1

A) Interpretation- the affirmative should defend the desirability of a topical plan

action in which the USfg either regulates or funds elementary/secondary
education
The United States Federal Government should means the debate is solely about the
outcome of a policy established by governmental means
Ericson, 3 (Jon M., Dean Emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts California Polytechnic U., et al., The
Debaters Guide, Third Edition, p. 4)
The Proposition of Policy: Urging Future Action In policy propositions, each topic contains certain key elements,
although they have slightly different functions from comparable elements of value-oriented propositions. 1 . An agent doing the
acting ---The United States in The United States should adopt a policy of free trade. Like the object of evaluation in
a proposition of value, the agent is the subject of the sentence. 2. The verb shouldthe first part of a verb phrase that
urges action. 3. An action verb to follow should in the should-verb combination. For example, should adopt here means to put
a program or policy into action though governmental means. 4. A specification of directions or a
limitation of the action desired. The phrase free trade, for example, gives direction and limits to the topic, which
would, for example, eliminate consideration of increasing tariffs, discussing diplomatic recognition, or discussing interstate commerce.
Propositions of policy deal with future action. Nothing has yet occurred. The entire debate is about
whether something ought to occur. What you agree to do, then, when you accept the affirmative side in
such a debate is to offer sufficient and compelling reasons for an audience to perform the future action
that you propose.

The word Resolved before the colon reflects a legislative forum

Army Officer School 04(5-12, # 12, Punctuation The Colon and Semicolon,
http://usawocc.army.mil/IMI/wg12.htm)
The colon introduces the following: a. A list, but only after "as follows," "the following," or a noun for which the list is an appositive:
Each scout will carry the following: (colon) meals for three days, a survival knife, and his sleeping bag. The company had four new officers:
(colon) Bill Smith, Frank Tucker, Peter Fillmore, and Oliver Lewis. b. A long quotation (one or more paragraphs): In The Killer Angels Michael
Shaara wrote: (colon) You may find it a different story from the one you learned in school. There have been many versions of that battle
[Gettysburg] and that war [the Civil War]. (The quote continues for two more paragraphs.) c. A formal quotation or question: The President
declared: (colon) "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." The question is: (colon) what can we do about it? d. A second independent
clause which explains the first: Potter's motive is clear: (colon) he wants the assignment. e. After the introduction of a business letter: Dear
Sirs: (colon) Dear Madam: (colon) f. The details following an announcement For sale: (colon) large lakeside cabin with dock g. A formal
resolution, after the word "resolved:" Resolved: (colon) That this council petition the mayor.

Regulate means establishing new rules or regulations

Oxford Dictionary 2017, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/regulate)/ warner
Regulate- verb- Control (something, especially a business activity) by means of rules and regulations.
the Code regulates the takeovers of all public companies

Funding means allocating money

Oxford Dictionary 2017, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/regulate)/ warner
Provide with money for a particular purpose.
the World Bank refused to fund the project
 B) Violation: they only defend an abolitionist mindset which doesnt meet our
threshold to a specific act of regulation/funding US education- also cross X
checks
C) Vote Negative:
First- predictable limits- we should be able to say no to a concrete action affirming the
resolution. Making the topic an open subject rewards affirmatives that are either anti-
topical or germane to the topic- there an infinite amount of potential frameworks that
could analyze the topic, but that denies the negative burden of clash because setting
generic strategies are impossible
Limits are a floor, not a ceiling. Any alternative framework denies the only predictable
research strategy and causes students to quit and programs to stop- impact is
participation
Rowland 84 (Robert C., Debate Coach Baylor University, Topic Selection in Debate, American
Forensics in Perspective, Ed. Parson, p. 53-54)
The first major problem identified by the work group as relating to topic selection is the decline in
participation in the National Debate Tournament (NDT) policy debate. As Boman notes: There is a
growing dissatisfaction with academic debate that utilizes a policy proposition. Programs which are
oriented toward debating the national policy debate proposition, so-called NDT programs, are
diminishing in scope and size.4 This decline in policy debate is tied, many in the work group believe, to
excessively broad topics. The most obvious characteristic of some recent policy debate topics is extreme
breath. A resolution calling for regulation of land use literally and figuratively covers a lot of ground.
Naitonal debate topics have not always been so broad. Before the late 1960s the topic often specified a
particular policy change.5 The move from narrow to broad topics has had, according to some, the effect of
limiting the number of students who participate in policy debate. First, the breadth of the topics has all but
destroyed novice debate. Paul Gaske argues that because the stock issues of policy debate are clearly
defined, it is superior to value debate as a means of introducing students to the debate process.6
Despite this advantage of policy debate, Gaske belives that NDT debate is not the best vehicle for
teaching beginners. The problem is that broad policy topics terrify novice debaters, especially those who lack
high school debate experience. They are unable to cope with the breadth of the topic and experience
negophobia,7 the fear of debating negative. As a consequence, the educational advantages associated
with teaching novices through policy debate are lost: Yet all of these benefits fly out the window as
rookies in their formative stage quickly experience humiliation at being caugh without evidence or
substantive awareness of the issues that confront them at a tournament.8 The ultimate result is that
fewer novices participate in NDT, thus lessening the educational value of the activity and limiting the
number of debaters or eventually participate in more advanced divisions of policy debate. In addition to
noting the effect on novices, participants argued that broad topics also discourage experienced debaters from
continued participation in policy debate. Here, the claim is that it takes so much times and effort to be
competitive on a broad topic that students who are concerned with doing more than just debate are forced
out of the activity.9 Gaske notes, that broad topics discourage participation because of insufficient time
to do requisite research.10 The final effect may be that entire programs either cease functioning or shift to
value debate as a way to avoid unreasonable research burdens. Boman supports this point: It is this
expanding necessity of evidence, and thereby research, which has created a competitive imbalance between
institutions that participate in academic debate.11 In this view, it is the competitive imbalance resulting
from the use of broad topics that has led some small schools to cancel their programs.

