Tournament: Harvard Westlake | Round: Quads | Opponent: ANy | Judge: ANy
CP – Revenge Porn
CP Text: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech except for revenge pornography.
Counter plan is mutually exclusive – the plan allows revenge porn on college campuses because it’s constitutionally protected meaning perms are severance.
The distribution of revenge pornography is constitutionally protected speech – aff allows it on college campuses.
Goldberg 16 Erica Goldberg Columbia Law Review Volume 116, No. 3 April 2016 "FREE SPEECH CONSEQUENTIALISM"
States have begun to criminalize the publication of nude photos if the person publishing the photos knows or should have known that the subject of the image did not consent to the disclosure.296 Virginia law- makers introduced legislation, for example, that would criminalize pub- lishing sexually explicit pictures of someone without permission and with "the intent to cause them substantial emotional distress."297 A California defendant was convicted of felony charges of identity theft and extortion, for running a revenge porn website where he made aggrieved ex-lovers pay to have their photos removed from his site.298 His lawyer argued that although his behavior was immoral and offensive, he did not break any laws by allowing others to post sexually explicit photographs.299 The regulation of revenge porn presents thorny First Amendment issues, even though the speech is considered both highly injurious and of low value.300 Some argue that revenge porn can be regulated as obscenity,301 but, like much pornography, sexually explicit speech that does not rise to the level of obscenity is still protected speech.302 Criminal statutes and torts based on the invasion of privacy and emotional distress caused by revenge porn compromise the freedom to distribute protected speech lawfully obtained. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized a right for the media to publish even unlawfully obtained content, so long as the publisher was not involved in the illegal so long as the publisher was not involved in the illegal conduct that produced the content.303 And in United States v. Stevens , the Supreme Court held that individuals cannot be held criminally liable for distributing speech depicting illegal acts, so long as the individuals did not perpetrate the underlying act.304 Revenge porn, as defined here, is both legally obtained and depicts a legal act. In the ultimate articulation of free speech consequentialism, Mary Anne Franks argues for criminalization of revenge porn because "some expressions of free speech are just considered so socially harmful and don't contribute any benefits to society."305 Yet this does not separate revenge porn from any number of categories of protected speech that may cause others emotional distress and are considered by some to pos- sess little value; this is nothing more than a call for judges to make whole- sale and retail judgments about the value and harms that flow from particular forms of speech. If revenge porn can be regulated, legislators should not target the victim's emotional distress or the invasion of pri- vacy, as these focal points threaten to undermine strong free speech pro- tections exceptional to America's free speech regime.
CP solves – deters perpetrators and creates a cultural shift.
Citron 14 Danielle Keats Citron, Mary Anne Franks"CRIMINALIZING REVENGE PORN" 4/21/2014 https://www.law.yale.edu/system/files/area/center/isp/documents/danielle_citron_-_criminalizing_revenge_porn_-_fesc.pdf
As this discussion shows, civil law cannot meaningfully deter and redress revenge porn. We now turn to the potential for a criminal law response. III. CRIMINAL LAW’S POTENTIAL TO COMBAT REVENGE PORN A criminal law solution is essential to deter judgment-proof perpetrators. As attorney and revenge porn expert Erica Johnstone puts it, “even if people aren’t afraid of being sued because they have nothing to lose, they are afraid of being convicted of a crime because that shows up on their record forever.”68 Nonconsensual pornography’s rise is surely related to the fact that malicious actors have little incentive to refrain from such behavior. While some critics believe that existing criminal law adequately addresses nonconsensual pornography, this Part highlights how existing criminal law fails to address most cases of revenge porn. A. The Importance of Criminal Law Criminal law has long prohibited privacy invasions and certain violations of autonomy. Criminal law is essential to send the clear message to potential perpetrators that nonconsensual pornography inflicts grave privacy and autonomy harms that have real consequences and penalties.69 While we share general concerns about over-incarceration, rejecting the criminalization of serious harms is not the way to address those concerns. We are also sensitive to objections that criminalizing revenge porn might reinforce the harmful and erroneous perception that women should be ashamed of their bodies or their sexual activities, but maintain that recognizing and protecting sexual autonomy does exactly the opposite.70 A criminal law solution would send the message that individuals’ bodies (mostly female bodies) are their own and that society recognizes the grave harms that flow from turning individuals into objects of pornography without their consent. In this way, a criminal law approach will help us conceptualize the involuntary publication of someone’s sexually explicit images as a form of sexual assault. When sexual abuse is inflicted on an individual’s physical body, it is considered rape or sexual assault. The fact that nonconsensual pornography does not involve physical contact does not change the fact that it is a form of sexual abuse. Federal and state criminal laws regarding voyeurism demonstrate that physical contact is not necessary to cause great harm and suffering. Video voyeurism laws punish the nonconsensual recording of a person in a state of undress in places where individuals enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy. 71 Criminal laws prohibiting voyeurism rest on the commonly accepted assumption that observing a person in a state of undress or engaged in sexual activity without that person’s consent not only inflicts dignitary harms upon the individual observed, but also inflicts a social harm serious enough to warrant criminal prohibition and punishment. International criminal law provides precedent and perspective on this issue. Both the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (“ICTR”) and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (“ICTY”) have employed a definition of sexual violence that does not require physical contact. In both tribunals, forced nudity was found to be a form of sexual violence.72 In the Akayesu case, the ICTR found that “sexual violence is not limited to physical invasion of the human body and may include acts which do not involve penetration or even physical contact.” 73 In the Furundzija case, the ICTY similarly found that international criminal law punishes not only rape, but also “all serious abuses of a sexual nature inflicted upon the physical and moral integrity of a person by means of coercion, threat of force or intimidation in a way that is degrading and humiliating for the victim’s dignity.”74  The legal and social condemnation of child pornography exemplifies our collective understanding that the production, viewing, and distribution of certain kinds of sexual images are harmful. In New York v. Ferber,75 the United States Supreme Court recognized that the distribution of child pornography is distinct from the underlying crime of the sexual abuse of children.76 The Court observed that “the distribution of photographs and films depicting sexual activity by juveniles . . . is a permanent record of the children’s participation and the harm to the child is exacerbated by their circulation.”77 When images and videos of sexual assaults and surreptitious observation are distributed and consumed, they inflict further harms on the victims and on society connected to, but distinct from, the criminal acts to which the victims were originally subjected.78 The trafficking of this material increases the demand for images and videos that exploit the individuals portrayed. This is why the Court in Ferber held that it is necessary to shut down the “distribution network” of child pornography to reduce the sexual exploitation of children: “The most expeditious if not the only practical method of law enforcement may be to dry up the market for this material by imposing severe criminal penalties on persons selling, advertising, or otherwise promoting the product.”79 Nonconsensual pornography raises similar concerns. Disclosing sexually explicit images without permission can have lasting and destructive consequences. Victims often feel shame and humiliation every time they see them and every time they think that others are viewing them. Consider the experience of sports reporter Erin Andrews. After a stalker secretly taped her while she undressed in her hotel room, he posted as many as ten videos of her online.80 Google Trends data suggested that just after the release of the videos, much of the nation began looking for some variation of “Erin Andrews peephole video.”81 Nearly nine months later, Andrews explained: “I haven’t stopped being victimized—I’m going to have to live with this forever . . . . When I have kids and they have kids, I’ll have to explain to them why this is on the Internet.”82 She further lamented that when she walks into football stadiums to report on a game, she faces the taunts of fans who have seen her naked online.83 She explained that she “felt like she was continuing to be victimized” each time she talked about it.84 Andrews’s experience is echoed by that of Lena Chen, who allowed her ex-boyfriend to take pictures of them having sex. 85 After he betrayed her trust and posted the pictures online, the pictures went viral.86 As Chen explained, feeling ashamed of her sexuality was not something that came naturally to her, but it is now something she knows inside and out. 87 Victims of nonconsensual pornography are harmed each time a person views or shares their intimate images. B. Current Criminal Law’s Limits Existing federal and state criminal laws have limited application to the initial posters of nonconsensual pornography and the laws have even less force with regard to site operators. This Subpart first explores the potential of criminal harassment statutes in pursuing the original discloser. Then, it turns to the possibility of extortion and child pornography charges against revenge porn site operators.
Revenge porn causes chilling effect for victims who are afraid to speak out and are silenced. Causes psychological and irreversible violence to victims.  
