1

Interpretation: regulation excludes courts

US Code Title 20 (United States Code, Title 20. Education; Chapter 31: General Provisions Concerning
Education, Lexis) AAB

§ 1232. Regulations (a) "Regulation"defined. For the purpose of this section, the term "regulation" means any
generally applicable rule, regulation, guideline, interpretation, or other requirement that-- (1) is
prescribed by the Secretary or the Department; and (2) has legally binding effect in connection with, or
affecting, the provision of financial assistance under any applicable program. (b) Citation of authority.
Regulations shall contain, immediately following each substantive provision of such regulations,
citations to the particular section or sections of statutory law or other legal authority on which such
provision is based. (c) Uniform application. All regulations shall be uniformly applied and enforced
throughout the 50 States.

Violation: The aff rules on a court case

Standards
Context – The US Code General Provisions concerning education is the defining
literature on what is education regulation – it is legally binding, has the intent to
define, and is by implication exclusionary
Limits – Allowing the courts to change laws more than doubles the size of the topic –
courts can reinterpret any preexisting laws or rule on court cases that Congress can’t
change
Ground – Courts affs avoid politics disads, spending disads, and the states cp, leaving
the neg with no core generics. Courts affs require all new generics which aren’t
relevant to agency affs – doubles the neg burden at no cost to the aff

In addition, overturning a court decision is fx topical because it doesn’t directly

regulate education
Ground – they can spike out of links to politics, states or federalism which are the only
core generics to check small affs – the alternative is cheaty process cps or funding pics
which are comparatively worse for debate
Limits – They justify any aff that eventually causes more regulation or funding of
education
Education — FX topicality destroys topic education. The more the aff can be FX
topical, the less focused policy discussion becomes and the less topic education there
will be.
The only brightline is plan in a vacuum – anything else is infinitely regressive and
impossible to define – The judge can’t look to solvency cards to see if the plan results
in topical action

Topicality is an apriori voter for fairness and education

 2
TEXT – The United States federal government will end federal ownership of Native
American schools and convert BIE funding to education block grants to distribute to
those schools.

The CP solves – BIE mismanagement and under staffing are gutting Native American
school. Block grants provide tribal governments with the flexibility to properly source
school management.
Chris Edwards 2015 (Director of tax policy studies at Cato) “Indian Schools Are Failing”, April 28, CATO
Institute, https://www.cato.org/blog/indian-schools-are-failing

Since treaties in the 19th century, the federal government has provided educational aid to American
Indians. These days, the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) owns about 180 Indian schools, which have about 41,000
students in Arizona, New Mexico, South Dakota, North Dakota, and other states. I examined Indian schools in this study at Downsizing
Government. The schools have long failed Indian children and seem to waste a great deal of money . The
Washington Post reported similar findings: The U.S. Bureau of Indian Education spends nearly 56 percent more
money than American public schools on each student, but many Native Americans learn in facilities that are languishing in
poor condition, according to federal auditors. A report this week from the Government Accountability Office said the
agency has struggled to staff, manage and repair its schools, largely because of a broken bureaucracy. …
The bureau also suffers from high leadership turnover, inconsistent accountability, poor communication
between offices, a lack of strategic planning and a dearth of financial experts to manage spending, auditors
said. The “systemic management challenges,” as the report described them, have hindered the agency’s efforts to
improve student achievement and sustain key initiatives, according to the report. The problems have persisted
for years, despite the bureau spending significantly more than U.S. public schools in general. A 2014 GAO
analysis found that the agency spends an estimated $15,000 per pupil on average, while public schools nationwide spend an estimated average
of about $9,900. … Indian Education spokeswoman Nedra Darling said Thursday that the bureau is “deep into the process of fixing the problems
that the GAO highlighted.” … “The president has asked Congress for significant increases in the budget to accomplish many of these goals and
to increase staff available to serve tribal schools and BIE-run schools,” Darling said. The last two sentences are classic: Agency leaders using
their own failings as an excuse to demand more taxpayer money. A
better reform would be for Congress to advance
Indian self-determination by ending the federal ownership and operation of schools and converting BIE
funding to block grants. Tribal governments could then use the block grants to either competitively source
school management or to pass through the funds to Indian parents in the form of school vouchers. The important thing is to
get Washington out of the business of running schools because decades of experience reveal that it is not very good at it.

Specifically, The Havasupai tribe wants control of education

Naomi Schaefer Riley 2017 (senior fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum) “No Student Deserves
the Bureau of Indian Education”, February 23, http://www.iwf.org/news/2802923/No-Student-
Deserves-the-Bureau-of-Indian-Education

Rather than be subject to this kind of incompetence and corruption, lawyers for the Havasupai tribe
argue that the tribe, not the federal government, should control education.
[Neg Block?] The federal government is a complete and utter failure when it comes to
Native American education – putting reform in the hands of tribes would produce
better results
Jung 15 regular contributor to the Fronteras Desk from KUNM Albuquerque. She covered several major
stories there including New Mexico's Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage and
Albuquerque's failed voter initiative to ban late-term abortions. Jung has also contributed stories about
environmental and Native American issues to NPR's Morning Edition, PRI's The World, Al Jazeera
America, WNYC's The Takeaway, and National Native News.(Carrie, November 30, “BIE Officials Hope
School Reform Will Lead To Better Student Outcomes,” http://kjzz.org/content/226933/bie-officials-
hope-school-reform-will-lead-better-student-outcomes) AAB
Fixico said it was the beginning of a new era. And while that shift did lead to some improvement, the system today is struggling. BIE fourth
graders currently score an average of 22 points lower in reading and 14 points lower in math than Native American students in public schools.
"BIEhas been a big failure," said Dr. Charles Monty Roessel, the director of the Bureau of Indian Education. "I don’t think you
can find success in BIE in anything," Roessel said funding is a challenge. Tribes across the country are currently waiting on at least
$1.3 billion in school infrastructure repairs and replacements. Access to broadband internet is spotty at best, and many struggle with teacher
and principal retention. In an effort to turn things around, federal officials are trying a new strategy. "I think history has shown us that the
best way to improve the quality of service in Indian Country is to have the people closest to those
actually operate and be held accountable for them," said Roessel. One-third of the BIE’s 183 schools are run
out of the agency’s headquarters in Washington D.C. Two-thirds are run by individual tribes. Roessel explained part of the
agency's plan for improving student performance involves streamlining the BIE's administrative structure to reflect the idea that the agency
now plays more of a supportive role in school functions. Officials hope if
more BIE schools can shift to tribal control, they
can focus more effort on school improvement operations.
 3
Interpretation: Substantially means to a significant extent
Oxford dictionary 17, Accessed June 24, website produced by the Oxford University Press publishing
house, a department of the University of Oxford,
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/substantially IEB

substantially ADVERB 1To a great or significant extent. ‘profits grew substantially’

Violation – the aff rules in one specific court case – that’s 73 students in one of
hundreds of BIE schools which is 8% of natives in education which is 3ish% of all
students in the united states

Limits – There’s no way to predict this, if the aff can get away with running an aff this
small it’s super abusive – it destroys all limits on aff size – makes it impossible to be
neg
Ground – Small affs avoid all links to all disads and all counterplans – moves debate
towards generics like cap
Education – there’s no education without clash and three’s only clash with
predictbablility, small affs like this completely negate all clash which destroys

Topicality is an apriori voter for fairness and education

 4
Federal Circuit backlog is low now
Prost 15 Sharon Prost, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit interviewed by IPOEF.
“Sharon Prost, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit”
https://www.ipoef.org/?p=1513

How will the Court manage the workload? For now, we’re ok. We just got our twelfth vacancy filled when Judge Kara Stoll came
on board, so for the first time we have six senior judges. We’re all hands on deck in a way we’ve never been. A few years ago, under

former Chief Judge Paul Michel, we rose from three clerks each to four clerks each. I’m fairly optimistic that in the foreseeable future

we’ll be up to the task. We’re proud of the fact that we’re very current; we have virtually no backlog and are probably
one of the most current appeals courts in the country, so we’d like to be able to keep that going. It may
get a little harder with the influx of PTAB cases, but we’ll do the best we can.