Second- for negative ground- we lose core positions like neoliberalism, biopolitics, and
states counterplans- moreover, were forced into a position that is antithetical to the
AFF- were left with impact turning militarism which is unethical and turns their
offense because it incentivizes students to adopt a political being in opposition to
what they advocate
Third- plans are good- even if they win that the law is bad in general, arguing for
specific regulations within the school system is a good and viable way to deconstruct
the militarism- they create a false binary between abstract theory and pragmatic
action- this fractures movements and never accounts for how police violence and
biopolitics are strategically grafted into the law
Christenson 2012 (Linda Christenson, education activist, Stop the School-to-Prison Pipeline, Volume
26 No.2, Winter 2011-12, http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/26_02/edit262.shtml)/
warner
This young man isnt being cynical or melodramatic; hes articulating a terrifying reality for many of the children and youth sitting in our
growing numbers of security guards and
classroomsa reality that is often invisible or misunderstood. Some have seen the
police in our schools as unfortunate but necessary responses to the behavior of children from poor, crime-ridden neighborhoods. But
what if something more ominous is happening? What if many of our studentsparticularly our African American, Latina/o,
Native American, and Southeast Asian childrenare being channeled toward prison and a lifetime of
second-class status? We believe that this is the case, and there is ample evidence to support that
claim. What has come to be called the school-to-prison pipeline is turning too many schools into
pathways to incarceration rather than opportunity. This trend has extraordinary implications for
teachers and education activists. It affects everything from what we teach to how we build community
in our classrooms, how we deal with conflicts with and among our students, how we build coalitions,
and what demands we see as central to the fight for social justice education. What Is the School-to-Prison
Pipeline? The school-to-prison pipeline begins in deep social and economic inequalities, and has taken root in the historic shortcomings of
schooling in this country. The civil and human rights movements of the 1960s and 70s spurred an effort to rethink schools to make them
responsive to the needs of all students, their families, and communities. This rethinking included collaborative learning environments,
multicultural curriculum, student-centered, experiential pedagogywe were aiming for education as liberation. The
back-to-basics
backlash against that struggle has been more rigid enforcement of ever more alienating curriculum.
The zero tolerance policies that today are the most extreme form of this punishment paradigm were
originally written for the war on drugs in the early 1980s, and later applied to schools. As Annette
Fuentes explains, the resulting extraordinary rates of suspension and expulsion are linked nationally to
increasing police presence, checkpoints, and surveillance inside schools. As police have set up shop in
schools across the country, the definition of what is a crime as opposed to a teachable moment has
changed in extraordinary ways. In one middle school were familiar with, a teacher routinely allowed her
students to take single pieces of candy from a big container she kept on her desk. One day, several girls
grabbed handfuls. The teacher promptly sent them to the police officer assigned to the school. What
formerly would have been an opportunity to have a conversation about a minor transgression instead
became a law enforcement issue. Children are being branded as criminals at ever-younger ages. Zero
Tolerance in Philadelphia, a recent report by Youth United for Change and the Advancement Project,
offers an example: Robert was an 11-year-old in 5th grade who, in his rush to get to school on time, put
on a dirty pair of pants from the laundry basket. He did not notice that his Boy Scout pocketknife was in
one of the pockets until he got to school. He also did not notice that it fell out when he was running in
gym class. When the teacher found it and asked whom it belonged to, Robert volunteered that it was his,
only to find himself in police custody minutes later. He was arrested, suspended, and transferred to a
disciplinary school. Early contact with police in schools often sets students on a path of alienation,
suspension, expulsion, and arrests. George Galvis, an Oakland, Calif., prison activist and youth organizer,
described his first experience with police at his school: I was 11. There was a fight and I got called to the
office. The cop punched me in the face. I looked at my principal and he was just standing there, not
saying anything. That totally broke my trust in school as a place that was safe for me. Galvis added:
The more police there are in the school, walking the halls and looking at surveillance tapes, the more
what constitutes a crime escalates. And what is seen as how kids act vs. criminal behavior has a lot to
do with race. I always think about the fistfights that break out between fraternities at the Cal campus, and how those fights
are seen as opposed to what the police see as gang-related fights, even if the behavior is the same. Mass Incarceration: A
Civil Rights Crisis The growth of the school-to-prison pipeline is part of a larger crisis. Since 1970, the U.S. prison population
has exploded from about 325,000 people to more than 2 million today. According to Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim
Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Color Blindness, this is a phenomenon that cannot be explained by crime rates or drug
use. According to Human Rights Watch (Punishment and Prejudice: Racial Disparities in the War on Drugs, 2000) although
whites are more likely to violate drug laws than people of color, in some states black men have been admitted to prison on drug
charges at rates 20 to 50 times greater than those of white men. Latina/os, Native Americans, and other people of
color are also imprisoned at rates far higher than their representation in the population. Once
released, former prisoners are caught in a web of laws and regulations that make it difficult or
impossible to secure jobs, education, housing, and public assistanceand often to vote or serve on
juries. Alexander calls this permanent second-class citizenship a new form of segregation. The impact
of mass incarceration is devastating for children and youth. More than 7 million children have a family
member incarcerated, on probation, or on parole. Many of these children live with enormous stress,
emotional pain, and uncertainty. Luis Esparza describes the impact on his life in Project WHAT!s
Resource Guide for Teens with a Parent in Prison or Jail: After [my dad] went to jail I kept to myself a lot
became the quiet kid that no one noticed and no one really cared about. At one point I didnt even
have any friends. No one talked to me, so I didnt have to say anything about my life. . . . Inside I feel sad
and angry. In this world, no one wants to see that, so I keep it all to myself. (See Haniyah's Story and
Sokolower.) Revising the Curriculum As we at Rethinking Schools began to study and discuss these
issues, we realized the huge implications for curriculum. Many of us, as social justice educators, have
developed strong class activities teaching the Civil Rights Movement. But few of us teach regularly
about the racial realities of the current criminal justice system. Textbooks mostly ignore the subject.
For example, Pearson Prentice Halls United States History is a hefty 1,264 pages long, but says nothing
about the startling growth in the prison population in the past 40 years. Mass incarceration and the
school-to-prison pipeline are among the primary forms that racial oppression currently takes in the
United States. As such, they deserve a central place in the curriculum. We need to bring this all-too-common
experience out of the shadows and make it as visible in the curriculum as it is in so many students lives. As Alexander begins to explore in our
interview, it is a challenge to engage students in these issues in ways that build critical thinking and determination rather than cynicism or
despair, but a challenge we urgently need to take on. Aparna Lakshmi, a Boston high school teacher, offers an example. Accountability and
Criminalization The school-to-prison pipeline is really a classroom-to-prison pipeline. A students trajectory to a criminalized life often begins
with a curriculum that disrespects childrens lives and that does not center on things that matter. Last spring Federal Policy, ESEA
Reauthorization, and the School-to-Prison Pipeline, a collaborative study by research, education, civil rights, and juvenile justice organizations,
linked the policies of No Child Left Behind and the accountability movement to the pipeline. According to George Wood, executive director of
the Forum for Education and Democracy: By focusing accountability almost exclusively on test scores and attaching high stakes to them, NCLB
has given schools a perverse incentive to allow or even encourage students to leave. A FairTest factsheet cites findings that schools in Florida
gave low-scoring students longer suspensions than high-scoring students for similar infractions, while in Ohio students with disabilities were
twice as likely to be suspended out of school than their peers. A recent report from the Advancement Project noted that, since the passage of
NCLB in 2002, 73 of the largest 100 districts in the United States have seen their graduation rates declineoften precipitously. Of those 100
districts, which serve 40 percent of all students of color in the United States, 67 districts failed to graduate two-thirds of their students. The
more that schoolsand now individual teachersare assessed, rewarded, and fired on the basis of student test scores, the more incentive
there is to push out students who bring down those scores. And the more schools become test-prep academies as opposed to communities
committed to everyones success, the more hostile and regimented the atmosphere becomesthe more like prison. (This school-as-prison
culture is considerably more common in schools populated by children of color in poor communities as opposed to majority-white, middle-class
schools, creating what Jonathan Kozol calls educational apartheid.) The rigid focus on test prep and scripted curriculum means that teachers
need students to be compliant, quiet, in their seats, and willing to learn by rote for long periods of time. Security guards, cops in the hall, and
score-conscious administrations suspend and expel problem learners. Schools without compassion or understanding occupy communities
instead of serve them. As our society accelerates punishment as a central paradigmfrom death penalty executions to drone strikes in Pakistan
and Yementhe regimentation and criminalization of our children, particularly children of color, can only be seen as training for the future.
Linda Christensen describes the dangerous pull of high-stakes testing on even the most seasoned teachers, and the powerful role of student-
centered curriculum as resistance. Education Activists and the Pipeline
As teachers and education activists, many of us
are active in the fight to save and transform public schoolsbuilding campaigns to end standardized
testing, to protect our union rights, to prevent the privatization of the public school system. At
education conferences, there are often well-attended workshops on the criminalization of youth or
related topics. But the movement to end the school-to-prison pipeline and the movement to defend
and transform public education are too often separate. This must be one movementfor social justice
educationthat encompasses both an end to the school-to-prison pipeline and the fight to save and
transform public education. We cannot build safe, creative, nurturing schools and criminalize our
children at the same time. Teachers, students, parents, and administrators have begun to fight back
against zero tolerance policiespushing to get rid of zero tolerance laws, and creating alternative
approaches to safe school communities that rely on restorative justice and community building
instead of criminalization. (See Haga.) A critical piece of that struggle is defying the regimen of scripted
curriculum and standardized tests, and building in its place creative, empowering school cultures
centered on the lives and needs of our students and their families. Some of the most exciting work
with youth is being built around campaigns to stop police harassment in schools and on the streets,
stop gang injunction legislation that criminalizes young people on the basis of what they wear or
where they live, and increase budgets for education and social services instead of law and order. Youth
provide leadership in these movements in ways that are different from what we often see in classrooms.
Learning from these campaigns and making the critical connections to our own work will enable us to
build a viable, principled movement for public education. Our resistance grows from classrooms that are grounded in our students lives
academically rigorous and also participatory, critical, culturally sensitive, experiential, kind, and joyful. When combined with a determination to fight the school-to-prison pipeline at every level,
that resistance has enormous capacity to build and sustain true social justice education