Citron 14 Danielle Keats Citron Mary Anne Franks 2014 "CRIMINALIZING REVENGE PORN" Wake Forest Law Review digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2424andcontext=fac_pubs
Victims’ fear can be profound. They do not feel safe leaving their homes. Jane, for example, did not go to work for days after she discovered the postings.30 Hollie Toups, a thirty-three-year-old teacher’s aide, explained that she was afraid to leave her home after someone posted her nude photograph, home address, and Facebook profile on a porn site.31 “I don’t want to go out alone,” she explained, “because I don’t know what might happen.” 32 Victims struggle especially with anxiety, and some suffer panic attacks. Anorexia nervosa and depression are common ailments for individuals who are harassed online.33 Researchers have found that cyber harassment victims’ anxiety grows more severe over time.34 Victims have difficulty thinking positive thoughts and doing their work. According to a study conducted by the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, over 80 of revenge porn victims experience severe emotional distress and anxiety.35 Revenge porn is often a form of domestic violence. Frequently, the intimate images are themselves the result of an abuser’s coercion of a reluctant partner.36 In numerous cases, abusers have threatened to disclose intimate images of their partners when victims attempt to leave the relationship.37 Abusers use the threat of disclosure to keep their partners under their control, making good on the threat once their partners find the courage to leave. The professional costs of revenge porn are steep. Because Internet searches of victims’ names prominently display their naked images or videos, many lose their jobs. Schools have terminated teachers whose naked pictures appeared online. A government agency ended a woman’s employment after a coworker circulated her nude photograph to colleagues.38 Victims may be unable to find work at all. Most employers rely on candidates’ online reputations as an employment screen. According to a 2009 study commissioned by Microsoft, nearly 80 of employers consult search engines to collect intelligence on job applicants, and, about 70 of the time, they reject applicants due to their findings.39 Common reasons for not interviewing and hiring applicants include concerns about their “lifestyle,” “inappropriate” online comments, and “unsuitable” photographs, videos, and information about them.40 Recruiters do not contact victims to see if they posted the nude photos of themselves or if someone else did in violation of their trust. The “simple but regrettable truth is that after consulting search results, employers don’t call revenge porn victims to schedule” interviews or to extend offers. 41 Employers do not want to hire individuals whose search results might reflect poorly on the employer. 42 To avoid further abuse, targeted individuals withdraw from online activities, which can be costly in many respects. Closing down one’s blog can mean a loss of income and other career opportunities.43 In some fields, blogging is key to getting a job. According to technology blogger Robert Scoble, people who do not blog are “never going to be included in the technology industry.” 44 When victims shut down their profiles on social media platforms like Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter, they are saddled with low social media influence scores that can impair their ability to obtain employment.45 Companies like Klout measure people’s online influence by looking at their number of social media followers, updates, likes, retweets, and shares. Not uncommonly, employers refuse to hire individuals with low social media influence scores. 46 Aside from these traditional harms, revenge porn can also amount to a degrading form of sexual harassment. It exposes victims’ sexuality in humiliating ways. Victims’ naked photos appear on slut-shaming47 sites, such as Cheaterville.com and MyEx.com. Once their naked images are exposed, anonymous strangers can send e-mail messages that threaten rape. Some have said: “First I will rape you, then I’ll kill you.” 48 Victims internalize these frightening and demeaning messages.49 Women would more likely suffer harm as a result of the posting of their naked images than their male counterparts. Gender stereotypes help explain why—women would be seen as immoral sluts for engaging in sexual activity, whereas men’s sexual activity is generally a point of pride.50 While nonconsensual pornography can affect both men and women, empirical evidence indicates that nonconsensual pornography primarily affects women and girls. In a study conducted by the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, 90 of those victimized by revenge porn were female.51 Nonconsensual pornography, like rape, domestic violence, and sexual harassment, belongs to the category of violence that violates legal and social commitments to equality. It denies women and girls control over their own bodies and lives. Not only does it inflict serious and, in many cases, irremediable injury on individual victims, it constitutes a vicious form of sex discrimination.
DA – Hate Speech
The only constitutionally protected speech that universities restrict is hate speech regulated by speech codes- means that the only thing that the aff does is allow hate speech.
Moore 16 Social Studies Research and Practice www.socstrp.org  Volume 11 Number 1 112 Spring 2016  You Cannot Say That in American Schools: Attacks on the First Amendment James R. Moore Cleveland State University
The first amendment, a crucial component of American constitutional law, is under attack from various groups advocating for censorship in universities and public schools. The censors assert that restrictive speech codes preventing anyone from engaging in any expression deemed hateful, offensive, defamatory, insulting, or critical of sacred religious or political beliefs and values are necessary in a multicultural society. These speech codes restrict critical comments about race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, physical characteristics, and other traits in the name of tolerance, sensitivity, and respect. Many hate speech codes are a violation of the first amendment and have been struck down by federal and state courts. They persist in jurisdictions where they have been ruled unconstitutional; most universities and public schools have speech codes. This assault on the first amendment might be a concern to all citizens, especially university professors and social studies educators responsible for teaching students about the democratic ideals enshrined in our constitution. Teachers should resist unconstitutional speech codes and teach their students that the purpose of the first amendment is to protect radical, offensive, critical, and controversial speech. The first amendment in the Bill of Rights, the foundation of individual freedom in the United States, protecting the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. These basic freedoms, derived from Enlightenment philosophy and codified in the world’s oldest written constitution, have been an essential characteristic of American democracy and law since 1791. This is continuity considering “between 1971 and 1990, 110 of the world’s 162 national constitutions were either written or extensively rewritten” (Haynes, Chaltain, Ferguson, Hudson, and Thomas, 2003, p. 9). The first amendment has been the conduit employed by U.S. citizens to create an increasingly free and just society based on the constitutional ideals of equality before the law, popular sovereignty, limited government, checks and balances, federalism, and individual liberties (Center for Civic Education, 2009). Advocates for the abolition of slavery and the expansion of civil rights were able, after long struggles, to achieve their goals of expanding freedom and social justice by using their natural rights to free expression and religious liberty (Dye, 2011).  Since no constitutional liberty or right is absolute, American institutions continuously debate the definitions, limitations, and exceptions to these fundamental rights based on social, political, and technological changes. This task has been exacerbated by increasing cultural diversity and technological changes (the Internet and social media) that expand communication. In addition, efforts by some people to censor language in the name of tolerance and respect for diversity have increased in recent years (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, 2013, p.4). The first amendment is the world’s oldest written safeguard for freedom of expression—this includes allowing blasphemy and expression that may be radical, offensive, controversial, ignorant, and militantly bigoted—and is the cornerstone of participatory democracy (Haynes et al., 2003). The first amendment is under constant attack from some religious organizations, political action groups, ethnically-based activist groups, and, most alarmingly, from American public universities that severely restrict freedom of expression and public debate (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, 2013; Haynes, 2013; Hudson, 2011). The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (2013) found “62 of universities (254 out of 409 universities in the survey) maintain severely restrictive red-light speech codes – policies that clearly and substantially prohibit protected speech” (p. 4). Many Americans do not understand, or do not accept, that the first amendment protects unpopular, offensive, controversial, and radical speech; this includes making hateful statements about race, gender, religion, and any other topic the speaker wishes to address (Haynes et al., 2003; Marshall and Shea, 2011; Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 2010). Many hate speech codes, thus, often are defined “as hostile or prejudicial attitudes expressed toward another person’s or group’s characteristics, notably sex, race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation” (Dye 2011, p. 508). The hate speech instituted in American universities and Kindergarten-12 schools are often, albeit well-intended, violations of the First Amendment (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education; Haynes, 2013; Saxe V. State College Area School District, 2001).

Hate speech is permissible under the first amendment despite the exceptions
Volokh 15 Eugene Volokh, Law Professor at UCLA, “No, there’s no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment,” The Washington Post, May 7, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?utm_term=.9e1ed85e9262  
I keep hearing about a supposed “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment, or statements such as, “This isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech,” or “When does free speech stop and hate speech begin?” But there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas. One is as free to condemn Islam — or Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, or whites, or illegal aliens, or native-born citizens — as one is to condemn capitalism or Socialism or Democrats or Republicans. To be sure, there are some kinds of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. But those narrow exceptions have nothing to do with “hate speech” in any conventionally used sense of the term. For instance, there is an exception for “fighting words” — face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight. But this exception isn’t limited to racial or religious insults, nor does it cover all racially or religiously offensive statements. Indeed, when the City of St. Paul tried to specifically punish bigoted fighting words, the Supreme Court held that this selective prohibition was unconstitutional (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)), even though a broad ban on all fighting words would indeed be permissible.
Hate speech leads to a genocidal increase in crimes against marginalized groups.  
Greenblatt 15 Jonathan Greenblatt, When Hateful Speech Leads to Hate Crimes: Taking Bigotry Out of the Immigration Debate, Huffington Post, 8/21/15, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-greenblatt/when-hateful-speech-leads_b_8022966.html
When police arrived at the scene in Boston, they found a Latino man shaking on the ground, his face apparently soaked in urine, with a broken nose. His arms and chest had been beaten. One of the two brothers arrested and charged with the hate crime reportedly told police, “Donald Trump was right — all these illegals need to be deported.” The victim, a homeless man, was apparently sleeping outside of a subway station in Dorchester when the perpetrators attacked. His only offense was being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The brothers reportedly attacked him for who he was — simply because he was Latino. In recent weeks anti-immigrant — and by extension anti-Latino — rhetoric has reached a fever pitch. Immigrants have been smeared as “killers” and “rapists.” They have been accused of bringing drugs and crime. A radio talk show host in Iowa has called for enslavement of undocumented immigrants if they do not leave within 60 days. There have been calls to repeal the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of citizenship to people born in the United States, with allegations that people come here to have so-called “anchor babies.” And the terms “illegal aliens” and “illegals” — which many mainstream news sources wisely rejected years ago because they dehumanize and stigmatize people — have resurged. The words used on the campaign trail, on the floors of Congress, in the news, and in all our living rooms have consequences. They directly impact our ability to sustain a society that ensures dignity and equality for all. Bigoted rhetoric and words laced with prejudice are building blocks for the pyramid of hate. Biased behaviors build on one another, becoming ever more threatening and dangerous towards the top. At the base is bias, which includes stereotyping and insensitive remarks. It sets the foundation for a second, more complex and more damaging layer: individual acts of prejudice, including bullying, slurs and dehumanization. Next is discrimination, which in turn supports bias-motivated violence, including apparent hate crimes like the tragic one in Boston. And in the most extreme cases if left unchecked, the top of the pyramid of hate is genocide. Just like a pyramid, the lower levels support the upper levels. Bias, prejudice and discrimination — particularly touted by those with a loud megaphone and cheering crowd — all contribute to an atmosphere that enables hate crimes and other hate-fueled violence. The most recent hate crime in Boston is just one of too many. In fact, there is a hate crime roughly every 90 minutes in the United States today. That is why last week ADL announced a new initiative, #50StatesAgainstHate, to strengthen hate crimes laws around the country and safeguard communities vulnerable to hate-fueled attacks. We are working with a broad coalition of partners to get the ball rolling.

