1

Desegregation of schools only creates emancipation under marketization-

efforts to desegregate only mark the failures of neoliberalism.
Eastman 17
Eastman, Nicholas (Assistant Professer of Educational Studies @ Ripon College, PhD from
Georgia State University J.), 5/12/17 "Lost Ground: Neoliberalism, Charter Schools, and the
End of Desegregation in St. Louis, Missouri.", Georgia State University
Liberalism, as I detailed in the second chapter, is a matter of different and competing notions of
individual human freedom. Classical liberalism focused on maximizing decontextualized
self-interest within markets free from state interference. Social liberalism, as manifested
in Keynesian economics and the social democratic welfare state, re-contextualized the
individual within the social sphere and sought to use the state to mitigate various
oppressive market and social forces while also protecting capitalist markets and
promoting economic growth. Neoliberalism seeks a revival of free market logics while also utilizing a strong
interventionist state to promote market growth by creating new markets, expanding existing markets, and legitimating the
logic of individualized self-interest maximization. Per Karl Polanyi, the free market is a fiction, and markets have always relied
on states to maintain that fiction structurally and ideologically. For Polanyi, the state had to develop what he called a double
movement in which it promoted marketization while also protecting society against the ravages of marketization.303 Nancy
Fraser points to the weaknesses she sees in Polanyis binary, arguing the political struggles of the twentieth century reflect a
triple movement involving marketization, social protections, and emancipation.304 Social protections such as Keynesian
protections of the family wageremuneration that would allow working class men to support a familydid not take into
consideration feminist struggles for emancipation occurring within the 162 nuclear family and the larger political economy.
Fraser contends that the marketization and social protection movements of the state aligned against the emancipation
movement. Under what she calls progressive neoliberalism, the movements of
marketization and emancipation align against social protections.305 The neoliberal state
encourages all subjects regardless of race, gender, sexuality, or religious creed to seek
their freedom within new and intensified market spaces, provided that they do not seek
any social protections from the state along the way.306 Frasers tripartite state movements
is a useful way of thinking of the mutations of state policies for education equity. With the
Brown decision, and during the three or so decades that followed it, the state (to greater and often lesser
degrees) implemented social protections against the economic and political ravages of
public education apartheid. Such protections produced substantial resource gains307 and
significant improvements in measurable outcomes.308 However, they largely failed to deliver
at the level of emancipation as black teachers were not integrated into public educations
post-Brown workforce309those who did have jobs were often ignored regarding
desegregation310and the students themselves were assimilated into educational spaces
that were either culturally hostile, ignorant, or both.311 The neoliberal turn epitomized by
the charter school movement has, however, shifted marketizations alignment away from
social protections toward emancipation. As Arne Duncan repeated ad nauseam while arguing for the
expansion of the charter school industry and the closure of thousands of traditional public schools, we cant afford to leave
talent on the sidelines.
Public educations failures, as contested as they are numerous, are here
framed in the threadbare clichs of market emancipationnot emancipation from
marketization, emancipation through marketization. The centrist neoliberal worldview
constructs access to a safe, free, and appropriate public education as the ability to form
oneself according to the workforce demands of the twenty-first century in spite of the fact
that such demands are unknown and unknowable.312 The right to an education for a more
dignified life is permissible as long as human dignity corresponds to human capital
development. For centrist neoliberals, the indignity of public education apartheid before and
after Brown313 is less about dehumanization and more about suboptimal performance
that leaves talent on the sidelines. The charter school movement appropriates the Civil Rights Movement in
much the same way Fraser argues neoliberalism appropriates second wave feminism. It discards social protections and
replaces non-market struggles for emancipation through education with the structural marketization of educational spaces and
a discourse of emancipation that accords to market demands. Dehumanizing structural issues like poverty
and racism are thus allowed to exist so long as there are sufficient ladders of opportunity
within those spaces. Where such ladders are deemed insufficient in number or degree is
where further marketization is necessary. This chapters focus on the transition from desegregation to
neoliberalization in St. Louis performs its own sort of double movement. First, I argue that desegregation efforts in St.
Louisand, by extension, nationallyillustrate the failures of the Keynesian welfare state to protect
black populations from the twinned structural forces of marketization and racism, both of
which thwarted their historical struggles for emancipation from slavery through Jim Crow. During the second movement, I
argue that the
transition from Keynesian liberalism to neoliberalism is part of the ongoing
and historic spatial processes of what David Harvey calls accumulation by dispossession. To
do so, I bring a critical focus to the policy (and historical policy ecology) that put an end to state commitments to St. Louiss
historic school desegregation busing program and made Missouri the 34th state to legalize charter schools. I offer a synthesis
between the concentration of charter schools in the hypersegregated and deindustrialized cities of the Rust Belt described in
the first chapter, the theories of neoliberalism as a project of class discipline and accumulation of capital elaborated in the
second chapter, and the spatio-temporal dimensions of urban neoliberalization laid out in the third chapter. I do not claim that
my conclusions regarding public education and urban neoliberalization in St. Louis apply pari passu with charter concentration
in other regions or even within other Rust Belt cities. Such a claim would ignore the path dependency of variegated
neoliberalization. I do, however, claim that St. Louis provides an important case study in what Brenner and Theodore call the
cities and geographies of actually existing neoliberalism,314 and critical analyses of other Rust Belt cities might provide
important insight into how charter schools are integral components of much larger efforts to restructure urban governance,
redevelop urban space, and remake urban life according to the imperatives of capital accumulation and the restoration of class
power.

The call of the affirmative to identify with and endorse the other falls into
the trap of capitalism; several ways 1) accepting the depoliticization of the
economy; 2) the movement necessitates its opposite; 3) it obscures literal
antagonism preventing libratory violence over classism.
Dean 6 (Jodi; teaches political theory @ Horbart and William Smith Colleges; Zizeks
Politics; 96-98)
Unlike most critical thinkers identified with the Left, Zizek rejects the current emphasis on multicultural
tolerance. He has three primary reasons for rejecting multiculturalism, as it is currently understood in cultural
studies and democratic theory. First, agreeing with Wendy Brown, he argues that multiculturalism today rests
on 'an acceptance of global capitalism." Insofar as Capital's deterritorializations create the
conditions for the proliferation of multiple, fluid, political subjectivities, new social
movements and identity politics rely on a political terrain established by global capitalism.
As I explained with regard to the notion of class struggle in Chapter Two, multiculturalism ultimately accepts
and depends on the depoliticization of the economy: "the way the economy functions (the
need to cut social welfare, etc.) is accepted as a simple insight into the objective state of things."' We
might think here of feminist struggles over the right to an abortion, political work toward marriage benefits for same-sex
couples, and energies spent on behalf of movies and television networks that target black audiences. In efforts such as these,
political energy focuses on culture and leaves the economy as a kind of unquestioned, taken-for- granted basis of the way
things are. This
is not to say that identity politics are trivial. On the contrary, Zizek fully
acknowledges the way these new forms of political subjectivization "thoroughly reshaped
our entire political and cultural landscape."' The problem is that capitalism has adapted to
these new political forms, incorporating previously transgressive urges and turning culture
itself into its central component." To be sure, Zizek's argument would be stronger were he to think of new social
movements as vanishing or displaced mediators. Identity politics opened up new spaces and
opportunities for capitalist intensification. As new social movements transformed the
lifeworld into something to be questioned and changed, they disrupted fixed identities
and created opportunities for experimentation. The market entered to provide these
opportunities. Consider gay media. Joshua Gamson observes that while gay portal sites initially promised to offer safe
and friendly spaces for gay community building, they now function primarily "to deliver a market share to corporations." In this
gay media, "community needs are conflated with consumption desires, and community equated with market."' Social
victories paved the way for market incursions into and the commodification of ever more
aspects of experience. Once cultural politics morphed into capitalist culture, identity
politics lost its radical edge. With predictable frequency, the Republican Right in the United States regularly accuses
the Left of playing the race card whenever there is opposition to a non- Anglo political appointee. A second argument Zizek
employs against multiculturalism concerns the way multicultural tolerance is part of the same matrix as
racist violence. On the one hand, multicultural respect for the other is a way of asserting the
superiority of the multiculturalist.11 The multiculturalist adopts an emptied-out,
disembodied perspective toward an embodied, ethnic other. The ethnic other makes the universal
position of the multiculturalist possible. Not only does this attitude disavow the particularity of the
multiculturalist's own position, but it also repeats the key gesture of global corporate
capitalism: the big corporations will eat up, colonize, exploit, and commodify anything.
They are not biased. They are empty machines following the logic of Capital. On the other hand, tolerance toward the
other "passes imperceptibly into a destructive hatred of all ('fundamentalist') Others who do
not fit into our idea of tolerance-in short, against all actual Others."4' The idea is that the liberal
democrat, or multiculturalist, is against hatred and harassment. Tolerance is tolerance for another who also does not hate or
harass, that is, tolerance for an other who is not really so other at all.41, It thus works in tandem with a right not to be
harassed, not to be victimized, inconvenienced by, or exposed to the particular enjoyment of another .41 To this extent, the
multicultural position blurs into a kind of racism such that respect is premised on
agreement and identity. The Other with deep fundamental beliefs, who is invested in a set of unquestionable
convictions, whose enjoyment is utterly incomprehensible to me, is not the other of multicultural ism. For Zizek, then,
today's tolerant liberal multiculturalism is "an experience of the Other deprived of its
Otherness (the idealized Other who dances fascinating dances and has an ecologically sound holistic approach to reality,
while practices like wife-beating remain out of sight ... )."' Just as in Eastern Europe after the fall of communism, so today's
reflexive multicultural tolerance has as its opposite, and thus remains caught in the matrix of, a hard kernel of fundamentalism,
of irrational, excessive, enjoyment. The
concrete realization of rational inclusion and tolerance
coincides with contingent, irrational, violence. Finally, Zizek's third argument against multiculturalism is
that it precludes politicization. Zizek uses the example of the animated film series about dinosaurs, The
Land Before Time, produced by Steven Spielberg." The "clearest articulation of the hegemonic liberal multiculturalist
ideology," The Land Before Time iterates the basic message that everyone is different and all
should learn to live with these differences-big and small, strong and weak, carnivore and
herbivore. In the films, the dinosaurs sing songs about how one should not worry about being eaten because underneath
those big teeth are real fears and anxieties that everyone shares. Of course, this image of cooperative dinosaurs is profoundly
false. As Zizek asks, what
does it really mean to say that it takes all kinds? "Does that mean nice
and brutal, poor and rich, victims and torturers?"' The vision of a plurality of horizontal
differences precludes the notion of a vertical antagonism that cuts through the social
body. Some are more powerful. Some do want to kill-and denying this in an acceptance of
differences prevents the politicization of this inequality. To say that in our difference we are really all
alike, underneath it all, disavows the underlying social antagonism. It prevents us from acknowledging and confronting the way
that class struggle cuts through and conditions the multiplicity of differences.