D) Topicality is a voting issue for procedural fairness and competitive equity-

without the ability to engage in the activity, debate becomes meaningless for
the NEGATIVE team
 2
Counter-advocacy: we affirm an abolitionist mindset in all instances EXCEPT for the
imprisonment of white supremacists
Scrutiny of right wing radicals checks back violence like Charleston
Robinson 15 (Eugene Robinson - Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, June 23, 2015, The Courier Journal,
We need to go beyond speeches and symbols, http://www.courier-
journal.com/story/opinion/columnists/2015/06/23/robinson-need-go-beyond-speeches-
symbols/29151157/) //JS
If American racism were a thing of the past, nine men and women who went to church last Wednesday evening would be alive. What
happened in Charleston is not unfathomable or even ambiguous. Its a story much older than the nation, a story that
began when the first Africans were brought to Jamestown in 1619: the brutalizing and killing of black people because of the color of their skin.
The weekend displays of multiracial unity throughout the saddened city were inspiring, but they cannot be taken as a sign that the country has
moved beyond its troubled racial past. The young man who so coldly killed those innocent worshipers at Emanuel
African Methodist Episcopal Church did not exist in a vacuum. He inhaled deeply of the race hatred that constantly
bubbles up like foul gas from a sewer. The alleged assassin, Dylann Roof, left behind a manifesto that said he drew inspiration from
the website of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a prominent white supremacist group. The organizations proudly racist statement of
principles declares that the American people and government should remain European in their composition and character and opposes all
efforts to mix the races of mankind. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups, describes the council as a modern-day
incarnation of the White Citizens Councils throughout the South that fought so tenaciously against desegregation during the civil rights era.
The councils membership is thought to be small but its reach is vast, thanks to the Internet. Like hateful jihadists, white supremacists use
cyberspace as a bulletin board and a meeting place. Come on in, young Mr. Roof, and let us tell you how those black people and those brown
people are responsible for everything thats going wrong in your life. Some conservatives have been quick to absolve society of blame by
pointing out that the Charleston shooter was mentally disturbed. But of course he was mentally disturbed; normal, well-adjusted individuals do
not commit mass murder. And the fact is that the Charleston killings were intended to advance a specific cause. To look past Roofs racism would
be like ignoring the fact that the Tsarnaev brothers, who committed the Boston Marathon bombing, believed in a violent, twisted version of
Islam. You rape our women and youre taking over our country, Roof reportedly said to his victims before opening fire. This sick narrative
comes straight from the Council of Conservative Citizens website, which inflates isolated incidents of black-on-white crime into some kind of
race war and portrays the nations European heritage as being in dire peril. President Obama chose an unusual forum -- a podcast with
comedian Marc Maron -- to deliver his most candid remarks to date since the Charleston massacre. Race relations have clearly improved in our
lifetimes, he said, but we are not cured of racism and its not just a matter of it not being polite to say nigger in public. Slavery and Jim
Crow discrimination cast a long shadow and thats still part of our DNA thats passed on. Obamas election in 2008 undoubtedly marked a
milestone, one I never dreamed Id live to see. I wrote at the time that it felt like morning in America. What I didnt fully appreciate at the time
was the extent to which the mere fact of a black family living in the White House would, at least in the short term, heighten racial anxieties and
conflicts. I didnt see that the spectacle of African-Americans in power would apparently lead some whites to feel powerless, aggrieved and
victimized. In the long run, Im an optimist. But a post-racial future will not just appear. There is urgent work to do. By all means, South Carolina,
get rid of the Confederate flag, which has become an emblem of the white supremacist movement. The flag first flew over the statehouse in
Columbia in 1961, not 1861; it was essentially an act of defiance, a raised middle finger toward a federal government that was forcing the end of
Jim Crow. But we
need to go beyond speeches and symbols. Law enforcement should subject white racist
organizations to the same surveillance and scrutiny as groups devoted to jihad. Governments at all levels should
enforce fair housing and employment laws as vigorously as they enforce the Patriot Act. Police departments and court systems
must be compelled to administer justice equally -- with African-Americans, too, considered innocent until proven guilty.