T – Any
Interpretation—the affirmative must defend not restricting any and all constitutionally protected speech—to clarify, they may not specify a constitutionally protected speech.

“Any” is an indefinite pronoun that refers to things generally.
1-language.com no date
Online English grammar textbook, Unit 42: - Indefinite Pronouns,” http://www.1-language.com/englishcoursenew/unit42_grammar.htm
Indefinite pronouns replace specific things with general, non-specific concepts. For example: - I want to live abroad in Italy. - I want to live abroad somewhere. This unit covers indefinite pronouns made with some, any, no, and every. Some / any Some and any can be combined with "-thing" to refer to an undefined object. For example: - There's someone outside the door. - There isn't anyone in the office. Some and any can be combined with "-where" to refer to an undefined location. For example: - I'm looking for somewhere to live. - We don't want to live anywhere near here. Some and any can be combined with "-body" or "-one" to refer to an undefined person. There is very little difference in meaning between "-body" and "-one". For example: - If you have a problem, someone/somebody will help you. - Do you know anyone/anybody who can help? These compound nouns follow the same rules as some and any, that is some is used in affirmative statements, and any is used in negative statements and questions. For example: - I need something from the supermarket. - I don't need anything from the supermarket. - Do you need anything from the supermarket?
Google Dictionary defines “not” as https://www.google.com/search?q=not+definitionandoq=not+definitionandaqs=chrome.0.0l6.2170j0j7andsourceid=chromeandie=UTF-8 “used with an auxiliary verb or “be” to form the negative.”
Google Dictionary defines “any” as
https://www.google.com/search?q=not+definitionandoq=not+definitionandaqs=chrome.0.0l6.2170j0j7andsourceid=chromeandie=UTF-8#q=any+definition
 “whichever of a specified class might be chosen.”

Title IX DA
State cuts have led tuition to spike harming the ability to students to enter college, especially those who come from low income backgrounds or are people of color – The impact is a blow to the national economy because a college degree is a crucial internal link to working in a skilled job, decreasing health care costs, and bringing greater wealth to local communities
Mitchell et al 16 (Report published by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; authors were Michael Mitchell (State Budget and Tax), Michael Leachman (State Budget and Tax), and Kathleen Masterson, “Funding Down, Tuition Up: State Cuts to Higher Education Threaten Quality and Affordability at Public Colleges”, http://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/funding-down-tuition-up,
Years of cuts in state funding for public colleges and universities have driven up tuition and harmed students’ educational experiences by forcing faculty reductions, fewer course offerings, and campus closings. These choices have made college less affordable and less accessible for students who need degrees to succeed in today’s economy. Though some states have begun to restore some of the deep cuts in financial support for public two-and four-year colleges since the recession hit, their support remains far below previous levels. In total, after adjusting for inflation, funding for public two-and four-year colleges is nearly $10 billion below what it was just prior to the recession. As states have slashed higher education funding, the price of attending public colleges has risen significantly faster than the growth in median income. For the average student, increases in federal student aid and the availability of tax credits have not kept up, jeopardizing the ability of many to afford the college education that is key to their long-term financial success. States that renew their commitment to a high-quality, affordable system of public higher education by increasing the revenue these schools receive will help build a stronger middle class and develop the entrepreneurs and skilled workers that are needed in the new century. Of the states that have finalized their higher education budgets for the current school year, after adjusting for inflation: Forty-six states – all except Montana, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming – are spending less per student in the 2015-2016 yeah than they did before the recession. States cut funding deeply after the recession hit. The average state is spending $1,598, or 18 percent, less per student than before the recession. Per-student funding in nine states – Alabama, Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina – is down by more than 30 percent since the start of the recession. In 12 states, per-student funding fell over the last year. Of these four states – Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, and Vermont – have cut per-student higher education funding for the last two consecutive years. In the last year, 38 states increased funding per student. Per-student funding rose $199, or 2.8 percent, nationally. Deep state funding cuts have had major consequences for public colleges and universities. States (and to a lesser extend localities) provide roughly 54 percent of the costs of teaching and instruction at these schools. Schools have made up the difference with tuition increases, cuts to educational or other services, or both. Since the recession took hold, higher education institutions have: Increased tuition. Public colleges and universities across the country have increased tuition to compensate for declining state funding and rising costs. Annual published tuition at four-year public colleges has risen by $2,333, or 33 percent, since the 2007-08 school year. In Arizona, published tuition at four-year schools is up nearly 90 percent, while in six other states – Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, and Louisiana – published tuition is up more than 60 percent. These sharp tuition increases have accelerated longer-term trends of college becoming less affordable and costs shifting from states to students. Over the last 20 years, the price of attending a four-year public college or university has grown significantly faster than the median income. Although federal student aid and tax credits have risen, on average they have fallen short of covering the tuition increases. Diminished academic opportunities and student services. Tuition increases have compensated for only part of the revenue loss resulting from state funding cuts. Over the past several years, public colleges and universities have cut faculty positions, eliminated course offerings, closed campuses, and reduced student services, among other cuts. A large and growing share of future jobs will require college-educated workers. Sufficient public investment in higher education to keep quality high and tuition affordable, and to provide financial aid to students who need it most, would help states develop the skilled and diverse workforce they will need to compete for these jobs. Sufficient public investment can only occur, however, if policymakers make sound tax and budget decisions. State revenues have improved significantly since the depths of the recession but are still only modestly above pre-recession levels. To make college more affordable and increase access to higher education, many states need to supplement that revenue growth with new revenue to fully make up for years of severe cuts. But just as the opportunity to invest is emerging, lawmakers in a number of states are jeopardizing it by entertaining tax cuts that in many cases would give the biggest breaks to the wealthiest taxpayers. In recent years, states such as Wisconsin, Louisiana, and Arizona have enacted large-scale tax cuts that limit resources available for higher education. And in Illinois and Pennsylvania ongoing attempts to find necessary resources after large tax cuts threaten current and future higher education funding. State and local tax revenue is a major source of support for public colleges and universities. Unlike private institutions, which rely more heavily on charitable donations and large endowments to help fund instruction, public two-and four-year colleges typically rely heavily on state and local appropriations. In 2015, state and local dollars constituted 54 percent of the funds these institutions used directly for teaching and instruction. While states have begun to restore funding, resources are well below what they were in 2008 – 18 percent per student lower – even as state revenues have returned to pre-recession levels. (See Figures 1 and 2.) In the states that have finalized their higher education budgets for the current 2015-16 school year compared with the 2007-08 school year, when the recession hit, adjusted for inflation: States spending on higher education nationwide is down an average $1,598 per student, or 18 percent. In only four states – Montana, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming – is per-student funding now above its 2008 pre-recession levels. 26 states have cut funding per student by more than 20 percent. Nine states have cut funding per student by more than 30 percent. Arizona and Illinois have cut funding by more than half. Over the past year, most states increased per-student funding for their public higher education systems. (See Figures 3 and 4.) Thirty-eight states are investing more per student in the 2015-16 school year than they did in 2014-15. Nationally, spending is up an average of $199 per student, or 2.8 percent. The funding increases vary from $13 per student in Missouri to $1,730 in Wyoming. 15 states increased per-student funding by more than 5 percent. Five states – Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming – increased funding by more than 10 percent. But this trend is far from universal. In 12 states, per-student funding fell over the last year – declining, on average, 8.8 percent or by more than $516 per student. Funding cuts vary from $20 per student in New Jersey to $1,746 in Illinois. Six states – Alaska, Arizona, Illinois, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Wisconsin – cut funding by more than $250 per student over the past year. Four states – Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, and Vermont – have cut per-student higher education funding for the last two years. Reductions in support for public colleges reflect in part the strategy that many states chose during the deep national recession and slow recovery. State tax revenues fell sharply during the Great Recession. The recession of 2007-09 led to record-breaking declines in state revenues, and the slow recovery continues to affect them. High unemployment and a slow recovery in housing values left people with less income and less purchasing power. As a result, states took in less from income tax and sales tax, their main sources of revenue for funding education and other services. By the fourth quarter of 2015, eight years after the recession hit, total state tax revenues were just 6.4 percent greater than they were at the start of the recession after adjusting for inflation. Many states chose to close their budget deficits through sizeable budget cuts rather than a more balanced mix of spending reductions and revenue increases. States relied disproportionately on damaging cuts to deal with declining revenue over the course of the recession Between fiscal years 2008 and 2012, states made up 45 percent of the loss in revenue through reducing support for public services – and only 16 percent through increases in taxes and fees. (They closed the remainder of their shortfalls with federal aid, reserves, and various other measures.) States would have lessened the deep cuts to higher education if they had been more willing to raise additional revenue. Meanwhile, college enrollment has risen. Public higher education institutions must educate more students, raising costs. Enrollment in public higher education was up by nearly 900,000 full-time-equivalent students, or 8.6 percent, between the beginning of the recession and the 2013-14 academic year (the latest year for which there are actual data). The recession played a large role in swelling enrollment numbers, particularly at community colleges, as many high school graduates chose college over dim employment prospects and older workers returned to retool and gain new skills. Other areas of state budgets also are under pressure. For example, an estimated 803,000 more K-12 students are enrolled in the current school year than in 2008. Long-term growth in state prison populations – with state facilities now housing nearly 1.56 million inmates – also continues to put pressure on state spending. In recent years states have modestly increased investment in two-and four-year colleges from their recession lows. As such, tuition hikes have been much smaller than they wee in the worst years of the recession. Published tuition – the “sticker price” – at public four-year institutions increased in 34 states over the past year, but only modestly. Average tuition increased $254, or 2.8 percent. Between last year and this year: Louisiana increased average tuition across its four-year institutions more than any other state, hiking it by more than 7 percent, or roughly $540. Nine states raised average tuition by more than 5 percent. In Washington State, tuition actually fell by nearly 4 percent. Nevertheless, tuition remains much higher than it was before the recession in most states. Since the 2007-08 school year, average annual published tuition has risen by $2,333 nationally, or 33 percent. (See Figures 5 and 6.) Steep tuition increases have been widespread, and average tuition at public four-year institutions, has