Increasing the federal circuit court’s workload would hinder current courts
ability to guarantee IP protection
Kirk 06 – Michael K. Kirk, Executive Director of the American Intellectual Property Law Association,
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee; United States Senate
http://www.aipla.org/Advocacy%20Shared%20Documents/TES_2006-03-24_109C_ImmigrationBill-
Specter-Kirk.pdf pg.1-2 KKC
I am writing to you on behalf of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) regarding the pending immigration reform legislation that would
transfer jurisdiction over immigration appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. We believe that such broadening
of the Federal
Circuit’s jurisdiction would seriously hinder the court’s ability to render high quality, timely decisions
on patent appeals from district courts, and patent and trademark appeals from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. This runs directly
counter to the present efforts of Congress to otherwise reform and improve this nation’s patent system. We
take no position on other specific elements of the legislation or on the underlying need for immigration reform. Our concern focuses solely on

the proposed shift in appellate jurisdiction, which we believe will do more harm than good. AIPLA is a national
bar association whose approximately 16,000 members are primarily lawyers in private and corporate practice, in government service, and in the academic
community. AIPLA represents a wide and diverse spectrum of individuals, companies, and institutions involved directly or indirectly in the practice of patent,
trademark, copyright, and unfair competition law, as well as other fields of law affecting intellectual property. Our members represent both owners and users of
intellectual property, and have a keen interest in an efficient federal judicial system. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was established in 1982 after more
than a decade of deliberate study and Congressional consideration. The Hruska Commission (chaired by Senator Roman Hruska) conducted a study lasting nearly
three years before recommending to Congress the establishment of a national appeals court to consider patent cases. It took two Administrations, several
Congresses, and a number of hearings in both the House and Senate before legislation establishing the Federal Circuit was finally enacted. Over the past 26 years
the Court, through its thoughtful and deliberate opinions, has made great progress in providing stability
and consistency in the patent law. Removing immigration appeals from the general jurisdiction of the twelve regional Courts of Appeals and
centralizing it in the Federal Circuit is an enormous change. Leaving aside the impact, both pro and con, on the affected litigants, the Federal Circuit is simply not
equipped to undertake the more than 12,000 requests for review of deportation orders that twelve courts now share each year. The Federal Circuit currently has no
expertise or experience in the field of immigration law. While the legislation envisions adding three judges to the twelve currently on the Court, we have serious
concerns whether this increase will be adequate. Judge Posner has calculated that, even with the three additional judges proposed in the legislation, each of the
fifteen Federal Circuit judges would be responsible for about 820 immigration cases per year, on the average—an incredibly large number that we believe will have
a significant adverse impact on the remainder of the court’s docket. It seems inevitable that the proposed legislation will have a dramatic, negative impact on
an increased caseload will necessarily delay decisions in
Federal Circuit decisions in patent cases and appeals from the USPTO. Such

these appeals, which in turn will cause uncertainty over patent and trademark rights and interfere with
business investments in technological innovation. Beyond mere delay, the Federal Circuit's ability to issue
consistent, predictable opinions in patent cases will be complicated by an increase in the number of judges. If
conflicts in panel opinions increase, the inefficient and often contentious en banc process will have to be
used more often, further adding to the overall burden on the court. Business can effectively deal with
decisions, positive or negative, but it cannot deal with protracted uncertainty caused by inconsistent
opinions or long delays in judicial review. Demand for reform of the patent system has been the topic of considerable public debate of
late. Congress held extensive hearings on this subject last year, and more are scheduled in coming weeks. The House is currently considering legislation that would
dramatically change the patent statute, and we understand that patent reform legislation may soon be introduced in the Senate as well. It
would be
unfortunate for Congress to inadvertently compound the challenges facing the patent system by
weakening the ability of the Federal Circuit to give timely and consistent consideration to patent cases.

IP driven innovation solves warming and turns growth

Santamauro 13 Jon P. Santamauro, lawyer in Dulles, Virginia, specializes in patent law, Environmental
Technologies, Intellectual Property and Climate Change
https://books.google.com/books?id=XsfQfW_oA2oC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=%22There+is+general+c
onsensus+that+innovation+is+critical+to+resolve+the+world%27s+climate+change-
related+challenges.%E2%80%9D+Recent+studies+have+further+confirmed+the+scale+of+need+to+deve
lop+such+technologies%22&source=bl&ots=bDoOWT29t3&sig=O20_-
xtaPdTXMcl7u4TJ2BSCgVI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiYhPbwyvTTAhUE1mMKHQF8DaAQ6AEIIzAA#v=o
nepage&q=%22There%20is%20general%20consensus%20that%20innovation%20is%20critical%20to%20
resolve%20the%20world's%20climate%20change-
related%20challenges.%E2%80%9D%20Recent%20studies%20have%20further%20confirmed%20the%2
0scale%20of%20need%20to%20develop%20such%20technologies%22&f=false

3.3 ROLEOF IP IN INNOVATION AND ITS RELATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGIES 3.3.1 Addressing Climate Change
Requires Innovation There is general consensus that innovation is critical to resolve the world's climate change-
related challenges.” Recent studies have further confirmed the scale of need to develop such technologies. One 2007 study found that, if limited to
technologies available in 2005, the present value cost of achieving stabilization of the level of CO2 (at 550 ppm) would be over US $20 trillion greater than with
expected developments in energy efficiency, hydrogen energy technologies, advanced bio-energy and wind and solar technologies.’2 A recent report by the
International Energy Agency claims that clean technology innovation must rise by a factor of between two and ten
times to meet global climate change goals, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by 2050.” 3.3.2 IP in the Innovation
Cycle The basic premise underlying intellectual property is that recognition and rewards stimulate further inventive and

creative activity and, in turn, stimulate economic growth. A recent OECD study confirms the positive
relationship between strengthening intellectual property rights, on the one hand, and increased trade,
foreign direct investment, technology transfer and innovation, on the other hand.35 While the broader debate persists,
there is need for a better understanding of the role intellectual property plays in the innovation process.
It should be stressed at the outset that intellectual property laws, in and of themselves, do not result in innovation but rather are an

essential part of a process. WIPO has described this as a 'continuum from problem [to] knowledge [to] imagination Ito] innovation [to] intellectual
property [to] the solution, in the forms of products’.36 Thus, to maximize its utility to bring about effective innovation and dissemination policies, it is important to
consider the role of intellectual property in its proper context. 3.3.3 IP Is Not a ‘Barrier’ The proposals made for greater, or even comprehensive, exclusions and
exceptions reflect concerns that intellectual property, particularly 'patents,’ may act as a ‘barrier’ to the development and diffusion of technologies. However, there
are a number of distinct, yet interrelated, issues that need to be addressed in that debate, namely: (1) the role of intellectual property, including patents, in
innovation or development of ne technologies: (2) the role of intellectual property in technology transfer: (3) the effect of intellectual property on prices for
commercialized goods or processes: and (4) the effects of intellectual property on dissemination of technologies. Because technology transfer is specifically noted as
a means of diffusing climate change technologies in the UNFCCC and is a consistent source of controversy, we will focus on this aspect.37 The
patent
system plays an important role in technology transfer by requiring inventors to provide full disclosure of
their inventions to the public as a condition of receiving a grant of exclusive rights to the patented invention for a limited period of time.38 Trade
secrets and knowhow also grant protection to knowledge developed by an innovator in relation to the optimum utilization of these technologies, and, as a result,
are often coupled together with patents in licensing agreements to transfer technology.39 Both
patents and trade secrets provide
exclusive rights that permit a right holder appropriate returns on their investment. This not only
facilitates development, but also provides an incentive for diffusion of working technologies through
licensing and other cooperative arrangements with the knowledge that the holder's investment is still protected. In addition, there is
no support for any special concern about intellectual property rights as a barrier to technology transfer
in the climate change area.40 For example, many low-emission energy technologies are simply not patented in the vast majority of developing
countries. A recent study round that, while 215,000 patents were registered for such technologies over the period of 1998—2008, only 0.1 per cent or these patents
were obtained in low-income developing countries.41 In addition, a study of the photovoltaic, biofuel and wind technology
sectors from 2007 finds that patents are unlikely to be a barrier to access to technologies.42 Consistent with
these findings, a study by the International Energy Agency had found in 2001 that strengthening intellectual property

rights is one of the most effective government actions to be taken in order to improve the enabling
environment for climate-related technology transfer.43 Another study from 2008 provides empirical data illustrating that
strengthened IPR systems in developing countries, in response to the TRIPS Agreement, are associated with greater
transfer of technology. These findings are also consistent with typical practices employed by the private sector. Private companies transfer technology
through loans, commercial sales, joint ventures, the licensing of intellectual property rights and foreign direct investment.45 Without the assurances

provided by robust intellectual property protection, e.g., through patents and trade secrets, companies may be less
willing to reveal their technical information to subsidiaries and licensees in a particular market.46