Police need to break down on racist groups- a hands on approach has been working
thus far- and a world without police force would proliferate violence otherwise
Mena 16
(Menafn, Arab NewsPolice nab man who vandalized Florida mosque, 1/6/16,
http://www.menafn.com/1094521309/Police-nab-man-who-vandalized-Florida-mosque )
(MENAFN - Arab News) ORLANDO Florida: Titusville Police detectives have made an arrest in
connection with the New Year's Day vandalism of The Islamic Society of Central Florida Masjid
Al-Munin Mosque. Michael Scott Wolfe 35 of Titusville was arrested Monday evening in
Titusville and charged with criminal mischief to a mosque a third degree felony. The evidence
revealed Wolfe wearing camouflage clothing entered the mosque carport at 11 p.m. and
destroyed property with a machete and placed raw bacon in and around the front door. He was
caught on surveillance camera breaking windows cameras and lights with a machete at a
mosque and leaving bacon on the doorstep. Wolfe was transported to the Brevard County Jail.
He is being held on a 2000 bail. He is expected to appear before a judge Tuesday. Prior to the
arrest the leader of the mosque said the act was not typical of city area Muslims call home. 'You
can't help but feel this is a hateful act. All of the negative media the politicians who want to ban Muslims close
mosques...messages like that motivate people who have an illness in their heart' said Muhammad Musri who is based in the Orlando area and
who oversees a network of 10 mosques as part of the Islamic Society of Central Brevard. Musri who in public comments has called on Muslims
to build stronger ties with the communities they live in was at the Masjid Al-Munin mosque in Titusville overseeing the cleanup from vandalism
that happened overnight Friday. It was the third time in less than a month tt vandals have left pork products at mosques in the US said the civil
rights group Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) which has called for state and federal investigations. Other civil rights advocates are
also calling on state and federal authorities to investigate. 'People are afraid to take their children back to the
mosque...a machete was used ' said Rasha Mubarak the Orlando Regional Coordinator for the CAIR. 'They know we don't consume
pork. This is something that those who are Islamaphobic tend to bring up or use' Mubarak said. Because of that CAIR officials said it was an
indicator of a bias motive in targeting the mosque. It was also not immediately clear if police were looking at the incident as a hate crime a
classification of charges that would require an increase in penalties upon conviction. Musri who over the years has had a number of outreach
programs and conducted interfaith efforts was in touch with the FBI which investigates bias-related crimes.
The break-in happened about 11 p.m. Friday night but was reported to police about 6 a.m. Saturday at the mosque on South Washington
Avenue north of State Road 50. It
is one of four mosques in Brevard County and has between 30 to 40
people who attend services. Titusville police said they were investigating 'strong leads' in the
case. The break-in comes amid a recent spike of vandalism reports at mosques nationwide from
a pig's head left at a mosque in Philadelphia to bacon at an Islamic worship center in Las Vegas.
 3
Academia is a pollution of the affirmative project an inoculation and re-scripting of
the very terms of contestation such that nothing is left but the continued propagation
of social death radicalized knowledge serves only to legitimize the very system which
was built on the back of colonial domination
Occupied UC Berkeley 09
(The Necrosocial: Civic Life, Social Death, and the UC 11/19/09,
http://anticapitalprojects.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/the-necrosocial/, AW)
--- We dont endorse the language in this card ---
Yes, very much a cemetery. Only here there are no dirges, no prayers, only the repeated testing of our
threshold for anxiety, humiliation, and debt. The classroom just like the workplace just like the university
just like the state just like the economy manages our social death , translating what we once knew from
high school, from work, from our family life into academic parlance, into acceptable forms of social
conflict. Who knew that behind so much civic life (electoral campaigns, student body representatives,
bureaucratic administrators, public relations officials, Peace and Conflict Studies, ad nauseam) was so
much social death? What postures we maintain to claim representation, what limits we assume, what
desires we dismiss? And in this moment of crisis they ask us to twist ourselves in a way that they can
hear. Petitions to Sacramento, phone calls to Congressmeneven the chancellor patronizingly
congratulates our September 24th student strike, shaping the meaning and the force of the movement
as a movement against the policies of Sacramento. He expands his institutional authority to encompass
the movement. When students begin to hold libraries over night, beginning to take our first baby step as
an autonomous movement he reins us in by serendipitously announcing library money. He manages
movement, he kills movement by funneling it into the electoral process. He manages our social death.
He looks forward to these battles on his terrain, to eulogize a proposition, to win this or thathe and his
look forward to exhausting us. He and his look forward to a reproduction of the logic of representative
governance, the release valve of the university plunges us into an abyss where ideas are wisps of ether
that is, meaning is ripped from action . Lets talk about the fight endlessly, but always only in their
managed form: to perpetually deliberate , the endless fleshing-out-ofwhen we push the boundaries
of this form they are quick to reconfigure themselves to contain us : the chancellors congratulations,
the reopening of the libraries, the managed general assemblythere is no fight against the
administration here, only its own extension. Each day passes in this way, the administration on the look
out to shape student discourseit happens without pause, we dont notice nor do we care to. It
becomes banal, thoughtless . So much so that we see we are accumulating days: one semester, two,
how close to being this or that, how far? This accumulation is our shared history. This accumulation
every once in a while interrupted, violated by a riot, a wild protest, unforgettable fucking, the
overwhelming joy of love, life shattering heartbreakis a muted, but desirous life. A dead but restless
and desirous life. The university steals and homogenizes our time yes, our bank accounts also, but it also
steals and homogenizes meaning . As much as capital is invested in building a killing apparatus abroad,
an incarceration apparatus in California, it is equally invested here in an apparatus for managing social
death. Social death is , of course, simply the power source, the generator, of civic life with its talk of
reform, responsibility, unity. A life, then, which serves merely as the public relations mechanism for
death: its garrulous slogans of freedom and democracy designed to obscure the shit and decay in which
our feet are planted. Yes, the university is a graveyard , but it is also a factory: a factory of meaning
which produces civic life and at the same time produces social death. A factory which produces the
illusion that meaning and reality can be separated; which everywhere reproduces the empty
reactionary behavior of students based on the values of life (identity), liberty (electoral politics), and
happiness (private property). Everywhere the same whimsical ideas of the future. Everywhere
democracy. Everywhere discourse to shape our desires and distress in a way acceptable to the electoral
state, discourse designed to make our very moments here together into a set of legible and fruitless
demands . Totally managed death. A machine for administering death, for the proliferation of
technologies of death. As elsewhere, things rule. Dead objects rule. In this sense, it matters little what
face one puts on the university whether Yudof or some other lackey. These are merely the
personifications of the rule of the dead, the pools of investments, the buildings, the flows of materials
into and out of the physical space of the universityeach one the product of some exploitationwhich
seek to absorb more of our work, more tuition, more energy. The university is a machine which wants to
grow, to accumulate, to expand, to absorb more and more of the living into its peculiar and perverse
machinery: high-tech research centers, new stadiums and office complexes. And at this critical juncture
the only way it can continue to grow is by more intense exploitation, higher tuition, austerity measures
for the departments that fail to pass the test of relevancy. But the irrelevant departments also have
their place. With their pure motives of knowledge for its own sake, they perpetuate the blind inertia
of meaning ostensibly detached from its social context . As the university cultivates its cozy
relationship with capital, war and power, these discourses and research programs play their own role,
co-opting and containing radical potential . And so we attend lecture after lecture about how
discourse produces subjects, ignoring the most obvious fact that we ourselves are produced by this
discourse about discourse which leaves us believing that it is only words which matter, words about
words which matter. The university gladly permits the precautionary lectures on biopower; on the
production of race and gender; on the reification and the fetishization of commodities. A taste of the
poison serves well to inoculate us against any confrontational radicalism. And all the while power
weaves the invisible nets which contain and neutralize all thought and action, that bind revolution inside
books, lecture halls. There is no need to speak truth to power when power already speaks the truth. The
university is a graveyard as es. The graveyard of liberal good intentions, of meritocracy, opportunity,
equality, democracy. Here the tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of
the living. We graft our flesh, our labor, our debt to the skeletons of this or that social clich. In seminars
and lectures and essays, we pay tribute to the universitys ghosts , the ghosts of all those it has excluded
the immiserated, the incarcerated, the just-plain-fucked. They are summoned forth and banished by
a few well-meaning phrases and research programs , given their book titles, their citations . This is our
gothic we are so morbidly aware, we are so practiced at stomaching horror that the horror is
thoughtless. In this graveyard our actions will never touch, will never become the conduits of a
movement, if we remain permanently barricaded within prescribed identity categoriesour force will be
dependent on the limited spaces of recognition built between us. Here we are at odds with one another
socially, each of us: students, faculty, staff, homebums, activists, police, chancellors, administrators,
bureaucrats, investors, politicians, faculty/ staff/ homebums/ activists/ police/ chancellors/
administrators/ bureaucrats/ investors/ politicians-to-be. That is, we are students, or students of color, or
queer students of color, or faculty, or Philosophy Faculty, or Gender and Women Studies faculty, or we
are custodians, or we are shift leaderseach with our own office, place, time, and given meaning. We
form teams, clubs, fraternities, majors, departments, schools, unions, ideologies, identities, and
subculturesand thankfully each group gets its own designated burial plot . Who doesnt participate in
this graveyard? In the university we prostrate ourselves before a value of separation, which in reality
translates to a value of domination. We spend money and energy trying to convince ourselves were
brighter than everyone else. Somehow, we think, we possess some trait that means we deserve more
than everyone else. We have measured ourselves and we have measured others. It should never feel
terrible ordering others around, right? It should never feel terrible to diagnose people as an expert,
manage them as a bureaucrat, test them as a professor, extract value from their capital as a
businessman. It should feel good, gratifying, completing. It is our private wet dream for the future;
everywhere, in everyone this same dream of domination. After all, we are intelligent, studious, young.
We worked hard to be here, we deserve this. We are convinced, owned, broken. We know their values
better than they do: life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. This triumvirate of sacred values are ours of
course, and in this moment of practiced theaterthe fight between the university and its own students
we have used their words on their stages: Save public education! When those values are violated by
the very institutions which are created to protect them, the veneer fades, the tired set collapses: and we
call it injustice, we get indignant. We demand justice from them, for them to adhere to their values.
What many have learned again and again is that these institutions dont care for those values, not at all,
not for all. And we are only beginning to understand that those values are not even our own. The values
create popular images and ideals (healthcare, democracy, equality, happiness, individuality, pulling
yourself up by your bootstraps, public education) while they mean in practice the selling of commodified
identities, the states monopoly on violence, the expansion of markets and capital accumulation, the rule
of property, the rule of exclusions based on race, gender, class, and domination and humiliation in
general. They sell the practice through the image . Were taught well live the images once we accept
the practice. In this crisis the Chancellors and Presidents, the Regents and the British Petroleums, the
politicians and the managers, they all intend to be true to their values and capitalize on the university
economically and sociallywhich is to say, nothing has changed, it is only an escalation, a provocation.
Their most recent attempt to reorganize wealth and capital is called a crisis so that we are more willing
to accept their new terms as well as what was always dead in the university, to see just how dead we
are willing to play , how non-existent, how compliant, how desirous. Every institution has of course our
best interest in mind, so much so that were willing to pay, to enter debt contracts, to strike a submissive
pose in the classroom, in the lab, in the seminar, in the dorm, and eventually or simultaneously in the
workplace to pay back those debts. Each bulging institutional value longing to become more than its
sentiment through us, each of our empty gestures of feigned-anxiety to appear under pressure, or of
cool-ambivalence to appear accustomed to horror, every moment of student life, is the management of
our consent to social death. Social death is our banal acceptance of an institutions meaning for our
own lack of meaning. Its the positions we thoughtlessly enact . Its the particular nature of being
owned. Social rupture is the initial divorce between the owners and the owned. A social movement is a
function of war . War contains the ability to create a new frame , to build a new tension for the agents
at play, new dynamics in the battles both for the meaning and the material. When we move without a
return to their tired meaning, to their tired configurations of the material, we are engaging in war. It is
November 2009. For an end to the values of social death we need ruptures and self-propelled,
unmanaged movements of wild bodies. We need, we desire occupations. We are an antagonistic dead.
Thus, we are a performance of stealing away which dooms the system to crumble
under its own weight otherwise, logics of incorporation ensures the recuperation of
juridical domination we must refuse interpellation and take back what belongs to
the undercommons
Moten and Harney '13
(Stefano Harney, Professor of Strategic Management Education at the Lee Kong Chian School of Business,
Singapore Management University and a co-founder of the School for Study and Dr. Fred Moten, Helen L.
Bevington Professor of Modern Poetry at Duke, "The University and the Undercommons," The
Undercommons: Fugitive Planning and Black Study, pg. 26-28) ~m leap~
The Only Possible Relationship to the University Today is a Criminal One. To the university Ill steal,
and there Ill steal , to borrow from Pistol at the end of Henry V, as he would surely borrow from us.
This is the only possible relationship to the American university today. This may be true of universities
everywhere. It may have to be true of the university in general. But certainly, this much is true in the
United States: it cannot be denied that the university is a place of refuge, and it cannot be accepted that
the university is a place of enlightenment. In the face of these conditions one can only sneak into the
university and steal what one can . To abuse its hospitality , to spite its mission , to join its refugee
colony , its gypsy encampment, to be in but not ofthis is the path of the subversive intellectual in the
modern university. Worry about the university. This is the injunction today in the United States, one with
a long history. Call for its restoration like Harold Bloom or Stanley Fish or Gerald Graff. Call for its reform
like Derek Bok or Bill Readings or Cary Nelson. Call out to it as it calls to you. But for the subversive
intellectual, all of this goes on upstairs, in polite company, among the rational men. After all, the
subversive intellectual came under false pretenses , with bad documents , out of love . Her labor is as
necessary as it is unwelcome. The university needs what she bears but cannot bear what she brings .
And on top of all that, she disappears. She disappears into the underground, the downlow lowdown
maroon community of the university, into the Undercommons of Enlightenment, where the work gets
done, where the work gets subverted, where the revolution is still black, still strong . What is that work
and what is its social capacity for both reproducing the university and producing fugitivity? If one were to
say teaching, one would be performing the work of the university. Teaching is merely a profession and
an operation of what Jacques Derrida calls the onto- /auto-encyclopedic circle of the Universitas. But
it is useful to invoke this operation to glimpse the hole in the fence where labor enters, to glimpse its
hiring hall, its night quarters. The university needs teaching labor, despite itself, or as itself, self-identical
with and thereby erased by it . It is not teaching then that holds this social capacity, but something that
produces the not visible other side of teaching, a thinking through the skin of teaching toward a
collective orientation to the knowledge object as future project, and a commitment to what we want to
call the prophetic organization. But it is teaching that brings us in. Before there are grants, research,
conferences, books, and journals there is the experience of being taught and of teaching. Before the
research post with no teaching, before the graduate students to mark the exams, before the string of
sabbaticals, before the permanent reduction in teaching load, the appointment to run the Center, the
consignment of pedagogy to a discipline called education, before the course designed to be a new book,
teaching happened. The moment of teaching for food is therefore often mistakenly taken to be a stage,
as if eventually, one should not teach for food. If the stage persists, there is a social pathology in the
university. But if the teaching is successfully passed on, the stage is surpassed, and teaching is consigned
to those who are known to remain in the stage, the sociopathological labor of the university. Kant
interestingly calls such a stage self-incurred minority. He tries to contrast it with having the
determination and courage to use ones intelligence without being guided by another. Have the
courage to use your own intelligence. But what would it mean if teaching or rather what we might call
the beyond of teaching is precisely what one is asked to get beyond, to stop taking sustenance? And
what of those minorities who refuse, the tribe of moles who will not come back from beyond2 (that
which is beyond the beyond of teaching), as if they will not be subjects , as if they want to think as
objects , as minority ? Certainly, the perfect subjects of communication, those successfully beyond
teaching, will see them as waste. But their collective labor will always call into question who truly is
taking the orders of the Enlightenment . The waste lives for those moments 102
Moten/Harneybeyond2 teaching when you give away the unexpected beautiful phrase unexpected, no
one has asked, beautiful, it will never come back. Is being the biopower of the Enlightenment truly better
than this? Perhaps the biopower of the Enlightenment know this, or perhaps it is just reacting to the
objecthood of this labor as it must. But even as it depends on these moles, these refugees, they will call
them uncollegial, impractical, naive, unprofessional. And one may be given one last chance to be
pragmaticwhy steal when one can have it all, they will ask. But if one hides from this interpellation,
neither agrees nor disagrees but goes with hands full into the underground of the university, into the
Undercommons this will be regarded as theft , as a criminal act . And it is at the same time, the
only possible act . In that Undercommons of the university one can see that it is not a matter of
teaching versus research or even the beyond of teaching versus the individualization of research. To
enter this space is to inhabit the ruptural and enraptured disclosure of the commons that fugitive
enlightenment enacts, the criminal , matricidal , queer , in the cistern, on the stroll of the stolen life ,
the life stolen by enlightenment and stolen back , where the commons give refuge, where the refuge
gives commons. What the beyond2 of teaching is really about is not finishing oneself, not passing, not
completing; its about allowing subjectivity to be unlawfully overcome by others , a radical passion
and passivity such that one becomes unfit for subjection, because one does not possess the kind of
agency that can hold the regulatory forces of subjecthood , and one cannot initiate the auto-
interpellative torque that biopower subjection requires and rewards. It is not so much the teaching as it
is the prophecy in the organization of the act of teaching. The prophecy that predicts its own
organization and has therefore passed, as commons, and the prophecy that exceeds its own organization
and therefore as yet can only be organized. Against the prophetic organization of the Undercommons is
arrayed its own deadening labor for the university, and beyond that, the negligence of
professionalization, and the professionalization of the critical academic. The Undercommons is therefore
always an unsafe neighborhood .
 case