Neoliberalism causes extinction - generates resource, environmental, social

crises and is the root cause of inequality
Sparke 16
(Matthew Sparke is Professor of Geography, International Studies and Global Health at the
University of Washington, USA, where he also serves as the Director of Integrated Social
Sciences, Health and the embodiment of neoliberalism: pathologies of political
economy from climate change and austerity to personal responsibility, in The Handbook of
Neoliberalism, pgs. 237-247)
Neoliberalism is commonly understood in terms of the expanding global influence of disembodied market forces and rationalities. However, unlike the invisible hands and competitive calculations it
unleashes on the world, neoliberalisms implications for health are neither intangible nor abstract. Instead, they are materially embodied in ways that are deeply consequential for life and death (Navarro
2007). Evoked in book titles such as The Deadly Ideas of Neoliberalism, Dying for Growth, Sickness and Wealth, Infections and Inequalities, Pathologies of Power, Blind Spot, and, in the aftermath of the

neoliberalism and associated forms of inequality, austerity and precarity have been tied
2008 financial crisis, The Body Economic: Why Austerity Kills,

by health scholars to a vast variety of embodied suffering, disease-vulnerability and low life expectancy right

across the planet (Rowden 2009; Kim et al. 2000; Fort et al. 2004; Farmer 2001, 2005; Keshavjee 2014; Stuckler and Basu 2013). Rallying against these lethal links, a gathering of the
World Social Forum in Tunis in 2015 recently concluded that todays global crises in health, health services and social protection are in fact the

consequence of neoliberal politics globally (WSF 2015). Meanwhile, amid all the crises, individuals are also now
routinely told that their health is simply their own responsibility , a form of resilience that will only endure if they invest in it with the
same individualistic and entrepreneurial prudence that is the trademark of personalized neoliberalism more generally (Brown and Baker 2012). As a result, all sorts of embodied

health challenges hunger and obesity being two especially physical examples are repeatedly recoded as
personal management problems even as they embody neoliberal socio-economic
developments in society at large (Carney 2015; Guthman 2009). How then can we better theorize the processes through which neoliberalism becomes embodied in health? While the ill-
effects of neoliberal policies and practices have been spreading across borders like an infectious outbreak, neoliberalism is clearly not a biological disease agent itself. Even if it is conceptualized as an

The etiologies of
epidemic in terms of transnational health impacts, its extraordinarily diverse sequelae do not constitute a singular medical syndrome (Schrecker and Bambra 2015).

illness involved are extremely complex, multi-causal and as geographically uneven as they are historically and economically interconnected (Labonte et al. 2009). Whether it is the

global consequences of the cutbacks in health care caused by neoliberal austerity, or the impact of
business deregulation, privatization and user fees introduced in national neoliberal reforms, or the
everyday destabilization of communities caused by increasing income inequalities, social insecurity and
environmental deterioration, the varieties of experiences, processes and time-space scales to consider are extremely heterogeneous. And then, on the other side of the
ledger, there are the health benefits claimed by the privileged for neoliberal innovations in personal risk management, customized medicine, medical tourism and pharmaceuticals benefits that also
sometimes come with increased risks for others such as organ donors and experimental subjects recruited for drug trials in poor countries (Parry et al. 2015; Sparke 2014). Across such a wide range of
economic, political and social life, neoliberalism the term means many different things. Thus before proceeding here to offer a survey of research on the health outcomes that can be diagnosed as
embodiments of neoliberalism, this chapter begins by first unpacking what the term means and how we can best theorize its ties to health. Defining neoliberalism in relation to health Put most simply,

neoliberalism names a way of governing capitalism that emphasizes liberalizing markets

and making market forces the basis of economic coordination, social distribution, and personal motivation (Sparke 2013).At a macro scale these developments can be seen as comprising neoliberal

governance, a set of governmental norms including privatization , business deregulation , and trade liberalization ,
that reconstitute politics in the shape of the market and repurpose the state as an entrepreneurial actor that governs through proliferating publicprivate partnerships in the interests of business classes
and global investors (Brown 2015; Harvey 2005). At a more intimate scale of personal behaviour it becomes neoliberal governmentality, a suite of practices in which individuals across a much wider set of
social classes are enlisted into becoming competitive agents who invest in their human capital as entrepreneurs and who reimagine the meaning of their lives, citizenship and individuality including their
personal health as calculating consumers constantly comparing metrics of ownership, mobility and social ranking (Brown 2015; Dardot and Laval 2013; Lemke 2001). And at once enabling and mediating
developments across these different scales, neoliberalism is also a set of economic-turned-political ideas: ideas (like von Hayeks view of health as just another consumer choice) that keep evolving as
adaptive and protean yet hegemonic common-sense about market norms and necessities, and ideas that thereby continue to inspire both the macro policies and micro practices of neoliberalization in
different ways in different places (Gaffney 2014; Mirowski 2013; Peck 2010). All these accounts of neoliberalism are useful, but, as has been widely cautioned (including by many of the authors cited
above), each one risks turning the term into a singular and seemingly inevitable metanarrative when divorced from attention to the historical-geographical circumstances in which neoliberal ideas and
discourses actually shape assemblages of neoliberal governance and governmentality (Ong 2006; Sparke 2006; Springer 2012). This is precisely where studying neoliberalism in terms of embodiment
becomes so critical, offering a way of coming to terms with how all the global-to-local processes of neoliberalization come together materially to condition and, too often, to shorten and diminish human
life. Not surprisingly, scholars of health have already led the way in reconceptualizing neoliberal- ism in terms of embodiment.They are not all necessarily informed directly by the account of illness as
ecosocial embodiment offered by epidemiologist Nancy Krieger (2001, 2005; but see Birn et al. 2009). All sorts of other ecologies and epidemiologies of inequality have been charted as well
(Heggenhougen 2005): some stressing the ties between ill-health and the high in-country inequalities created by neoliberal reform (Wilkinson and Pickett 2009; De Vogli, Schrecker and Labonte 2013);
others surveying the severe constraints placed on poor country primary health care, health services and, more recently, on health systems strengthening by the structural adjustments and neoliberal
austerity imposed by international finance and its polit- ical representatives (Birn and Dmitrienko 2005; Gloyd 2004; Kim et al. 2000; Pfeiffer and Chapman 2010); others highlighting in turn the complex
biosocial mechanisms through which everything from dam-building to user fees, curtailed drugs programmes, and other structural adjustments materialize as structural violence on the poor (Farmer
2005; Farmer et al. 2013); and yet others identifying the particular routes through which poor peoples bodies, blood and bio- logical material have been turned into new molecular frontiers for capitalist
growth amid the crises and speculative leaps of neoliberal globalization (Cooper 2008; Crane 2013; Rajan 2007). These varied epidemiologies are informed in turn by varied analyses of the pathways
through which neoliberalization comes to be embodied. Some stress the transfer mechanisms of neolib- eral ideas through international financial institutions, free trade deals and NGOs (Labonte and
Schrecker 2007; Rowden 2009; Keshavjee 2014). Others emphasize the class interests and policy reforms of neoliberal governance, including health services privatization (Navarro 2007; Schrecker and
Bambra 2015; Schwiter et al. 2015). And yet others address the prudential risk- management practices of neoliberal governmentality, whether as they are practiced by consum- ers of personalized
medicine in privileged contexts (Brown and Baker 2012; Lupton 2015), or as they are extended, however unevenly and incompletely, to aid enclaves of therapeutic citi- zenship in desperately poor
contexts (Ngyuen 2010). The main focus in what follows is on the pathways that can be addressed in terms of conditionalization, including under this heading the diverse developments through which

neoliberalism in macro political-economic governance has become embodied in various forms of

premature mortality and morbidity . Given limited space, less attention is paid here to the various forms of personalized responsibilization through which
more micro modes of neoliberal governmentality have come to be embodied in individual experiences of risk and biomedical self-management. However, by way of a conclusion, the last part of the
chapter points to how both conditionalization and responsibilization are increasingly coming together to shape contemporary global health formation: the formation of a field of research, intervention
and outcomes in which we see micro neoliberal innovations in personalized health risk management frequently being advanced as answers to the destructive legacies of macro neoliberal structural
adjustment. It is a field in which neoliberal market failures are at once acknowledged and contested even as neoliberal assumptions still strongly shape the ways that corrective counter-measures to the

to understand the global health

legacies of neoliberal structural violence are imagined, assessed and defended (Kenworthy 2014; Mitchell and Sparke 2016). But

problems in poor countries that corrective global health interventions are designed to address we first need
to come to terms with the ways in which embodied experiences of health have been structured
by neoliberal conditionalization. Neoliberalization as global political-economic conditionalization Last year, our imperfect world
delivered, in short order, a fuel crisis, a food crisis, and a financial crisis . It also delivered compelling evidence that the
impact of climate change has been seriously underestimated . All of these events have
global causes and global consequences, with serious implications for health. They are not random events. Instead, they are the result of
massive failures in the international systems that govern the way nations and their populations interact. In short: they are
the result of bad policies.... In far too many cases, economic growth has been pursued, with single-minded purpose, as the be-all, end-

all, cure-for-all. The assumption that market forces could solve most problems has not
proved true . (Margaret Chan 2009) She did not use the word neoliberalism itself, but, in 2009, in one of the most critical speeches ever made by a Director General
of the World Health Organization, Margaret Chan delivered a damning diagnosis of the effects of neoliberal
policy-making on health outcomes around the world. At the centre of the bad policies she targeted for critique in this way was the single- minded pursuit of economic growth, and her
subsequent references to globalization, market forces, and trade liberalization indexed, in turn, wider neoliberal developments as the underlying causes of the widening global crises. Coming on the heels
of the 2008 global financial crisis, Dr Chan thereby summed up a widespread realization that the neoliberal norms tied to market-led global growth were creating massive problems of inequality, volatility

and precarity. Something, she said, has gone horribly wrong. Dr Chans diagnosis was by no means just a rhetorical response to a bad year. It built upon a comprehensive assessment of the
WHOs own Commission on the Social Determinants of Health, which had already reached similar conclusions collected together in a report that
was published in 2008 before the full scope of the global financial crisis even became clear (WHO 2008). Social injustice is killing people on a grand

scale, announced this report (ibid.: 26).And, as well as presenting voluminous data to buttress their critique, the commissioners also sought to chart some of the pathways of causal connection
linking high mortality and morbidity around the world to the structural force of neoliberal policies and associated economic impera- tives. The report also did not use the term neoliberalism. It only
showed up once in a reference to an online paper on uneven health outcomes and neoliberalism in Africa (republished as Bond and Dor 2007). But as they endeavoured to describe the market-made and
market-mediated structural drivers that set the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work, and age, and as they documented how these political-economic forces are experienced and thus
embodied as ill-health, the commissioners effectively underlined a form of conditionalization linked to globalization that others would clearly recognize as neoliberalization. This toxic combination of bad
policies, economics, and politics, they argued, is, in large measure, responsible for the fact that a majority of people in the world do not enjoy the good health that is biologically possible (WHO 2008,
26). Irrespective of the terminology used, one of the most useful lessons of the analyses offered by the WHO chief and the 2008 WHO report on the social determinants of health is their focus on the
processes of conditionalization through which global structural forces become embodied in health outcomes. Conditionalization is a useful term to employ here for two reasons. First of all, it indexes the
many indirect ways through which neoliberalization around the world has set the basic conditions in which people strive to live their everyday lives. Conditioning connects in this way to vital processes of

