reverse osmosis desalination. According to the 2014 Global Cleantech Innovation Index, Israel leads the world in cleantech innovation. While U.S. firms are investing in Israel to preserve or create a competitive advantage and to increase global market share, Israel is the third largest destination of U.S. exports in the Middle East and North Africa. Remarkably, with not even 3 of the region's population, Israel accounted for nearly 24 of U.S. exports to the Middle East in 2014. Critics claim that the alliance with Israel is a drag on the United States, particularly in terms of relations with the Muslim and Arab world. But in fact, Arab ties with the United States, at both the official and popular levels, have boomed in the past decade. Arabs are coming as students or visitors in record numbers, anti-American street protests are increasingly rare, U.S. exports to the Middle East are at all-time highs, and defense cooperation with a number of Arab states is closer than ever before. Ironically, it is U.S. policies in the past decade and in recent years -- in Iraq, toward the "Arab Spring," in Syria, and toward Iran, and not U.S. support for Israel -- which are the cause of recent tensions in U.S.-Arab relations. In a remarkable turnabout, many of the region's Sunni Arab countries now see Israel as a more reliable, if tacit partner in their battle against radical Islam and Iran, and believe that U.S. policies are a major source of the instability currently roiling the Middle East. This is due to the perception that in the wake of its 2003 invasion of Iraq, the U.S. handed the country over to "the Shiites" and to Iran; "abandoned" long-standing allies such as Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak during the early days of the "Arab Spring"; failed to arm the moderate opposition in Syria or to actively seek the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad and his regime; has close ties to the Shiite-led government of Iraq; and is engaged in a tacit alliance with Iran against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Syria and Iraq. Meanwhile, Iran has exploited the political cover provided by its ongoing nuclear negotiations with the P5+1 to dramatically expand its regional influence. This has caused many of America's friends in Israel and the Arab world to question the wisdom of the Obama administration's policy toward the Middle East. It is, however, not only allied governments in the region who feel this way, but even former U.S. cabinet members and members of Congress -- including prominent members of the President's own party such as Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) -- many of whom have been active in pushing for additional sanctions on Iran in order to toughen the administration's stance in nuclear negotiations with Iran.

Tournament: Berkely | Round: 3 | Opponent: West GG | Judge: Robey Holland
Reform within the corporatized university is impossible – the university is built to make speech seem effective, when in reality the university plays a central role in the knowledge is turned into a commodity. Only a direct and unflinching critique of class can solve. The critique turns the case - Monzó 14

Monzó, Lilia D Chapman University, California, United States. "A critical pedagogy for democracy: Confronting higher education’s neoliberal agenda with a critical Latina feminist episteme." Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS) 12.1 (2014): 73-100.

In this contradictory version of Freirian thought, praxis becomes civic engagement that focuses¶ solely on reforms that increase opportunities within the existing capitalist system. Such efforts¶ alone obfuscate the role of class and unwittingly support the existing structure by treating¶ capitalism as a proverbial and impermeable reality or suggesting that minimizing inequalities is¶ both possible and sufficient to creating a just society. Within this liberal agenda, terms such as¶ liberation and freedom index narrow political conceptions such as freedom of speech and¶ freedom of the press – ideologies associated with “democratic” advanced capitalist societies that¶ while important do not address the most fundamental human right – the freedom from necessity¶ and from alienation. A socialist democracy that emphasizes freedom and participation among all¶ citizens, regardless of gender, race, or other social positioning is untenable within a capitalist¶ economy. The extreme and widening gap between the wealthy and the poor, the focus on labor¶ power as opposed to real power, the extortion of surplus value off the poor to maximize profits¶ for the wealthy, the relegation of poverty and a hyper exploitation of racialized communities and especially women of color in the U.S. and across the world, and the alienation experienced by all¶ human beings are incompatible with a democratic way of life.¶ Revolutionary critical pedagogy as developed by Paula Allman, Peter McLaren, and others¶ reinserts a fundamental Marxist emphasis on interrogating and transforming the totalizing nature¶ of capitalism that engulfs humanity through not only political economy but social and cultural¶ relations. These scholars reject and critique the liberal trend to reform, recognizing these as¶ unable to stop the destruction that is inherent in the labor capital social relation calling instead¶ for creating the conditions for revolutionary change that would transform the forces of¶ production outside of capital’s value form. Revolutionary critical pedagogues call for a¶ “collective struggle” across racial, ethnic, gender, and national lines (Darder, 2014). They¶ understand that while racism and patriarchy must be fought these struggles alone will not end¶ human suffering and exploitation. As Darder and Torres (2004) argue, as long as there exists a¶ need for a mass of exploited workers as is needed under capitalism, these will undoubtedly be¶ made of predominantly racialized minorities who have been made thus in order to preserve the¶ dominance of an elite white transnational capitalist class. Racism is not an accident but an¶ orchestrated material reality that hides the role of the capitalist class and sets up workers of “said¶ working class and middle class sectors” to compete with each other for presumed less¶ exploitative jobs, educational opportunities, and a myriad of other social and economic resources¶ all the while the capitalists who own the bulk of the worlds resources are rarely considered in the¶ equation, must less confronted. Likewise, struggles against patriarchy cannot be forged without¶ forging a struggle against capitalism since the exploitation of women in the U.S. and across the¶ world is an important source of capital accumulation of transnational corporations. Thus, while I¶ champion struggles that confront racial and gender oppression and also work to mitigate¶ conditions of exploitation, I also argue that these struggles must be simultaneously accompanied¶ by and conjoined with broader struggles against the capitalist class that aim to transform existing¶ social relations of production. I reject the domesticated version of critical pedagogy discussed¶ earlier in favor of a Marxist revolutionary critical pedagogy that is based on developing clarity¶ rather than charity in which human beings are liberated from wage slavery through a process that¶ necessitates – demands – revolution (Freire, 1970). According to Freire (1970), the oppressed are tasked with forging this revolution because they¶ have insights into the nature of oppression that are necessarily hidden from the dominant group.¶ Thus, the participation of non-dominant groups in the decision-making of our society is a critical¶ component of advancing democracy. If democracy embodies the notion that the diverse¶ perspectives of different individuals and groups add to our collective understanding of society¶ and to moving us forward as human beings, then we must recognize the need to bring the diverse¶ epistemes of women, people of color and other marginalized groups into the spaces that¶ legitimize knowledge – specifically, the university. The university plays a central role in the production of legitimate knowledge. While some have¶ celebrated its historical role in the “advancement” of society through teaching and scholarship,¶ others have called it an “ivory tower” espousing to a presumed superior Eurocentric episteme¶ and positioned outside the sphere of the commons (Basole, 2009). Miller (2009) points out that¶ the university, since inception, has been complicit with the state in promoting cultural¶ imperialism and supporting research that responded to the state’s economic and political ends.¶ Yet in so far as its rhetoric of “academic freedom” must be maintained in order to suppress its¶ relationship to capital interests, it provides the spaces for dissent among faculty and students.¶ Indeed one of the fundamental functions of the university is social critique. University students,¶ energized by their newfound critical acumen, have often been the first in society to vociferously¶ exclaim their outrage in protests and other rebellions (Zill, 2011).¶ The rise of neoliberalism, however, has led to the corporatization of the university and to what is¶ being called “knowledge capitalism,” which has strengthened existing ties between universities¶ and capital interests and dangerously undermining the role of the university as the context with¶ the greatest potential to address social problems and equality. Mike Peters (2011) points out that¶ universities are increasingly clamoring to join the game of marketization, selling themselves to¶ students and investors with consequences to program development, curriculum, and research.¶ Indeed many university presidents now sit on boards of corporations, which could mean conflicts¶ of interest with respect to what the university’s goals are in terms of either advancing the ideals¶ of democracy or corporate interests. It would seem that the latter is winning out. Rather than a social service to society, education is increasingly seen as a highly lucrative commodity¶ purchased by students at grotesquely huge tuitions that will leave students in debt for years to¶ come. Students are, thus, seen as a large source of revenue for banks and other financial¶ institutions.¶ The neoliberal emphasis on privatization, standardization, and accountability is increasingly¶ witnessed at both structural levels and in programmatic and curriculum planning. Similar to the¶ dehumanizing ethic of many transnational corporations that have moved their factories to the so¶ called “third world” to maximize their profits through cheap labor, a number of U.S. universities¶ are seeking new markets for exploitation in the “developing” world where local faculty are often¶ hired at very low wages and as part timers without job security (Ross, 2009). While some may¶ argue that providing university education to students in these countries is a moral imperative, an¶ important concern is how this “offshoring” may result in further distribution of western¶ knowledge systems in non-western countries. In a similar vein, we are also seeing fewer tenure¶ line positions and an increase of poorly paid adjunct positions in U.S. campuses.¶ Faculty research and other scholarly projects are increasingly being reshaped to become more¶ palatable to the business community or boards of trustees. Further impacting faculty are the¶ increasing demands for increased productivity in the form of publications in specialized¶ academic journals, closely tied to tenure and promotion decisions. This increased output and¶ competition are creating a proliferation of journals and articles for consumption that do not¶ necessarily strengthen quality and instead put tremendous pressure and increased workloads on¶ faculty. The standardization of productivity that facilitates accountability has led to a narrowing¶ of what counts as knowledge, with a return to notions of objective and measurable research being¶ considered more rigorous and scientific than qualitative and participatory approaches.¶ The corporate university necessarily functions to prepare students and society to participate in a¶ market economy. However, while the university does prepare citizens to fill jobs it must also¶ engage students in questioning and critiquing the existing structures of society, to recognize and¶ confront policies and practices that are undemocratic, and to learn to imagine and conceive of¶ alternatives that may bring greater equality and a new social order. When what is taught and learned becomes significantly determined through business interests it is difficult for the¶ university to retain autonomy toward these ends as they prove to be in direct conflict to capital¶ interests (Giroux, 2009).