Navigating the USfg through specific policy proposals is better than the 1AC
Bryant, Collin College professor of philosophy, 12
(Levi Bryant, Professor of Philosophy at Collin College, 2012, Critique of the Academic
Left, http://larvalsubject...-academic-left/, Accessed 6/28/15, AMM )
Unfortunately, the academic left falls prey to its own form of abstraction . Its good at carrying out critiques that denounce various social
formations, yet very poor at proposing any sort of realistic constructions of alternatives. This because it thinks abstractly in its own way, ignoring how networks, assemblages, structures, or regimes of attraction would have to be
remade to create a workable alternative. Here Im reminded by the underpants gnomes depicted in South Park: The underpants gnomes have a plan for achieving profit that goes like this: Phase 1: Collect Underpants Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Profit! They even have a catchy song to go with their work: Well this is sadly how it often is with the academic left. Our plan seems to be as follows: Phase 1: Ultra-Radical Critique Phase 2: ? Phase 3: Revolution and
complete social transformation! Our problem is that we seem perpetually stuck at phase 1 without ever explaining what is to be done at phase 2. Often the critiques articulated at phase 1 are right, but there are nonetheless all
sorts of problems with those critiques nonetheless. In order to reach phase 3, we have to produce new collectives. In order for new collectives to be produced, people need to be able to hear and understand the critiques developed