Inequality, financial
social reproduction, as well as communicating as a verb to condition how living conditions, in turn, become embodied in peoples health.

volatility, and the so-called race to the bottom tendencies associated with the relentless global
competition for investment and jobs are all important aspects of neoliberal health conditioning in this respect, as
too are the massive challenges of climate change , pollution , and food and water insecurity , all of which have
been further exacerbated by market liberalization and associated efforts to attract and accommodate business interests globally. More directly, the
second reason for using the term conditionalization is that it also points to the very specific neoliberal policies known as conditionalities comprising the rules imposed on poor countries around the
world by the IMF,World Bank and US Treasury Department as conditions for sup- port with debt management from the debt crises of the 1980s onwards. Also known as the Washington Consensus, the
rules of conditionality rules that included privatization, trade liberalization, financial deregulation, austerity, cuts to health programmes, user fees for health services, cuts to food and fuel subsidies, and
diverse experiments in export-led development constituted the main components of the so-called Structural Adjustment Programmes or SAPs administered by the three agencies based in Washington,
DC. These same SAPs have subsequently become the subject of a powerful set of critical studies documenting the structural violence and suffering that structural adjustment imposed on societies across
the global South, violence and suffering that has, in turn, been embodied in a whole series of diminished health outcomes (Pfeiffer and Chapman 2010). Let us now examine these contextual and
structural patterns of health conditionalization in more detail, starting with the most generalized and global conditioning affect of all: namely, climate change. Neoliberalism and the contextual
conditioning of health Climate change is viewed by many health scholars as the biggest global health threat of the 21st century (Costello et al. 2009). Even if the ties to neoliberalization are not always

the health risks of climate change can also, in turn, be examined as being increased and intensified by
noted,

neoliberal developments globally (Goodman 2014).The freeing-up of market capitalism has undoubtedly freed-up
additional carbon as gas and put it straight into the atmosphere , creating the basic conditioning effect the
greenhouse effect needed to create anthropogenic climate change. The liberalization in neoliberalization takes on a whole new meaning in this regard. As Naomi Klein puts it,
the liberation of world markets, a process powered by the liberation of unprecedented amounts of fossil fuels from the earth, has dramatically sped up the same process that is liberating Arctic ice from
existence (Klein 2014: 201). These liberalization links noted, it would be mistaken simply to blame neoliberalism alone for climate change.The Keynesian welfare-state capitalism of the pre-neoliberal
West was itself the worlds greatest greenhouse gas generator until market-led globalization brought developing countries into the club of big carbon emitters. Looked at like this over longer time-spans,

Neoliberalism has undoubtedly

economic development based on energy supplied largely in the form of fossil fuels was always going to lead to the greenhouse effect.

accelerated the process and enabled recent phenomena such as fracking and tar sands
exploitation by blunting government regulation of energy corpo- rations and legitimating new norms for extractive development (Finewood and Stroup 2012; Preston 2013). But, many
other older aspects of global development have been contributing to carbon build-up for far longer. Pre-neoliberal pollution noted, when it comes to how climate change impacts human health, and how

we have not done the things

societies might mitigate or adapt to the dangers, neoliberalism makes a very big difference indeed (Fieldman 2011). As Klein underlines,

that are necessary to lower emissions because those things fundamentally conflict with deregulated

capitalism (Klein 2014: 18). Mitigation has thereby been repeatedly mitigated, leading to a series of dead-ends in
global climate negotiations from Kyoto to Copenhagen to Cancun to Durban (Bond 2012a).The same economistic appeals to the inevitability of market logics that have
helped to naturalize neoliberal globalization have also helped in this way to make shifts away from carbon-intensive energy production seem impossible to political elites. As a result, whatever worries
endure about climate change are generally transformed into new market-friendly and market- mediated adaptive opportunities through developments such as carbon credit markets, weather

derivatives, patented climate-ready crops and public forest land grabs privatized as carbon sinks (Bond 2012b; Cooper 2010; Dempsey and Robertson 2012). Thus the dominant
neoliberal response to climate change has been to focus on the depoliticizing
development of so-called resilience , turning market tools and techniques for risk management into new climate
adaptation products for those who can afford to invest in insurance and insulation from the most
health-threatening implications of climate change (Bracking 2015; Felli 2015; Gilbertson and Reyes 2009; MacNeil and Paterson 2012; Parr 2015). And far from the centres of financialized climate

adaptation, the bodies of the poor are simultaneously left vulnerable under neoliberalism to the floods, storms,
desertification, droughts, heat waves, and disease outbreaks that the Inter- national Panel on Climate Change describes as
being created or worsened by climate change, as well as all the associated shortages of reliable food and secure water supplies (IPCC 2014). The hazardous
contexts for human life created by deregulated risk-evading industry impose risks on human health through more than just greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. Mudu 2009). There are many other health-
damaging ecologies ensuing from the ways in which the neoliberal competition to attract and retain investment globally has led to diminished controls over corporate activities ranging from power

Ocean acidification,
generation to farming, fishing, logging and mining to chemical and pharmaceutical production to the management of food and workplace safety.

aquifer depletion, overfishing, biodiversity loss, and carcinogenic chemical exposure all threaten the
ecological systems that support the reproduction of healthy human bodies, and they are all intensified by neoliberalization
(Castree 2010). Similarly, the race to the bottom on (and for) factory floors created by the creation of the increasingly neoliberal global division of labour (i.e. competitive, contingent and highly
precarious flexible labour markets) has led to the sidelining of occupational health and safety protections as well as to the undermining of unions and the historic health and pension benefits secured by

collective bargaining (Mogensen 2006). The deaths and injuries of workers through hyper-exploitation , suicide ,
factory fires , building collapses and other industrial disasters are, in this sense, just the most
egregious embodiments (indeed disembodiments in some cases) of more pervasive tendencies towards increasing
work-related stress, vulnerability and ill-health (Baram 2009; Ngai and Chan 2012). Most vulnerable of all, the precarious sub-citizenship of poor migrant workers in
todays global economy many of them forced into migration by the impact of neoliberalization on domestic economies leads directly to broken bodies, painful insecurities and, as Megan Carney puts it
in her powerful analysis of the food insecurity facing women migrants on both sides of the US Mexican border, unending hunger (Carney 2015; see also Holmes 2013). While many workers suffer injury

workers bodies come to

and deprivation in labouring to produce food and other consumer goods and services for the global economy, another way in which

embody neoliberal precarity is as consumers too. The free market deregulation of cor- porate activity and other
policy shifts away from social welfare protection put populations at increased health risks by exposing consumers , and

especially poor and poorly educated consumers, to an increasingly inescapable corporate-consumption complex (Freudenberg 2014). Freudenbergs
name for this hybrid assemblage of business interests and networks also underlines with its echo of the military-industrial complex the huge importance of public health research into the dangers
posed to consumers by industries ranging from alcohol, tobacco and fast food to firearms, petrochemicals and pharmaceuticals (Mercille 2015;Wipfli and Samet 2009). With the increasing globalization of
the corporate consumption complex we also return to a form of public health conditionalization highlighted by WHO Director Chan in her account of the rising chronic disease and non-communicable
disease dangers associated with market-led devel- opment. Unfortunately, though, such structural conditioning is simultaneously being down- played in individualistic approaches to behavioural
responsibilization in public health, approaches that focus on cultivating healthy consumer choices and which constitute a form of neoliberal governmentality that is now travelling transnationally to many
of the same consumers being chased by global corporations themselves (Cairns and Johnston 2015; Hughes Rinker 2015; Ormond and Sothern 2012; Parry 2013; Sun 2015). While these micro neoliberal
approaches have been theorized as bringing opportunities for customized medicine at the molecular level, and while it is suggested that this new biological citizenship comes without the racial exclusions
and other biases of national twentieth-century biomedicine, empirical studies show that they often contribute to personal shame and guilt that leads in turn to the denial of structural conditioning and
related forms of vulnerability and dependency (compare Rose 2007, with Eliason 2015; LeBesco 2011; Peacock et al. 2014; and Wehling 2010).Thus, insofar as this per- sonalized neoliberal
individualization of risk management obscures the socialized neoliberal production of heath risks, it presents what Sara Glasgow and Ted Schrecker usefully refer to as the double burden of neoliberalism
in global public health (Glasgow and Schrecker 2015).