Warming causes extinxtion - ocean acidification, water and resource wars, econ
collapse, and conflicts
Pachauri and Meyer 15 (Rajendra K. Pachauri Chairman of the IPCC, Leo Meyer Head, Technical Support
Unit IPCC were the editors for this IPCC report, “Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report”
http://epic.awi.de/37530/1/IPCC_AR5_SYR_Final.pdf IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis
Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)].
IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp)

SPM 2.3 Future risks and impacts caused by a changing climate Climate change will amplify existing risks and create new risks
for natural and human systems. Risks are unevenly distributed and are generally greater for
disadvantaged people and communities in countries at all levels of development. {2.3} Risk of climate-related impacts
results from the interaction of climate-related hazards (including hazardous events and trends) with the vulnerability
and exposure of human and natural systems, including their ability to adapt. Rising rates and magnitudes of
warming and other changes in the climate system, accompanied by ocean acidification, increase the risk of
severe, pervasive and in some cases irreversible detrimental impacts. Some risks are particularly relevant for individual regions (Figure SPM.8), while
others are global. The overall risks of future climate change impacts can be reduced by limiting the rate and magnitude of

climate change, including ocean acidification. The precise levels of climate change sufficient to trigger abrupt and
irreversible change remain uncertain, but the risk associated with crossing such thresholds increases

with rising temperature (medium confidence). For risk assessment, it is important to evaluate the widest possible range
of impacts, including low-probability outcomes with large consequences. {1.5, 2.3, 2.4, 3.3, Box Introduction.1, Box 2.3, Box
2.4} A large fraction of species faces increased extinction risk due to climate change during and beyond the 21st

century, especially as climate change interacts with other stressors (high confidence). Most plant species cannot

naturally shift their geographical ranges sufficiently fast to keep up with current and high projected rates
of climate change in most landscapes; most small mammals and freshwater molluscs will not be able to keep up at the rates projected under RCP4.5 and
above in flat landscapes in this century (high confidence). Future risk is indicated to be high by the observation that natural global climate change

at rates lower than current anthropogenic climate change caused significant ecosystem shifts and
species extinctions during the past millions of years. Marine organisms will face progressively lower
oxygen levels and high rates and magnitudes of ocean acidification (high confidence), with associated risks
exacerbated by rising ocean temperature extremes (medium confidence). Coral reefs and polar ecosystems are
highly vulnerable. Coastal systems and low-lying areas are at risk from sea level rise, which will continue for centuries even if the global mean
temperature is stabilized (high confidence). {2.3, 2.4, Figure 2.5} Climate change is projected to undermine food security (Figure
SPM.9). Due to projected climate change by the mid-21st century and beyond, global marine species redistribution and marine

biodiversity reduction in sensitive regions will challenge the sustained provision of fisheries productivity
and other ecosystem services (high confidence). For wheat, rice and maize in tropical and temperate regions,
climate change without adaptation is projected to negatively impact production for local temperature increases of 2°C
or more above late 20th century levels, although individual locations may benefit (medium confidence). Global temperature increases of ~4°C

or more 13 above late 20th century levels, combined with increasing food demand, would pose large risks to food
security globally (high confidence). Climate change is projected to reduce renewable surface water and
groundwater resources in most dry subtropical regions (robust evidence, high agreement), intensifying competition for water
among sectors (limited evidence, medium agreement). {2.3.1, 2.3.2} Until mid-century, projected climate change will impact human
health mainly by exacerbating health problems that already exist (very high confidence). Throughout the 21st century,
climate change is expected to lead to increases in ill-health in many regions and especially in developing
countries with low income, as compared to a baseline without climate change (high confidence). By 2100 for RCP8.5, the combination of
high temperature and humidity in some areas for parts of the year is expected to compromise common human
activities, including growing food and working outdoors (high confidence). {2.3.2} In urban areas climate change is
projected to increase risks for people, assets, economies and ecosystems, including risks from heat stress,
storms and extreme precipitation, inland and coastal flooding, landslides, air pollution, drought, water
scarcity, sea level rise and storm surges (very high confidence). These risks are amplified for those lacking
essential infrastructure and services or living in exposed areas. {2.3.2} Rural areas are expected to experience major
impacts on water availability and supply, food security, infrastructure and agricultural incomes, including shifts in
the production areas of food and non-food crops around the world (high confidence). {2.3.2} Aggregate economic losses accelerate with

increasing temperature (limited evidence, high agreement), but global economic impacts from climate change are currently difficult to estimate.
From a poverty perspective, climate change impacts are projected to slow down economic growth,
make poverty reduction more difficult, further erode food security and prolong existing and create new
poverty traps, the latter particularly in urban areas and emerging hotspots of hunger (medium confidence). International dimensions such as trade and
relations among states are also important for understanding the risks of climate change at regional scales. {2.3.2} Climate change is projected to

increase displacement of people (medium evidence, high agreement). Populations that lack the resources for planned
migration experience higher exposure to extreme weather events, particularly in developing countries with low income.
Climate change can indirectly increase risks of violent conflicts by amplifying well-documented drivers
of these conflicts such as poverty and economic shocks (medium confidence). {2.3.2}
 5
Counterplan: The United States Federal judiciary should (*Insert plan text) with a
unanimous 9-0 decision.

The fragmented decisions which are normal means for the supreme court devastate
solvency
COOPER ‘95
[Phillip – prof polisci Vermont – Battles on the Bench]

The excessive fragmentation of the Court noted by O’Brien, particularly during the 1980s and 1990s,
flashes a warning. The expansion of separate opinions, among other uses, provides a means to vent
disagreement, and these opinions have clearly been used for that purpose. But the character of
separate opinions has changed. Furthermore, the rise in the number of pluralities and opinions for the
Court joined only in discrete parts by members of the Court is particularly troublesome. It is as though
the members of the Court are avoiding the task of compromise and are moving back toward the
tradition of seriatim opinions that John Marshall worked so hard to eliminate. Granted, too much
concern with consensus may paper over in public what are serious differences within the institution.
Conversely, however, too little concern with the coherence of institutional decisions in order to
purchase tranquility and avoid hard negotiations within the Court is conflict by another means, and it
is far less helpful than a careful compromise hammered out through intense negotiations. The current
spate of opinions in which one justice concurs in parts A, C, E, and F, and two other justices concur
only in parts A and E is reminiscent of Alexander Hamilton’s complaint about the plethora of state
court rulings with no coherent synthesis in a national body. His observation that so many opinions
“are a hydra in government from which nothing but confusion and chaos can proceed” is worth
remembering for those who prefer apparent peace to effective institutional judgment.

Plurality decisions mar the Court’s institutional legitimacy and the rule of law, inviting
backlash and non-compliance over issues of constitutional rights
BANKS ‘99 [Christopher – assiprof polisci U Akron – 32 Akron L. Rev. 233]
Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson once suggested that rulings from the Supreme Court of the United
States have "a mortality rate as high as their authors." n1 Jackson's quip is significant since it is
consistent with the political reality that the Court often manipulates the law to make social policy. The
remark is also controversial since it raises the question of whether the Supreme Court, led by Chief
Justice William H. Rehnquist, is engaging in result-oriented jurisprudence. This is a significant issue since
some claim that the Rehnquist Court uses an unprincipled theory of stare decisis to achieve partisan
objectives in law. Critics argue that this diminishes the Court's institutional prestige and undermines the
rule of law. n2 Notably, since 1986 the Supreme Court seems to invite condemnation in some of its high-
profile cases, especially in those instances when a defendant's constitutional rights are at issue. In Payne
v. Tennessee, n3 for example, the Supreme Court reversed itself twice by admitting into evidence victim
impact statements in capital sentencing proceedings. In Payne, dissenting Justice Thurgood Marshall
denounced Rehnquist's plurality opinion on the grounds that the Court was creating a novel theory of
stare decisis. Payne, in other words, held that the force of precedent is at its acme in cases involving
contract or property rights; and, conversely, that it is at its nadir either in opinions relating to procedural
and evidentiary rules, 5-4 decisions, or majority opinions achieved over "spirited dissents." The Chief
Justice responded to Marshall by saying that "stare decisis is not an inexorable command; rather, it 'is a
principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision . . . .'" n4 As a policy
matter, therefore, prior law did not prevent the [*234] statements from being admitted into evidence.