Even though these critiques are often right, we express them in ways that
at phase 1. Yet this is where everything begins to fall apart.

only an academic with a PhD in critical theory and post-structural theory can understand. How exactly is
Adorno to produce an effect in the world if only PhDs in the humanities can understand him? Who are
these things for? We seem to always ignore these things and then look down our noses with disdain at the Naomi Kleins and David Graebers of the world. To make matters worse, we publish our work in
expensive academic journals that only universities can afford, with presses that dont have a wide distribution, and give our talks at expensive hotels at academic conferences attended only by other academics. Again, who are these
things for? Is it an accident that so many activists look away from these things with contempt, thinking their more about an academic industry and tenure, than producing change in the world? If a tree falls in a forest and no one is

too often act like assholes. We denounce

there to hear it, it doesnt make a sound! Seriously dudes and dudettes, what are you doing? But finally, and worst of all, us Marxists and anarchists all

others, we condemn them, we berate them for not engaging with the questions we want to engage with, and
we vilify them when they dont embrace every bit of the doxa that we endorse. We are every bit as off-
putting and unpleasant as the fundamentalist minister or the priest of the inquisition (have people yet understood that Deleuze and
Guattaris Anti-Oedipus was a critique of the French communist party system and the Stalinist party system, and the horrific passions that arise out of parties and

identifications in general?). This type of revolutionary is the greatest friend of the reactionary and capitalist because they
do more to drive people into the embrace of reigning ideology than to undermine reigning ideology. These
are the people that keep Rush Limbaugh in business . Well done! But this isnt where our most serious shortcomings lie. Our most
serious shortcomings are to be found at phase 2. We almost never make concrete proposals for how things ought to be restructured, for

what new material infrastructur es and semiotic fields need to be produced, and when we do, our critique-
intoxicated cynics and skeptics immediately jump in with an analysis of all the ways in which these things contain dirty

secrets, ugly motives, and are doomed to fail. How, I wonder, are we to do anything at all when we have no

concrete proposals ? We live on a planet of 6 billion people. These 6 billion people are dependent on a certain network of production and distribution to meet the needs of their consumption. That network
of production and distribution does involve the extraction of resources, the production of food, the maintenance of paths of transit and communication, the disposal of waste, the building of shelters, the distribution of medicines,
etc., etc., etc. What are your proposals? How will you meet these problems? How will you navigate the existing mediations or semiotic and material features of infrastructure? Marx and Lenin had proposals. Do you? Have you even
explored the cartography of the problem? Today we are so intellectually bankrupt on these points that we even have theorists speaking of events and acts and talking about a return to the old socialist party systems, ignoring the
horror they generated, their failures, and not even proposing ways of avoiding the repetition of these horrors in a new system of organization. Who among our critical theorists is thinking seriously about how to build a distribution
and production system that is responsive to the needs of global consumption, avoiding the problems of planned economy, ie. Who is doing this in a way that gets notice in our circles? Who is addressing the problems of micro-
fascism that arise with party systems (theres a reason that it was the Negri & Hardt contingent, not the Badiou contingent that has been the heart of the occupy movement). At least the ecologists are thinking about these things in
these terms because, well, they think ecologically. Sadly we need something more, a melding of the ecologists, the Marxists, and the anarchists. Were not getting it yet though, as far as I can tell. Indeed, folks seem attracted to yet

I would love, just for a moment, to hear a radical environmentalist talk about his ideal high school
another critical paradigm, Laruelle.
that would be academically sound. How would he provide for the energy needs of that school? How would he meet building codes in an environmentally sound

way? How would she provide food for the students? What would be her plan for waste disposal? And most importantly, how would she
navigate the school board, the state legislature, the federal government, and all the families of these students? What is your plan?
What is your alternative? I think there are alternatives. I saw one that approached an alternative in Rotterdam. If you want to

make a truly revolutionary contribution, this is where you should start. Why should anyone even bother

listening to you if you arent proposing real plans ? But we havent even gotten to that point. Instead were like underpants gnomes,
saying revolution is the answer! without addressing any of the infrastructural questions of just how revolution is to be produced, what alternatives it would offer,
and how we would concretely go about building those alternatives. Masturbation. Underpants gnome deserves to be a category in critical theory; a sort of
synonym for self-congratulatory masturbation. We need less critique not because critique isnt important or necessary it is but because we
know the critiques, we know the problems. Were intoxicated with critique because its easy and safe. We
best every opponent with critique. We occupy a position of moral superiority with critique. But do we really do anything with critique? What we need today,
more than ever, is composition or carpentry. Everyone knows something is wrong. Everyone knows this
system is destructive and stacked against them . Even the Tea Party knows something is wrong with the economic system, despite having
the wrong economic theory. None of us, however, are proposing alternatives . Instead we prefer to shout and
denounce. Good luck with that.