Protests are a reactive form of politics that cede political instiutions – independently turns the case. Srniceke 15
Srnicek, PHD, and Williams, PhD Candidate , 15
(Nick, PhD IR @LSE, Alex, Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a world without work)
Today it appears that the greatest amount of effort is needed to achieve the smallest degree of change. Millions march against the Iraq War, yet it goes ahead as planned. Hundreds of thousands protest austerity, but unprecedented budget cuts continue. Repeated student protests, occupations and riots struggle against rises in tuition fees, but they continue their inexorable advance. Around the world, people set up protest camps and mobilise against economic inequality, but the gap between the rich and the poor keeps growing. From the alter-globalisation struggles of the late 1990s, through the antiwar and ecological coalitions of the early 2000s, and into the new student uprisings and Occupy movements since 2008, a common pattern emerges: resistance struggles rise rapidly, mobilise increasingly large numbers of people, and yet fade away only to be replaced by a renewed sense of apathy, melancholy and defeat. Despite the desires of millions for a better world, the effects of these movements prove minimal. A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE PROTEST Failure permeates this cycle of struggles, and as a result, many of the tactics on the contemporary left have taken on a ritualistic nature, laden with a heavy dose of fatalism. The dominant tactics - protesting, marching, occupying, and various other forms of direct action - have become part of a well established narrative, with the people and the police each playing their assigned roles. The limits of these actions are particularly visible in those brief moments when the script changes. As one activist puts it, of a protest at the 2001 Summit of the Americas: On April 20, the first day of the demonstrations, we marched in our thousands towards the fence, behind which 34 heads of state had gathered to hammer out a hemispheric trade deal. Under a hail of catapult-launched teddy bears, activists dressed in black quickly removed the fence’s supports with bolt cutters and pulled it down with grapples as onlookers cheered them on. For a brief moment, nothing stood between us and the convention centre. We scrambled atop the toppled fence, but for the most part we went no further, as if our intention all along had been simply to replace the state's chain-link and concrete barrier with a human one of our own making.1 We see here the symbolic and ritualistic nature of the actions, combined with the thrill of having done something - but with a deep uncertainty that appears at the first break with the expected narrative. The role of dutiful protestor had given these activists no indication of what to do when the barriers fell. Spectacular political confrontations like the Stop the War marches, the now-familiar melees against the G20 or World Trade Organization and the rousing scenes of democracy in Occupy Wall Street all give the appearance of being highly significant, as if something were genuinely at stake.2 Yet nothing changed, and long-term victories were traded for a simple registration of discontent. To outside observers, it is often not even clear what the movements want, beyond expressing a generalised discontent with the world. The contemporary protest has become a melange of wild and varied demands. The 2009 G20 summit in London, for instance, featured protestors marching for issues that spanned from grandiose anti-capitalist stipulations to modest goals centred on more local issues. When demands can be discerned at all, they usually fail to articulate anything substantial. They are often nothing more than empty slogans - as meaningful as calling for world peace. In more recent struggles, the very idea of making demands has been questioned. The Occupy movement infamously struggled to articulate meaningful goals, worried that anything too substantial would be divisive.5 And a broad range of student occupations across the Western world has taken up the mantra of ‘no demands’ under the misguided belief that demanding nothing is a radical act.4 When asked what the ultimate upshot of these actions has been, participants differ between admitting to a general sense of futility and pointing to the radicalisation of those who took part. If we look at protests today as an exercise in public awareness, they appear to have had mixed success at best. Their messages are mangled by an unsympathetic media smitten by images of property destruction - assuming that the media even acknowledges a form of contention that has become increasingly repetitive and boring. Some argue that, rather than trying to achieve a certain end, these movements, protests and occupations in fact exist only for their own sake.5 The aim in this case is to achieve a certain transformation of the participants, and create a space outside of the usual operations of power. While there is a degree of truth to this, things like protest camps tend to remain ephemeral, small-scale and ultimately unable to challenge the larger structures of the neoliberal economic system. This is politics transmuted into pastime - politics-as-drug experience, perhaps - rather than anything capable of transforming society. Such protests are registered only in the minds of their participants, bypassing any transformation of social structures. While these efforts at radicalisation and awareness-raising are undoubtedly important to some degree, there still remains the question of exactly when these sequences might pay off. Is there a point at which a critical mass of consciousness-raising will be ready for action? Protests can build connections, encourage hope and remind people of their power. Yet, beyond these transient feelings, politics still demands the exercise of that power, lest these affective bonds go to waste. If we will not act after one of the largest crises of capitalism, then when? The emphasis on the affective aspects of protests plays into a broader trend that has come to privilege the affective as the site of real politics. Bodily, emotional and visceral elements come to replace and stymie (rather than complement and enhance) more abstract analysis. The contemporary landscape of social media, for example, is littered with the bitter fallout from an endless torrent of outrage and anger. Given the individualism of current social media platforms - premised on the maintenance of an online identity - it is perhaps no surprise to see online ‘politics’ tend towards the selfpresentation of moral purity. We are more concerned to appear right than to think about the conditions of political change. Yet these daily outrages pass as rapidly as they emerge, and we are soon on to the next vitriolic crusade. In other places, public demonstrations of empathy with those suffering replace more finely tuned analysis, resulting in hasty or misplaced action - or none at all. While politics always has a relationship to emotion and sensation (to hope or anger, fear or outrage), when taken as the primary mode of politics, these impulses can lead to deeply perverse results. In a famous example, 1985's Live Aid raised huge amounts of money for famine relief through a combination of heartstring-tugging imagery and emotionally manipulative celebrity-led events. The sense of emergency demanded urgent action, at the expense of thought. Yet the money raised actually extended the civil war causing the famine, by allowing rebel militias to use the food aid to support themselves.6 While viewers at home felt comforted they were doing something rather than nothing, a dispassionate analysis revealed that they had in fact contributed to the problem. These unintended outcomes become even more pervasive as the targets of action grow larger and more abstract. If politics without passion leads to cold-hearted, bureaucratic technocracy, then passion bereft of analysis risks becoming a libidinally driven surrogate for effective action. Politics comes to be about feelings of personal empowerment, masking an absence of strategic gains. Perhaps most depressing, even when movements have some successes, they are in the context of overwhelming losses. Residents across the UK, for example, have successfully mobilised in particular cases to stop the closure of local hospitals. Yet these real successes are overwhelmed by larger plans to gut and privatise the National Health Service. Similarly, recent anti-fracking movements have been able to stop test drilling in various localities - but governments nevertheless continue to search for shale gas resources and provide support for companies to do so.7 In the United States, various movements to stop evictions in the wake of the housing crisis have made real gains in terms of keeping people in their homes.8 Yet the perpetrators of the subprime mortgage debacle continue to reap the profits, waves of foreclosures continue to sweep across the country, and rents continue to surge across the urban world. Small successes - useful, no doubt, for instilling a sense of hope - nevertheless wither in the face of overwhelming losses. Even the most optimistic activist falters in the face of struggles that continue to fail. In other cases, well-intentioned projects like Rolling Jubilee strive to escape the spell of neoliberal common sense.9 The ostensibly radical aim of crowdsourcing money to pay the debts of the underprivileged means buying into a system of voluntary charity and redistribution, as well as accepting the legitimacy of the debt in the first place. In this respect, the initiative is one among a larger group of projects that act simply as crisis responses to the faltering of state services. These are survival mechanisms, not a desirable vision for the future. What can we conclude from all of this? The recent cycle of struggles has to be identified as one of overarching failure, despite a multitude of smallscale successes and moments of large-scale mobilisation. The question that any analysis of the left today must grapple with is simply: What has gone wrong? It is undeniable that heightened repression by states and the increased power of corporations have played a significant role in weakening the power of the left. Still, it remains debatable whether the repression faced by workers, the precarity of the masses and the power of capitalists is any greater than it was in the late nineteenth century. Workers then were still struggling for basic rights, often against states more than willing to use lethal violence against them.10 But whereas that period saw mass mobilisation, general strikes, militant labour and radical women’s organisations all achieving real and lasting successes, today is defined by their absence. The recent weakness of the left cannot simply be chalked up to increased state and capitalist repression: an honest reckoning must accept that problems also lie within the left. One key problem is a widespread and uncritical acceptance of what we call ‘folk-political’ thinking. (5-9) 

Their activism is based on the idea that speaking loud enough will make our voices heard – this solidifies cap. Rickford 16
Russel Rickford (an associate professor of history at Cornell University. He is the author of We Are an African People: Independent Education, Black Power, and the Radical Imagination. A specialist on the Black Radical Tradition, he teaches about social movements, black transnationalism, and African-American political culture after World War Two). “The Fallacies of Neoliberal Protest”. Black Perspectives. September 24, 2016. http://www.aaihs.org/the-fallacies-of-neoliberal-protest/  AGM

Fallacy Number Three: The Myth of the Disembodied Voice. Part of capitalism’s response to grassroots opposition is to assure the distressed that their “voice” is heard. That the authorities who “hear” you also enable your brutalization is immaterial. The point is to convince you of your continued stake in the system. It is to guide you toward the politics of representation and away from the politics of resistance. Of course, there are other fallacies employed by the oppressor to confuse the oppressed. The fallacy of inclusion v. transformation, for example. Or the fallacy of “diversity” v. genuine antiracism. We are taught to be patriotic, to be patient, to strive to embody the very values of peace and goodwill that this society defiles. These and other myths only perpetuate the system. They leave intact our society’s basic power relations. And they cause us to police ourselves and to seek interpersonal reconciliation rather than confront structural racism and oppression. Truth is, we don’t need “diversity” training. We don’t need focus groups. We don’t need consultants and experts. We don’t need the apparatus of our oppression—racial capitalism itself—to rationalize and regulate our dissent. The logic and techniques of the corporate world won’t end the slaughter of black people, or the dispossession and degradation of indigenous people, or the transformation of the entire Global South into a charred landscape of corpses and refugees. We need an uncompromising, multiracial, grassroots movement against white supremacy, endless war, and vicious corporate capitalism. We need to build solidarity with the resistance in Charlotte, Standing Rock, and Puerto Rico. We need to join the rebellions of workers and the colonized all over the world.This is a human rights struggle. And it will be waged in the streets, not in boardrooms, the halls of Congress, or other strongholds of global capital.
The alternative is a relentless class-based politics that works against the university’s economic underpinnings – only engaging in a critique that focuses on the economic forces at play in public universities can we resolve capitalism. Oparah 14
Oparah, Julia. Professor and Chair of Ethnic Studies at Mills College and a founding member of Black Women Birthing Justice "Challenging Complicity: The Neoliberal University and the Prison–Industrial Complex." The Imperial University: Academic Repression and Scholarly Dissent (2014).
¶ In my earlier work on the academic-prison-industrial complex, I suggested that activist scholars were producing and disseminating countercarceral knowledge by bringing academic research into alignment with the needs of social movements and interrogating and reorganizing relationships between prisoners and researchers in the free world.50 Given the history of epistemic and physical violence and exploitation of research subjects by the academy, such a reorganizing of relationships and accountabilities is clearly urgently needed. Yet no matter how radical and participatory our scholarship is, we ultimately fail to dismantle the academic-military-prison-industrial com- plex (academic-MPIC) if we address it only through the production of more knowledge. Since knowledge is a commodity, marketed through books, arti- cles, and conferences as well as patents and government contracts, the pro- duction of “better,” more progressive or countercarceral knowledge can also be co-opted and put to work by the academic-MPIC.¶ An abolitionist lens provides a helpful framework here. Antiprison schol- ars and activists have embraced the concept of abolition in order to draw attention to the unfinished liberation legislated by the Thirteenth Amend- ment, which abolished slavery “except as a punishment for a crime.”51 Aboli- tionists do not seek primarily to reform prisons or to improve conditions for prisoners; instead they argue that only by abolishing imprisonment will we free up the resources and imagine the possibility of more effective and less violent strategies to deal with the social problems signaled by harmful acts. While early abolitionists referred to themselves as prison abolitionists, more recently there has been a shift to prison-industrial complex abolitionism to expand the analysis of the movement to incorporate other carceral spaces— from immigrant detention centers to psychiatric hospitals—and to empha- size the role of other actors, including the police and courts, politicians, corporations, the media, and the military, in sustaining mass incarceration.52¶ How does an abolitionist lens assist us in assessing responses to the academic-MPIC? First, it draws our attention to the economic basis of the academic-MPIC and pushes us to attack the materiality of the militari- zation and prisonization of academia rather than limiting our interventions to the realm of ideas. This means that we must challenge the corporatization  of our universities and colleges and question what influences and account- abilities are being introduced by our increasing collaboration with neoliberal global capital. It also means that we must dismantle those complicities and liberate the academy from its role as handmaiden to neoliberal globaliza- tion, militarism, and empire. In practice, this means interrogating our uni- versities’ and colleges’ investment decisions, demanding they divest from the military, security, and prison industries; distance themselves from military occupations in Southwest Asia and the Middle East; and invest instead in community-led sustainable economic development. It means facing allega- tions of disloyalty to our employers or alma maters as we blow the whistle on unethical investments and the creeping encroachment of corporate fund- ing, practices, and priorities. It means standing up for a vision of the liberal arts that neither slavishly serves the interests of the new global order nor returns to its elitist origins but instead is deeply embedded in progressive movements and richly informed by collaborations with insurgent and activ- ist spaces. And it means facing the challenges that arise when our divest- ment from empire has real impact on the bottom line of our university and college budgets.