The alternative is a protracted materialist struggle. This provides an

effective starting point for global revolution our use of the academic
sphere as an organizing space for anti-capitalist knowledge is able to
produce global change you should reject any permutation as it forfeits
totality in favor of fractured knowledge which cant achieve revolution
Katz 3 ADAM KATZ, adjunct English instructor at Onondaga Community College in Syracuse,
NY. He received his Ph.D. in English literature from Syracuse. The University and
Revolutionary Practice: A Letter toward a Leninist Pedagogy 2003, pg 237-239
Can we do otherwise? Other, that is, than reproducing the student as a passive consumer of knowledge? (This passivity is not as
related to how much the student speaks and/or participates in class as it is to his/her access to the means of production. Traditionally the
student is set in advance along a trajectory leading inexorably toward the "job" and "success," that is, toward subject positions "out there"
waiting for her.) I think we can, but only
if we foreground the subjectivities that construct the "student"
and "teacher" as effects of the system of social relations (which, in Althusser's phrase, is "present in its effects"),
as positions within the relations of production and reproduction, and as "bearers" of the
antagonistic and contradictory interests within which we are inscribed. The radical
instructor's function is to effect a continuous demystification of the positions taken up in
the classroom, by teacher and students alike, in terms of their materiality, their historicity, and their
socially constructed nature. The teacher, then, is not simply to validate and strengthen the
students positions (which is to validate and strengthen their subordmatIon), but to pressure and critique those
positions in relation to what they presuppose and conceal, and those interests they support
and/or contest. The teacher is to take up a position similar to that of the revolutionary
vanguard as proposed by Lenin, to engage With the positions and "opinions" of the students not on
the level of "agree"/"disagree/' "correct"/"incorrect," but as material forces With historically
determinate effects. Since the classroom, like any cultural space, is one of contradiction and
antagonism, the teacher is not to downplay and conceal these antagonisms, but to make
them concrete in material practices, as reproductions" of those positions held in the
relations of production and in the struggles over their reproduction. Lenin understood that a single
"theoretical" difference on an apparently minor point could in fact be a site of antagonistic interests,
of irreconcilable differences that would become concrete in times of crisis. As teachers, we
should strive for that precision in drawing and clarifying distinctions, and in relating them to
the unevenness and contradictoriness of global capitalist-imperialist relations. At the same time, the
teacher IS to stand at the" extreme" end of students' statements and positions that bear some emancipatory potential, and, by taking them to
their "logical" conclusions, to pressure and enable these students to move beyond the structural limitations of such positions and statements
towards even more emancipatory, radical, and revolutionary subjectivities. This means that the
teacher is taking up a position
of political leadership in the class struggle taking place in the classroom, critiquing
reactionary and reformist discourses and strengthening revolutionary ones. This, in addition,
"invites" the student to critique the Instructor in this role, to push the "leader" along the path she had
originally pointed out, and sometimes even to "lead" the "leaders." Such a teacher must acknowledge the rather large
and special claims his/her students have on him/her. It is rather commonplace, in liberal and even socialist discourses to
"criticize" the "authoritarianism" of Lenin's conception of the party, In fact, nothing could be
less authoritarian, because such a position attempts to represent Itself as an effect of the
system of social relations-that is, as material and contradictory, subject to change and revision.
It is a position not to be Judged in terms of its "inherent" or "exchange" value, but in terms
of Its effects, effects not limited to the classroom itself, but potentially interpreted and
calculated more broadly-for instance, in terms of what can or cannot be said, what reading
practices are legitimated, what hiring practices employed, what discourses and subjectivities
are being produced and might be taken up, even if not within the space of a semester. The
aim, finally, is not to enable students simply to "talk," or to have more "confidence," but to be
ready and able to engage in struggles over the production of knowledge. This includes challenging
teachers' authority (and their use of it), breaking with established decorum if necessary, "disrupting" "normal" classroom discussions and
practices with their "own" concerns and questions, and much more. This involves a democratization of knowledge in
the deepest possible sense. It is not, as in liberal classrooms, a question of "everyone" having his/her
"say," but of directing attention to those power relations embodied in discourses in such a
way as to enable students to take responsibility for their education in terms of its social
ends. Real democracy must presuppose not only equal access to the means of production in
the conventional sense, but also to the means of knowledge production. The student can
then be drawn consciously into the process of (the struggles over) the construction of social
relations and social purposes. The teacher, meanwhile, earns her authority in direct proportion
to her effectively in representing herself as the bearer of these interests, which includes
both her capacity to include students within the process of their construction and her ability
to foreground and thereby transform into an enabling condition the contradiction between
her institutionalized authority (as university professor) and the ideological and theoretical
authoritativeness she tries to represent (in which case the university is read as a site of struggle and contradiction in its
own right, and not merely as "connected" to other, implicitly more "real" sites). A revolution in or of knowledge can take
place only in conjunction with revolutionary uprisings at other sites. In the university, we
can do no more than engage in struggle, take up positions, and make some gains. We can
also try to relate our practices with those of others who are struggling elsewhere, sometimes
leading, sometimes following; finally, we can try to look beyond the present to other possible modes of
knowledge production. Contradictions constitute, reproduce, and subvert the academy,
though. It is not only one of the heaviest sites of social "investment" (in terms of its "moral" and "ideological"
"value," as well as its economic significance) but also one of the few spaces in our society where opposition
and critique (in the forms of marxism and feminism, in particular) can take on articulate form and be given a
force that commands "respect," and even "fear." Such contradictions must be theorized as
the grounds on which we mark out the possibility of such work. Rather than producing some
transhistorical valorization or denigration of the "intellectual" or of "theory," our focus
should be here, on the possibilities of leadership in the site of the university, on the
relation, between class struggle in "theory" (in Althusser's - following Lenins - sense) and social revolution.
We should examine the question of pedagogy as a site for the articulation of these
questions in their relations, and in their relation to the conditions of possibility for a
heightening and waging of class struggle on a global scale.
 2
UQ/L - Federal budgeting is a zero-sum process-the plan is new
spending that leads to tradeoffs with Health and Human Services
programs
Ben Miller 15, the senior director for Postsecondary Education at American Progress,
"Capped Out: Low Spending Limits, Pell Grants, and the Future of Labor and Health and Human
Services Appropriations," September 22, Center for American Progress, retrieved
at: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/reports/2015/09/22/121671/capped-out/
For the past several years, Congress has pursued a budget-by-crisis model. The result has
been last-minute deals full of draconian spending cuts that have slashed billions of dollars
from important domestic policy programs. To date, the Federal Pell Grant Program has been one of the few nondefense domestic
programs to be largely protected from these budget cuts. As the nations most expansive grant program for college, Pell Grants provide more than $31 billion per year
to help more than 8 million low-income students afford postsecondary education. While Congress has faced funding shortfalls in the program over the past few years, it
has preserved and increased the maximum award available. However, if Congress does not take action in the coming years, continued unnecessary austerity will force
billions of dollars in cuts to either Pell Grants or other programs in the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. Congress will be forced to
choose between reducing much-needed dollars to help vulnerable students manage the ever-rising cost of college and cutting crucial parts of the social safety net, such
as those related to health care or displaced workers. Moreover, the fiscal year 2016 budget resolution agreement and the U.S. House of Representatives appropriations
bill for education suggest a desire to worsen the situation in the future. Both choices are simply unacceptable. The decisions set up by constrained spending caps
represent short-term thinking that will harm long-term efforts to improve economic mobility and growth. In order to continue providing low-income students access to
higher education, Congress must take two important steps. First, Congress must undo the sequestration-enforced spending caps so that federal investment can return
to the higher levels previously agreed upon by Congress. Second, Congress must acknowledge that everything about the Pell Grant Programhow it is structured, how
it is budgeted, and how its costs increasemake it fundamentally ill-suited to be maintained as a discretionary program. Pell Grants are much more like a mandatory
program, and it is time for them to be treated that way. The federal budgeting process Understanding the interaction between Pell Grants, budget caps, and future
spending cuts requires some quick background on the federal budgeting process. Each year, the House and Senate release separate budget resolutions that establish
overall spending limits by broad categories. The two chambers then produce a conference agreement that reconciles differences and comes to consensus on binding
budget caps for that year. That consensus document also sets out how much money each congressional committee can spend. The president cannot sign or veto the
When it comes time to produce appropriations bills, congressional committee members must
budget resolution.
figure out how to divide up their overall allocation among their 12 subcommittees. The dollar amount they pick
for each subcommittee, which is known more formally as a 302(b) allocation, dictates the maximum amount of
money that group can spend for the next fiscal year. Due to the small number of subcommittees, each of these
302(b) allocations sets the maximum spending amount for several federal agencies. For example, the U.S.
Department of Education shares the same 302(b) allocation with the U.S. Department of
Labor and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, along with some other
smaller agencies. The federal budget process thus creates a series of cascading zero-sum
games once the overall spending level is set. Different 302(b) allocations compete amongst
each other for money; within the same spending cap, multiple agencies have to fight with
each other for funding. This competition is further exacerbated because Congress tends to
treat all discretionary spending as either defense or nondefense related. This automatically
pits every nondefense program against the others for funds from the same pot. The multiple rounds
of forced austerity over the past several years have only made the budget situation tenser each year. In 2011, Congress passed and the president signed the Budget
Control Act. That bill put to rest some of the ongoing fights over the countrys debt ceiling, but it did so in exchange for strict caps on discretionary spending that started
in fiscal year 2012 and continue through FY 2021. In addition, the Budget Control Act created a bipartisan Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reductionmore
commonly known as the supercommittee. This group was tasked with finding an additional $1.2 trillion in spending cuts. To compel the supercommittee to establish
consensus, the Budget Control Act included a punitive provision known as sequestration that would result in further automatic spending reductionsapplied equally to
both defense and nondefense spendingif an agreement was not reached by November 2011. The idea was that sequestration would be so untenable that the
supercommittee would never let it happen and would therefore reach agreement on the additional spending cuts. The supercommittee, however, was unable to reach
consensus. As a result, draconian sequestration cuts that were never intended to actually occur have been in place for the past several years. This further reduced
Now, current House and Senate leadership are
spending caps that already substantially constrained government spending.

proposing to go even further. While the FY 2016 budget resolution uses the same sequestration-level caps for FY
2016, it proposes to drop the caps even further in future years, cutting them by another $605 billion from FY 2017 through FY
2025. Those numbers are not binding for future years. However, since Congress must pass a budget resolution each year, the
numbers nonetheless suggest a strong desire to pursue even greater spending reductions. If successful, these efforts will
result in smaller 302(b) allocations and will further ratchet up competition between federal agencies for even scarcer dollars.
The Pell Grant cost structure One problem with extremely low budgetary caps is that a variety of factors drive cost increases
in federal programs. In most programs, the annual cost is determined by the amount that Congress decides to spend. For
example, if Congress spends $14.4 billion on grants to low-income students in under-resourced elementary and secondary
schools, then that amounts to the programs full cost. The overall dollar figure does not vary based upon the number of
recipients; Congress will never be faced with an unexpected funding spike. The Pell Grant Program, however, is different.
Because it is a student voucher, its costs are dictated by the number of annual Pell Grants recipients and the maximum award size. Pell Grants are also very different from other discretionary programs in that they are not allotted on a first-come, first-
served basis or otherwise limited. Each year, Congress sets the grants maximum award. Anyone who meets eligibility requirements is guaranteed to receive support, regardless of when they apply. And budget scoring rules rightfully do not allow
Congress to intentionally spend less than what is necessary to provide awards at that stated maximum level. If more people apply than expectedresulting in costs higher than the allocated fundsthe programs estimated cost will increase for the
following year. This is exactly what happened during the Great Recession when the number of Pell Grant recipients increased by several million individuals, more than doubling the annual cost of the program. The Pell Grant Program is thus inherently
unpredictable from a budgetary standpoint. Even if the maximum award is left unchanged, growth in the number of recipients might well increase the amount of money that has to be budgeted each year. If the number of eligible students does not
 decrease, the programs cost can only be reduced if Congress cuts the maximum award or changes eligibility requirements. Because the Pell Grants costs can rise even without policy changes, Congress will need to start appropriating increasingly larger
sums of money in just a few years to reflect estimates of growth in the number of recipients and the expiration of mandatory funding for the program appropriated in the past. From FY 2018 to FY 2025, Congress will need to spend an estimated $31.8
billion more than it currently spends just to keep Pell Grant program benefits level. And the increases grow over time, starting at an estimated $2.3 billion in FY 2018 and eventually reaching $5.6 billion in FY 2025. The problem is that these necessary
Pell Grant funding increases will kick in at the same time that domestic nondefense discretionary caps are still being kept very low. The result is that Pell Grants will eat up a bigger share of the entire Labor, Health Human Services, Education, and
Related Agencies, or LHHS, appropriations bill. In some years, the amount of additional money needed for Pell Grants could be equal to or greater than the entire increase available for the LHHS appropriations bill. Additionally, this need for more Pell
Grant funding at the expense of other programs would be coming on the heels of the FY 2016 House LHHS appropriations bill, which already proposes significant cuts to programs compared with the FY 2015 LHHS appropriations. These cuts include
eliminating grants for preschool program development, a $649 million funding reduction for the Centers for Medicare and Medic aid Servicesa move aimed at stopping implementation of the Affordable Care Actand a $367 million cut in funding for
the Corporation for National and Community Service, which administers the AmeriCorps public service program. Projections for the FY 2018 federal budget explain exactly how Pell Grants could eat up a large portion of the LHHS appropriations bill if
there are no changes in the spending caps. According to the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, the FY 2018 cap for nondefen se discretionary spending is $515 billion, an increase of $11 billion, or 2 percent. Projected forward from the 302(b) allocation
for the 2015 LHHS appropriations billassuming it increases at the same rate as the overall nondefense figurethe FY 2018 LHHS allocation would be $161.4 billion. That is about $3.5 billion higher than the estimate for FY 2017, theoretically giving

The problem is that CBO says appropriators will also need to find
appropriators some breathing room to increase spending. (see Table 1)

an additional $2.3 billion for the Pell Grant Program in FY 2018. Fully funding that amount
alone will eat up two-thirds of the available new dollars in the LHHS appropriations bill,
leaving all other agencies funded by the billincluding the rest of the U.S. Department of
Education as well as the U.S. departments of Labor and Health and Human Servicesto
fight over about $1.1 billion. In many ways, this federal in-fighting is the rosiest scenario under the Budget Control Act. In FY 2021, the Pell Grant
Program will need an estimated $3.9 billion more, which is about $100 million more than the estimated $3.8 billion increase in fundingmore formally known as budget
authorityfor the LHHS allocation that year. (see Table 1) The table below shows the Center for American Progress estimates of additional funds available for the
entire LHHS appropriations bill versus the additional money needed for the Pell Grant program. Some proposed FY 2016 spending levels could make the interaction
between Pell Grants and the departments of Labor and Health and Human Services spending even worse in the future. For example, Congress FY 2016 conference
agreement proposes to drop the spending caps even further below those set by the Budget Control Act, which would result in $206 billion less in spending from FY 2017
If enacted, these caps would not provide enough additional dollars to fund the Pell
to FY 2021.