Upholding the rule of law is a D-rule to uphold the fundamental right of all humanity
RAWLS – 71

[John – prof Harvard – A Theory of Justice – p235]

I now wish to consider rights of the person as these are protected by the principle of the rule of law. As
before my intention is not only to relate these notions to the principles of justice but to elucidate the
sense of the priority of liberty. I have already noted (10) that the conception of formal justice, the
regular and impartial administration of public rules, becomes the rule of law when applied to the legal
system. One kind of unjust action is the failure of judges and others in authority to apply the appropriate
rule or to interpret it correctly. It is more illuminating in this connection to think not of gross violations
exemplified by bribery or corruption, or the abuse of the legal system to punish political enemies, but
rather of the subtle distortions of prejudice and bias as these effectively discriminate against certain
groups in the political process. The regular and impartial, and in this sense fair, administration of law we
may call “justice as regularity.” This is a more suggestive phrase than “formal justice.”
 6
Courts are currently vigilant in maintaining legitimacy now due to Trump.
Noah Feldman, June 5, 2017. “Trump Tanks His Own Case at the Supreme Court,”
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-05/trump-s-tweets-tank-travel-ban-case-at-
supreme-court

First, there’s the tone of contempt for the legal process itself. The lawyers in question are Trump’s: The
opposition is happy to call the order a travel ban. When you insult your own lawyers, the rest of the
legal system tends to notice. As for insulting the lower court judges who have treated the order as a
travel ban, that’s practically begging the Supreme Court to vindicate those judges. Even Justice Neil
Gorsuch, during his confirmation process, suggested that attacks on the judiciary trouble judges. The
rest of the justices, who unlike Gorsuch owe Trump nothing, are going to be extremely vigilant about the
legitimacy of the judiciary as a whole.

Supreme Court education rulings tank legitimacy—makes them look like a national
overbearing school board
Dunn, Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science and Director of the Center for the
Study of Government at the University of Colorado, and West, Associate Professor of Education at the
Harvard School of Education, 2010

(Joshua M., and Martin R., “From Schoolhouse to Courthouse: The Judiciary's Role in American
Education,” Brookings Institution Press, https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=h9eY-y-
k60QC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=(education+politicization)+AROUND(10)+(Supreme+Court)+(United+States)
+Milliken+(activism)&ots=HUK9hKX1su&sig=baYVwNyY4gqSpmV6_rcheIFHe3w#v=onepage&q&f=false,
2010, ATH)

In 1958 Justice Robert H. Jackson warned his colleagues on the U.S Supreme Court against establishing
themselves as a “super board of education for every school district in the nation.” Cleary troubled by the
Court’s invalidation of a Champaign, Illinois, program allowing students to attend religious classes in
public school buildings, he worried that the decision lacked constitutional grounding and would spawn a
steady stream of complaints challenging established practices nationwide. Oddly, however, Jackson
could not bring himself to follow his own advice: he concurred with the Court’s judgement in the case.
His evidence ambivalence in doing so foreshadowed, in microcosm, debates about the propriety of
judicial involvement in American education that persist to this day. That involvement has, by any
measure, grown exponentially over the past sixty years. Seemingly no aspect of education policy has
been too insignificant to escape judicial oversight. Schools and districts now regularly face lawsuits over
discipline policies, personnel decisions, holiday celebrations, and more. Even in areas where formal
complaints are rare, the threat lingers. And a single decision, by establishing new legal principles, can
have far-reaching ramifications. It comes as no surprise, then, that a national survey conducted in 2004
by Public Agenda found that 82 percent of public school teachers and 77 percent of principals practiced
“defensive teaching” in order “to avoid legal challenges.” Both conservatives and liberals on the current
Supreme Court have voiced concern of the extend of judicial involvement in education. In the 2006 case
Morse v. Frederick, Justice Lawrence Thomas bemoaned the passing of in loco parentis, the doctrine
that assigned to school officials the authority of parents and made courts “reluctant to interfere in the
routine business of the school administration.” While hardly arguing for a return to in loco parentis,
Justice Stephen G. Breyer nonetheless worried that “the more detailed the Court’s supervision becomes,
the more likely its law will engender further disputes among teachers and students. Consequently,
larger numbers of those disputes will likely make their way from the schoolhouse to the courthouse. Yet
no one wishes to substitute courts for school boards, or to turn the judge’s chambers into the principal’s
office.” The path from schoolhouse to courthouse is already well traveled. This volume considers the
implications of this development through fresh analyses of the areas of education policy in which the
judiciary has been and remains most active. In this introduction, we review the causes of increased
education litigation, the forms it now takes, and the scholarly debates it has provoked. While dogmatism
would be unjustified, we conclude that the courtroom is rarely the optimal venue for education
policymaking. The problematic incentives of adversial litigation and the judiciary’s own institutional
limitations are aggravated in the context of K-12 schooling by the difficulty of monitoring educators’
behavior and their tendency to tread cautiously so as to avoid legal challenges. In short, Justices Thomas
and Breyer have good reason to worry about the judicialization of American education.

Loss of legitimacy prevents court from checking military, ensuring nuclear war, turns
the case
Kellman, prof of law @ DePaul, 1989
(Barry Kellman, prof of law @ DePaul, Dec 1989, “JUDICIAL ABDICATION OF MILITARY TORT ACCOUNTABILITY: BUT
WHO IS TO GUARD THE GUARDS THEMSELVES?” 1989 Duke L.J. 1597)
In this era of thermonuclear weapons, America must uphold its historical commitment to be a nation
of law. Our strength grows from the resolve to subject military force to constitutional authority.
Especially in these times when weapons proliferation can lead to nuclear winter, when weapons
production can causecancer, when soldiers die unnecessarily in the name of readiness: those who
control military force must be held accountable under law. As the Supreme Court recognized a
generation ago, the Founders envisioned the army as a necessary institution, but one dangerous to
liberty if not confined within its essential bounds. Their fears were rooted in history. They knew that
ancient republics had been overthrown by their military leaders. . . . . . . . We cannot close our eyes
to the fact that today the peoples of many nations are ruled by the military. We should not break
faith with this Nation's tradition of keeping military power subservient to civilian authority, a tradition
which we believe is firmly embodied in the Constitution. n1 Our fears may be rooted in more recent
history. During the decade of history's largest peacetime military expansion (1979-1989), more than
17,000 service personnel were killed in training accidents. n2 In the same period, virtually every facility
in the nuclear bomb complex has been revealed [*1598] to be contaminated with radioactive and
poisonous materials; the clean-up costs are projected to exceed $ 100 billion. n3 Headlines of fatal B-
1B bomber crashes, n4 the downing of an Iranian passenger plane, n5 the Navy's frequent accidents n6
including the fatal crash of a fighter plane into a Georgia apartment complex, n7 remind Americans
that a tragic price is paid to support the military establishment. Other commentaries may distinguish
between the specific losses that might have been preventable and those which were the random
consequence of what is undeniably a dangerous military program. This Article can only repeat the
questions of the parents of those who have died: "Is the military accountable to anyone? Why is it
allowed to keep making the same mistakes? How many more lives must be lost to senseless
accidents?" n8 This Article describes a judicial concession of the law's domain, ironically impelled by
concerns for "national security."In three recent controversies involving weapons testing, the judiciary
has disallowed tort accountability for serious and unwarranted injuries. In United States v. Stanley,n9
the Supreme Court ruled that an Army sergeant, unknowingly drugged with LSD by the Central
Intelligence Agency, could not pursue a claim for deprivation of his constitutional rights. In Allen v.
United States,n10 civilian victims of atmospheric atomic testing were denied a right of tort recovery
against the government officials who managed and performed the tests. Finally, in Boyle v. United
Technologies,n11 the Supreme Court ruled that private weapons manufacturers enjoy immunity from
product liability actions alleging design defects. A critical analysis of these decisions reveals that the
judiciary, notably the Rehnquist Court, has abdicated its responsibility to review civil matters
involving the military security establishment.n12 [*1599] Standing at the vanguard of "national
security" law, n13 these three decisions elevate the task of preparing for war to a level beyond
legal [*1600] accountability. They suggest that determinations of both the ends and the means of
national security are inherently above the law and hence unreviewable regardless of the legal rights
transgressed by these determinations. This conclusion signals a dangerous abdication of judicial
responsibility. The very underpinnings of constitutional governance are threatened by those who
contend that the rule of law weakens the execution of military policy. Their argument -- that because
our adversaries are not restricted by our Constitution, we should become more like our adversaries
to secure ourselves -- cannot be sustained if our tradition of adherence to the rule of law is to be
maintained. To the contrary, the judiciary must be willing to demand adherence to legal principles
by assessing responsibility for weapons decisions. This Article posits that judicial abdication in this
field is not compelled and certainly is not desirable. The legal system can provide a useful check
against dangerous military action, more so than these three opinions would suggest. The judiciary
must rigorously scrutinize military decisions if our 18th century dream of a nation founded in musket
smoke is to remain recognizable in a millennium ushered in under the mushroom cloud of
thermonuclear holocaust.
Case
 Framing
We’ll indict their framing –
1) Reject moral absolutism – it’s complicit with violence.
Isaac ‘2 – Professor of Political Science, Indiana (Jeffrey, “Ends, Means and Politics,” Dissent 49.2, p 35-6, ebsco)
As writers such as Niccolo Machiavelli, Max Weber, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Hannah Arendt have taught, an unyielding concern
with moral goodness undercuts political responsibility. The concern may be morally laudable, reflecting a kind of
personal integrity, but it suffers from three fatal flaws: (1) It fails to see that the purity of one's intention does not ensure
the achievement of what one intends. Abjuring violence or refusing to make common cause with morally compromised
parties may seem like the right thing; but if such tactics entail impotence, then it is hard to view them as serving any moral good beyond
the clean conscience of their supporters; (2) it
fails to see that in a world of real violence and injustice, moral
purity is not simply a form of powerlessness; it is often a form of complicity in injustice. This is why, from
the standpoint of politics--as opposed to religion--pacifism is always a potentially immoral stand. In categorically repudiating violence, it
refuses in principle to oppose certain violent injustices with any effect; and (3) it
fails to see that politics is as much about
unintended consequences as it is about intentions; it is the effects of action, rather than the motives
of action, that is most significant. Just as the alignment with "good" may engender impotence, it is often the pursuit
of "good" that generates evil. This is the lesson of communism in the twentieth century: it is not enough
that one's goals be sincere or idealistic; it is equally important, always, to ask about the effects of
pursuing these goals and to judge these effects in pragmatic and historically contextualized ways.
Moral absolutism inhibits this judgment. It alienates those who are not true believers. It promotes
arrogance. And it undermines political effectiveness.