And, reject the demand for a plan - neoliberalism operates through a narrow vision of politics that sustains itself through the illusion of pragmatism. We should refuse their demand for a plan. Blalock, JD, 2015
(Corinne, “NEOLIBERALISM AND THE CRISIS OF LEGAL THEORY”, Duke University, LAW AND CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS Vol. 77:71) MG from file
RECOVERING LEGAL THEORY’S RELEVANCE? The lens of neoliberalism not only allows one to see how these narratives fit together to reveal a larger rationality but also to understand why the solutions they propose fail to challenge or even escape that rationality. I address the three most prominent prescriptions being offered by critical legal scholars today: (1) a pragmatic turn to politics, (2) a return to more explicit normative and moral claims, and (3) acceptance in recognition that the decline is merely an ebb in the regular cycles of theory. A. Prescription: More Politics The most common prescription for recovering legal theory’s vibrancy is a greater participation in politics—scholars should eschew descriptive projects, especially those that might be used to bolster the conservative argument on an issue or in a case, as well as those critiques that appear purely academic, in favor of projects intended to influence the courts in progressive ways.134 One can certainly understand why this is a tempting prescription in light of the success of explicitly conservative legal theory and methods135 and concern that left-leaning legal academics have not taken up this charge.136 However, this demand for political engagement has unintended consequences: It legitimizes the current frameworks. As the Roberts Court further embraces neoliberal principles, persuading the Court means functioning within neoliberal logic and is therefore counterproductive for the revitalization of critical legal theory. Moreover, this political prescription tends to produce a reified notion of what counts as politics, limiting the political as well as intellectual potential of theoretical projects. For example, in the wake of the of the Court’s incremental move toward recognition of same-sex marriage in United States v. Windsor, 137 many progressive legal scholars have written on the subject hoping to nudge the Court toward full recognition. But in light of Nancy Fraser’s work, one should ask just what kind of recognition that would be—whether it would displace materialist claims or reify forms of identity.138 Full recognition of same-sex marriage is a destination toward which the Court is already heading and an area where the public discourse has largely already arrived. Emphasizing this area also participates in the ideology of erasure, leading many to believe that the current Court is making progressive interventions because it is progressive on identity and cultural issues, even though Windsor was handed down in a term in which the Court retrenched on significant materialist issues and embodied a number of blatantly neoliberal positions.139 Even if not writing for the Court, a legal scholar’s attempt to be useful to those in the profession who share her political goals risks constraining the legal profession and its own professional and disciplinary norms.140 In this way, the focus on concrete political effects helps foster legal thought’s “considerable capacity for resisting self-reflection and analysis,”141 which has only become more pronounced in the face of the neoliberalization of the academy as instrumental knowledge is increasingly privileged. When attempting to counter hegemony, what one needs to do is disrupt the legible—to expand the contours of what is considered political—not to accept the narrowly circumscribed zone of politics neoliberalism demarcates. Therefore, it is crucial not to judge critical legal scholarship according to whether its political impact is immediate or even known, and thus a turn to politics is not the remedy for legal theory’s marginalization. B. Prescription: More Normativity Some scholars recognize the danger of embracing a reified notion of politics that unwittingly reaffirms the status quo, and instead champion assertions of substantive morality to counteract the cold logics of pragmatism and efficiency.142 This proposed solution advocates a return to more substantive ideals of justice and equality. Although it may be true that change will ultimately require wresting these liberal and democratic ideals from neoliberalism and refilling their hollowed-out forms, this approach entails a number of pitfalls. The first is simply the inevitable question regarding moral claims: Whose morality is to be asserted? This question has created crisis on the left before, even producing some of the schisms among the crits recounted above. Neoliberalism does not have to contend with this issue—it foregrounds its formal nature and holds itself out as not needing to create a universal morality or set of values. More importantly, it claims to provide a structure in which one can keep one’s own substantive morals. Therefore, neoliberalism’s logic cannot be countered by moral claims without first disrupting its illusion of amorality. The ineffectiveness of the progressive critique of law and economics, based in claims of distributive justice and moral imperative, provides a clear example of how the neoliberal discourse can capture normative claims. The work of Martha McCluskey, one of the few legal scholars writing about neoliberalism in the domestic context over the last ten years, highlights the extent to which the “distributive justice” critique, which argues against the privileging of efficiency over equality and redistribution, fails to challenge the underlying logic.143 McCluskey illustrates how critics of law and economics who critique the approach’s inattention to redistribution have already ceded the central point, by arguing within the conventional views that “efficiency is about expanding the societal pie and redistribution is about dividing it.”144 “Neoliberalism’s disadvantage is not, as most critics worry, its inattention to redistribution, but to the contrary, its very obsession with redistribution as a distinctly seductive yet treacherous policy separate from efficiency.”145 In order to challenge this rationality, she explains, one cannot “misconstrue neoliberalism as a project to promote individual freedom and value-neutral economics at the expense of social responsibility and community morality.”146 One must instead recognize that neoliberalism has redefined social responsibility and community morality. Therefore, one must refuse the false dichotomy between the economic and cultural spheres (a division that allows the neoliberal discourse to displace cultural concerns to a moment after the economic concerns have been dealt with). Merely asserting the falsity of this separation is not sufficient. Neoliberalism has real effects in the world that strengthen its ideological claims.147 Therefore, it is not a struggle that can take place solely on the terrain of discourse or ideology. Like neoliberalism generally, law and economics does not hold itself out as infallible or as an embodiment of social ideals, but instead as the best society can do. It functions precisely on the logic that there is no alternative. Like Hayek’s theory, “law and economics is full of stories about how liberal rights and regulation designed to advance equality victimize the all-powerful market, undermining its promised rewards.”148 In light of this, it is a mistake to see neoliberalism as disavowing moral principles in favor of economic ones; it instead folds them into one another: “The Law and Economics movement is rooted in the moral ideal of the market as the social realization of individual liberty and popular democracy.”149 Neoliberalism’s approach presents itself not only as efficient, but also as just. Legal scholars need to recognize neoliberalism’s focus on the market is not only a form of morality, but also a powerful one. They cannot assume that in a battle of moralities the substantive communitarian ideal will win.150 Furthermore, the neoliberal framework, through its reconfiguration of the subject as an entrepreneur, justifies material inequalities—in contrast to liberalism’s mere blindness to them. Consequently, merely asserting the existence of material inequalities does not immediately undermine neoliberalism’s claims. Far from the engaged citizen who actively produces the polis in liberal theory, the neoliberal subject is a rational, calculating, and independent entity “whose moral autonomy is measured by her capacity for ‘self-care’—the ability to provide for her own needs and service her own ambitions.”151 The subject’s morality is not in relation to principles or ideals, but is “a matter of rational deliberation about costs, benefits, and consequences.”152 If efficiency is the morality of our time, the poor are cast not only as “undeserving” but also as morally bankrupt. Therefore, efficiency replaces not only political morality, but also all other forms of value. Therefore, critics are right that other forms of value have been crowded out; but the logic is deeper than they seem to realize. It goes beyond the scope of what is being done in the legal academy. It is a logic that organizes our time and therefore must be countered differently. More normativity is not the answer to legal theory’s marginalization because neoliberalism’s logic can accommodate even radically contradictory moralities under its claims of moral pluralism. Ethical claims of justice and community may need to be made, but one must first recognize that countering hegemony is harder than merely articulating an alternative; hegemony must be disrupted first. Disrupting neoliberalism’s logic thus entails not only recognizing that neoliberalism has a morality, but also taking that morality seriously. C. Prescription: Acceptance The final response of legal theorists to their field’s marginalization is to dismiss it as merely the regular ebb and flow of theory’s prominence.153 Putting it in terms of Thomas Kuhn’s theory of paradigm shifts, the contemporary moment is just the “normal science” of the paradigm brought about by the crits’ revolutionary moment in the 1970s and 1980s.154 The vitality, this narrative contends, will return when a competing paradigm emerges. There are several problems with this perspective on the decline. First, it entails an error in logic insofar as it takes an external perspective. Legal theory does not inevitably rise and fall but only according to the work being produced; or, to put it another way, this descriptive account of theory’s ebb can be a selffulfilling prophecy insofar as it decreases scholars’ motivation to pursue and receptivity toward theoretical projects. Second, legal scholars cannot be content with normal science when it has the kinds of consequences for democracy and economic inequality that neoliberal hegemony does. The Court is currently entrenching these principles at an unprecedented rate in areas of free speech, equal protection, and antitrust to name a few.155 At first, such acceptance appears to be what Janet Halley is advocating in “taking a break from feminism,”156 but upon closer inspection it is not. Halley is cautioning against the left’s nostalgia—concluding that operating under the banner of feminism and a preoccupation with “reviving” feminism looks backward instead of forward.157 Critical legal scholarship instead needs to be “self-critical” and to recognize that “how we make and apply legal theory arises out of the circumstances in which we recognize problems and articulate solutions.”158 Theory must arise from engagement with the current circumstances. Acceptance cannot be the solution; legal theory must produce the momentum to move forward. VII CONCLUSION: WHERE WE GO FROM HERE The way forward cannot entail a return to reified notions of theory any more than by a return to reified notions of politics. Critical legal scholars should not attempt to revitalize previous critical movements but, instead, reinvigorate the practice of critique within the legal academy. A. Why Critique Naming neoliberalism is necessary in order to counteract it. Without explicit identification, there can be no truly oppositional position. It also makes legible connections that would otherwise go unseen, as was the case with scholars writing about the decline. But there must also be a step beyond naming: critique. Critique means taking neoliberal rationality seriously. The approach must not be dismissive, merely pointing out neoliberalism’s inconsistencies, but instead must recognize that neoliberal rationality is inherently appealing. One cannot merely indict efficiency as contrary to more substantive values, but one also must recognize that efficiency is inextricably tied to beliefs about liberty, dignity, and individual choice, as well as corresponding beliefs about the capacities and limits of the state to effectuate change. No one is arguing that neoliberalism is the best of all possible worlds; in fact, its power comes precisely from abandoning such a claim. In recognizing its hegemonic status, legal scholars can understand the critical task as being more than just demystification. Neoliberal does not paper over inequalities after all; it justifies them. Ultimately, critique should function as a means of opening the conversation in ways that go beyond the picture of law painted by the Roberts Court—to refuse to allow the legal academy to be merely mimetic of a Court that is clearly embracing a neoliberal vision. Critique provides a means of thinking about law as not limited by what the markets can tolerate; it is the means through which one can discover a form of resistance that goes beyond nostalgia for the liberal welfare state. And finally, critique is simply a means of asserting that things can be different than they are in a world that constantly insists that there is no alternative.