increased by: more than 60 percent in seven states; more than 40 percent in 14 states; and more than 20 percent in 39 states. In Arizona, the state with the greatest tuition increases since the recession hit, tuition has risen 87.8 percent, or $4,978 per student. Average tuition at a four-year Arizona public university is now $10,646 a year. Tuition increases, while substantial in most states, have fallen far short nationally of fully replacing the per-student support that public colleges and universities have lost due to state funding cuts. In nearly half of the states, tuition increases between 2008 and 2015 have not fully offset cuts to state higher education funding. Because tuition increases have not fully compensated for the loss of state funding, and because most public schools do not have significant endowments of other sources of funding, many public colleges and universities have simultaneously reduced course offerings, student services, and other campus amenities. Data on spending at public institutions of higher learning in recent years are incomplete, but considerable evidence suggest that these actions by many public colleges and universities likely reduced the quality and availability of their academic offerings. For example, since the start of the recession, colleges and university systems in some states have eliminated administrative and faculty positions (in some instances replacing them with non-tenure-track staff), cut courses or increased class sizes, and in some cases, consolidated or eliminated whole programs, departments, or schools. Public colleges and universities continue to make these types of cuts, even as states have begun to reinvest in higher education. For example: The University of Alaska Fairbanks eliminated six degree offerings – including engineering management, science management, and philosophy. The University of Arizona cut 320 positions from its budget including layoffs, firings, and resignations, and increased class seizes for core undergraduate courses. In addition to laying off over 200 employees the university of Akron in Ohio eliminated its school baseball team. Facing large state funding cuts, the University of Wisconsin-Madison laid off or reduced staff and faculty vacancies by 400 slots and held faculty salaries level. Nationwide, employment at public colleges and universities has grown modestly since the start of the recession, but proportionally less than the growth in the number of students. Between 2008 and 2014, the number of full-time-equivalent instructional staff at public colleges and universities grew by about 7 percent, while the number of students at these institutions grew by 8.6 percent. In other words, the number of students per faculty member rose nationwide. Over time, students have assumed much greater responsibility for paying for public higher education. That’s because during and immediately following recessions, state and local funding for higher education has tended to fall, while tuition has tended to grow more quickly. During periods of economic growth, funding has tended to recover somewhat while tuition has stabilized at a higher level as a share of total higher educational funding. (See Figure 7.). In 1988, public colleges and universities received 3.2 times as much revenue from state and local governments as they did from students. They now receive about 1.2 times as much from states and localities as from students. Nearly every state has shifted costs to students over the last 25 years – with the most drastic shift occurring since the onset of the Great Recession. In 1988, average tuition amounts were larger than per-student state expenditures in only two states, New Hampshire and Vermont. By 2008, that number had grown to ten states. By 2008, that number had grown to ten states. In 2015 (the latest year for which there is data), tuition revenue was greater than state and local government funding for higher education in 22 states, with six – Colorado, Delaware, Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Vermont – requiring students and families to shoulder higher education costs by a ration of at least 2- to -1. The cost shift from states to students has happened over a period when absorbing additional expenses has been difficult for many families because their incomes have been stagnant or declining. In the 1970s and early-to mid-1980s, tuition and incomes both grew modestly faster than inflation; by the late 1980s, tuition began to rise much faster than incomes. (See Figure 8.) Since 1973, average inflation-adjusted public college tuition has increased by 274 percent while median household income has grown by only 7 percent. Over the past 40 years, the incomes of the top 1 percent of families have grown by almost 170 percent. This means that public college tuition has outpaced income growth for even the highest earners. The sharp tuition increases states have imposed since the recession have exacerbated the longer-term trend. Tuition jumped nearly 30 percent between the 2007-08 and 2014-15 school years, while real median income fell roughly 6.5 percent over the same time period. Rapidly rising tuition at a time of weak or declining income growth has damaging consequences for families, students, and the national economy. Tuition costs deter some students from enrolling in college. While the recession encouraged many students to enroll in higher education, the large tuition increases of the past few years may have prevented further enrollment gains. Rapidly rising tuition makes it less likely that students will attend college. Research has consistently found that college price increases result in declining enrollment. While many universities and the federal government provide financial aid to help students bear the price, research suggests that a high sticker price can dissuade students from enrolling even if the net price, including aid, doesn’t rise. Rising tuition may be harming students of color and reducing campus diversity. New research finds that rising tuition and fees jeopardize campus diversity at public four-year colleges as students of color are less likely to enroll as the cost of tuition goes up. “All else equal, a $1000 tuition increase for full-time undergraduate students is associated with a drop in campus diversity of almost 6 percent,” New York University researchers found in a 2015 study. Another study, which examined tuition policy changes in Texas in the early 2000s, concluded that rising tuition rates limited enrollment gains for Hispanic students in the state. The share of students coming from communities of color at public two-and four-year colleges had risen significantly in the years leading up to these tuition increases. State cuts to higher education, made up for with higher tuition rates, jeopardizes this trend. Tuition increases likely deter low-income students, in particular, from enrolling. College cost increases have the biggest impact on students from low-income families, research further shows. For example, a 1995 study by Harvard University researcher Thomas Kane concluded that states with the larges tuition increases during the 1980s and early 1990s “saw the greatest widening of the gaps in enrollment between high-and low-income youth.” The relative lack of knowledge among low-income families about the admissions and financial aid process may exacerbate these damaging effects. Students from families that struggle to get by – including those who live in communities with lower shares of college-educated adults and attend high schools that have higher student-to-counselor ratios tend to overestimate the true cost of higher education more than students from wealthier households in part because they are less aware of the financial aid for which they are eligible. These effects are particularly concerning because gaps in college enrollment between higher-and lower-income youth are already pronounced. In 2012, just over half of recent high school graduates from families with income in the lowest 20 percent enrolled in some form of postsecondary education, as opposed to 82 percent of students from the top 20 percent. Significant enrollment gaps based on income exist even among prospective students with similar academic records and test scores. Rapidly rising costs at public colleges and universities may widen these gaps further. Tuition increase may be pushing lower-income students toward less-selective public institutions, reducing their future earnings. Perhaps just as important as a student’s decision to enroll in higher education is the choice of which college to attend. A large share of high-achieving students from struggling families fail to apply to any selective colleges or universities, a 2013 Brookings Institution study found. Even here, research indicates that financial constraints and concerns about cost push lower-income students to narrow their list of potential schools and ultimately enroll in less-selective institutions. Another 2013 study found evidence that some high-achieving, low-income students are more likely to “undermatch” in their college choice in part due to financial constraints. Where a student decides to go to college has broad economic implications, especially for economically disadvantaged students and students of color. Students who had parents with less education, as well as African American and Latino students, experienced higher postgraduate earnings by attending more elite colleges relative to similar students who attended less-selective universities, a 2011 study by Stanford University and Mathematica Policy Research found. As tuition soared after the recession, federal financial aid also increased.  The Federal Pell Grant Program ― the nation’s primary source of student grant aid ― increased the amount of aid it distributed by just over 80 percent between the 2007-08 and 2014-15 school years.  This substantial boost has enabled the program not only to reach more students ― 2.7 million more students received Pell support last year than in 2008 ― but also to provide the average recipient with more support.  The average grant rose by 21 percent — to $3,673 from $3,028.44 The increase in federal financial aid has helped many students and families cover recent tuition hikes.  The College Board calculates that the annual value of grant aid and higher education tax benefits for students at four-year public colleges nationally has risen by an average of $1,410 in real terms since the 2007-08 school year, offsetting about 61 percent of the average $2,320 tuition increase.  For community colleges, increases in student aid have more than made up the difference, leading to a drop in net tuition for the average student.45  Since the sticker-price increases have varied so much from state to state while federal grant and tax-credit amounts are uniform across the country, students in states with large tuition increases ¾ such as Arizona, Georgia, and Louisiana ¾ likely still experienced substantial increases in their net tuition and fees, while the net cost for students in states with smaller tuition increases may have fallen. Financial aid provided bystates, however — which was far less than federal aid even before the recession — hasfallen on average.  In the 2007-2008 school year, state grant dollars equaled $740 per student.  By 2014, the latest year for which full data is available, that number had fallen to $710, a drop of roughly 4 percent.46 Federal financial aid has certainly lessened the impact of tuition and fee increases on students from families with low incomes.  However, the overall average cost of attending college has risen for these students, because room and board costs have increased, too.  As a result, the net cost of attendance at four-year public institutions for low-income students increased 12 percent from 2008 to 2012.  For those at public community colleges, the increase over the same time period was 4 percent.47   Because grants and tax credits rarely cover the full cost of college attendance, most students — students of color and low-income students in particular — borrow money.  In 2012, 79 percent of students from families whose incomes are in the lowest 25 percent graduating with a bachelor’s degree had student loans (compared with 55 percent of graduating students from families whose incomes are in the higher 25 percent).48 In the same year, more than four of every five African American students borrowed at public institutions (compared with 64 percent of graduating students overall).49 Further, the overall share of students graduating with debt has risen since the start of the recession.  Between the 2007-08 and 2013-14 school years, the share of students graduating with debt from a public four-year institution increased from 55 percent to 60 percent.  At the same time, the average amount of debt incurred by the average bachelor’s degree recipient with loans at a public four-year institution grew to $25,500 from $21,200 (in 2014 dollars), an increase of $4,300, or 18 percent.  By contrast, the average level of debt incurred had risen only about 1 percent in the six years prior to the recession.50 In short, at public four-year institutions, a greater share of students are taking on larger amounts of debt.  By the fourth quarter of 2015, students held $1.23 trillion in student debt — more than car loans and credit card debt combined.51 Yet, while college loan burdens have increased significantly for students at public four-year institutions, the significant run-up in debt levels has been driven in large part by a growing share of students attending private for-profit institutions — such as Corinthian and the University of Phoenix — and two-year community colleges.  