2) Ignoring the consequences of their advocacy is devastating for the cause of fighting
racism, which REQUIRES that we evaluate the unintended consequences of policy
choices. Their affirmative subverts meaningful policy debate, which recreates racism.
Bracey 6 (Christopher A. Bracey, Associate Professor of Law, Associate Professor of African & African
American Studies, Washington University in St. Louis, September 2006, Southern California Law Review,
79 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1231, p. 1318)

Second, reducing conversation on race matters to an ideological contest allows opponents to elide inquiry
into whether the results of a particular preference policy are desirable. Policy positions masquerading
as principled ideological stances create the impression that a racial policy is not simply a choice among
available alternatives, but the embodiment of some higher moral principle. Thus, the "principle" becomes
an end in itself, without reference to outcomes. Consider the prevailing view of colorblindness in
constitutional discourse. Colorblindness has come to be understood as the embodiment of what is
morally just, independent of its actual effect upon the lives of racial minorities. This explains Justice Thomas's belief in the "moral and
constitutional equivalence" between Jim Crow laws and race preferences, and his tragic assertion that "Government cannot make us equal
[but] can only recognize, respect, and protect us as equal before the law." 281 For Thomas, there is no meaningful difference between laws
designed to entrench racial subordination and those designed to alleviate conditions of oppression. Critics
may point out that
colorblindness in practice has the effect of entrenching existing racial disparities in health, wealth, and society.
But in framing the debate in purely ideological terms, opponents are able to avoid the contentious issue
of outcomes and make viability determinations based exclusively on whether racially progressive
measures exude fidelity to the ideological principle of colorblindness. Meaningful policy debate is
replaced by ideological exchange, which further exacerbates hostilities and deepens the cycle of
resentment.

3) War outweighs and re-entrenches structural violence

*No root cause for war – prefer specific scenario

*War fuels structural violence

*Resisting war creates conditions for positive peace

Horgan 12 (John Horgan, Director of the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of
Technology, 2012, The End of War, Chapter 5, Kindle p. 1600-1659)

Throughout this book, I’ve examined attempts by scholars to identify factors especially conducive for peace. But there seem to be no
conditions that, in and of themselves, inoculate a society against militarism. Not small government nor big
government. Not democracy, socialism, capitalism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, nor secularism. Not giving equal rights to women or
minorities nor reducing poverty. The contagion of war can infect any kind of society. Some scholars, like the political scientist Joshua Goldstein,
find this conclusion dispiriting. Early in his career Goldstein investigated economic theories of war, including those of Marx and Malthus. He
concluded that war causes economic inequality and scarcity of resources as much as it stems from them.
Goldstein, a self-described “pro-feminist,” then set out to test whether macho, patriarchal attitudes caused armed violence. He felt so strongly
about this thesis that he and his wife limited their son’s exposure to violent media and contact sports. But by the time he finished writing his
522-page book War and Gender in 2001, Goldstein had rejected the thesis. He questioned many of his initial assumptions about the causes of
war. He never gave credence to explanations involving innate male aggression—war breaks out too sporadically for that—but he saw no clear-
cut evidence for non-biological factors either. “War
is not a product of capitalism, imperialism, gender, innate
aggression, or any other single cause, although all of these influence wars’ outbreaks and outcomes,”
Goldstein writes. “Rather, war has in part fueled and sustained these and other injustices.” He admits that all his
research has left him “somewhat more pessimistic about how quickly or easily war may end.” But here is the upside of this insight: if there are
no conditions that in and of themselves prevent war, there are none that make peace impossible, either. This is the source of John Mueller’s
optimism, and mine. If we
want peace badly enough, we can have it, no matter what kind of society we live in. The choice is
ours. And once we have escaped from the shadow of war, we will have more resources to devote to other
problems that plague us, like economic injustice, poor health, and environmental destruction, which war
often exacerbates. The Waorani, whose abandonment of war led to increased trade and intermarriage, are a case in point. So is Costa
Rica. In 2010, this Central American country was ranked number one out of 148 nations in a “World Database of Happiness” compiled by Dutch
sociologists, who gathered information on the self-reported happiness of people around the world. Costa Rica also received the highest score in
another “happiness” survey, carried out by an American think tank, that factored in the nation’s impact on the environment. The United States
was ranked twentieth and 114th, respectively, on the surveys. Instead of spending on arms, over the past half century Costa Rica’s government
invested in education, as well as healthcare, environmental conservation, and tourism, all of which helped make the country more prosperous,
healthy, and happy. Thereis no single way to peace, but peace is the way to solve many other problems. The
research of Mueller, Goldstein, Forsberg, and other scholars yields one essential lesson. Those of us who want to make
the world a better place—more democratic, equitable, healthier, cleaner—should make abolishing the
invention of war our priority, because peace can help bring about many of the other changes we seek.
This formula turns on its head the old social activists’ slogan: “If you want peace, work for justice.” I say
instead, “If you want justice, work for peace.” If you want less pollution, more money for healthcare and
education, an improved legal and political system—work for peace.
4) Predictions are accurate and key to effective policymaking – low probability isn’t a
reason to reject our research
*Most don’t know basics/complexities

*hide behind lack of knowledge, psychological defense

* bad predictions about future (they are optimists, we default experts)

Shepard & Kay 12 - * Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, **Department of

Management & Organizations and Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, Duke University (Steven,
Aaron, On the Perpetuation of Ignorance: System Dependence, System Justification, and the Motivated
Avoidance of Sociopolitical Information, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology © 2011 American
Psychological Association 2012, Vol. 102, No. 2, 264 –280,
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/psp-102-2-264.pdf)