Grant Program, causing it to eat into other agencies spending in the LHHS account,
including other programs at the U.S. Department of Education. If restricted only to the U.S.
Department of Education, the cuts needed to preserve Pell Grants could be particularly
devastating, even to the large formula programs such as Title I grants for low-income K-12
students or support for special education . One challenge in estimating the effects of Congress new proposed spending caps on the LHHS allocation is that the House and Senate
have slightly different estimates for its 302(b) in FY 2016. Though the difference is not largeonly about $136 millionthis analysis uses the midpoint of the two figures to project allocations going forward. In addition, both chambers appropriations
committees propose to reduce Pell Grant spending in FY 2016. The House proposes to cut $370 million from the Pell Grant alloc ation, while the Senate suggests a cut of $300 million from the existing Pell Grant surplus. While these numbers are not
included in this analysis, if the House reduction is enacted, then Pell Grants will face an estimated shortfall of $633 milli on in FY 2017, eating into the spending cap space a year earlier than expected and causing larger sums to be needed in future years.
The table below shows the additional amount of budget authority for LHHS and the Pell Grant programs share of that additional amount under Congress new proposed spending caps for FY 2018 through FY 2021. The scenarios outlined above
illustrate the types of unpleasant choices that policymakers are forced to make under unnecessarily strict budgetary caps. At a time when there are significant concerns about student loan debt, a cut to the Pell Grant program is a guarantee to open our
nations most vulnerable students up to more and more loan debt. If allowed to stand, these caps will force appropriators in future years to choose between maintaining the nations signature investment in postsecondary education for low-income
students and cutting crucial programs for younger individuals, displaced workers, medical research, or other important areas where government intervention is needed. Fortunately, this entire situation is self-imposed by Congress. Sensible changes,
such as ending the sequestration spending caps, could be done quickly through legislation. Doing so would provide much -needed relief to the appropriations process and would lessen the need to pick between funding the Federal Pell Grant Program
and other domestic priorities. At the same time, the past several years of Pell Grant funding suggest that it is time to reconsider changing how this crucia l program is budgeted. Everything about the structure of the Pell Grant makes it unlike other
discretionary programs. Eligible students are guaranteed a benefit, and Congress has to spend what it costs to provide the grants each year. In that light, the Pell Grant Program is constructed much more like other mandatory programs, such as Social
Security. In fact, for many years, Pell Grants have been partially funded through mandatory money due to multiple laws that took money from private student loan companies in order to fund the program. It is also worth noting that the other large
federal student aid programssuch as Stafford Loans for undergraduate and graduate studentsare all already funded through mandatory money. Moving the Pell Grant Program to the mandatory side of the budget would also stabilize its funding
over time. Currently, the Pell Grant program is subject to major spending shocks resulting from increased college enrollment that occurs when the nations economy struggles. This creates unpredictability for appropriators and can result in shortfalls
when lawmakers do not properly anticipate enrollment spikes and surpluses when the number of college students falls. In turn, these stresses can make it harder to properly distribute funds throughout the rest of the Labor and Health and Human
Services appropriations bill. Conclusion Admittedly, funding Pell Grants through the mandatory side of the federal budget would likely register as a cost in the feder al budget. Part of the reason for this is to reflect the cost of indexing the maximum
award to inflation, something that requires additional spending past 2017. Another reason why making Pell Grants mandatory would register as an expense, however, is based on a budgetary fiction. Since Pell Grants are funded through discretionary
dollars, Congress is not legally required to set aside money to be spent in future years on the program. In reality, however, this assumption ignores the obvious fact that the elimination of the Pell Grant Program without identical spending for the same
purpose elsewhere is politically impossible. A sensible budget agreement that deals with the spending caps could likely address this issue. Congress has spent the last few years threatening the countrys long-term economic viability in the pursuit of last-
minute budget deals and cuts. The situation will only worsen if Congress continues this trend in FY 2016. It is time for Congress to be sensible rather than pit college students against sick patients, workers looking for retraining, and others who need
federal assistance. For the past several years, Congress has pursued a budget-by-crisis model. The result has been last-minute deals full of draconian spending cuts that have slashed billions of dollars from important domestic policy programs. To date,
the Federal Pell Grant Program has been one of the few nondefense domestic programs to be largely protected from these budget cuts. As the nati ons most expansive grant program for college, Pell Grants provide more than $31 billion per year to help
more than 8 million low-income students afford postsecondary education. While Congress has faced funding shortfalls in the program over the past few y ears, it has preserved and increased the maximum award available. However, if Congress does not
take action in the coming years, continued unnecessary austerity will force billions of dollars in cuts to either Pell Grants or other programs in the departme nts of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. Congress will be forced to choose
between reducing much-needed dollars to help vulnerable students manage the ever-rising cost of college and cutting crucial parts of the social safety net, such as those related to health care or displaced workers. Moreover, the fiscal year 2016 budget
resolution agreement and the U.S. House of Representatives appropriations bill for education suggest a desire to worsen the situation in the future. Both choices are simply unacceptable. The decisions set up by constrained spending caps represent
short-term thinking that will harm long-term efforts to improve economic mobility and growth. In order to continue providing low-income students access to higher education, Congress must take two important steps. First, Congress must undo the
sequestration-enforced spending caps so that federal investment can return to the higher levels previously agreed upon by Congress. Second, Congress must acknowledge that everything about th e Pell Grant Programhow it is structured, how it is
budgeted, and how its costs increasemake it fundamentally ill-suited to be maintained as a discretionary program. Pell Grants are much more like a mandatory program, and it is time for them to be treated that way.

L/IL/! - Cutting CDC funding exacerbates national and global health crises funds are key to biological research abilities
and stopping outbreaks
Frist and Frieden 17

[Dr. Tom Frieden is former Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2009-
2017). Senator Bill Frist is a heart and lung transplant surgeon and former Republican
Majority Leader of the United State Senate. 6 Devastating Effects of Cutting CDC
Funding, July 13, 2017, http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/341933-opinion-6-
devastating-effects-of-cutting-cdc-funding] // CEM

One of the
Congress will soon be faced with many momentous decisions that will affect the lives of Americans for years to come.

most critical threats to our health is the potential for the Centers for
Disease Control and Preventions (CDC) budget to be reduced to its
lowest levels in 20 years at a time when the publics health is more
at risk than ever. Just this week, the House Appropriations Committee released the draft fiscal year
2018 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (LHHS) funding bill, which cuts $200 million
from CDCs budget. This cut is smaller ($1 billion less) than what the president requested, but still risks
endangering American lives, particularly since further cuts could be
added as the bill moves through the House and Senate. CDC has, over the past
seven decades, earned its status as one of the most highly respected

institutions in the country. However, it has also historically been one of the
most under-funded. CDC works around the clock and around the world to protect Americans, often without the resources it
needs. And now the situation could become dire. As a candidate, President Trump recognized the importance
of the work of our nations public health agency when he indicated that he would freeze federal hiring except for the key functions of public
safety and public health. But unless three significant issues are fully addressed, the U.S. will be letting down its guard against some of the

the fiscal Year 2018 federal budget for CDC

deadliest threats Americans face. First and foremost,

needs to protect the agency so it can protect Americans. The

administrations proposed budget would slash CDC spending by 17
percent, devastating life-saving programs and setting back more than a
decade of progress. Here are just a half-dozen examples from the scores of proposed cuts: 1. Weakening our
capacity to prevent or promptly detect epidemics at home and
globally Bipartisan consensus over the past 15 years has improved our
ability to find and stop health threats. These cuts would be a big step
backward in CDCs ability to save lives. As the Ebola outbreak demonstrated, the CDCs critical role in
controlling epidemics globally to protect Americans here at home must be protected. As Zika continues to spread, proposing a massive cut in

the CDCs center that studies birth defects is unconscionable. 2.Eliminating research centers They are
crucial to finding and improving ways to prevent opioid deaths, cancer
and other leading health problems. 3. Eliminating CDCs programs to
prevent colon and skin cancer Most colon and skin cancers are
preventable; cutting these programs would condemn thousands of
Americans to avoidable deaths. 4. Cutting immunization programs
would result in more childhood illness Even more critically, the cuts will
undermine our ability to control natures most deadly threat: an influenza pandemic. For
every dollar spent on childhood immunization, $3 is saved in the healthcare system and $10 in society as a whole. The proposed

$90 million cut not only would result in more people dying from
preventable illness and cost us nearly a billion dollars, but they would
also lower our guard against a potential influenza pandemic that could
kill a million Americans or more. 5. Cutting tobacco control and other
programs that protect Americans against the leading causes of
death: cancer, heart disease, diabetes and stroke These contribute to
two-thirds of all healthcare costs. The tobacco cut alone would result in
at least 15,000 additional, avoidable deaths per year. CDCs tobacco
control program which has been central to progress reducing tobacco
use over the past decade would be eliminated. This would be public health malpractice. 6.
Dismantling HIV prevention programs in the U.S. and globally. In the
U.S., cutting these programs just as HIV is increasing in some
communities through opiate use and other means would increase
healthcare costs by many times the amount cut from the budget. A
single patient with HIV costs more than $400,000 for lifetime medical
care. A recent outbreak of HIV in Indiana shows the costs of inaction. In a small town of 4,000 people, an HIV and hepatitis outbreak from
injection of opiates infected hundreds and will result in total costs of more than $100 million for this one town alone. These cuts would hurt

people from across the country and across the political spectrum. For example, Texas would lose nearly
$25 million in funding for programs that prevent diabetes, heart
disease, stroke and tobacco use. Tennessee would lose nearly $10 million in funding, including vital money to
prevent public health disasters. Ohio could lose more than $17 million in federal funding. Missouri would lose more than $9 million; no

state would be untouched. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees CDC, must allow
the agency to fill key positions. Although some scientific positions are exempt from the federal hiring freeze, HHS has prevented CDC from

CDC doctors, lab experts, nurses and others are key

filling other mission-critical positions.

to protecting our health. But so are the people who make sure that CDC
scientists can get their work done quickly and efficiently. Yet those
positions numbering more than 600 and counting have been
frozen. This erodes the essential life-support systems that let us know whether problems are emerging and allow us to respond as rapidly
and effectively as possible. Whatever happens with health reform, the programs currently financed by the Prevention and Public Health Fund
must continue. Although this funding stream was created in 2010 as part of the now imperiled Affordable Care Act, it didnt result in much
additional funding for CDC. New Prevention Fund monies were largely offset by cuts to other parts of the CDC budget. Eliminating this fund
means cutting long-standing public health programs that find, stop, and prevent infectious disease outbreaks in hospitals and in our food
supply, reduce the leading causes of death and disability including diabetes, heart disease, and stroke, reduce lead poisoning, prevent birth

Failing to
defects, support early detection of and response to health threats, and improve the health of people throughout the country.

support CDC by addressing these three issues would cost American lives
as well as taxpayer dollars. Fortunately, Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations
that oversees the CDC, understands this, What CDC does is probably more important to the

average American than, in a sense, the Defense Department. As budget

negotiators face hard decisions, they should keep this essential reality in mind: behind every CDC budget line,

there are Americans who depend on the agencys incredible expertise

and its commitment to protecting lives. There is too much at stake to
fail to fully support the CDC, the first line of health defense for us all.