Tournament: NDCA | Round: 2 | Opponent: Science BA | Judge: Zarek Drzada
T – Academic Freedom 

1NC 

Interpretation: The Aff must only defend a restriction on freedom of speech on college campuses. 

Violation: The plan text is explicitly about academic freedom which isn’t free speech.

Academic freedom is no longer protected under the 1st amendment. Moshman 10  
David Moshman (president of the ACLU of Nebraska and of the Academic Freedom Coalition of Nebraska. A professor emeritus of educational psychology at the University of Nebraska−Lincoln. His books include Liberty and learning: Academic freedom for teachers and students (2009)), 11/16/10, “Academic Freedom is Not Protected by the First Amendment,” Huff Post.
There, I said it, right in the title. And however much it hurts I’ll say it again: Academic freedom is not protected by the First Amendment. Recognizing this is the first step in defending academic freedom.¶ We should be clear from the start that academic freedom is not simply a First Amendment right. Academic freedom is intellectual freedom in academic contexts, which is both more and less than the constitutional requirement that the government “make no law... abridging the freedom of speech” (see my “Liberty and Learning: Academic Freedom for Teachers and Students”).¶ For a substantial portion of the 20th century, however, the First Amendment did protect important aspects of academic freedom. Alas, it no longer does. Here’s a two-minute summary of the constitutional history:¶ In West Virginia vs. Barnette (1943), the United States Supreme Court ruled that public schools may not require students to salute the flag and pledge their allegiance. It was a violation of the First Amendment for public education to be used for the purpose of indoctrinating a captive audience.¶ In Sweezy vs. New Hampshire (1957) the Court recognized the constitutional status of academic freedom in finding for a Marxist economist targeted by McCarthyism. The plurality and concurring opinions disagreed, however, as to whether constitutional academic freedom is primarily a right of individual teachers or a right of colleges as institutions.¶ In Keyishian vs. Board of Regents (1967), the Court proclaimed: “Our nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned. That freedom is therefore a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom.”¶ In Tinker vs. Des Moines (1969), involving secondary school students wearing black armbands to protest the United States military intervention in Vietnam, the Court reinforced the applicability of the First Amendment in schools at all levels of education. Neither students nor teachers, it insisted, shed their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate.¶ They shed them, it turned out, at the classroom door. In Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier (1988), the Court ruled that because a student newspaper was part of the journalism curriculum it therefore fell largely outside the domain of the First Amendment. Without argument or analysis the Court simply assumed that the First Amendment in schools applies only to speech outside the curriculum.¶ Federal courts since Hazelwood have been increasingly clear that, in matters of curriculum, school officials have broad latitude to determine the school’s message and restrict expression accordingly. Curriculum at all levels of education is a First Amendment-free zone. Teachers are hired to teach whatever they are told to teach and students are there to learn it.¶ Just as it seemed things couldn’t get worse, the Supreme Court determined in Garcetti vs. Ceballos (2006) that public employees in general do not have First Amendment rights when they are doing their jobs. Lower courts have applied this ruling to teachers at all levels of education, thus reinforcing Hazelwood.¶ By the time of Morse vs. Frederick (2007), it was clear that the First Amendment does not apply within the curriculum and thus provides no constitutional protection for academic freedom. The question was how far around the school the freedom-free zone extends. The Supreme Court found that it extends even across the street if one is holding a sign that says “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.”

Their pre-empt Wright evidence doesn’t make a claim about the legal status of academic freedom, only that it shares values with free speech. Prefer the above evidence about legal precedent because it’s what actually determines constitutional protection. Just in case – they’re wrong about the values. Post 11/16
“Robert C. Post on why speech at universities must be regulated,” 11/14/16, Robert C Post (legal scholar and dean of Yale Law School), Brown News.  
“There are different kinds of freedoms that are related to the two different kinds of missions of a modern university — research on the one hand, teaching on the other,” he said. “But in either case, these freedoms are conceptually distinct from the kind of freedom of speech that derives from the political arena, where all are equal and all have to exist for the end of self-governance. The university is not about self-governance. The university is about the attainment of education and the attainment of knowledge.” To frame his argument, Post first defined three basic rules governing freedom of speech as outlined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and defined by the Supreme Court: first, the state can’t tell a speaker that they have to speak about any particular content; second, there are no true or false opinions and all ideas are equal; and third, the state cannot compel a person to speak. He then defined the mission of most universities as being primarily two things — research, or the discovery and advancement of knowledge; and teaching, the conveying of knowledge. In order to advance these two goals, he said, universities cannot and should not follow these three basic rules of freedom of speech. Research, Post said, is ultimately based in the notion that not everyone has equal knowledge of a given topic and that expert knowledge is created through disciplinary study. “When we are talking about university research and expanding knowledge, it is resting on a disciplinary hierarchy, which is exactly opposite of the democratic equality on which freedom of speech rests,” he said.

Standards:

Limits – Their interp justifies affs about anything vaguely related to speech rights – copyright regulations, slander, civil rights, and libel affs are just a few examples. Explodes neg prep burden and kills predictability because they’re all vastly different bodies of literature which means no generics apply which kills fairness and engagement. Procedurally, if I can’t access their education it doesn’t matter.  

Vote on substantive engagement:  otherwise we’re speaking without debating and there’s nothing to separate us from dueling oratory.   It also creates the most valuable long-term skills since we need to learn how to defend our beliefs in any context, like politics.

Drop the debater on T:

A. Hold them accountable for their interp – a topical advocacy frames the debate - drop the arg lets them jump ship to a new layer killing NEG ground.

B. Drop the arg on T is the same thing as drop the debater since T indicts their advocacy 

C. Even if the plank in the plan text is just extra T – all their offense is based on that academic freedom so you should vote neg on presumption. 

Competing interps since reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention based on preference rather than argumentation and encourages a race to the bottom in which debaters exploit a judge’s tolerance for questionable argumentation.

No RVIs:

 A. They incentivize debaters to go all in in theory and bait it with abusive practices, killing substantive clash on other flows. B. They can run theory on me too if I’m unfair so 1) theory is reciprocal because we’re both able to check abuse and 2) also cures time skew because they can collapse in the 2ar to their shell.

Tournament: NDCA | Round: 4 | Opponent: Harker QC | Judge: Chris Teis
Interpretation: The aff must defend that no constitutionally protected speech may be restricted by public colleges or universities. To clarify, they can’t defend a restriction on only a kind, setting, or timing of speech.

The term “any” in the res is the weak form of “any”  -  “not any” statements refer to “all”.  Cambridge Dictionary

Cambridge Dictionary, Any, http://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/quantifiers/any.  NS

We use any before nouns to refer to indefinite or unknown quantities or an unlimited entity: Did you bring any bread? Mr Jacobson refused to answer any questions. If I were able to travel back to any place and time in history, I would go to ancient China. Any as a determiner has two forms: a strong form and a weak form. The forms have different meanings. Weak form any: indefinite quantities We use any for indefinite quantities in questions and negative sentences. We use some in affirmative sentences: Have you got any eggs? I haven’t got any eggs. I’ve got some eggs. Not: I’ve got any eggs. We use weak form any only with uncountable nouns or with plural nouns: talking about fuel for the car Do I need to get any petrol? (+ uncountable noun) There aren’t any clean knives. They’re all in the dishwasher. (+ plural noun) Warning: We don’t use any with this meaning with singular countable nouns: Have you got any Italian cookery books? (or … an Italian cookery book?) Not: Have you got any Italian cookery book? Strong form any meaning ‘it does not matter which’ We use any to mean ‘it does not matter which or what’, to describe something which is not limited. We use this meaning of any with all types of nouns and usually in affirmative sentences. In speaking we often stress any:. (+ uncountable noun) When you make a late booking, you don’t know where you’re going to go, do you? It could be any destination. (+ singular countable noun) talking about a contract for new employees Do we have any form of agreement with new staff when they start? (+ singular countable noun) a parent talking to a child about a picture he has painted A: I don’t think I’ve ever seen you paint such a beautiful picture before. Gosh! Did you choose the colours? B: We could choose any colours we wanted. (+ plural countable noun) See also: Determiners and types of noun Some and any Any as a pronoun Any can be used as a pronoun (without a noun following) when the noun is understood. A: Have you got some £1 coins on you? B: Sorry, I don’t think I have any. (understood: I don’t think I have any £1 coins.) parents talking about their children’s school homework A: Do you find that Elizabeth gets lots of homework? Marie gets a lot. B: No not really. She gets hardly any. (understood: She gets hardly any homework.) A: What did you think of the cake? It was delicious, wasn’t it? B: I don’t know. I didn’t get any. (understood: I didn’t get any of the cake.) See also: Determiners used as pronouns Any of We use any with of before articles (a/an, the), demonstratives (this, these), pronouns (you, us) or possessives (his, their): Shall I keep any of these spices? I think they’re all out of date. Not: … any these spices? We use any of to refer to a part of a whole: Are any of you going to the meeting? I couldn’t answer any of these questions. I listen to Abba but I’ve never bought any of their music.  Any doesn’t have a negative meaning on its own.  It must be used with a negative word to mean the same as no.  Compare Not Any: there aren’t any biscuits left.  They’ve eaten them all.  No: There are no biscuits left.  They’ve eaten them all.     
Outweighs -  it takes into account AFF definitions which assume a strong form of “any” that justifies singular cases.
Determining semantics comes before other standards:

A.  It’s the only stasis point we know before the round so it controls the internal link to engagement, and there’s no way to use ground if debaters aren’t prepared to defend it.