Individuals are often confronted with information that they do not know how to comprehend or
evaluate, even though this information can be of critical importance to the self (or society as a whole). In the case of
energy, nearly 40% of respondents in a Public Agenda (2009) survey could not identify a fossil fuel. Nearly one third
could not identify a renewable energy source and incorrectly believed that solar energy contributes to
global warming. This lack of knowledge should be of concern to these individuals, as 89% of respondents
worry about increasing fuel costs, and 71% worry about global warming. The economy serves as another example.
Approximately half of surveyed adults did not know what an increase in gross domestic product meant and
thought that “money holds its value well in times of inflation” (National Council on Economic Education, 2005). Worse
still, in a national survey of American adults, 54% of respondents did not know what a subprime mortgage was (Center for Economic and
Entrepreneurial Literacy, 2009), despite the fact that the subprime mortgage crisis was a significant contributor to the economic recession that
began in 2008, and almost certainly affected some substantial portion of those surveyed. In short, it is apparent that a
solid grasp of the
basics (let alone the complexities) of these domains elude many people, and there appears to be a
discrepancy between how much people know about social issues and their importance and relevance to
one’s day-to-day life. Energy and the economy represent just two self-relevant domains that people can feel uncertain about, both in
terms of how they operate at a societal level and how people should act on them. This kind of unfamiliarity can be problematic for day-to-day
functioning, and can also be psychologically stressful. Epistemic uncertainty compromises our ability to predict the
future (Hogg, 2007) and our ability to act and engage in relevant issues. Furthermore, actions that are made
under these circumstances are at an increased risk of being inappropriate or costly (Dunning, Johnson, Ehrlinger,
& Kruger, 2003; Maki & Berry, 1984; Sinkavich, 1995). Research has powerfully illustrated that a lack of knowledge in domains such as
energy and the environment can lead to bad decisions and erroneous beliefs that hinder a society’s ability
to create change in domains that require it (Attari, DeKay, Davidson, & Bruine de Bruin, 2010; Larrick & Soll, 2008). The need
to manage uncertainty, therefore, has been identified as a critical motive that determines behavior (Hogg, 2007; Kruglanski & Webster, 1996;
Neuberg, Judice, & West, 1997; van den Bos, 2009). How do people react, then, when they find themselves unfamiliar or unknowledgeable
about a specific domain? Logically, one
might imagine they would simply try to learn more, thereby making themselves
familiar and knowledgeable. A considerable amount of research, however, suggests that people often engage in more
psychologically defensive, and less workintensive, processes when confronted with uncertainty (Hogg, 2007;
Kruglanski & Webster, 1996; McGregor, Nash, Mann, & Phills, 2010). Drawing our inspiration from system justification theory, we propose a
novel way in which this defensiveness may manifest itself. Feeling
unknowledgeable in the context of broad social issues, we contend,
may breed a unique form of psychological coping— one that holds the potential to powerfully
undermine individual action. Namely, feeling unknowledgeable should instigate feelings of dependence
on those who manage the system (i.e., the government) and, in turn, increase trust in the government
and the status quo, which can then be protected by the intentional avoidance of the issue at hand. The
logic underlying each of these links is explained below.
 BIE bad
BIE won’t be reformed – It’s too corrupt and the BIE does not care about Native
American education – this is specific to Havasupai
Associated Press, 1/12 - The Associated Press is an independent, not-for-profit news cooperative
headquartered in New York City. Our teams in over 100 countries tell the world’s stories, from breaking
news to investigative reporting. We provide content and services to help engage audiences worldwide,
working with companies of all types, from broadcasters to brands. (Associated Press, “Lawsuit faults
Bureau of Indian Education schools,” Associated Press, 1/12/2017,
https://apnews.com/6f73580be4bc4d75b6824cb7cd54f910/lawsuit-faults-bureau-indian-education-
schools)
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — A small, remote American Indian village in the scenic base of one of the most visited places on earth is at the
center of a lawsuit that seeks to dramatically reform the conditions of U.S. Bureau of Indian Education schools. The bureau
failed to
protect students on the Havasupai Indian Reservation in the Grand Canyon by ignoring complaints
about an understaffed school, a lack of special education and a deficient curriculum, according to a
complaint filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Phoenix. Havasupai Chairman Don E. Watahomigie said his Arizona village
is accessible only by helicopter or an eight-mile hike on a horse through the Grand Canyon. But the 70 or so children who attend Havasupai
Elementary School are entitled to the same education as other students across the country, he said. “The
Havasupai Tribal Council
has approached the Bureau of Indian Education many times about its failures,” Watahomigie said. “Each
time we raise these issues we are given promises that are never delivered upon.” The lawsuit, submitted on
behalf of nine students, said the school often sent students with special needs home early or called police to
deal with bad behavior related to their conditions. In addition, the school taught only math and reading
and failed to expose children to subjects like science, social studies and physical education, the lawsuit
said. “These circumstances are not unique to the Havasupai,” Kathryn Eidmann, an attorney at Los Angeles-based firm Public
Counsel. “This is a crisis across BIE schools that the federal government has acknowledged again and again.”
Eidmann said the lawsuit seeks a “declaration” to force all Bureau of Indian Education schools to follow the law on providing special need
services and a thorough curriculum. The U.S. Department of Interior did not immediately respond to an email from The Associated Press. Most
of the Bureau of Indian Education schools are located on rural reservations that have been under the control of the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs
for decades. The bureau oversees 183 schools in 23 states. The BIE also oversees the Haskell Indian Nations University in Kansas and
Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute in New Mexico. The lawsuit is the latest in a series of problems for Bureau of
Indian Education schools. For example, the bureau faced scrutiny after a government watchdog report
said in March that officials had failed to ensure regular inspections were carried out at dozens of
schools, where safety hazards ranged from exposed electrical wires and broken windows to a natural
gas leak. At one school, Government Accountability Office investigators found four aging dormitory boilers
failed an inspection and were blamed for high carbon monoxide levels and a natural gas leak but
weren’t repaired until about eight months later. Havasupai parents have complained that students are
entering the eighth grade not having basic knowledge of subjects like geography and history. Alexis
DeLaCruz, an attorney for the Native American Disability Law Center, said half of the students who attend Havasupai
Elementary are classified as students with special needs.

The plan puts a bandaid on a bullethole – BIE and corresponding departments are
terminally broken
Subbaraman 17 BuzzFeed News reporter (Nidhi, Feb. 14, “These Federal Programs That Serve Tribes
Are Broken, Report Says,” BuzzFeed News, https://www.buzzfeed.com/nidhisubbaraman/federal-
service-tribes-fail?utm_term=.hqeLKQAow#.xcPpw74zR) AAB
 federal agencies that run essential programs for American Indian and Native Alaskan tribes have been
Three

flagged by the Government Accountability Office for mismanaging resources . For the first time, GAO included the Department of Interior’s Bureau of
Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education, along with the Indian Health Service, in its “High Risk” report documenting inefficiencies at the federal government. Together, the agencies are responsible for critical services: Delivering health care and education, and managing energy
resources on tribe-owned land. The performance “put the health and safety of American Indians served by these programs at risk,” according to the report, which urged Congress to study and improve these offices. The Indian Health Service (IHS) operates 114 clinics and hospitals
nationwide, many of which are in rural areas. But the agency is underfunded and understaffed, the report noted. In dire need of attention was the Purchased Referred Care program, the mechanism that directs patients to other clinics when the nearest IHS facility does not offer the

the program is understaffed, and does not have a

services they need. In some locations IHS locations lack even basic services like cancer screenings or colonoscopies. The report noted that

uniform mechanism for selecting patients into the program. The formula used to allocate funds to the
program is outdated, and “cannot equitably allocate funds
according to the report, Because the IHS does to meet the health care needs of Indians.”

not have complete data on this program, it makes it even harder to fix, that the report noted. Hearings in Congress and recent lawsuits suggest

poorest and most rural tribes are hit hardest by these shortfalls. Last year, when Rosebud Sioux Tribe of South Dakota sued the federal government for services at the IHS-run

members of the
hospital on its reservation, the tribe cited some of the same problems mentioned in the GAO report. Like the IHS, the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), which runs 185 schools in 23 states, is also under-resourced. In January,

Havasupai Nation sued the Bureau of Indian Affairs for failing to provide a general
, represented by civil rights groups including the ACLU,

education in BIA schools, or accommodate the needs of students with special needs. the BIE According to the GAO report,

skips safety inspections for a third of school campuses. At one school, faulty boilers that leaked gas and
carbon monoxide into dormitories and classrooms were not fixed for eight months. The agency was also
faulted for inconsistently tracking funds citing one instance when $1.7 million from a school’s budget ,

was “improperly transferred to an offshore account.” The Bureau of Indian Affairs like is the federal custodian of tribal lands, but

other agencies, struggles to respond quickly to requests from tribes, One tribe lost the GAO reported. told the GAO inspectors that it

$95 million in revenue because the BIA took eight years to process documents related to leasing. Like
sister agencies, the BIA is beset by a lack of data . The report noted that the BIA cannot verify the original owners of sections of land or the owners of energy leases that the agency oversees as caretaker.