In 2000, borrowers entering repayment on student loans from for-profit and two-year institutions made up roughly 30 percent of all borrowers overall, a study from the U.S. Treasury Department and Stanford University researchers found.  By 2011, these borrowers represented nearly half of all federal student loan borrowers entering repayment.  In fact, for-profit institutions have been such a driving force that in 2014, eight of the top ten and 13 of the top 25 institutions whose students owe (collectively) the most in federal student loan debt were for-profit institutions.  (See Table 1.)  In 2000, only one for-profit made the top 25 (the rest were either four-year public or private non-profit institutions).52 The reduced college access and graduation rates that research finds likely result from decreased state support for college hurt more than just students, because college attainment has grown increasingly important to long-term state and national economic outcomes. A college degree is increasingly a pre-requisite for professional success and for entry into the middle class or beyond. A young college graduate earns $12,000 a year more than someone who did not attend college. The benefits of academic attainment extend beyond those who receive a degree. Entire communities benefit when more residents have college degrees. For instance, higher educational attainment has been connected with lower rates of crime, greater levels of civic participation, and better health. Areas with highly educated residents tend to attract strong employers who pay their employees competitive wages. Those employees, in turn, buy goods and services from others in the community, broadly benefitting the area’s economy. As a result, the wages of workers at all levels of education are higher in metropolitan areas with high concentrations of college-educated residents, economist Enrico Moretti of the university of California at Berkeley finds. This implies that – even though not all good jobs require a college degree – having a highly educated workforce can boost an area’s economic success. The economic importance of higher education will continue to grow. In a 2013 report, researchers from the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce projected that by 2020, nearly two-thirds of all jobs will require at least some college education, up from 59 percent in 2007. The Georgetown Center further projects that, based on current trends – without significant new investment in capacity – the nation’s education system will not keep pace with the rising demand for educated workers. By 2020, the country’s system of higher education will produce 5 million fewer college graduates than the labor market will need. The increase in student debt in recent years also has important implications for the broader economy, most explicitly for students who incur the college debt but do not graduate. While debt is a crucial tool for financing higher education, excessive debt can impose considerable costs on both students and society as a whole. Research finds that higher student debt levels are associated with lower rates of homeownership among young adults; can create stresses that reduce the probability of graduation, particularly for students from lower-income families; and reduce the likelihood that graduates with majors in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics will go on to the further academic study that is often needed to obtain advanced positions in those fields. There is also growing concern that rising debt levels may be preventing some young adults from starting businesses. Many entrepreneurs rely heavily on personal debt to help launch their small businesses, and rising levels of student loan debt may make it more difficult to obtain loans or other lines of credit necessary for launching a startup. Looking at the period from 2000 to 2010, researchers from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia found that as student loan debt rose, net business formation of the smallest businesses – those employing four or fewer people – fell. These findings mean states should strive to expand college access and increase college graduation rates to help build a strong middle class and develop the entrepreneurs and skilled workers needed to compete in today’s global economy.  They suggest further that the severe higher education funding cuts that states have made since the start of the recession will make it more difficult to achieve those goals
The only thing keeping graduation rates stable is financial aid --- allows students to study full-time, encourages academic progress, and is the only way low-income students can afford to enroll
Johnson 14 (Hans Johnson – supported by the College Access Foundation of California and writing for the Public Policy Institute of California, “Making College Possible for Low-Income Students: Grant and Scholarship Aid in California”, http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_1014HJR.pdf, pg. 20-24,)
Students fail to complete college for many reasons, including financial constraints. Certainly it is well known that low-income students are less likely to finish college than other students, even accounting for differences in academic preparation and records. Surveys of students who drop out of college find that, indeed, financial constraints play an important role. In one survey, respondents not only cited the need to work as the primary reason for leaving college but also said that work and family commitments were the reasons for not being able to return to school. More than half of the respondents said that financial aid “that completely covered tuition and books” would induce them to return to school (Johnson et al. 2009). Studies on the direct effect of grant and scholarship aid on college completion also suggest that financial aid leads to increases in graduation rates. Assigning causality in such work is difficult, however, because students who apply for aid might be more motivated than others to earn a degree and because college prices and grant aid programs vary dramatically across colleges. In general, most studies find that grant aid for low-income students increases persistence rates by as much as 10 percentage points and completion rates by at least a few percentage points (Dynarski 2005; Deming and Dynarski 2009; Kuh et al. 2008).16 A rigorous study of Florida’s “Student Access Grant” found that students whose family income made them just barely eligible for the grant of $1,300 were four percentage points more likely to earn a bachelor’s degree within seven years than students who were ineligible for the grant because their income was just above the required level (28 versus 24; Castleman and Long 2013). Using data from the National Center for Education Statistics “Beginning Postsecondary Survey,” we examined college completion rates among students in the United States who first entered college in 2003 and were followed through 2009.17 The data shows that grant aid is associated with higher rates of baccalaureate completion, even after controlling for institutional characteristics and student characteristics such as high school grade point average and family income. And our analysis indicated that the effect of grant aid is fairly strong: Every standard deviation increase in grant aid is associated with a 6.7 percentage point increase in the likelihood of graduating within six years. Our findings are consistent with but slightly different from those of Franke (2014). Restricting his analysis to students first enrolling in four-year colleges, Franke found that the effect of grant aid depends on its source: For every $1,000 in grant aid, federal aid (mostly Pell Grants) led to a 2.5 to 2.8 percent increase in degree attainment, state need-based aid led to a 2.4 to 2.6 percent increase, and institutional aid led to a 1.3 to 1.6 percent increase in degree attainment.18 A key consideration is whether the form of delivery of grant aid might lead to improvements in completion rates. It has been suggested, for example, that performance-based grants in which grant renewal depends on academic outcomes, such as grades and units completed, might be one way to improve college completion rates.19 However, studies have found only minimal if any effects of performance-based grants on student completion beyond the effects of other types of grants.20 The most rigorous of these evaluations, based on randomized controlled trials in seven states (including California), found mixed results (Patel et al. 2013). Among five states with findings related to persistence, the share of students registering at the beginning of the second year was slightly higher in only two of the states, including California (where persistence rates were 81.4 percent for program participants compared to 79.0 percent for the control group). In the six states with published findings on academic units (excluding California), the number of units earned in the first year increased slightly (but was not significant in two of the six states). Finally, in Ohio, the only state with several years of experience, completion rates (attainment of a vocational certificate, associate’s degree, or bachelor’s degree) increased by 3.5 percentage points (26.9 for program participants versus 23.4 for the control group), driven almost entirely by an increase in associate’s degrees. These generally positive results are consistent with, and of the same order of magnitude as, the effects of general grant aid and scholarship programs. In other words, increases in grant aid improve student persistence and completion, but performance-based grants do not seem to have greater effects than other types of grants. These results are not necessarily surprising, as almost all grants already have de facto performance requirements. For example, the amount of most grants depends on full-time versus part-time status, with full-time students receiving more aid. Moreover, the renewal of grant aid often depends on some measure of academic progress (such as not being on academic probation). Finally, and most obviously, students cannot receive grant aid if they fail to enroll in college. In addition to the direct effect on student persistence and completion, grant and scholarship aid can also indirectly improve student outcomes. For example, financial assistance enables students to work less and focus more on school. And to the extent that it allows students to attend college on a full-time rather than part-time basis, grant aid could reduce time to completion and increase completion rates. And finally, because the amount of grant aid offered is higher for full-time students, this form of assistance incentivizes full-time attendance. A second and perhaps more important indirect role of grant aid is that it can induce students to attend four-year colleges rather than community colleges. Because of high net prices at four-year colleges, some low-income students in California opt for community colleges because of their low fees and low net prices. Costs of attending community college can be particularly low for students who live at home, with sticker prices about $10,000 lower than for students with independent living arrangements. Among incoming freshmen at the state’s community colleges in 2007-2008, 50,000 were deemed ready for college-level work. Some of these students would have been eligible for CSU or even UC but instead opted for a community college. The downside of this is that students attending a community college rather than a four-year college are less likely to complete college. Using data from over 2,000 students who were awarded scholarships by the College Access Foundation of California (CAFC) and who were followed for six years, we estimated the probability of earning a bachelor’s degree based on the type of institution first attended. The CAFC students all intended to earn a bachelor’s degree, even if they first enrolled at a community college. However, as shown in Figure 6, students who began their college career at a four-year college were much more likely than those who enrolled at a community college to earn a bachelor’s degree, even when controlling for high school grade point average. Because we cannot control for all the differences between students first attending a community college and those first attending a four-year college, it is likely that our results overstate the causal effect of attending a four-year college on earning a bachelor’s degree. But even if we were able to account for all the differences between community college and four-year college students, we would certainly find that enrolling in a four-year college leads to much higher rates of degree attainment than starting first at a community college and then trying to transfer. 24 In this study, we examine the role of grant and scholarship aid in California in making college more accessible and in helping students complete college. Our primary findings are that: For many low-income students, college would probably not be possible without grant and scholarship aid, which has contributed greatly to keeping net prices from rising as fast as sticker prices. Grant and scholarship aid is associated with higher rates of baccalaureate completion. These findings hold even after controlling for institutional characteristics and student characteristics including high school grade point average and family income. Performance-based grants do not seem to have greater effect than other types of grants, largely because students already must meet institutional academic requirements to remain enrolled in college. An important role of aid is that it can induce students to attend four-year colleges rather than community colleges. Students are much more likely to earn a degree if they first enroll at a four-year college.