B.  Grammar is the most objective since it doesn’t rely on arbitrary determinants of what constitutes the best type of debate – it’s the only impact you can evaluate. 

C.  The AFF isn’t topical regardless of fairness or education since it doesn’t affirm the text - we wouldn’t debate rehab again just because it was a good topic..  

Violation: 

Standards: 

1. Limits: They allow way too many affs, newpapers, protests, specific races, sexual orientations, and places on campuses. That explodes neg prep burden and predictability which kills fairness and engagement.  Procedurally, if I can’t access their education it doesn’t matter.  T version of the AFF solves their offense – they can read advantages in any topic area which ensures NEG responses.

2. Legal precision – multiple court rulings agree with our interp. Elder 91
Elder ‘91(David S. Elder, October 1991, "Any and All": To Use Or Not To Use?” "Plain Language' is a regular feature of the Michigan Bar Journal, edited by Joseph Kimble for the State Bar Plain English Committee. Assistant editor is George H. Hathaway. Through this column the Committee hopes to promote the use of plain English in the law. Want to contribute a plain English article? Contact Prof. Kimble at Thomas Cooley Law School, P.O. Box 13038, Lansing, MI 48901, http://www.michbar.org/file/generalinfo/plainenglish/pdfs/91_oct.pdf | SP)
The Michigan Supreme Court seemed to approve our dictionary definitions of "any" in Harrington v Interstate Business Men's Accident Ass'n, 210 Mich 327, 330; 178 NW 19 (1920), when it quoted Hopkins v Sanders, 172 Mich 227; 137 NW 709 (1912). The Court defined "any" like this: "In broad language, it covers 'arl'v final decree' in 'any suit at law or in chancery' in 'any circuit court.' Any' means ,every,' 'each one of all."' In a later case, the Michigan Supreme Court again held that the use of "any" in an agency contract meant "all." In Gibson v Agricultural Life Ins Co, 282 Mich 282, 284; 276 NW 450 (1937), the clause in controversy read: "14. The Company shall have, and is hereby given a first lien upon any commissions or renewals as security for any claim due or to become due to the Company from said Agent." (Emphasis added.) The Gibson court was not persuaded by the plaintiff's insistence that the word "any" meant less than "all": "Giving the wording of paragraph 14 oJ the agency contract its plain and unequivocable meaning, upon arriving at the conclusion that the sensible connotation of the word any' implies 'all' and not 'some,' the legal conclusion follows that the defendant is entitled to retain the earned renewal commissions arising from its agency contract with Gibson and cannot be held legally liable for same in this action," Gibson at 287 (quoting the trial court opinion). The Michigan Court of Appeals has similarly interpreted the word "any" as used in a Michigan statute. In McGrath v Clark, 89 Mich App 194; 280 NW2d 480 (1979), the plaintiff accepted defendant's offer of judgment. The offer said nothing about prejudgment interest. The statute the Court examined was MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013: "Interest shall be allowed on any money judgment recovered in a civil action...." The Court held that "the word 'any' is to be considered all-inclusive," so the defendants were entitled to interest. McGrath at 197 Recently, the Court has again held that "alny means 'every,' 'each one of all,' and is unlimited in its scope." Parker v Nationwide Mutual Ins Co, 188 Mich App 354, 356; 470 NW2d 416 (1991) (quoting Harrington v InterState Men's Accident Ass'n, supra)

Legal precision determines topic literature and pre round prep – it’s a legal topic about first amendment jurisprudence. This is key to predictability and giving the neg a fair research burden to engage the affirmative. 

Vote on substantive engagement:  otherwise we’re speaking without debating and there’s nothing to separate us from dueling oratory.   It also creates the most valuable long-term skills since we need to learn how to defend our beliefs in any context, like politics.

Tournament: NDCA | Round: 4 | Opponent: Harker QC | Judge: Chris Teis
Interpretation: The aff must defend that no constitutionally protected speech may be restricted by public colleges or universities. To clarify, they can’t defend a restriction on only a kind, setting, or timing of speech.

The term “any” in the res is the weak form of “any”  -  “not any” statements refer to “all”.  Cambridge Dictionary

Cambridge Dictionary, Any, http://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/quantifiers/any.  NS

We use any before nouns to refer to indefinite or unknown quantities or an unlimited entity: Did you bring any bread? Mr Jacobson refused to answer any questions. If I were able to travel back to any place and time in history, I would go to ancient China. Any as a determiner has two forms: a strong form and a weak form. The forms have different meanings. Weak form any: indefinite quantities We use any for indefinite quantities in questions and negative sentences. We use some in affirmative sentences: Have you got any eggs? I haven’t got any eggs. I’ve got some eggs. Not: I’ve got any eggs. We use weak form any only with uncountable nouns or with plural nouns: talking about fuel for the car Do I need to get any petrol? (+ uncountable noun) There aren’t any clean knives. They’re all in the dishwasher. (+ plural noun) Warning: We don’t use any with this meaning with singular countable nouns: Have you got any Italian cookery books? (or … an Italian cookery book?) Not: Have you got any Italian cookery book? Strong form any meaning ‘it does not matter which’ We use any to mean ‘it does not matter which or what’, to describe something which is not limited. We use this meaning of any with all types of nouns and usually in affirmative sentences. In speaking we often stress any:. (+ uncountable noun) When you make a late booking, you don’t know where you’re going to go, do you? It could be any destination. (+ singular countable noun) talking about a contract for new employees Do we have any form of agreement with new staff when they start? (+ singular countable noun) a parent talking to a child about a picture he has painted A: I don’t think I’ve ever seen you paint such a beautiful picture before. Gosh! Did you choose the colours? B: We could choose any colours we wanted. (+ plural countable noun) See also: Determiners and types of noun Some and any Any as a pronoun Any can be used as a pronoun (without a noun following) when the noun is understood. A: Have you got some £1 coins on you? B: Sorry, I don’t think I have any. (understood: I don’t think I have any £1 coins.) parents talking about their children’s school homework A: Do you find that Elizabeth gets lots of homework? Marie gets a lot. B: No not really. She gets hardly any. (understood: She gets hardly any homework.) A: What did you think of the cake? It was delicious, wasn’t it? B: I don’t know. I didn’t get any. (understood: I didn’t get any of the cake.) See also: Determiners used as pronouns Any of We use any with of before articles (a/an, the), demonstratives (this, these), pronouns (you, us) or possessives (his, their): Shall I keep any of these spices? I think they’re all out of date. Not: … any these spices? We use any of to refer to a part of a whole: Are any of you going to the meeting? I couldn’t answer any of these questions. I listen to Abba but I’ve never bought any of their music.  Any doesn’t have a negative meaning on its own.  It must be used with a negative word to mean the same as no.  Compare Not Any: there aren’t any biscuits left.  They’ve eaten them all.  No: There are no biscuits left.  They’ve eaten them all.     
Outweighs -  it takes into account AFF definitions which assume a strong form of “any” that justifies singular cases.
Determining semantics comes before other standards:

A.  It’s the only stasis point we know before the round so it controls the internal link to engagement, and there’s no way to use ground if debaters aren’t prepared to defend it.

B.  Grammar is the most objective since it doesn’t rely on arbitrary determinants of what constitutes the best type of debate – it’s the only impact you can evaluate. 

C.  The AFF isn’t topical regardless of fairness or education since it doesn’t affirm the text - we wouldn’t debate rehab again just because it was a good topic..  

Violation: 

Standards: 

1. Limits: They allow way too many affs, newpapers, protests, specific races, sexual orientations, and places on campuses. That explodes neg prep burden and predictability which kills fairness and engagement.  Procedurally, if I can’t access their education it doesn’t matter.  T version of the AFF solves their offense – they can read advantages in any topic area which ensures NEG responses.

2. Legal precision – multiple court rulings agree with our interp. Elder 91
Elder ‘91(David S. Elder, October 1991, "Any and All": To Use Or Not To Use?” "Plain Language' is a regular feature of the Michigan Bar Journal, edited by Joseph Kimble for the State Bar Plain English Committee. Assistant editor is George H. Hathaway. Through this column the Committee hopes to promote the use of plain English in the law. Want to contribute a plain English article? Contact Prof. Kimble at Thomas Cooley Law School, P.O. Box 13038, Lansing, MI 48901, http://www.michbar.org/file/generalinfo/plainenglish/pdfs/91_oct.pdf | SP)
The Michigan Supreme Court seemed to approve our dictionary definitions of "any" in Harrington v Interstate Business Men's Accident Ass'n, 210 Mich 327, 330; 178 NW 19 (1920), when it quoted Hopkins v Sanders, 172 Mich 227; 137 NW 709 (1912). The Court defined "any" like this: "In broad language, it covers 'arl'v final decree' in 'any suit at law or in chancery' in 'any circuit court.' Any' means ,every,' 'each one of all."' In a later case, the Michigan Supreme Court again held that the use of "any" in an agency contract meant "all." In Gibson v Agricultural Life Ins Co, 282 Mich 282, 284; 276 NW 450 (1937), the clause in controversy read: "14. The Company shall have, and is hereby given a first lien upon any commissions or renewals as security for any claim due or to become due to the Company from said Agent." (Emphasis added.) The Gibson court was not persuaded by the plaintiff's insistence that the word "any" meant less than "all": "Giving the wording of paragraph 14 oJ the agency contract its plain and unequivocable meaning, upon arriving at the conclusion that the sensible connotation of the word any' implies 'all' and not 'some,' the legal conclusion follows that the defendant is entitled to retain the earned renewal commissions arising from its agency contract with Gibson and cannot be held legally liable for same in this action," Gibson at 287 (quoting the trial court opinion). The Michigan Court of Appeals has similarly interpreted the word "any" as used in a Michigan statute. In McGrath v Clark, 89 Mich App 194; 280 NW2d 480 (1979), the plaintiff accepted defendant's offer of judgment. The offer said nothing about prejudgment interest. The statute the Court examined was MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013: "Interest shall be allowed on any money judgment recovered in a civil action...." The Court held that "the word 'any' is to be considered all-inclusive," so the defendants were entitled to interest. McGrath at 197 Recently, the Court has again held that "alny means 'every,' 'each one of all,' and is unlimited in its scope." Parker v Nationwide Mutual Ins Co, 188 Mich App 354, 356; 470 NW2d 416 (1991) (quoting Harrington v InterState Men's Accident Ass'n, supra)

Legal precision determines topic literature and pre round prep – it’s a legal topic about first amendment jurisprudence. This is key to predictability and giving the neg a fair research burden to engage the affirmative. 