Legal control over your subjectivity is inevitable but so are strategic demands on the
lawanti-statist politics are possible within legal reform
Peter Campbell 13, faculty member in the Program in Composition, Literacy, Pedagogy, and Rhetoric at
the University of Pittsburgh, JUDICIAL RHETORIC AND RADICAL POLITICS: SEXUALITY, RACE, AND THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT,
https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/45352/Peter_Campbell.pdf?sequence=1/
warner
Butfollowing MatsudaI think that Butler seems to miss an important point . Given the material force of the
fantasy of legal sovereignty in the margins, at the point[s] where power is completely invested in its
real and effective practices, 31 I argue that resistance to the idea of legal sovereignty must not preclude
what Cathy Cohen might call a practical32 understanding of the presently inevitable reality of the sovereign

rhetorical operations of the law. The political project of resistance to the performative sovereignty of
judicial rhetoric in the United States must not deny (as Matsuda and Richard Delgado said in 1987 to the crits of
Critical Legal Studies) the need to construct strategically informed and tactically sound responses to those

formal structures of law that already act as and with the material power of sovereign authority
authority over the constraints that legal forms of subjectivity already impose on personhood.33 As
Butler herself acknowledges in 2004,34 the absolute critique of legal sovereign performatives does not
adequately consider how the effects of the fantasy of legal sovereignty are most often (and most
often most terribly) felt by those who have actually seen and felt the falsity of the liberal promise 35
of the U.S. judiciary as a shield against domination. My experience of the law has occurred through my own participation in and
observation of judicial sovereigntyboth from a majoritarian perspective. I teach argumentation in a prison, a setting that emphasizes the paradoxical and
simultaneous vitality and uselessness of rhetorical and argumentative interaction with those persons charged with enforcing the reasoned justification of judicial
decision through coercive violence. In our present democratic state of laws, the production of legitimacy for judicial sovereignty through argument, and the
production of legitimacy through force, work together in explicit and mutually supportive fashion. More happily, I was recently invited by two friends to officiate
their wedding, at a ceremony in Rehoboth, Massachusetts. I agreed, and asked whether I should purchase an ordination online, so that I could legally perform the
ceremony. There was no need Massachusetts is unusual among U.S. states in maintaining a category of officiant called a solemnizer. Any person, with little
qualification, can apply to be a solemnizer. The dichotomy between the republican style36 of the application process, and the quotidian ease with which I was
granted the certificate made me think about the sovereign performative37 that I would stage in Rehoboth. The I do statement in a marriage ceremony is one of
Austins core examples38 of an illocutionary performative, an utterance which has a certain force in the saying of it,39 but this example itself performs an
interesting elision of the role of a state representative in a civil marriage ceremony. In Rehoboth, my friends would not be married until I pronounced them so
publicly. That pronouncement would of course require other performative statements (I do) from my friends as a pre-requisite to its validity.40 But on the date and
in the location specified by the solemnization certificate, I had, as a feature of the designation solemnizer bestowed on me by the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, absolute power over whether they would be married or noton that date and in that location. In the narrow context of the two possible realities of
my friends becoming married or not on that day and in that location, my role was to exercise the sovereign performative power of the Commonwealth as its judge-
like representative. But in that exercise, I would also be performing two arguments: one for the sovereign legitimacy (and successful performativity)41 of my
utterances and the illegitimacy of any others; and one for the value and significance of married as a position of legal subjectivity in Massachusetts and the United
States. I bring up this example to emphasize the specifically illocutionary power of the judicial rhetorical constitution of subjects before law. Austin describes
illocution as in saying x I was doing y or I did y,42 but judicial illocution might more accurately be described as in saying x I did x. When I said that these people
were married, I made them married. The statement and the doing were one and the same .
If a judge sentences a person to death, she does
not depress the needle; the pronouncement of sentence is an illocutionary act in the first sense (x and y). But in
pronouncing the sentence, the judge does redefine the convicted (of a death-eligible crime) persons subjectivity
before law from convicted and/or criminal and/or felon and/or murderer and/or traitor to, more primarily, condemned. This is an
illocutionary act in the second sense (x and x). If a judge rules that it is unconstitutional to require a trans* persons
passport to list their gender contrary to that persons self-understanding, 43 this is a perlocutionary act (where
the utterance effectively causes something to happen )44 in that the ruling enables the person who is trans* to
change the official designation of their gender. But it is also an x and x illocutionary act in the context of the petitioners
subjectivity before lawthe utterance of the ruling has changed their self-understanding of their own identity from
not real to real in the eyes of the law. This would be even more evident if the ruling did not merely realize the truth of a trans* persons self-
understanding as male or female, but went so far as to create, in the moment of the utterance itself, a legally recognized trans* identity category. All of these
examples are performatives enabled by the fantasy of the sovereign location of power in law. When asked, I considered (given my own views on marriage as an
institution) declining to perform the ceremonyeven in Massachusetts, whose marriage laws mean that the sexual orientation identity of the two people I married
cannot be discerned from this story. I understood that my performative and the discourse of the ceremony surrounding it would contribute in a small way to the
sovereign power of the state over human relational and sexual legitimacy. But this refusal would not have made the present sovereignty of the state over the

determination of legally legitimate and illegitimate forms of relation any less inevitable . Petitions to the law are inevitable ; they will
be made, often by people with no other recourse to save their life, or to preserve their life's basic
quality. As Butler demonstrates, any such petition will have performative effect . I do not offer this brief critique of
Butlers theory of sovereign performatives to dispute the facticity of her arguments. I begin this project with the stipulation that politics of
resistance to the sovereign performative must include actions of resistance to statist law itself that is,
the specific articulation of opposition, within progressive social movements, to strategies that
privilege appeals for help from judges . But these politics must also acknowledge that those who undertake
such strategies do not always do so without knowledge of the sovereign performative function of their
actionsrecourse to the law does not always or even usually imagine the law as neutral.45 These
radical politics must also be undertaken with knowledge of the effects of the petitions to law-as-sovereign that will inevitably