There’s a contradiction within government policy --- restricting free speech may be unconstitutional, but not doing so causes public colleges to lose federal funding under Title IX
Bernstein 3 (David E. Bernstein – George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law with a focus on constitutional history, “You Can’t Say That: The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties From Antidiscrimination Laws”, “Censoring Campus Speech”, https://books.google.com/books?id=zU2QAAAAQBAJandpg=PA60andlpg=PA60anddq=public+colleges+could+lose+funding+if+they+allow+for+racistsandsource=blandots=W67N5E3bznandsig=xXeBW8YaTy_Ilb34MIbu-grciy4andhl=enandsa=Xandved=0ahUKEwiBoqTkn_nQAhVBjFQKHcc7CIkQ6AEITDAI#v=onepageandq=public20colleges20could20lose20funding20if20they20allow20for20racistsandf=false, pg. 60-61,)
Given these constitutional barriers, public university speech codes were on the way out until the federal Department of Education revived them in 1994. Male students at Santa Rosa Community College had posted anatomically explicit and sexually derogatory remarks about two female students in a discussion group hosted by the college’s computer network. Several aggrieved students filed a complaint against the college with the DOE’s Office for Civil Rights. The DOE found that the messages probably created a hostile educational environment on the basis of sex for one of the students. University toleration of such offensive speech, the government added, would violate Title IX, the law banning discrimination against women by education institutions that receive federal funding. Under this standard, to avoid losing federal funds, universities must proactively ban offensive speech by students and diligently punish any violations of that ban. The DOE failed to explain how its rule was consistent 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 DOE, so requiring public universities to enact speech codes or forfeit public funds would obviously be unconstitutional. Nevertheless, facing this choice, public university officials have ignored the First Amendment issue and complied with DOE guidelines. Although a few schools may truly be concerned about the potential loss of federal funding, the prevailing attitude among university officials seems to be that the DOE’s Santa Rosa decision provides a ready excuse to indulge their preference for speech codes. University officials implicitly reason that if the DOE can get away with ignoring the First Amendment, then so can they. Unfortunately, they may be right.
Federal funding is used to maintain financial aid resources and colleges are only growing more dependent on it as state funding goes down
Pew 15 (The Pew Charitable Trusts – compiles evidence and non-partisan analysis to inform the public and create better public policy, “Federal and State Funding of Higher Education: A Changing Landscape”, http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2015/06/federal-and-state-funding-of-higher-education)
States and the federal government have long provided substantial funding for higher education, but changes in recent years have resulted in their contributions being more equal than at any time in at least the previous two decades. Historically, states have provided a far greater amount of assistance to postsecondary institutions and students; 65 percent more than the federal government on average from 1987 to 2012. But this difference narrowed dramatically in recent years, particularly since the Great Recession, as state spending declined and federal investments grew sharply, largely driven by increases in the Pell Grant program, a need-based financial aid program that is the biggest component of federal higher education spending. Although their funding streams for higher education are now comparable in size and have some overlapping policy goals, such as increasing access for students and supporting research, federal and state governments channel resources into the system in different ways. The federal government mainly provides financial assistance to individual students and specific research projects, while state funds primarily pay for the general operations of public institutions.
College credentials are crucial to social mobility and national economic growth – affects everything from health insurance to better marriages to lower unemployment rates
White House 14 (Report by the Executive Office of the President, “Increasing College Opportunity for Low-Income Students: Promising Models and a Call to Action”, pgs. 10 – 11, https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/white_house_report_on_increasing_college_opportunity_for_low-income_students_1-16-2014_final.pdf,)
The benefits of postsecondary education are well documented and have major implications for economic growth, equality, and social mobility. Getting a postsecondary credential leads to greater lifetime earnings, lower unemployment, and lower poverty. Over the course of one’s working lifetime, the median earnings of bachelor’s degree recipients are 65 percent higher than median earnings of high-school graduates. 30 College graduates are also more likely to find a job; the unemployment rate for bachelor’s degree recipients is half the unemployment rate of high school graduates – and this gap grew during the Great Recession, which hit lowwage, low-education workers especially hard.31 Gaining a postsecondary education has positive effects beyond higher earnings. Individuals with higher education levels are more likely have retirement benefits and health insurance through their employer.32 Education also leads to better decision making about health, marriage, and parenting; improves patience; and makes people more goal-oriented.33 College access and attainment also leads to positive externalities and benefits to taxpayers by reducing crime and the need for social services, and increasing taxes paid and civic engagement.34 Importantly, the returns to higher education have increased over time as the demand for college-educated workers has outpaced the number of students getting a college education.35 Over the past four decades, the median earnings gap for full-time workers aged 25-34 with and without a college degree increased substantially for women and more than doubled for men; from 1971 to 2011 the earnings premium for men increased from 25 percent to 69 percent.36 Likewise, the earnings gap between those with and without a college degree increases as workers age.37 In response to the growing earnings gap between those with and without postsecondary education, a report from the Pew Economic Mobility Project remarked that, “unless something is done to boost the number of young people earning postsecondary credentials, millions of Americans will continue to be limited in their economic mobility.”38 Without a college degree, children born in the lowest fifth of the income distribution children have a 45 percent chance of staying in the bottom, and just a 5 percent chance of moving to the top Figure 1. Yet when these same children go on to earn a college degree, their chances of making it to the top nearly quadruple, and their chances of moving out of the bottom increase by 50 percent.39
The impact is massive – combatting the structural barriers that prevent individuals from attending college is the main internal link to competitiveness
U.S. Department of Commerce 12 (Prepared by the U.S. Department of Commerce with consultation from the National Economic Council, “The Competitiveness and Innovative Capacity in the United States”, http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/thecompetitivenessandinnovativecapacityoftheunitedstates.pdf, pgs. 2-10)
Education is a key element for promoting economic growth and increasing the innovative capacity of a firm or a country. Economic growth “closely depends on the synergies between new knowledge and human capital, which is why large in‐ creases in education and training have accompanied major advances in techno‐ logical knowledge in all countries that have achieved significant economic growth.”1 Our nation’s education system underpins the United States’ rise to the position of richest nation on the planet in the last century.2 However, we must recognize and address cracks in this building block of American innovation, lest we fall behind countries that have placed a higher priority on developing a skilled workforce. It is not sufficient in today’s global economy for a nation to have a generally skilled and educated workforce. Increasingly, the specific skills embodied in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education fuel the innovative processes that are especially valuable to our economy. These skills are sought by companies across the economy as they look to expand their work‐ forces. These STEM skills are not only important for those working towards advanced degrees. All levels of the education system should incorporate the critical thinking and other skills that are the hallmark of STEM education.3 This chapter compares the United States to other nations on the dimensions of access to education and training and academic outcomes, with a particular focus on STEM. Furthermore, it outlines the diverse and critical role of the Federal government in building a skilled and competitive workforce. Areas to be addressed are summarized below: The United States must sustain the quality of its post-secondary education system, which is the top destination for students from abroad, while also removing barriers that have limited the post-secondary participation and performance of U.S. students. It is essential that the United States equip future and current workers with the skills needed to compete in a global labor market. Given the importance of the role played by technological progress and innovation in promoting economic growth, investment in STEM education is especially important. Yet the United States is falling behind in this area at all education levels, and addressing this shortcoming is needed if we are to continue to produce not only a workforce with the technical skills needed to fill current job openings, but persons with the unique blend of technical expertise and entrepreneurial spirit who will create the products and industries of the future. Education is a complex and multifaceted process that spans pre‐school through life‐long learning and involves policy issues ranging from affordability and technology, to questions of support for higher education, classroom size, equal access, and teacher compensation. This chapter primarily and narrowly focuses its attention to STEM because of the strong link between STEM skills, STEM occupations, and innovation. However, our narrow attention to STEM in no way implies that other aspects of education policy are not important in making our country more innovative and competitive. Indeed, our attention to STEM should be viewed as only one example of an area where concern has been raised about the nation’s performance relative to other countries in the world. The STEM workforce is typically defined as the set of professional and technical support occupations in the fields of computer science and mathematics, engineering, and life and physical sciences. In 2010, there were 7.6 million STEM workers in the United States, representing about 1 in 18 workers. Computer and math occupations account for close to half of STEM employment, followed by engineering with 32 percent of STEM jobs, physical and life sciences with 13 per‐ cent, and STEM management jobs with 9 percent. Over the past 10 years, growth in STEM jobs (7.9 percent) was three times as fast as growth in non‐STEM jobs (2.6 percent). Looking ahead over the coming years, STEM employment is expected to continue to grow at a faster rate (see figure 4.1). STEM workers fill our nation’s research and development facilities and drive our nation’s innovation and competitiveness by generating new ideas, new companies, and new industries. Not surprisingly, more than three‐fourths of the most celebrated inventors and entrepreneurs since 1800 had degrees in engineering, physics, chemistry, computer