Vote on substantive engagement:  otherwise we’re speaking without debating and there’s nothing to separate us from dueling oratory.   It also creates the most valuable long-term skills since we need to learn how to defend our beliefs in any context, like politics.

Tournament: Golden Desert | Round: 4 | Opponent: Lynbrook YZ | Judge: Donald Fagan
A.  Interp:  The aff must defend that all public colleges and universities not restrict constitutionally protected speachr. To clarify, they can’t advocate that a certain colleges or types of schools restrict. 

The subject of the res is a generic noun - without an article are the most common type of generalization, used in all contexts of writing and speech. Byrd
“Generic Meaning,” Georgia State University, Transcript of lecture given by Pat Byrd (Department of Applied Linguistics and ESL).  
Douglas Biber and Susan Conrad, two of the authors of the Longman Grammar, have written about what they call "seemingly synonymous words." They have shown how the adjectives big, great, and large are used differently in academic writing from in fiction. Their point is that when a language has forms that seem to be synonyms--the forms are likely to be used in different ways in different settings. One can't just be substituted for another without a change in meaning or a violation of style. A big toe isn't the same as a large toe. And I don't think I know what a great toe might be. Or, for another example, a political scientist would call Georgia a large state but not necessarily a great state. But a politician from Georgia is likely to talk about the great State of Georgia.¶ A similar process is at work with the use of these generic forms in context. We have a set of sentences that seem to have very much the same meaning. It is probable that the uses of these forms do not entirely overlap. However, we do not yet have a complete picture of how generic forms are used. But the use of computers for linguistic research is a new field, and we get more information all the time. ¶ Here are some things that we do know about these generic noun phrase types when they are used in context:¶ 1. The + singular: The computer has changed modern life. ¶ This form is considered more formal than the others--and is not as likely to be used in conversation as the plural noun: Computers have changed modern life. ¶ Master (1987) found in the sample that he analyzed that this form with the was often used to introduce at topic--and came at the beginning of a paragraph and in introductions and conclusions.¶ 2. Zero + plural: Computers are machines. Computers have changed modern life. ¶ Probably the most common form for a generalization. It can be used in all contexts--including both conversation (Basketball players make too much money) and academic writing (Organisms as diverse as humans and squid share many biological processes). ¶ Perhaps used more in the hard sciences and social sciences than in the humanities. ¶ 3. A + singular: A computer is a machine. ¶ This generic structure is used to refer to individual instances of a whole group and is used to classify whatever is being discussed.¶ The form is often used for definitions of terms. ¶ It is also often used to explain occupations. My sister is a newspaper reporter. I am a teacher. ¶ Use is limited to these "classifying" contexts. Notice that this form can't always be subtituted for the other: *Life has been changed by a computer. *A computer has changed modern life. ¶ 4. Zero + noncount: Life has been changed by the computer. ¶ The most basic meaning and use of noncount nouns is generic--they are fundamentally about a very abstract level of meaning. Thus, the most common use of noncount nouns is this use with no article for generic meaning. ¶ Zero Article and Generic Meaning¶ Most nouns without articles have generic meaning. Two types are involved.¶ 1. Zero + plural: Computers are machines. Computers have changed modern life.¶ 2. Zero + noncount: Life has been changed by the computer.

This outweighs other arguments because it links to the specific metric used to determine whether the resolution is true or false, as opposed to just the meaning of individual words or phrases. I thus establish the best holistic sense of what the aff burden is.

Determining semantics comes before other standards:
A.  It’s the only stasis point we know before the round so it controls the internal link to engagement, and there’s no way to use ground if debaters aren’t prepared to defend it.  B.  Grammar is the most objective since it doesn’t rely on arbitrary determinants of what constitutes the best type of debate – it’s the only impact you can evaluate.  C.  The AFF isn’t topical regardless of fairness or education since it doesn’t affirm the text - we wouldn’t debate rehab again just because it was a good topic.  Regardless of theory, you negate substantively because they fail their resolutional burden.  

B.  Violation:  They specify military academies

C.  Standards:

1.  Limits – they allow way too many affs. There are 629 public universities in the us as of 2005 (info please.com)

Near infinite colleges and combinations explodes  the NEG prep burden and predictability which kills fairness and engagement.  Procedurally, if I can’t access their education it doesn’t matter.  T version of the AFF solves their offense – they can read advantages specific to any country which ensures NEG responses

Even if there are some turns, that AFF is massively over prepared for them since it limits their prep burden.  Generics don’t solve – agent CPs or state bad Ks aren’t persuasive vs a nuanced AFF.  

2.  Core Controversy – they shift focus from key NEG args like the principle of free speech, hate speech, federal funding, campus activist. 

D.  Vote on substantive engagement:  otherwise we’re speaking without debating and there’s nothing to separate us from dueling oratory.   It also creates the most valuable long-term skills since we need to learn how to defend our beliefs in any context, like politics.

Drop the debater on T:

A. Hold them accountable for their interp – a topical advocacy frames the debate - drop the arg lets them jump ship to a new layer killing NEG ground.
B. Drop the arg on T is the same thing as drop the debater since T indicts their advocacy 

Competing interps since reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention based on preference rather than argumentation and encourages a race to the bottom in which debaters exploit a judge’s tolerance for questionable argumentation.

No RVIs:
 A. They incentivize debaters to go all in in theory and bait it with abusive practices, killing substantive clash on other flows. B.  They can run theory on me too if I’m unfair so 1) theory is reciprocal because we’re both able to check abuse and 2) also cures time skew because they can collapse in the 2ar to their shell.

Tournament: NDCA | Round: 4 | Opponent: Harker QC | Judge: Chris Teis
A: interpretation the affirmative may only defend that public colleges and universities eliminate restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. 

B: Title IX doesn’t apply to protected speech. It only restricts unprotected speech. Office for Civil Rights 07

Office for Civil Rights. 1/25/07 The Department has determined that this document is a “significant guidance document” under the Office of¶ Management and Budget’s Final Bulletin for Agency Good Guidance Practices, 72 Fed. Reg. 3432 (Jan. 25, 2007),¶ available at The Office for¶ Civil Rights (OCR) issues this and other policy guidance to provide recipients with information to assist them in meeting¶ their obligations, and to provide members of the public with information about their rights, under the civil rights laws¶ and implementing regulations that we enforce. OCR’s legal authority is based on those laws and regulations. This¶ guidance does not add requirements to applicable law, but provides information and examples to inform recipients¶ about how OCR evaluates whether covered entities are complying with their legal obligations. If you are interested in¶ commenting on this guidance, please send an e-mail with your comments to OCR@ed.gov, or write to the following UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION¶ OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201404-title-ix.pdf

Answer: The DCL on sexual violence did not expressly address First Amendment issues¶ because it focuses on unlawful physical sexual violence, which is not speech or expression¶ protected by the First Amendment.¶ However, OCR’s previous guidance on the First Amendment, including the 2001 Guidance,¶ OCR’s July 28, 2003, Dear Colleague Letter on the First Amendment,35 and OCR’s October¶ 26, 2010, Dear Colleague Letter on harassment and bullying,36 remain fully in effect. OCR¶ has made it clear that the laws and regulations it enforces protect students from¶ prohibited discrimination and do not restrict the exercise of any expressive activities or¶ speech protected under the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, when a school works to prevent and redress discrimination, it must respect the free-speech rights of students, faculty, and¶ other speakers.¶ Title IX protects students from sex discrimination; it does not regulate the content of¶ speech. OCR recognizes that the offensiveness of a particular expression as perceived by¶ some students, standing alone, is not a legally sufficient basis to establish a hostile¶ environment under Title IX. Title IX also does not require, prohibit, or abridge the use of¶ particular textbooks or curricular materials.37

The affirmative makes unprotected speech protected, which is distinct from restrictions on already protected speech. 

C: Limits – if the aff doesn’t defend protected speech then there’s an infinite amount of plans that they can defend because they can specify any kind of speech becoming permissible. Limits kill fairness – if there’s no basis to predict their aff then we can’t prep it and will only get generics that don’t really apply to their aff. Infinte pre round prep means they’ll roast us on generics every time. Also kills education and engagement  - if we can’t predict their aff than discussion is bad and we don’t’ learn anything. 

Also jurisdiction is independent voter – a) Grammar is the most objective since it doesn’t rely on arbitrary determinants of what constitutes the best type of debate – it’s the only impact you can evaluate. B) The AFF isn’t topical regardless of fairness or education since it doesn’t affirm the text - we wouldn’t debate rehab again just because it was a good topic.

Voter is fairness – debate is a competitive activity and you have to decide who did the better debating, which is impossible if they structure their case where it’s impossible for me to win. 

Drop the debater on T:

A. Hold them accountable for their interp – a topical advocacy frames the debate - drop the arg lets them jump ship to a new layer killing NEG ground.

B. Drop the arg on T is the same thing as drop the debater since T indicts their advocacy 

Competing interps since reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention based on preference rather than argumentation and encourages a race to the bottom in which debaters exploit a judge’s tolerance for questionable argumentation.

No RVIs:

A. They incentivize debaters to go all in in theory and bait it with abusive practices, killing substantive clash on other flows. B. They can run theory on me too if I’m unfair so 1) theory is reciprocal because we’re both able to check abuse and 2) also cures time skew because they can collapse in the 2ar to their shell.