The BIE will never be reformed – Courts enforce their decisions by delegating to
agencies but in this case the courts is telling a corrupt agency to stop being corrupt –
there’s no way they will actually change

The BIA is historically corrupt and criminally negligent

Hunt, 12 (Darek Hunt “BIA’s Impact on Indian Education Is an Education in Bad Education”, Indian
Country Today, January 30, 2012, https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/news/bias-impact-on-
indian-education-is-an-education-in-bad-education/) ET
The forerunner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) was created by the U.S. federal government in 1824 to handle all matters relating to American Indians. From its inception, the ultimate goal
of what ultimately became the BIA was not to protect Indians, but to assimilate them into white society. One major tool of that assimilation was education. Secretary of War John C. Calhoun
created the Office of Indian Affairs under the guidance of the Department of War. By 1829, the Office of Indian Affairs was sanctioned by Congress and by 1947 it officially became known as

there was little oversight of the BIA in its early years, greed, corruption and politics
the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Since

shaped federal policy in favor of the encroaching white immigrants and to the detriment of Natives
trying to preserve their lands and culture. The early mandate of the BIA was to handle treaties for the
government, but in reality BIA representatives acted more as agents for the whites by negotiating
treaties that were harmful for Natives. A leading exemplar of this exploitation was Andrew Jackson. Prior to his election to the presidency in 1828, Jackson was
a strong political force in the southeastern United States. Utilizing his connections in the federal government, he was able to get vital information about Indian lands from the General Land
Office, which worked with the Office of Indian Affairs. By working with family members who were given government jobs, Jackson bought up Indian lands cheaply. According to the author
Anthony F. C. Wallace in The Long, Bitter Trail: Andrew Jackson and The Indians, “At the suggestion of his Uncle Andrew, it is said, [John] Coffee made an agreement with the Land Office clerks
to receive half of any bribes they took for giving information about land or aiding in its acquisition.” Once he was elected president of the United States, Jackson continued to ruthlessly harass
and exploit Natives. In 1830, President Jackson signed into law the Indian Removal Act and began a process that systematically robbed Natives of their land. Many tribes were exterminated;
others were forced to move as far west as Oklahoma. Wallace wrote, “[It] was a disaster that never really ended. The government thereafter pursued the same policy of buying Native lands
and relocating Native tribes as the nation moved westward. The Indian territory (as did other reservations) became a vast, poverty-stricken concentration camp for dispossessed Natives,
administered by a federal bureaucracy—the Office of Indian Affairs—that largely controlled the local economy, the local police and local schools.” A major policy shift by the BIA occurred at
the end of the Civil War. When that conflict drew to a close in 1865, Congress was tired of war and dismayed by the lack of unity within the country, so it decided Natives would be forced to
assimilate to white society and, more important, become good citizens of the United States. That could not happen if the government allowed Natives to retain their lands, their culture and
their sovereignty. Tom Torlino Tom Torlino, Navajo, upon arrival at the Carlisle School in 1887 ... A few of the subsequent U.S. presidents—including Civil War hero Ulysses S. Grant, who took
office in 1869—wanted to improve conditions for Indians, but like Jackson, most continued the policy of forcefully removing Natives from their lands. According to the Miller Center of Public
Affairs, which specializes in the presidency, policy and U.S. political history, “This approach attempted to move Indians closer to white civilization and ultimately U.S. citizenship by housing
them on reservations and helping them become farmers.” This policy not only failed, it created a worse situation for Indians, because most reservation land was not fit for farming. The
education of Natives became a major area of concern for Congress at this time. It set up the first true federal funding for the so-called benefit of Natives. These funds were given to churches
that had missionaries teaching and living among Natives, as well as for emerging Indian schools like Carlisle Indian Industrial School and Hampton Institute. This increase in funding was due in
part to Congress passing the Indian General Allotment Act of 1887—or Dawes Act, as it is commonly known—which was intended to improve the conditions of Natives and their children. In
reality, though, the act took away more Indian lands and took many children from their families. According to Jon Reyhner and Jeanne Eder in their book, American Indian Education: The
History, “After tribal members received their allotments, the federal government bought the ‘surplus’ TOM TORLINO after Courtesy NAJA ... and how he looked three years later. land and
resold it to whites, with tribal profits used for ‘education and civilization.’ Over the next four decades the Dawes Act reduced tribal holdings from about 140 million to 50 million acres.” Prior to
1851, most Indian schools were run by missionaries, and many of the teachers taught in both English and the native language of their pupils. As with most missionaries, the goal was more
religious than educational, and while education was a by-product of the process, the complete conversion of a race was the main goal. According to M.T. Garrett and E.F. Pichette, authors of
“Red as an Apple: Native American Acculturation and Counseling With or Without Reservation,” published in the Journal of Counseling & Development in 2000, “The federal government
wanted to ‘civilize’ Indians, and the churches wanted to ‘Christianize’ them. In short, churches became an instrument for the government.… Whites turned to the power of education to civilize Indian
children early in life. Most treaty agreements included provisions for the education of Native youth by establishing church-affiliated schools.” This process wiped out generations of tradition among Natives. While many
missionaries reported much success in these schools, BIA officials were not pleased with the methods being used in them—it was not unusual for missionaries to allow Natives to speak in their
native tongues. That practice was soon discontinued, and an English-only policy was mandated. In 1879, Carlisle Indian Industrial School was created in Carlisle, Pennsylvania under the
direction of Richard Henry Pratt, a former Army officer. In a 1977 American Indian Law Review article, “The Evolution of the Termination Policy,” Charles Wilkinson and Eric Biggs give a brief
insight into Pratt’s opinion on Indians; they recount that he once stated that “‘a great general has said that the only good Indian is a dead one. I agree with the sentiment, but only in this: that
all the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him and save the man.’?” Pratt’s strategy was straightforward: take children away from their parents and reprogram them
under the auspices of the government. Natives who attended this type of school endured daily punishment for speaking, writing or even acting in an Indian fashion. The typical day for a
boarding school student was spent learning in the morning and the second half of the day was doing manual labor, which would help them once they finished school. The goal of schools like
Carlisle, Hampton Institute and the Phoenix Indian School was to make Natives dress, speak and act like whites. According to Peter Farb in his book, Man’s Rise to Civilization: The Cultural
Ascent of the Indians of North America, “The children usually were kept at boarding school for eight years, during which time they were not permitted to see their parents, relatives, or friends.
Anything Indian-—dress, language, religious practices, even outlook on life…was uncompromisingly prohibited.” Carlisle’s Indian school became a model for government boarding school across
the country, and while some of its practices would Ulysses S. Grant Grant was one of the few 19th century presidents sympathetic to Indians. never be used in public schools, the BIA endorsed
the model. According to the Archaeological Institute of America, “A multitude of rules controlled every aspect of daily life. Military discipline was imposed, with boys and girls organized into
army-like units and drilled in elaborate marching routines [a practice that continued into the 1930s].” The goal of the military structure was to strip down the Native to his or her core. The
boarding schools had to completely erase everything Native children had learned. The schools had to assimilate them completely in American culture. In “Archaeology of the Phoenix Indian
School,” Owen Lindauer writes that Harwood Hall, the head of the Phoenix Indian School, was enthusiastic about this model for educating Natives. In 1897, Hall wrote to the commissioner of
Indian Affairs, “Too much praise can not be given to the merits of military organization, drill and routine in connection with the discipline of the school; every good end is obtained thereby. It
teaches patriotism, obedience, courage, courtesy, promptness and consistency; besides, in my opinion, it outranks any other plan or system in producing and developing every good moral,
mental, and physical quality of the pupil.” This wasn’t just the attitude of one boarding school superintendent—it was a concept supported at multiple schools and by the BIA itself. After the
success of the military-style education practiced at Carlisle, Congress expanded the model and funded 23 more schools. Again, the goal was assimilation, not education. In this system, Natives could
never become equals with their white counterparts and schooling was just another way the government could control the Indians. According to one source, “Over the 24 years of Pratt’s
direction, Carlisle graduated only 158 students.” From the 1890s to 1900, more schools were built, but now they were closer to reservations and parents had to agree to send their children to
these schools. By 1900, there were approximately 25 federally funded off-reservation boarding schools in the United States. David Wallace Adams, in “Fundamental Considerations: The Deep
Meaning of Native American Schooling” for the Harvard Educational Review in 1988, wrote that the BIA was ordered to withhold food, clothing and other resources to pressure parents into
sending their children to school. “[Between] 1880 and 1900 the number of Indian children enrolled in school more than quadrupled, from 4,651 to 21,568, the latter figure representing over
one half of all Indian children of school age,” wrote Adams. The education of Natives opened the door for the federal government to take from the Indians the one thing they had that the government wanted and
needed: land. In 1887, the Indian General Allotment Act passed Congress and overnight the Natives watched their lands disappear. The overall goal was to make sure Natives received an
allotment of land, became farmers and sent their children to school. However, instead of a boarding school or reservation school, they would attend a public school. Reyhner and Eder report