science, or medicine.4 Commensurate with their importance in driving economic productivity and growth, workers in STEM fields earn more on average than workers in other fields. As a result, providing more students with the skills to work in STEM fields is crucial both to the nation’s economic future and to improving the incomes of our workers. STEM workers enjoy large earnings premiums over non‐STEM workers. For example, in 2010, the STEM premium earned by workers with a bachelor’s degree was 27 percent, and for workers with a graduate degree, it was 12 percent5 (see table 4.1). STEM workers are also less likely to experience joblessness than their non‐STEM counterparts. Just as innovative processes take place both inside and outside the traditional spheres of research and development (RandD), STEM is now often defined both in‐ side and outside the traditional set of science and engineering jobs. Thus, STEM can be defined not just as a group of workers in science and engineering jobs, but also as a set of workers with STEM education or STEM knowledge and skills, whether or not they work in STEM jobs. The human capital embodied in the work that STEM workers perform is valued in other sectors of the economy. This capital includes knowledge of mathematics, computers, and electronics and more general skills, such as critical thinking, troubling shooting, and various forms of reasoning.6 More generally, a growing number of occupations in the economy have been found to require a greater intensity of non‐routine analytical and interactive tasks—that is, ones requiring reasoning and high executive functioning—while a declining number of occupations rely more heavily on manual and routine tasks.7 Nearly two-thirds of workers with undergraduate degrees in a STEM field are working in non-STEM occupations, such as healthcare, education, the social sciences, and management (see figure 4.2). These workers are not underperforming, nor are they mismatched in their current jobs. Rather, the same human capital that drives innovative processes through traditional RandD-related employment is needed across our economy, a suggestion that is confirmed in surveys of these workers as well. Furthermore, many STEM-educated workers who choose education jobs are likely teaching STEM skills to others. The value of STEM human capital is reflected in the earnings premium enjoyed by college‐educated workers with a STEM degree. All else equal, workers with a STEM degree earn 11 percent more per hour in full‐time non‐STEM jobs than workers with other undergraduate degrees. When STEM majors work in STEM jobs, their earnings premium rises to 20 percent, relative to persons with non‐ STEM degrees working in non‐STEM jobs. Given that more than two‐thirds of STEM workers have at least a college degree and that demand for STEM workers and workers with STEM degrees continues to grow, the U.S. college and university system is a cornerstone of our STEM future. Fortunately, at the college level, the United States continues to set the standard of the quality of the educational system and in the value of obtaining a college degree. However, the United States is losing ground to other countries in important areas of education, specifically in creating opportunities for students to gain expertise in STEM skills. Improvements are required at all education levels, including post‐secondary school, if the United States is to remain internationally competitive and for it to continue to excel in preparing its workforce for an increasingly knowledge‐intensive economy. Elite institutions within the United States’ college and university system typically dominate global rankings of prestigious higher education institutions. In 2011‐ 2012, in a worldwide ranking, 18 out of the top 25 universities and 30 out of the top 50 universities were in the United States. The United Kingdom was next with four in the top 25 and five in the top 50.11 These rankings make our country a magnet for the best students from around the world. The United States is still the top destination for students studying abroad, although its share has fallen some‐ what over time (see figure 4.3). Another way to look at the desirability of the United States as a destination for study is in export terms: when students from abroad come to the United States to study, that is an export of educational services (see figure 4.4). In 2010, receipts from education exports exceeded $21 billion, more than doubling over the previous 10 years in keeping with the rising cost of attending U.S. colleges and universities. Close to half of the receipts came from China ($4.0 billion), India ($3.3 billion), and Korea ($2.2 billion) (see figure 4.5). Roughly 40 percent of international students in 2010–2011 were studying in STEM‐related fields, such as engineering (18.7 percent), math and computer sciences (8.9 percent), and physical and life sciences (8.8 percent). Business and management ranked the most popular individual field (21.5 percent).12 While the United States continues to have top‐flight higher education institutions, fundamental problems in the kindergarten through college system threaten our ability to increase the skills of our workforce as rapidly as needed. Among high school graduates who do enroll in college, a remarkably high proportion—20 percent—takes at least one remedial course their freshman year.13 Stu‐ dents who take remedial coursework often do not fully catch up with their other college‐going peers: compared with college students who need no remediation, students who take even a single remedial course are less likely to earn their bachelor’s degree than students who did not take any remedial courses.14 More generally, the United States has slipped behind other countries in terms of college attainment rates over the second half of the 20th century. The cohort born be‐ tween 1943 and 1952 had the highest share of bachelor degree holders in the world. Since then several other countries have not only caught up but surpassed the United States in the proportion of adults who have completed college. Currently, the share of the U.S. population aged 25–34 that has attained post‐secondary education is only slightly above the OECD average.1 Of those who graduate from college, the United States produces fewer STEM graduates relative to other developed countries. OECD data show that in 2009 12.8 percent of U.S. graduates with bachelor’s degrees were in STEM fields. This places the United States near the bottom of OECD countries in terms of the percentage of STEM graduates produced. Significant economic competitors—such as South Korea (26.3 percent), Germany (24.5 percent), Canada (19.2 percent), and the United Kingdom (18.1 percent)—are on the long list of countries producing a much higher percentage of STEM graduates.16 As they advance through the education system, U.S. students choose not to enter STEM fields or, if they do pursue these studies, do not continue. Three out of four high school students who test in the top math quartile don’t start with a STEM major in college, and only half of all students who start in a STEM major graduate with a STEM degree.17 While no single reason can account for the low share of students in STEM fields, students’ poor K–12 math and science preparation and their unwillingness to commit the additional study time needed for math and science courses relative to other classes are likely contributing factors.18 As detailed below, the Department of Education and the National Science Foundation have developed initiatives to improve K–12 and college‐level STEM instruction and to reduce the number of students exiting STEM majors for other majors. Given the importance of a college education to a worker’s productivity and earnings, particularly for STEM‐educated workers, it is striking that only 70 percent of high school graduates in 2009 went on to some higher education—a rate lower than that of the highest performing countries, such as Norway and New Zealand.19 One barrier to college attendance is the high price of tuition and fees. Whether for a 2‐year or 4‐year degree, tuition has climbed much faster than consumer prices and household incomes. Over the past decade, in‐state public university tuition and fees more than doubled while tuition and fees for 2‐year schools rose 71 percent. During the same period, overall consumer prices increased 27 percent and nominal median household income rose 18 percent (see figure 4.6). In other words, household income over the period was not able to keep up with the overall increase in consumer prices, let alone the soaring sticker price of a college education. The cost of room and board (not included in tuition and fees) was no more forgiving. Between the 1999–2000 and 2009–2010 school years, the cost of staying in a college dormitory rose 80 percent while board increased 55 percent. Grant aid from public and private sources, including Federal Pell Grants and Federal education tax credits and deductions, however, have helped soften the financial blow to families. As a result, the net price of a college education—that is, the published price of tuition and fees minus all forms of financial aid—has not in‐ creased as fast as the sticker prices.20 In fact, in constant dollars the net price for full‐time students attending public, four‐year institutions in 2011–2012 increased just $60 relative to 2007–2008, while the net price for public, two‐year schools and private schools in 2011–2012 was lower than in 2007–2008.21
Competitiveness is key to US dominance – we need to keep innovating faster to ensure economic prosperity and hegemony
Segal 04 – Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations
Adam, Foreign Affairs, “Is America Losing Its Edge?” November / December 2004, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101facomment83601/adam-segal/is-america-losing-its-edge.html
The United States' global primacy depends in large part on its ability to develop new technologies and industries faster than anyone else. For the last five decades, U.S. scientific innovation and technological entrepreneurship have ensured the country's economic prosperity and military power. It was Americans who invented and commercialized the semiconductor, the personal computer, and the Internet; other countries merely followed the U.S. lead. Today, however, this technological edge-so long taken for granted-may be slipping, and the most serious challenge is coming from Asia. Through competitive tax policies, increased investment in research and development (RandD), and preferential policies for science and technology (SandT) personnel, Asian governments are improving the quality of their science and ensuring the exploitation of future innovations. The percentage of patents issued to and science journal articles published by scientists in China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan is rising. Indian companies are quickly becoming the second-largest producers of application services in the world, developing, supplying, and managing database and other types of software for clients around the world. South Korea has rapidly eaten away at the U.S. advantage in the manufacture of computer chips and telecommunications software. And even China has made impressive gains in advanced technologies such as lasers, biotechnology, and advanced materials used in semiconductors, aerospace, and many other types of manufacturing. Although the United States' technical dominance remains solid, the globalization of research and development is exerting considerable pressures on the American system. Indeed, as the United States is learning, globalization cuts both ways: it is both a potent catalyst of U.S. technological innovation and a significant threat to it. The United States will never be able to prevent rivals from developing new technologies; it can remain dominant only by continuing to innovate faster than everyone else. But this won't be easy; to keep its privileged position in the world, the United States must get better at fostering technological entrepreneurship at home.