Tournament: Damus | Round: 4 | Opponent: San Marino ED | Judge: Olivia Panchal
Governments responsible for police officers should implement the Coalition Against Police Abuse proposal for civilian review which includes-
-establish “Loyal Opposition Policy Review Boards” for civilian oversight of police conduct, policy, and hiring/firing decisions
-The boards should be: elected, paid, and independent of police agencies
-The boards should have special investigators with unrestricted access to crime scenes and the power to subpoena police department personnel and records
-The board should have authority over all claims of police misconduct including: assault, discrimination, infiltration of community groups, sexual harassment, false arrest, and misuse of force. The board should be able to mandate training or discipline for officers up to and including firing, protections for police whistleblowers, and mandate of municipal damages
-Special city prosecutors should be appointed independent of the city attorney’s office and the city council who handle all criminal cases against police officers and have full subpoena powers
-staff should be hired on the basis of affirmative action policies 

CRBs are a legitimate alternative to immunity reform- their decisions affect the ‘clearly established’ doctrine which solves the case without judicial change
Meltzer, JD, 14
(Ryan E., Texas LR 92: 1277 Qualified Immunity and Constitutional-Norm Generation in the Post-Saucier Era: “Clearly Establishing” the Law Through Civilian Oversight of Police)
In the course of investigating discrete incidents of alleged police misconduct, civilian external investigatory bodies engage in fact-finding and identification and application of governing legal standards in much the same way as a court assesses a motion to suppress evidence or a § 1983 claim alleging a deprivation of constitutional rights.31 More importantly, these bodies constantly encounter novel factual scenarios, particularly ones implicating the Fourth Amendment,32 such that their findings epitomize the sort of fact-specific guidance endorsed by the Court.33 Further, to the extent that they are empowered to make policy recommendations to the police departments they oversee, civilian external investigatory bodies also resemble compliance agencies like the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), whose advisory reports have helped to provide the sort of “notice” required to overcome an official’s qualified immunity.34 Consequently, the Court’s qualified immunity jurisprudence appears to permit the findings of such bodies to contribute to the clearly-established-law analysis. At present, however, the work of civilian external investigatory bodies—work that produces a wealth of valuable information and often confronts constitutional questions that might otherwise escape formal adjudication— is largely divorced from that of the courts.35 This state of affairs represents a costly missed opportunity, especially in the wake of Pearson. (1281-2)

The CP Solves the Case 

    Only EXTERNAL, CIVILIAN oversight can alter police behavior- the aff’s internal legal reform drives police misconduct underground- it’s a trap
    Akbar, 15 – Assistant Professor of Law at Michael E. Moritz College of Law, the Ohio State University (Amna, “National Security’s Broken Windows”, UCLA Law Review, Vol. 62, pg. 834, May 2015, Lexis)
    This Article has attempted to identify the problems with community engagement and counterradicalization in the national security context, drawing from the critiques of community policing and broken windows in the ordinary criminal context. The canvas for this critical engagement was limited insofar as  *906  Muslim communities' experiences in these programs have been largely sheltered from public view. Harvesting those experiences is no doubt essential to understanding the possibilities and limitations of these programs. This Article provided a sketch of the problems lurking near the surface - that is left to future work.
    Is community engagement salvageable? Moving community engagement toward its most democratic aspirations - toward a more genuine exercise in community consultation, contestation, and collaboration - would involve ridding the program of its pernicious baggage. For example, law enforcement could end community engagement's integration with community-wide intelligence gathering, or could decouple community engagement from CVE and counterradicalization.
    Certainly there are strong normative reasons, including those that motivate this Article, to expect and demand that law enforcement account for the realities of marginalized communities. But we cannot expect that dialogue will necessarily lead to accountability, meaningful contestation, or realignment of police approaches in marginalized communities. After all, law enforcement is itself a significant vehicle for marginalization and racialization in the United States. It is reasonable to question whether community policing - or policing at all - can be expected to be the vehicle for the change we are seeking. The problem and the solution may be entirely mismatched.
    The allure of community policing rests in part on a broader construct of dialogue as inherently valuable. While dialogue can certainly be valuable, its value will depend on the context and the point of view from which it is being evaluated. Dialogue often serves a different function for the more powerful in the conversation than the less powerful. The idea that dialogue is the cure-all for poor relationships between police and marginalized communities emerges from a failure to recognize the structures and histories of police impunity in these communities, as well as the material realities that keep inequality in place. When the dialogue in question is with the police, initiated by the police, and on the police's own terms, not only is the function of the dialogue necessarily limited, the entire initiative should raise red flags. How will the dialogue change the material reality of policing in the community? Does the dialogue further exacerbate inequality or simply validate preexisting policing practices through the performance of democratic legitimacy? Or is it really allowing for messy democratic contestation, and the possibility for change in the material conditions of the relationship between the police and the marginalized?
    For community policing to be an effective tool in changing the relationship between the marginalized and law enforcement, marginalized communities cannot simply be offered a seat at the table to participate in preconceived policing  *907  programs. They must have the political power to hold police accountable. For community policing mechanisms to offer potential for real change to marginalized communities, communities must build capacity and political power to demand accountability. So while we might advocate for law enforcement to engage marginalized communities, we cannot rely on law enforcement initiatives to recalibrate relationships long rife with deep inequality. The pressure for meaningful change must come from outside, from the communities themselves organizing for change. n325
    2. The aff attempts to improve regulation of INDIVIDUAL OFFICERS. The CP changes police culture as a whole. This reduces police opposition and rights violations
    Seybold, 15 – JD Candidate (Steven D, “Somebody's Watching Me: Civilian Oversight of Data-Collection Technologies,” March 2015, Texas Law Review, Vol. 93, pg. 1029)
    First, even a highly effective LOPRB providing quality policy recommendations to a police department would likely encounter some department resistance to the civilian oversight. This resistance may be created because of police department views of a civilian entity "meddling" or just the potential perception of an adversarial relationship between the *1058 LOPRB and police department. n207 However, the structure of LOPRBs help overcome most of this resistance traditionally leveled against civilian oversight from police departments. The emphasis on policy review, rather than complaint review, means that LOPRBs will not directly regulate individual police officers but rather the department as a whole. This change in focus will likely reduce the intensity of any police department resistance because the potential adversarial relationship will be between the LOPRB and the police department instead of individual officers. n208 Furthermore, any resistance can be ameliorated by public pressure on police departments to enact the LOPRB's policy recommendations. The LOPRB's outreach will inform the local community of the use of data-collection technologies, potentially generating popular support behind LOPRB recommendations. LOPRBs can thus indirectly enforce their recommendations through utilizing that popular support and pressure on police departments. That indirect pressure on police departments will help reduce potential police department resistance because policy changes brought about through public pressure will be a reaction by the police department to the public at large, rather than directly reacting to the adversarial LOPRB. Thus, while police department resistance likely cannot be completely overcome, LOPRBs can ameliorate this traditional civilian oversight problem.

3. The CRB doesn’t have to work- it creates a deterrent effect
Seybold, 15 – JD Candidate (Steven D, “Somebody's Watching Me: Civilian Oversight of Data-Collection Technologies,” March 2015, Texas Law Review, Vol. 93, pg. 1029)
3. Individual Deterrence and Systemic Correction. - Finally, civilian oversight has some meaningful deterrence on individual actors while also providing a functioning mechanism to address local systemic issues. n163 Individual police officers are more likely to undertake regulation of their own behavior when the officer knows that they are being watched by an oversight body. n164 External civilian oversight can ensure greater accountability not only among rank-and-file officers, but also among command officers, and can also address systemic issues facing dys-functional departments. n165 Approximately two-thirds of civilian oversight entities undertake policy review in addition to complaint review, n166 allowing civilian oversight bodies to review general policies and advocate for systemic reform. n167 Samuel Walker, a scholar whose work focuses on police accountability, emphasized that successful civilian oversight bodies "take a proactive view of their role and actively seek out the underlying causes of police misconduct or problems in the complaint process." n168 If civilian oversight mechanisms continually provide policy recommendations to police departments, those recommendations as a whole can have a significant effect on police misconduct, while at the same time making the police department more "accustomed to input from outsiders." n169 Civilian oversight thus can have a transformative impact on entire police departments rather than only correcting the actions of a singular officer.

4. Civilian review is mutually exclusive and more efficient than court action
Weinbeck, 11 – JD Candidate William Mitchell College of Law (Michael P, “Watching the Watchmen: Lessons for Federal Law Enforcement from America's Cities,” William Mitchell Law Review, Vol. 36, pg. 1306)
A police department's internal affairs unit, operating on its own, lacks the credibility to conduct an independent investigation that is satisfactory to the community. n50 Minneapolis city council members, in an attempt to assuage community members and preserve their own political futures, established the city's review authority. n51 In theory, at least, a system of civilian oversight inserts into the police investigation process a watchman without allegiance to the police who will ensure that the investigation is conducted without bias. n52 This, in turn, generally supports a perception by the community that its police department is operating with a proper respect for individual rights. n53 As a result, a greater level of trust develops between the police and the *1315 community that ultimately greases the cogs of crime detection and prevention. n54 There are other benefits that municipalities enjoy when establishing a system of citizen oversight. Chief among them is the political coverage that the city's elected officials receive when establishing the agency. n55 For example, the Minneapolis Civilian Police Review Authority came into being in 1990 after police officers identified the wrong house in a drug raid. n56 During the course of the botched raid, the police killed an elderly couple who lived in the house. n57 In another episode not long after, the Minneapolis Police Department broke up a peaceful party of college-aged African Americans at a Minneapolis hotel. n58 In response to both incidents, outraged community members engaged in vehement and highly publicized demonstrations. n59 Besides providing a measure of political coverage, citizen oversight may also operate as a mechanism for saving cities money. n60 Wronged citizens, instead of bringing their grievances to court, enter the civilian oversight system where they may achieve redress that ends up costing the city nothing more than the administrative costs of the investigation. n61
 11/5/16

Tournament: Damus | Round: 4 | Opponent: San Marino ED | Judge: Olivia Panchal
The new generation LGBTQ movement is working with community-based solutions, moving away from the flare of courts. Lazare ‘10/13
Sarah Lazare is a staff writer for AlterNet, A former staff writer for Common Dreams. “Meet 5 Movement Leaders Across the U.S. Fighting for LGTBQ Issues on the Ground.” Alternet. October 13, 2016. http://www.alternet.org/lgbtq/meet-5-movement-leaders-across-us-fighting-lgtbq-issues-ground JJN
"We've gotten dragged into a national conversation where same-sex marriage is held up as the pinnacle of the LGBTQ struggle, but there are so many other things our communities struggle around, issues that have to do with life and death,” Paulina Helm-Hernandez, the co-director of the queer liberation group Southerners on New Ground (SONG), told AlterNet. “We’re dealing with issues like criminalization, health care access and core safety. We’re thinking about ways our people know a lot about violence and how to survive." Helm-Hernandez is one of countless movement leaders in rural communities and urban centers across the country bringing a queer lens to racial, social and economic justice activism. LGBTQ organizers are at the helm of the Movement for Black Lives, calling for an end to extrajudicial police killings, and on the frontlines of native resistance at Standing Rock, where indigenous earth defenders have erected a "two-spirit camp," for gay and lesbian indigenous people. They are demanding an stop to deportations and mass incarceration and devising concrete, community-safety alternatives to calling the police. While fending off the racist incitement of the 2016 election cycle, LGBTQ organizers are also going on the offensive, preparing to mobilize for demilitarization at home and abroad no matter who wins in November. AlterNet spoke with five U.S.-based organizers whose political and cultural work shows that LGBTQ movements go far beyond marriage equality, and are shaping the social movements that define our times. 1. Kym Anthoni, New Orleans “Second lining is very big in New Orleans culture,” said Anthoni, an organizer with the youth-led LGBTQ organization BreakOUT. “After someone passes away, people will do a dance celebrating resilience. Every year around the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, we do a second line for the people who died to celebrate resilience, strength and moving forward.” “When a transgender woman has been killed, or you’ve gone through a bunch of bullshit, we embody the culture of second line, recognizing that we have a lot of pain and embracing resilience, saying let’s let go of the harsh shit that you’ve been through and celebrate the fact that you made it,” Anthoni continued. “Last year for the Trans March of resilience, we had a whole second line. We were uplifting the voices that are normally not uplifted in our culture.” New Orleans has been hit hard in recent years by a wave of killings targeting transgender women of color. Among them was BreakOUT community member Penny Proud, a 21-year-old black transgender woman murdered in 2015. This summer, the organization released a statement reading, “It is with heavy hearts that we share the news that another young, black trans/gender non-conforming person, Devin Diamond, has been murdered in New Orleans, just a few weeks after 24-year-old Erica ‘E’ Davis was shot in the Treme neighborhood on her way to work.” Key to BreakOUT’s organizing is the principle that “we deserve to walk down the street and not be attacked, we deserve to not be criminalized,” said Anthoni. This demand is aimed at curbing vigilante violence as well as law enforcement brutality. The organization’s first campaign was called We Deserve Better and took on rampant abuse by the New Orleans Police Department. According to a report released in 2014 by BreakOUT, police abuse is widespread. The survey found that “75 percent of people of color respondents feel they have been targeted by police for their sexual orientation or gender identity or gender expression compared with 24 percent of white respondents.” In addition, the report states that “43 percent of people of color respondents have been asked for a sexual favor by police compared with 11 percent of white respondents.” Anthoni emphasized that it is important for the broader public to understand that police brutality is also an LGBTQ issue. “Police always target trans women of color just for being trans,” Anthoni said. “They over-eroticize transgender bodies. The queer and transgender youth of color are most targeted by law enforcement. It’s a huge issue because it takes your power away, it makes you feel vulnerable. Our vulnerability can sometimes cost us our lives.” In addition to organizing, political education and youth work in local high schools, Anthoni said, “The main core of what we do is heart healing justice work. We focus on finding ways to heal as a community.”