IL/! - CDC funding key to responding to public health crises

Jeff Schlegelmilch and Dara Alpert Lieberman 17, Schlegelmilch is the deputy
director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University's Earth
Institute, and Lieberman is Senior Government Relations Manager at Trust for America's
Health, "We're not prepared for the next public health emergency," August 21, The Hill,
retrieved at: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/347369-were-not-prepared-for-
the-next-public-health-emergency
From Ebola to Zika to the opioid epidemic, health departments and the healthcare system,
now more than ever, must be able to work 24/7 to detect, prevent and contain multiple
crises often at the same time. Unfortunately, because of a consistent lack of funding, this life-saving work can come at
the expense of addressing the day-to-day health needs from obesity to diabetes to lead poisoning to vaccinations of
 their communities. In reality, public health has faced brutal cuts over the past decade, which has made Americans less healthy
and safe. The House Appropriations Committee recently approved its Labor, Health and Education appropriations bill for
fiscal year 2018 in a party line vote. And, while the Senate Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee has not yet
publicly released its bill, there are some hopeful signs in the House version. For instance, the House bill preserves
current funding for the Hospital Preparedness Program (HPP), and provides an increase of
about $20 million to the Public Health Emergency Preparedness Program (PHEP). These
two programs are the only sources of federal funding that specifically benefit the readiness
of our nations healthcare system and state and local health departments, respectively. The
bill also includes funding increases to develop and manage stockpiles of medical
countermeasures the drugs, devices and vaccines that are needed to prevent and treat
emerging health threats. These public-private partnership are critical to ensuring continued
innovation for products that may not be profitable or otherwise have a ready customer.
Some of these countermeasures have been deployed in response to the Zika virus, the
H1N1 flu outbreak and Superstorm Sandy. While some of this increased funding comes as a
pleasant surprise, key preparedness programs remain chronically underfunded. The PHEP and
HPP programs are now funded at 30 percent and 50 percent, respectively, below their peak funding levels over a decade ago.
This House bill also does little to create a realistic public health emergency response fund, a standing pot of money to meet
the immediate needs of a public health crisis. We saw how long it took to get emergency funds to respond to Zika, Ebola and
Hurricane Sandy, with each event taking longer and longer to help these communities respond to devastating disasters.
Instead of creating this emergency fund, the House bill expands transfer authority within the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) to support an emergency response, but with little clarity on the how this authority would work. In
reality, it appears this would just move money from existing HHS programs, thereby taking resources away from other
ongoing lifesaving efforts. And, in actuality, the funds would still likely be inadequate to respond to a major health
emergency. At the same time, key programs that build our public health defenses remain
vulnerable. For example, the House bill includes a $50 million cut to the Centers for Disease
Control and Preventions (CDC) immunization program, which continues to be integral to
supporting state vaccine infrastructure. This program also the main source of funding for
states to respond to outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases, like measles. Further, the
House funding bill cuts CDCs programs to combat emerging and zoonotic infectious
diseases and environmental health threats, which help states and communities detect,
prepare for and respond to a range of emerging health threats such as Zika, dengue, drug-
resistant bugs, and exposures to harmful substances like bio weapons. The budget process is far
from over, and many of these budget lines can be changed. However, if these cuts are preserved for this fiscal year and the
administration follows through on intentions to further reduce public health funding, our nations ability to respond to future
public health emergencies will be severely hampered. Within this budget cycle, it is up to the House and Senate to negotiate
an even better deal for our public health preparedness infrastructure, and the health of all Americans.
! pandemics cause extinction
Harack 16 Harack, B. (2016, May 20). How likely is human extinction due to a natural
pandemic? Retrieved July 28, 2017, from https://www.visionofearth.org/future-of-
humanity/existential-risks/human-extinction-by-natural-pandemic/
A pandemic is the rapid spread of an infectious disease across a large region. Global pandemics will likely occur in the future,
but their danger is very hard to estimate. So far, pandemics have received far more attention than other natural existential threats and our analysis below indicates that
natural pandemic killing all humans is unlikely but plausible. Today, a disease
this level of attention is appropriate. A

can travel faster than ever before. Thanks to long distance air travel, an infectious agent can
quickly spread to all continents. In fact, most humans are now connected by one or more of
our rapid transportation networks. On the other hand, enormous effort is being expended to prevent pandemics today. Serious work can
be done on many fronts simultaneously because pandemics arise out of interactions between large numbers of people, animals, and institutions. Unfortunately, this

our defenses will not be perfect and our uncertainty will be

complexity also means that for the foreseeable future

extreme.1 The complexity of pandemics is also the reason why straightforward

extrapolations from history tend to be deeply flawed. Human civilization today is unprecedented in several relevant
ways. We cant study past examples of globe-spanning civilizations who actively tried to protect themselves from this danger. Knowledge of past pandemics is still
incredibly valuable, its just very hard to meaningfully generalize to our situation. Lastly, the vast majority of global pandemic threats are not existential risks. Obviously,
no disease so far has had the right set of characteristics to cause human extinction. More reassuringly, there are good reasons to believe that there is an evolutionary
tendency away from perfect deadliness. Arguments such as the trade-off hypothesis indicate that extremely deadly diseases would be under evolutionary pressure
to become less deadly in exchange for higher transmissibility.2 That is, diseases cant simultaneously maximize their deadliness and transmissibility.3 Unsurprisingly,
 estimates of this risk vary wildly; even expert commentators tend to be highly uncertain about the odds . Predictions also tend to lump together
several different kinds of pandemics and thus can make the future sound much more dangerous than it really is. For example, a concerned expert may estimate
that there is 50% chance of a global pandemic during the 21st century. Taken at face value this is
extremely frightening, but with further scrutiny it becomes clear that the vast majority of that probability would be diseases with low death rates and certainly not
pandemics that have a chance of killing all of humanity. Furthermore, most expert risk estimates also include
pandemics that are deliberately caused by humans (through viral engineering). In this sense,
pandemics are similar to climate change: our advancing technology means that we can now cause

catastrophes of these kinds. In both cases, human action is much more dangerous than what nature can throw at us. Human-caused
catastrophes are a real danger that should be taken very seriously, but for the present discussion we are focusing on natural existential risks. Rolling several publicized
predictions together with what weve learned, we arrive at this estimate of extinction risk: 1 in 100,000 chance per year (or 1 in 1000 per century). This estimate places
natural pandemics as the single greatest risk among the natural existential risks we
consider to be the most dangerous.
! bioterror causes extinction
Mhyrvold 13 (Nathan, Began college at age 14, BS and Masters from UCLA, Masters and PhD, Princeton
Strategic Terrorism: A Call to Action, Working Draft, The Lawfare Research Paper Series Research paper NO .
2 2013 - RAM)
As horrible as this would be, such a pandemic is by no means the worst attack one can imagine, for several reasons. First,
most of the classic bioweapons are based on 1960s and 1970s technology because the
1972 treaty halted bioweapons development efforts in the United States and most
other Western countries. Second, the Russians, although solidly committed to biological weapons long after the
treaty deadline, were never on the cutting edge of biological research. Third and most important, the
science and
technology of molecular biology have made enormous advances, utterly
transforming the field in the last few decades. High school biology students
routinely perform molecular-biology manipulations that would have been impossible
even for the best superpower-funded program back in the heyday of biological-
weapons research. The biowarfare methods of the 1960s and 1970s are now as
antiquated as the lumbering mainframe computers of that era. Tomorrows terrorists
will have vastly more deadly bugs to choose from. Consider this sobering development: in 2001,
Australian researchers working on mousepox, a nonlethal virus that infects mice (as chickenpox does in humans), accidentally
discovered that a simple genetic modification transformed the virus.10, 11 Instead of producing mild symptoms, the new virus
killed 60% of even those mice already immune to the naturally occurring strains of mousepox. The new virus, moreover, was
unaffected by any existing vaccine or antiviral drug. A team of researchers at Saint Louis University led by Mark Buller picked
up on that work and, by late 2003, found a way to improve on it: Bullers variation on mousepox was 100%
lethal, although his team of investigators also devised combination vaccine and antiviral therapies that were partially
effective in protecting animals from the engineered strain.12, 13 Another saving grace is that the genetically altered
virus is no longer contagious. Of course, it is quite possible that future tinkering with
the virus will change that property, too. Strong reasons exist to believe that the genetic
modifications Buller made to mousepox would work for other poxviruses and possibly for other classes of
viruses as well. Might the same techniques allow chickenpox or another poxvirus that infects
humans tobe turned into a 100% lethal bioweapon, perhaps one that is resistant to any
known antiviral therapy? Ive asked this question of experts many times, and no one has
yet replied that such a manipulation couldnt be done. This case is just one example.
Many more are pouring out of scientific journals and conferences every year. Just last year, the journal Nature
published a controversial study done at the University of WisconsinMadison in which virologists enumerated the changes
one would need to make to a highly lethal strain of bird flu to make it easily transmitted from one mammal to another.14
Biotechnology is advancing so rapidly that it is hard to keep track of all the new
potential threats. Nor is it clear that anyone is even trying. In addition to lethality and drug
resistance, many other parameters can be played with, given that the infectious
power of an epidemic depends on many properties, including the length of the
latency period during which a person is contagious but asymptomatic. Delaying the
onset of serious symptoms allows each new case to spread to more people and
thus makes the virus harder to stop. This dynamic is perhaps best illustrated by HIV ,
which is very difficult to transmit compared with smallpox and many other viruses. Intimate contact is needed, and even then,
the infection rate is low. The balancing factor is that HIV can take years to progress to AIDS ,
which can then take many more years to kill the victim. What makes HIV so dangerous is that
infected people have lots of opportunities to infect others. This property has allowed HIV to claim more than 30 million lives so
far, and approximately 34 million people are now living with this virus and facing a highly uncertain future.15 A
virus
genetically engineered to infect its host quickly, to generate symptoms slowly
say, only after weeks or monthsand to spread easily through the air or by casual contact
would be vastly more devastating than HIV . It could silently penetrate the
population to unleash its deadly effects suddenly . This type of epidemic would be
almost impossible to combat because most of the infections would occur before
the epidemic became obvious. A technologically sophisticated terrorist group could
develop such a virus and kill a large part of humanity with it. Indeed, terrorists may not have to
develop it themselves: some scientist may do so first and publish the details. Given the rate at
which biologists are making discoveries about viruses and the immune system, at some
point in the near future, someone may create artificial pathogens that could
drive the human race to extinction . Indeed, a detailed species-elimination plan of this
nature was openly proposed in a scientific journal. The ostensible purpose of that particular research
was to suggest a way to extirpate the malaria mosquito, but similar techniques could be
directed toward humans.16 When Ive talked to molecular biologists about this method, they are quick to point
out that it is slow and easily detectable and could be fought with biotech remedies. If you challenge them to come up with
improvements to the suggested attack plan, however, they have plenty of ideas. Modern biotechnology will
soon be capable, if it is not already, of bringing about the demise of the human
race or at least of killing a sufficient number of people to end high-tech civilization
and set humanity back 1,000 years or more. That terrorist groups could achieve this level of technological
sophistication may seem far-fetched, but keep in mind that it takes only a handful of individuals to accomplish these tasks.
Never has lethal power of this potency been accessible to so few, so easily. Even more dramatically than nuclear proliferation,
modern biological science has frighteningly undermined the correlation between the lethality of a weapon and its cost, a
fundamentally stabilizing mechanism throughout history. Access to extremely lethal agentslethal enough to exterminate
Homo sapienswill be available to anybody with a solid background in biology, terrorists included.
 3