Loss of competitiveness results in great power conflict—retrenchment makes war inevitable and ensures the US would be dragged in – that causes your heg bad impacts so it’s try or die for the AFF
Khalilzad 11 — Zalmay Khalilzad, Counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, served as the United States ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Nations during the presidency of George W. Bush, served as the director of policy planning at the Defense Department during the Presidency of George H.W. Bush, holds a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, 2011 (“The Economy and National Security,” National Review, February 8th, Available Online at http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/259024, Accessed 02-08-2011)

Today, economic and fiscal trends pose the most severe long-term threat to the United States’ position as global leader. While the United States suffers from fiscal imbalances and low economic growth, the economies of rival powers are developing rapidly. The continuation of these two trends could lead to a shift from American primacy toward a multi-polar global system, leading in turn to increased geopolitical rivalry and even war among the great powers. The current recession is the result of a deep financial crisis, not a mere fluctuation in the business cycle. Recovery is likely to be protracted. The crisis was preceded by the buildup over two decades of enormous amounts of debt throughout the U.S. economy — ultimately totaling almost 350 percent of GDP — and the development of credit-fueled asset bubbles, particularly in the housing sector. When the bubbles burst, huge amounts of wealth were destroyed, and unemployment rose to over 10 percent. The decline of tax revenues and massive countercyclical spending put the U.S. government on an unsustainable fiscal path. Publicly held national debt rose from 38 to over 60 percent of GDP in three years. Without faster economic growth and actions to reduce deficits, publicly held national debt is projected to reach dangerous proportions. If interest rates were to rise significantly, annual interest payments — which already are larger than the defense budget — would crowd out other spending or require substantial tax increases that would undercut economic growth. Even worse, if unanticipated events trigger what economists call a “sudden stop” in credit markets for U.S. debt, the United States would be unable to roll over its outstanding obligations, precipitating a sovereign-debt crisis that would almost certainly compel a radical retrenchment of the United States internationally. Such scenarios would reshape the international order. It was the economic devastation of Britain and France during World War II, as well as the rise of other powers, that led both countries to relinquish their empires. In the late 1960s, British leaders concluded that they lacked the economic capacity to maintain a presence “east of Suez.” Soviet economic weakness, which crystallized under Gorbachev, contributed to their decisions to withdraw from Afghanistan, abandon Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and allow the Soviet Union to fragment. If the U.S. debt problem goes critical, the United States would be compelled to retrench, reducing its military spending and shedding international commitments. We face this domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth. Even though countries such as China, India, and Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their economies are growing faster than ours, and this could alter the global distribution of power. These trends could in the long term produce a multi-polar world. If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but when a new international order will emerge. The closing of the gap between the United States and its rivals could intensify geopolitical competition among major powers, increase incentives for local powers to play major powers against one another, and undercut our will to preclude or respond to international crises because of the higher risk of escalation. The stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has been the era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their competitive dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar international systems produced both world wars. American retrenchment could have devastating consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional powers could rearm in an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would be a heightened possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into all-out conflict. Alternatively, in seeking to accommodate the stronger powers, weaker powers may shift their geopolitical posture away from the United States. Either way, hostile states would be emboldened to make aggressive moves in their regions. As rival powers rise, Asia in particular is likely to emerge as a zone of great-power competition. Beijing’s economic rise has enabled a dramatic military buildup focused on acquisitions of naval, cruise, and ballistic missiles, long-range stealth aircraft, and anti-satellite capabilities. China’s strategic modernization is aimed, ultimately, at denying the United States access to the seas around China. Even as cooperative economic ties in the region have grown, China’s expansive territorial claims — and provocative statements and actions following crises in Korea and incidents at sea — have roiled its relations with South Korea, Japan, India, and Southeast Asian states. Still, the United States is the most significant barrier facing Chinese hegemony and aggression. Given the risks, the United States must focus on restoring its economic and fiscal condition while checking and managing the rise of potential adversarial regional powers such as China. While we face significant challenges, the U.S. economy still accounts for over 20 percent of the world’s GDP. American institutions — particularly those providing enforceable rule of law — set it apart from all the rising powers. Social cohesion underwrites political stability. U.S. demographic trends are healthier than those of any other developed country. A culture of innovation, excellent institutions of higher education, and a vital sector of small and medium-sized enterprises propel the U.S. economy in ways difficult to quantify. Historically, Americans have responded pragmatically, and sometimes through trial and error, to work our way through the kind of crisis that we face today. The policy question is how to enhance economic growth and employment while cutting discretionary spending in the near term and curbing the growth of entitlement spending in the out years. Republican members of Congress have outlined a plan. Several think tanks and commissions, including President Obama’s debt commission, have done so as well. Some consensus exists on measures to pare back the recent increases in domestic spending, restrain future growth in defense spending, and reform the tax code (by reducing tax expenditures while lowering individual and corporate rates). These are promising options. The key remaining question is whether the president and leaders of both parties on Capitol Hill have the will to act and the skill to fashion bipartisan solutions. Whether we take the needed actions is a choice, however difficult it might be. It is clearly within our capacity to put our economy on a better trajectory. In garnering political support for cutbacks, the president and members of Congress should point not only to the domestic consequences of inaction — but also to the geopolitical implications. As the United States gets its economic and fiscal house in order, it should take steps to prevent a flare-up in Asia. The United States can do so by signaling that its domestic challenges will not impede its intentions to check Chinese expansionism. This can be done in cost-efficient ways. While China’s economic rise enables its military modernization and international assertiveness, it also frightens rival powers. The Obama administration has wisely moved to strengthen relations with allies and potential partners in the region but more can be done. Some Chinese policies encourage other parties to join with the United States, and the U.S. should not let these opportunities pass. China’s military assertiveness should enable security cooperation with countries on China’s periphery — particularly Japan, India, and Vietnam — in ways that complicate Beijing’s strategic calculus. China’s mercantilist policies and currency manipulation — which harm developing states both in East Asia and elsewhere — should be used to fashion a coalition in favor of a more balanced trade system. Since Beijing’s over-the-top reaction to the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to a Chinese democracy activist alienated European leaders, highlighting human-rights questions would not only draw supporters from nearby countries but also embolden reformers within China. Since the end of the Cold War, a stable economic and financial condition at home has enabled America to have an expansive role in the world. Today we can no longer take this for granted. Unless we get our economic house in order, there is a risk that domestic stagnation in combination with the rise of rival powers will undermine our ability to deal with growing international problems. Regional hegemons in Asia could seize the moment, leading the world toward a new, dangerous era of multi-polarity.
Independently, economic decline causes multiple war scenarios – the impact is extinction
Harris and Burrows - 2009 (Counselor in the National Intelligence Council, Member at the National Intelligence Council - Mathew J. Burrows, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World—an unclassified report by the NIC published every four years that projects trends over a 15-year period, has served in the Central Intelligence Agency since 1986, holds a Ph.D. in European History from Cambridge University, and Jennifer Harris, Member of the Long Range Analysis Unit at the National Intelligence Council, holds an M.Phil. in International Relations from Oxford University and a J.D. from Yale University, 2009 (“Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis,” The Washington Quarterly, Volume 32, Issue 2, April, Available Online at http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_Burrows.pdf, Accessed 08-22-2011, p. 35-37)
Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample end page 35 opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity.¶ Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorism’s appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups—inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks—and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises. end page 36 Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.