B. Links- 

    Court civil rights victories act as fly paper drawing other social movements into the court to focus on litigation strategies
    Rosenberg 8 (Gerald N., University of Chicago political science and law professor, Ph.D. from Yale University, member of the Washington, D.C. bar, The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring about Social Change?, p. 427)
    If this is the case, then there is another important way in which courts affect social change. It is, to put it simply, that courts act as “fly-paper” for social reformers who succumb to the “lure of litigation.” If the constraints of the Constrained Court view are correct, then courts can seldom produce significant social reform. Yet if groups advocating such reform continue to look to the courts for aid, and spend precious resources in litigation, then the courts also limit change by deflecting claims from substantive political battles, where success is possible, to harmless legal ones where it is not. Even when major cases are won, the achievement is often more symbolic that real. Thus, courts may serve an ideological function of luring movements for social reform to an institution that is structurally constrained from serving their needs, providing only an illusion of change.

2. This is specifically true for LGBTQ movements
Jane S. Schacter* James E. and Ruth B. Doyle-Bascom Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School; Edwin A. Heafey, Jr. Visiting Professor of Law, Stanford Law School, 2005-2006; A.B., University of Pennsylvania, 1980; J.D., Harvard University, 1984. Drake Law Review Summer 06
There is an emerging view of the role of courts in the sexual orientation domain that echoes Professor Gerald Rosenberg's landmark book, The Hollow hope. n9 This view is distinctly skeptical about the prospects of courts accomplishing much reform in the area of gay rights. n10 *863 It should not be confused with normative critiques of "activist courts" made by those who object to same-sex marriage or other gay rights. n11 The skepticism inspired by The Hollow hope is empirical in nature and often made by those evincing no particular hostility to gay rights. n12 The thinking goes roughly like this: courts cannot produce significant change, only legislatures can. Legislators, who are politically accountable, will act in ways that are consistent with public opinion. By contrast, courts may get out too far in front of public opinion and, when they do, backlash is sure to follow. Against this background, count my Essay as a plea for caution and context. The question whether courts can, or do, produce social change on sexual orientation issues is a question that is, on closer analysis, too crude to be all that useful. I will suggest that rather than staking out broad claims or pursuing unbroken causal arrows, scholars ought to bring into focus the variability, contingency, and complexity that presents itself as we try to map the relationship between courts and social change in the area of gay rights. True, any romanticized picture of judges as countermajoritarian revolutionaries, single-handedly making public policy more progressive, is empirically unsustainable. But we should not replace one piece of mythology with another. The notion that the institutional properties of courts disable them from ever driving social change in a significant way has its own caricatured qualities.

C. Internal Link- Courts Wreck movements

    Judicial review produces divide and conquer
    Becker 93 (Mary, Prof of Law @ University of Chicago Law School; 64 U. Colo. L. Rev. 975 ln)
    Binding judicial review can impede political movements even when the Supreme Court does not actually block success. The relegation of high matters, such as sexual equality, to the courts saps political movements of their strength, particularly after ineffective victories. 76 At the same time, judicial review can mobilize the opposition, and the Court itself will be influenced by the resulting political climate, a climate it has helped create. When ineffective judicial victories weaken a movement, there may be less grass-roots pressure for change. Yet, real change in the relationship between the sexes is unlikely without change at the grass-roots level. Decisions from on high are unlikely to transform intimate relationships. Judicial victories protecting one or some outsider groups, but not all such groups, also interfere with the development of effective coalitions. This may be most harmful to the most vulnerable groups, such as lesbians, bisexuals, and gay men. Real or perceived judicial protection of less marginal groups, such as straight women or racial minorities, may mean that these groups are less likely to form effective coalitions with the more marginal groups. Judicial review is, therefore, a "divide and conquer" strategy.
    2. Perceived victories cause mass movement deflation
    Rosenberg 8 (Gerald N., University of Chicago political science and law professor, Ph.D. from Yale University, member of the Washington, D.C. bar, The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change?, p. 422-423)
    In contrast to this conclusion, it might be suggested that throughout this book I have asked too much of courts.  After all, in all the cases examined, court decisions produced some change, however small.  Given that political action appeared impossible in many instances, such as with civil rights in the 1950s, same-sex marriage in the 1990s, and reform of the criminal justice system more generally, isn’t some positive change better than none?  In a world of unlimited resources, this would be the case.  In the world in which those seeking significant social reform live, however, strategic choices have costs, and a strategy that produces little or not change and induces backlash drains resources that could be more effectively employed in other strategies.  In addition, vindication of constitutional principles accompanied by small change may be mistaken for widespread significant social reform, inducing reformers to relax their efforts.
    D. Impacts
    LGBTQ Rights are crucial to avoid extinction Tatchell ’89
    Peter Tatchell - is a British human rights campaignerbest known for his work with LGBT social movements, was selected as Labour Party Parliamentary candidate for Bermondsey. “Gay Liberation is Central to Human Emancipation.” Peter Tatchell.net. However, note at the bottom: “An edited version of this article was published in "Labour Briefing", 1989. See also "Beyond lesbian and gay rights", Interlink. May /June 1989.” http://www.petertatchell.net/masculinity/gay_liberation.htm JJN *bracketed for offensive language
    Lesbian and gay LGTBQ liberation is of critical importance to the broader project of human emancipation. It is not merely a minority issue, nor purely a question of civil rights and sexual freedom. The ultimate aim is a cultural revolution to end heterosexual supremacism and the concomitant cult of heterosexual masculinity which underpins all relations of oppression and exploitation. This was the revolutionary agenda of the lesbian and gay liberation movement which emerged 20 years ago following the Stonewall Riots in New York in June 1969. In contrast to earlier liberal-oriented movements for homosexual equality, the lesbian and gay liberation movement did not seek to ape heterosexual values or secure the acceptance of homosexuals within the existing sexual conventions. Indeed, it repudiated the prevailing sexual morality and institutions - rejecting not only heterosexism but also heterosexual masculinity with its oppressive predisposition to rivalry, toughness and aggression (most potently symbolised by the rapist and the queer-basher). In contrast the "radical drag" and''gender-bender" politics of the Gay Liberation Front glorified male gentleness. It was a conscious, if sometimes exaggerated, attempt to renounce the oppressiveness of masculinity and subvert the way masculinity functions to buttress the subordination of women and gay men. Lesbian and gay liberation is therefore truly revolutionary because it specifically rejects the male heterosexual cult of masculine competitiveness, domination and violence. Instead, it affirms the worthwhileness of male sensitivity and affection between men and, in the case of lesbians, the intrinsic value of an eroticism and love independent of heterosexual men. By challenging heterosexual masculinity, the politics of lesbian and gay liberation has profound radical implications for oppressed peoples everywhere: it actively subverts the male heterosexual machismo' values which lie at the heart of all systems of domination, exploitation and oppression. Lesbian and gay liberation is therefore not an issue which is peripheral. It is, indeed absolutely central to revolutionary change and human liberation in general. Without the successful construction of a cult of heterosexual masculinity and a mass of aggressive male egos, neither sexual, class, racial, species, nor imperialist oppression are possible. All these different forms of oppression depend on two factors for their continued maintenance. First, on specific economic and political structures. And second, on a significant proportion of the population, mainly heterosexual men, being socialised into the acceptance of harsh masculine values which involve the legitimisation of aggression and the suppression of gentleness and emotion. The embracing of these culturally-conditioned macho values, whether consciously or unconsciously, is what makes so many millions of people able to participate in repressive regimes. (This interaction between social structures, ideology and individual psychology was a thesis which the communist psychologist, Wilhelm Reich, was attempting to articulate nearly 60 years ago in his book, The Mass Psychology of Fascism). In the case of German fascism, what Nazism did was merely awake and excite the latent brutality which is intrinsic to heterosexual masculinity in class societies. It then systematically manipulated and organised this unleashed masculine violence into a fascist regime of terror and torture which culminated in the holocaust. Since it is the internalisation of the masculine cult of toughness and domination which makes people psychologically suited and willing to be part of oppressive relations of exploitation and subjection, repressive states invariably glorify masculine "warrior" ideals and legally and ideologically suppress those men - mainly homosexuals - who fail to conform to them. Given that this internalisation of masculine aggression within the male population is a prerequisite for injustice and tyranny, love and tenderness between men ceases to be a purely private matter or simply a question of personal lifestyle. Instead, it objectively becomes an act of subversion which undermines the very foundations of oppression. Hence the Nazis' vilification of gay men as "sexual subversives" and "sexual saboteurs" who, in the words of Heinrich Himmler, had to be "exterminated- root and branch." In conclusion: the goal of eradicating injustice and exploitation requires us to change both the social structure and the individual personality to create people who, liberated from masculinity, no longer psychologically crave the power to dominate and exploit others and who are therefore unwilling to be the agents of oppressive regimes (whether as soldiers, police, gaolers and censors or as routine civil servants and state administrators who act as the passive agents of repression by keeping the day-to-day machinery of unjust government ticking over). By challenging the cult of heterosexual masculinity, lesbian and gay liberation politics is about much more than the limited agenda of human rights. It offers a unique and revolutionary contribution to the emancipation of the whole of humanity from all forms of oppression and subjugation.