Plan: The 50 state governments and relevant territories should impose and
enforce geography-based integration on K-12 educational institutions
receiving federal financial assistance, including a presumption against a
school system's choice to assign students in a way that would lead to racial
isolation.
State control is better ensures compliance by adapting to local citizens/needs
Greenspahn 8 Daniel S., Attorney at U.S. Department of Education Office
for Civil Rights, THE ROBERTS COURT AND EQUAL PROTECTION: GENDER,
RACE, AND CLASS: RACE: A Constitutional Right to Learn: The Uncertain
Allure of Making a Federal Case out of EducationSummer, 2008 South
Carolina Law Review 59 S.C. L. Rev. 755, accessed via LexisNexis
Academic//ninerz
E. Local Control over Education Local
control over education remains a reality and a touchstone of accountable
government that weighs against a federal right to education. Federal participation in education has
increased in recent years, n257 but decisions regarding curriculum, personnel, and school administration are overwhelmingly made at the
community level. n258 The American tradition of decentralized education is viewed as "more responsive ... [and] democratic" than an
educational system controlled by a distant federal government. n259 A policy of allowing wide-ranging local reforms encourages states, as
individual laboratories, to work toward educational success. n260 State
and local governments also provide
funding for over 90% of public school expenditures. n261 Brown I's famous proclamation that "education is
perhaps the most important function of state and local governments" n262 still reflects modern [*782] practice. Even if NCLB has imposed
federal requirements in the area of education, no single expenditure receives more state and local support than public schools. n263 There is a
certain logic in having state litigation alleging resource deficiencies track state expenditures, the primary source of funding for education.
Despite growing "federal involvement in education, the tradition of local-state
governance has prevailed over efforts to equalize education resources across state lines
through litigation or legislation." n264 The Supreme Court has been a chief defender of local control. The year following
Rodriguez, the Court declared that "no single tradition in public education is more deeply rooted than local control over the operation of
schools." n265 Ever since, the
Court has reiterated the value of local control in decisions involving
school desegregation, n266 education funding, n267 student assignment, n268 and student
speech. n269 The Court has praised local control because it " affords citizens an opportunity
to participate in decisionmaking, permits the structuring of school programs to fit local
needs, and encourages "experimentation, innovation, and a healthy competition for
educational excellence .'" n270 The prominence of community decisionmaking in schooling and the Supreme Court's commitment
to this policy weigh heavily against pursuit of a federal right to education.
 4

Contact theory creates a negative relationship between intergroup contact and

prejudice only in non-competitive environments their model of forced contact in
competative educational environments empirically reifies prejudice
Pettigrew et. al. 2011 [Thomas F. Pettigrew, Linda R. Tropp, Ulrich Wagner, Oliver Christ
a) Department of Psychology, Social Sciences II, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa
Cruz, CA b) Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts, c) Department of
Psychology, Philipps University, Marburg, Germany, Recent advances in intergroup contact
theory International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 1 March 2011,
10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.03.001]//nrodriguez
Not all intergroup contact reduces prejudice. Some situations engender enhanced
prejudice. Such negative intergroup contact has received less research attention, but renewed
consideration to the issue has shed light on this phenomenon. Negative contact typically involves situations
where the participants feel threatened and did not choose to have the contact (Pettigrew &
Tropp, 2011). These situations frequently occur in work environments where intergroup

competition exists as well as in situations involving intergroup conflict. Consider a tense check point
on the Palestinian West Bank. Neither the Israeli soldiers nor the Palestinian civilians passing through have chosen to be in this situation. And
both parties are understandably threatened. The soldiers fear the possibility of a suicide bomber or other attacks upon them. The Palestinians
fear humiliation and violence from the gun-toting soldiers. No
intergroup contact theorist has ever thought such
stressful contact would do anything but worsen intergroup relations. But this raises an important
question. Given the existence of these negative contact situations, why does the metaanalysis on intergroup contact report such overwhelmingly
positive effects? Several factors explain this apparent puzzle. First, surveys with probability samples demonstrate that respondents
report far more positive than negative intergroup contacts (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011).
These results may seem surprising since negative intergroup encounters are often
publicized, while the more numerous positive encounters go unrecognized or are not viewed as
newsworthy. But this finding helps to explain why contact leading to increased prejudice is so relatively rare in the research literature. Second,
the effects of negative intergroup contact are moderated by whether the participant has
entered the contact freely (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). When the contact involves voluntary
contact, the effects of negative contact are far smaller than when the contact involves
involuntary contact again suggesting the key importance of threat. Third, not surprisingly, those
who have lots of intergroup contact tend to report both positive and negative contact. And these respondents tend to reveal
less prejudice comparable to those who report only positive contact (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). Given these factors, the role of
negative intergroup contact may not be as crucial as some critics have assumed.
Deseg doesnt solve achievement gap --- empirics and studies
Armor 06 Professor in the School of Public Policy, George Mason University (David J.,
The Benefits of Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Elementary and Secondary Education, The
Outcomes of School Desegregation in Public Schools, The United States Commission on
Civil Rights (Briefing), November 2006, pgs. 18-27,
http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/112806diversity.pdf)//PS
A more comprehensive review of earlier research can be found in Chapter 2 of my book, Forced Justice, published in 1995.10 That review highlights one of the best studies on the effects of desegregation on black achievement, which was a meta -analysis
sponsored by the National Institute of Education in 1984.11 In this meta-analysis, only studies with experimental or quasiexperimental designs were reviewed, so that causal inference was more certain. The NIE study found no effect of desegregation on

math scores and inconsistent results for reading scores. Thomas Cook summarizes the findings as follows: On the average, desegregation did not cause an increase in
achievement in mathematics . Desegregation increased mean reading levels. The gain reliably differed from zero and was estimated to be between two to six weeks [of a school year] across the studies
examined.The median gains were almost always greater than zero but were lower than the means and did not reliably differ from zero.I find the variability in effect sizes more striking and less well understood than any measure of central tendency.

that desegregation had weak and inconsistent impact on black

Thomas Cook is not the only social scientist to conclude

achievement. Similar conclusions were reached after literature reviews by St. John in 1975,
Stephan in 1978, and Schofield in 1995 research .12 Consider the summary by Schofield, which is often cited in legal briefs in support of the benefit thesis: First,
suggests that desegregation has had some positive impact on the reading skills of African
American youngsters. The effect is not large, nor does it occur in all situations , but a modest measurable effect does
seem apparent. Such is not the case with mathematics skills, which seem generally unaffected by desegregation.13 Finally, for those who find the statistics confusing and the debate among researchers unhelpful, there is anot her body of evidence that

Even after the very extensive school desegregation during the 1970s and 80s,
appeals to our common sense.

especially in the South, the black-white achievement gap is still very large and not that
much smaller than it was in 1970 . Case studies in large school districts like Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina, and Wilmington New Castle, Delaware, show that the achievement gap changed

long-term
very little after extensive desegregation. These and other case studies are discussed in a study I published in 2002; that chapter has been made available to the Commission.14 Some reviews have concluded that the

benefits of desegregation come from general surveys and are

are greater than short term effects (i.e., test scores).15 Since most of these studies

not evaluating the effects school desegregation plans per se , the results must be interpreted carefully. For example, one of the common findings in

students who attended desegregated high schools are more likely to attend
these long-term studies are that

predominantly white colleges as opposed to majority black college or more s (e.g., historically black colleges)

likely to end up in desegregated employment settings. These studies do not find that
desegregation increases college attendance or improves wages. black students While I accept the finding that

in desegregated schools are more likely to be found in desegregated colleges or work

environments, these studies do not prove that the desegregated schools were the cause . It is

families who prefer desegregated schools pass these preferences on

equally likely that self-selection bias is operating here, so that

to their children who also prefer desegregated life-styles when they become adults. This is

While black students from desegregated high schools are more

demonstrated most clearly by the findings for college attendance.

likely to attend desegregated colleges, it is not the case that they are more likely to attend
college relationship between desegregation and college attendance is similar to that for
. In fact, the

achievement test scoresweak and inconsistent . Given that achievement scores are strong predictors of attending college, and given the weak relationship between

the relationship between desegregation and

desegregation and achievement, this is not a surprising finding. One of earliest national studies found that

attending college differed between black students in the North and the South .16 Controlling for family SES, Crain and

However, both relationships were small and

Mahard found that attending desegregated high schools raised college attendance in the North but lowered it in the South.

not statistically significant the relationship between high school

. Using the same data but a different analytic model, Eckard found that

desegregation and college attendance was virtually zero. 17 In a later study using the same data, Braddock and McPartland came to similar conclusions:
virtually no relationship in the South and a small positive relationship in the North that was not statistically significant.18 One of the best studies on this topic was carried out by Crain and others using data from Project Concern, a long-running
desegregation program involving transfers of black students from predominantly black schools in Hartford, Connecticut, to desegregated suburban schools.19 The advantage of this study is that it used a quasi-experimental design, so that Project Concern
students could be compared to a control group of similar students who remained in Hartford schools. After controlling for gender, family background, and test scores, there was no difference in going to college between all Project Concern students and
the Hartford control group. Moreover, some Project Concern students spent a substantial number of years in desegregated suburban schools, but then returned to the Hartford schools, and they were no more likely to attend college than those who had
remained in the city all along.20 Thus spending a substantial number of years in desegregated suburban schools did not significantly increase the rate of college attendance by Hartford black students. Finally, a study by Boozer and others used data from
the National Survey of Black Americans to estimate the relationship between the percent of black students in a high school and total years of education. After controlling for self-selection effects, the relationship was small and not statistically significant.21
The Boozer study is also the most recent and most sophisticated analysis of the relationship between high school desegregation and wages. There findings were similar to their findings for educational attainment: they found a small positive impact of high

This rather limited research literature on the effects

school desegregation on wages but it was not statistically significant after controlling for self-selection bias.22

of desegregation on educational attainment and wages suggests that desegregation does

not have a strong or consistent influence on either of these long-term outcomes.