be made and particularly with knowledge of the effects that flow from the (also performative and also inevitable)
judicial rhetorical responses to these inevitable petitions. Austin teaches us that it is in the nature of performatives to
not always work, and to produce effects in excess of their explicit ones. The judicial rhetorical constitution of subject and abject forms of being-
in-relation to law operates through legal performatives that contain the possibilities for their own future infelicity.46 My project is an attempt
to explore some future possibilities for the counter-sovereign articulation of subjectivity before U.S. lawpossibilities that are both foreclosed
and engendered in the argumentative justifications for judicial decisions. Specifically, I examine some key Supreme Court cases relating to sexual
practice, race in education policy, and marriage. I perform a legal rhetorical criticism of critic-constructed meta-texts47 that form
argumentative frameworks through which judges apply various legal doctrines to questions of sexual, racial, educational, and relational
freedom. Following Perelman, I understand judicial argument to be the explanatory justifications offered for judges authoritative interpretive
application of legal doctrine to problems of public concernproblems that have been framed as legal, either by jurists themselves, petitioners
to the courts, or both. In
the United States, judicial arguments about constitutional interpretation have the
privileged function of delimiting the grounds on which the authority of all other statist legal argument is
based. Given the overwhelming salience of constitutional legal discourse in U.S. everyday life ,48 this
means that the judicial rhetoric of constitutional law plays a significant role in delimiting the grounds on
which a person can base their claimliterally 49 to existence and legitimacy in the U.S. polity. 50 Jurists
arguments from and about the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution in particular perform a final arbitration function in the ongoing and generally
contentious process of the statist determination of what forms of racialized queer identity and relation
will be eligible for recognized and legitimated status in U.S. public life . In this dissertation, I focus on the
Fourteenth Amendmentdue process and equal protectionrhetoric of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. I read this rhetoric in
terms of genealogies of precedent, or the argumentative
possibilities for queer subjectivity before law that are
brought into being by the doctrinal frameworks Kennedy and other judicial rhetors use in a given opinion. Each
chapter offers a case study of opinions in several Federal and Supreme Court cases that are foundational to Kennedys development of a new
constitutional jurisprudence of substantive due process and equality. I demonstrate that this jurisprudence is both productive of and violent to
possibilities for practical and strategic sexually progressive51 interactions with U.S. constitutional law. These interactions, despite
their practical or strategic formulation , can be undertaken and/or framed in terms of anti-statist and
institutional radical queer political goals . Possibilities for the success of such radical framing of practical interaction are
partially delimited in the argumentative choice of U.S. judicial opinions.

Civic engagement by young people is good- their flee from pragmatism causes voids
for Trumpism and vacuums of counter-productive hatred- the impact is destruction of
civil rights, climate change, and violent liberalism
Giroux 2016 - (Henry A. Giroux, chaired Professor for Scholarship the Public Interest at McMaster
University, 11-13-2016 ("Authoritarianism in America: A Call for Resistance", Abolition, Accessed Online
at https://abolitionjournal.org/authoritarianism-in-america-a-call-for-resistance-henry-a-giroux/, Accessed
on 11-16-2016)/ warner
Americans have now entered into one of the most sickening and dangerous periods of the 21st century .
Trump is not only a
twisted caricature of every register of economic, political, educational, and social extremism,
he is the apogee of a warrior culture committed to rolling back civil rights, womens
reproductive rights, denying the threat of climate change, and mocking, if not threatening, all
vestiges of economic justice and democracy. As David Remnick pointed out in The New
Yorker, he is nothing less than a tragedy for the American republic, a tragedy for the
Constitution, and a triumph for the forces, at home and abroad, of nativism, authoritarianism,
misogyny, and racism.[1] Actually, it gets worse. Trump is the fascist shadow that has been
lurking in the dark since Nixons Southern Strategy. A ghostly reminder of the price to be paid
when historical consciousness and public values are lost in a culture of immediacy, ignorance,
and a flight from social and political responsibility. Authoritarianism has now become viral in America,
spreading its toxic ideology into every facet of American life. The threat of totalitarianism with its legions of alt-right political
zombies has now exposed itself, without apology, knowing full well that it no longer has to code or apologize for its hatred of all
those who do not fit into its white-supremacist and ultra-nationalist script. With
America tipping over into
authoritarianism, we have learned that liberalism sabotaged itself as it morphed into third-
way market-driven economic and political policies, transforming itself into nothing more than
an ugly corpse decomposing on the national and global landscape. Its commitment to
corporate power and the financial elite has helped to provoke a wave of unchecked anger
among the dispossessed, which Trump has tapped into in order to turn misfortune into
hatred. In doing so, he has helped to undermine the most sacred democratic ideals and has
pushed America into a mirror image of those European countries, which have been
transformed into gated sites of social abandonment for refugees and a petri dish for right-
wing extremists. We have also learned that the economic crisis and the misery neoliberalism has spurned has not been
matched by an ideological crisis, a crisis of ideas, education, and values. In part, that is because the left and progressives have
not taken education seriously enough as central to the meaning of politics. Without an informed public, there is no resistance in
the name of democracy and justice. Of
course, power is never entirely on the side of domination, and
in this coming era of acute repression, we will have to redefine politics, reclaim the struggle to
educate, change individual and collective consciousness, engage in meaningful dialogue with
people left out of the political landscape, and build broad based social movements. There are
hints of this happening among youth of color and we need to be attentive to these struggles.
This is a time for those who believe in democracy to both talk back and fight back. It will not
be easy but it can happen and there are historical precedents for this. The main vehicle of
change and political agency has to be young people. They are the beacon of the future and we have to learn from them,
support them, contribute where possible, and join in their struggles. The lights are going out in America and in many European countries and the time to wake up
from this nightmare is today. Forget depression, look ahead, get energized, read, build alternative public spheres, and learn how to hold power accountable.
There are no guarantees in politics, but there is no politics that matters without hope, that is, educated hope. What is happening in the United States can happen
in any country, including Canada. Americas move into authoritarianism is a warning for all of us, regardless of where we live.

Legalism is inevitable under an abolitionist praxis

Your Rodrguez 10 evidence
(Dylan Rodrguez is Professor of the Department of Ethnic Studies at UC Riverside. "The Disorientation of
the Teaching Act: Abolition as Pedagogical Position." Radical Teacher, No. 88, 2010. Pg. 7-19)
To live and work, learn and teach, and survive and thrive in a time defined by the capacity and political
willingness to eliminate and neutralize populations through a culturally valorized, state sanctioned nexus
of institutional violence, is to better understand why abolitionist praxis in this historical moment is
primarily pedagogical, within and against the system in which it occurs. While it is conceivable that in
future moments, abolitionist praxis can focus more centrally on matters of (creating and not simply
opposing) public policy, infrastructure building , and economic reorganization, the present moment
clearly demands a convening of radical pedagogical energies that can build the collective human power,
epistemic and knowledge apparatuses, and material sites of learning that are the precondition of
authentic and liberatory social transformations.

Imprisonment is good and solves sexual violence and child molestation

Wrobleski and Hess 9 -- Information Technology Administrative Services Coordinator and PhD in
medicine, MD (Henry and Karen, Introduction to Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, 9 th edition, p.
520, tony)
Incapacitation refers to making it impossible for offenders to commit further offenses. Incapacitation can
take many forms. One of the earliest forms was banishmnent, also referred to as social death. Some
people feel this is the ultimate punishment, more devastating than being executed. In preliterate
societies, offenders were often cast out of the village. Most recently England banished its outlaws and
undesirables to Australia and then to the United States. Other forms of incapacitation make it physically
impossible for a criminal act to be repeated. A thief whose hands are cut off will not easily steal again. A
castrated male will be unable to rape again. An incarcerated child molester will not be able to abuse
children while in prison. And, obviously, a murderer who is executed will kill no more. Currently, the
most common method of incapacitation is incarceration. While imprisoned a criminal is no longer a
threat to society. The most extreme for of incapacitation is capital punishment.