Changing residential segregation is necessary to solve school segregation

Rothstein, 16 --- research associate of the Economic Policy Institute, a senior fellow at the
Thurgood Marshall Institute of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
(12/12/16, Richard, We Cant Meaningfully Integrate Schools Without Desegregating
Neighborhoods, http://www.naacpldf.org/news/thurgood-marshall-institute-senior-fellow-
richard-rothstein-we-can%E2%80%99t-meaningfully-integrate-sch, accessed on 5/5/17,
JMP)
A bill introduced in the New York City Council proposes to establish an office of school diversity within the human rights c ommission dedicated to studying the prevalence and causes of racial segregation in public schools and developing

it is not reasonable, indeed it is misleading, to study school segregation

recommendations for remedying such segregation. But

in New York City without simultaneously studying residential segregation. The two cannot
be separated. School segregation is primarily a problem of neighborhoods, not schools.
Schools are segregated because the neighborhoods in which they are located are
segregated. Some school segregation can be ameliorated by adjusting school attendance
boundaries or controlling school choice, but these devices are limited and mostly
inapplicable to elementary school children, for whom long travel to school is neither feasible
nor desirable. We have adopted a national myth that neighborhoods are segregated de
facto; neighborhoods in NYC are segregated
i.e., because of income differences, individual preferences, a history of private discrimination, etc. In fact,

primarily because of a 20th century history of deliberate public policy to separate the races
residentially, implemented by the city, state, and federal governments . Just a few examples: when the city and state created
Stuyvesant Town in the 1940s, they cleared an integrated low-income neighborhood to build a segregated development for whites only; when the government financed suburbs like Levittown, it did so with a federal requirement that no homes be sold to
African Americans, and whites left the city for these federally subsidized segregated suburbs; when the federal government and city collaborated to build public housing in the mid-twentieth century, they built separate projects for whites (e.g., the
Williamsburg Houses) and for African Americans (e.g., the Harlem River Houses). It was only after most whites in public housing were given suburban housing options in federally segregated subdivisions that vacancies in public housing for whites were

The most important service the proposed Office of School Diversity could
opened to African Americans.

perform would be to call attention to this history, educate the public about it, and develop
political support to remedy NYCs unconstitutional residential segregation with housing
policies that integrate the city. Without this, schools in NYC will continue to be segregated.
Most Americans today believe that the policies followed by government to segregate New
York City were characteristic of cities in the South, not the North, Midwest, or West. This
belief is mistaken. Such policies were pursued by government in every region and
metropolitan area in the nation. These policies were conscious, purposeful, not the unintended consequences of benign policies, and not pursued primarily from an accommodation with southern

The policies have never been remedied; they are the cause of the school and
politicians.

residential segregation we see everywhere around us.

Theres no incentive for states to comply and the DOJ cant enforce it ---
Holly-Walker describes current DOJ and that its ineffective

K-12 focus doesnt solve --- the first 5 years outweigh

Barnett & Lamy 13Barnett: Board of Governors Professor and Director of the National
Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) at Rutgers University; Lamy: developmental
and educational psychologist and research fellow with the National Institute for Early
Education Research (NIEER) at Rutgers University (W. Steven Barnett and Cynthia E. Lamy,
Closing the Opportunity Gap: What America Must Do to Give Every Child an Even Chance,
Achievement Gaps Start Early, 4/23/13, chpt 7)//JLE
IN THE UNITED STATES, considerable public attention is focused on closing the achievement gap between children from poorer and wealthier
families. 1 Typically, this gap rst becomes a highly visible public issue when children reach third or fourth grade and take state and national
standardized tests for the rst time. Concern intensies again during the high school years, when so many low-income and minority high school
students drop out or fail to pass exit exams, and average achievement test scores continue to di er among socioeconomic groups. The
achievement gap does not start at third or fourth grade, however. Signicant differences in the
precursors of academic skills are evident from the earliest years of life and are associated with family

circumstances, including income. Eorts to close the achievement gap must begin with eorts to close
the opportunity gap that is the source of much of this early dierence in abilities. While group
dierences in childrens abilities and achievement typically are thought of as gaps, we approach this topic from a somewhat dierent
perspective. We recognize that what is commonly thought of as a vast gap between disparate groupsrich versus poor, Blacks and Hispanics
versus Whitescan be seen upon closer inspection to be a gradient or gradual slope in which childrens abilities steadily increase over the entire
family income range. Dierences between minorities and Whites similarly can be seen to result from dierences in economic and social
circumstances and family characteristics that vary within as well as between groups. Recognition that the achievement gap is actually a steady,
gradual change along an income or socioeconomic gradient allows us to see that the achievement and opportunity problem is not limited to
children in poverty or to minority groups but aects the vast majority of Americans. To understand achievement gradients it helps to see them.
Figures 7.1 and 7.2, based on data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal StudyKindergarten cohort of 1999, display the gradients for childrens
cognitive test scores and teacher ratings of childrens social abilities by income quintile at kindergarten entry. Viewed this way it is obvious that
there is no sharp dividing line between the poor who are in the bottom quintile and everyone else. Instead we see a smooth, steady decline in
scores moving from high to low income. Looking at achievement test scores, children at the median income are as far behind children in the top
income quintile as poor children are behind those at the median income. Of course, not every child is at the average for their income level; some
have higher abilities and others lower. These gradients are very persistent so that they look very much the same at tenth or twelfth grade as at
kindergarten. Th is pattern recurs in the gradient for high school dropout rate by family income. 2 Ability gradients emerge very early in life.
Sizeable dierences in childrens abilities by family background appear before age ve .3
Hart and Risley found that three-year-olds from low-income families knew only about half as many
words as those from higher-income families.4 More recent studies nd Black children far behind their White peers
in pre-academic skills by age three.5 By the time they enter kindergarten, children in
poverty can be 12 or 18 months behind the average child.6 As we noted earlier, inadequate progress is not
limited to children in poverty. Across the entire income spectrum, nearly 40 percent of American children at age ve are classi ed as not ready
for kindergarten, and most of these children are not poor.7

Desegregation wont solve --- racism is too entrenched in school

Wells, et. al, 04 - Professor of Sociology and Education, Columbia Teacher's College
(October 2004, Amy Stuart Wells, Anita Tijerina Revilla Assistant Professor of Women's
Studies at UNLV, Jennifer Jellison Holme Post-doctoral Fellow, Graduate School of
Education and Information Studies at UCLA, and Awo Korantemaa Atanda Senior Survey
Specialist, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Virginia Law Review, 50 YEARS OF BROWN V.
BOARD OF EDUCATION: ESSAY: THE SPACE BETWEEN SCHOOL DESEGREGATION COURT
ORDERS AND OUTCOMES: THE STRUGGLE TO CHALLENGE WHITE PRIVILEGE, 90 Va. L. Rev.
1721, Lexis-Nexis Academic, SR)
While few commentators have made the connection between greater segregation and a growing achievement gap, and even fewer have contemplated efforts to stem the tide of racial segregation, there has been no shortage of ideas regarding how to
equalize student achievement across separate schools. Some argue in favor of tougher accountability measures, and some encourage school finance equity lawsuits designed to bring more money to segregated and poor urban schools. n6 The collective

The Brown decision was a historic ruling

conclusion emanating from this commentary is as follows: , clearly one of the most significant Supreme Court decisions of the twentieth

Still, despite the optimism that this case fostered fifty years ago, school desegregation
century.

failed as a public policy. Thus, today, we need to find alternative means of fulfilling the
promise of Brown within more racially separate schools. Is this a more acceptable way of saying we gave up on Brown and now we are simply trying to

What is lost by fast-forwarding history from 1954 to today is a

do right by the promise of Plessy v. Ferguson? n7

consideration of the daily struggles within local communities to desegregate public schools
and how the vision of Brown was compromised by many facets of racial politics in the
United States. if, as some have argued, segregation is but a symptom of the larger
In other words,

disease of white supremacy or racism it is clear that efforts to desegregate public schools , n8

and thereby eradicate the symptom have been compromised by the ongoing disease. In
the process of attempting to alleviate segregation amid a society still firmly grounded in a
belief system based on white supremacy the public schools were forced to swim against , [*1723]

a tide so powerful and so pervasive that we should not blame them for failing, but should
applaud what progress they made in spite of larger societal forces. We have just completed a five-year study of six communities that
tried to racially balance their public schools during the 1970s. n9 Through this research we have learned of the details that lie between the court orders (or whatever desegregation policy existed) and the student outcome and demographic data that have

In the space between the mandates of desegregation and the results, we

been captured in quantitative analyses.

found that the schools and communities we studied often unwittingly reproduced racial
inequality by maintaining white privilege within the context of desegregated schools. Yet at the

We argue that the school

same time, these schools provided spaces where students and educators crossed the color line in ways they had never done before and have not done since.

desegregation policies that existed in these school districts were better than nothing, but
simply were not enough to change the larger society single-handedly. We illustrate how
difficult it was for the people in these schools to live up to the goals of school desegregation
given the larger societal forces, including racial attitudes and politics, housing segregation,
and economic inequality working against them. We also document how deeply committed some of these actors, both educators and students, were to trying to bring
about change. In this way, our study speaks to larger lessons about the role of schools in society and the uphill but worthwhile efforts of lawyers and judges to use schools as one of very few tools for social change. The desegregated schools of the 1970s

We should not view the disappointment as an

embodied both the hope and the disappointment of Brown's promise to lessen racial inequality in the United States.

indictment of the idea of school desegregation or the legal levers that allowed it to happen
in hundreds of school districts across the country. we should use this historical, Rather,

qualitative data to help us better understand the degree of burden we placed on the [*1724]

public schools to solve a systemic, societal problem that affects every dimension of our lives,
from where we live and how much money we make to who we pray with and who our close
friends are. Racial inequality and the resultant segregation did not begin in the public
schools; thus, we should not expect remedies in the public schools to solve the problem
alone. But we can rely on racially diverse public schools - to the extent that current policies allow them to exist - to be important sites in the struggle for a more just society. Lawyers and legal scholars who helped fight for school desegregation
and who continue to push for racial diversity in educational settings need to understand this more complex view of the history and reality of school desegregation in the United States in order to move forward with new legal strategies.