contracts required Indian students to be educated alongside white students and to be treated the
that “

same way, but this was not always done.… Indian students were often too poor to buy clothes for school
and did not speak English well enough to do the required class work.” The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 gave Natives full rights as
citizens of the United States, although the right to vote would not be fully protected until almost 25 years later. However, even as Natives were given citizenship, many of their children were
still kept in the Carlisle-type boarding schools. But change was sweeping through Congress and through the general public concerning the treatment of Natives. In 1928, a report by the
Institute for Government Research for the Secretary of the Interior presented some shocking details on the status of Natives. The report, called The Problem of Indian Administration, is more
commonly known as the Meriam Report, a reference to its lead investigator, Lewis Meriam. The report painted a bull’s-eye on the BIA and its shameful policies. Reyhner and Eder summed up
some of the major issues: “…a persistent problem of BIA schools remained discipline. While the type and severity of discipline varied from school to school, depending on its superintendent,
flogging and other severe forms of punishment continued at some schools.” In addition, many Native students were forced to perform manual labor at their boarding schools. Some
administrators at these schools had little training in education and many were former military officers, in part because the BIA felt military rules were best-suited for the task at hand. The
Meriam Report uncovered many abuses—many students died while attending the schools, and many more were mistreated. Some of those deaths were related from overcrowding, in other
cases it was lack of food. According to the report, “The boarding schools are crowded materially beyond their capacity.… The toilet facilities have in many cases not been increased
proportionately to the increase in pupils, and they are fairly frequently not properly maintained or conveniently located.” Secretary of Interior Meeting with Native American Tribal Leaders
Interior Secretary Ickes signs first constitution issued under Indian Reorganization Act, 1935. Even though the Meriam Report was commissioned by the Secretary of the Interior, the BIA
ignored its findings. And providing a useful education was never the goal. According to K. Tsianina Lomawaima and Teresa L. McCarty in To Remain an Indian: Lessons in Democracy From a
Century of Native American Education, “Indian school industrial training was designed to prevent Native economic competition in the American workforce, just as low-level academic training

They quote from an Office of Indian Affairs Education Division

precluded aspirations to professional schools or careers.”

publication at the turn of the 20th century, which stressed that “higher education in the sense ordinarily
used has no place in the curriculum of Indian schools.” Higher education meant work beyond the sixth
grade. In 1933, John Collier, the new commissioner of Indian Affairs, finally addressed many of the issues flagged in the Meriam Report. One of his major accomplishments was getting
the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (IRA) brought before Congress. This repealed the Indian General Allotment Act and restored tribal self-government. Reyhner and Eder wrote, “In his

Collier emphasized removing the bureaucratic stranglehold of the BIA from Indian
testimony to Congress on the IRA,

communities and the lack of Indian employees in the Bureau.” Collier pushed for Natives to be allowed to have their culture, religion and
language included in the classroom. Randolph C. Downes writes in “A Crusade for Indian Reforms, 1922–1934,” an article published in The Mississippi Valley Historical Review in 1945, that
Collier declared, “No interference with Indian religious life or expression will hereby be tolerated. The cultural history of Indians is in all respects to be considered equal to that of any non-
Indian group. And it is desirable that Indians be bilingual.… The Indian arts and crafts are to be prized, nourished and honored.” Based on what they’d learned from the Meriam Report, many

members of Congress concluded that the BIA was holding Natives back. The Indian Termination Act of 1953 stripped Natives of their sovereignty and land,
terminated all treaties, ended government funding and decreed them full citizens of the United States with the same rights as white Americans. Many members of Congress, the BIA and even
the Department of the Interior believed this act would help Natives. The education of Natives was now the responsibility of the states. Natives were forced into public schools and attendance
decreased and Native children suffered, since many could not speak English. The BIA during this period decided to close many boarding schools; forced assimilation continued. It wasn’t until
the early 1970s that the Termination Act of 1953 and its dolorous effects on Natives were reversed. Natives had been demanding control of their own destiny since the first white settlers
started moving onto their lands. When Richard Nixon became president in 1969, they finally had a powerful ally in government. In 1970, Nixon delivered a message to Congress in which he
highlighted the government’s poor record of dealing fairly with Natives, and called for significant change. “The time has come to break decisively with the past and to create the conditions for
a new era in which the Indian future is determined by Indian acts and Indian decisions,” he said. He had already appointed a Mohawk/Sioux, Louis Rooks Bruce, as the new Commissioner of
 The Indian Education Act of 1972 passed by Congress provided additional funding for public
Indian Affairs.

schools with Indian students. Reyhner and Eder cite a 1975 Civil Rights Commission report, which stated: “All public schools with 10 or more Indian students were
eligible to receive funding for supplemental programs designed to meet the special needs of Indian students, including the use of culturally relevant and bilingual curriculum materials.” The
Office of Indian Education was also created and placed within the Department of Education, and for the first time, parents and tribal elders were giving input on language, materials taught and
even who was teaching their children—in 1973, only 188 of 2,800 teachers on the Navajo Reservation were Navajo. The Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 was the
legislation that forever changed how Natives interacted with the federal government. It promoted self-governance by tribes and allowed them to contract with federal agencies—such as the
BIA and Indian Health Service—to control and operate programs and services formerly administered by those agencies. There is one more bill that had a huge and positive impact on Indian

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was very important for

sovereignty and the quality of education for young Natives, but its impact was indirect.

Natives because it ended segregation of public schools. While most Natives were granted full civil rights in 1924 and Natives had already been
admitted to white schools, it was the political turmoil of the 1960s that had lasting effects. More and more Natives wanted to make sure they were heard in the political debate. Just as blacks
were becoming more militant, Natives believed great activism would help them, and in 1972 activists briefly occupied the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the BIA. This era was the starting

a Presidential Commission on Indian Reservation Economies

point for new tactics that helped end Indian termination policy. In 1984,

was critical of the BIA for “incompetent” management of trust assets; excessive regulations and “red
tape”; “incompetent” technical assistance to tribes; and “deficient” performance of activities such as
credit, finance, contracting and procurement. The commission recommended the abolition of the BIA and its replacement with a new agency to be
called the Indian Trust Services Administration, which would have granted funds to tribes to contract for their own services. At hearings in 1989, a Special Committee on Investigations of the
Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs probed the allegations against the BIA. The special committee’s investigation led Senator Dennis DeConcini, its chairman, to conclude that

“[many] of the federal Indian programs are fraught with corruption and fraud. Most of the others are
marred by mismanagement and some by incompetence.” While tribes have taken on much more responsibility in the educating of their
youth, they still have to deal with the BIA for funding and grant requests. It has only been in the past 40 years that the focus has

shifted from what the government wants to what the Native community wants and needs. Since the role of the BIA continues to be a major factor

regardless of mismanagement and corruption issues, Natives will have to work with them until true
self-determination is achieved.

The BIA can never accomplish anything – they empirically don’t respond to court
decisions
Giago, 13 (Tim Giago Founder, Native American Journalists Association Tim Giago is a member of the
Oglala Lakota Tribe. first president of the Native American Journalists Association in 1984, “Bureau of
Incompetence”, Huffpost, 01/11/2013 12:38 pm| Updated Mar 13, 2013,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tim-giago/cobell-settlement-bia_b_2421301.html) ET

When measuring incompetence in the federal government where does one begin? An excellent
starting point is with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The acronym BIA is as familiar to Native Americans as
FBI is to all Americans. Both Bureaus have had their faults, but the evidence making the BIA the largest
incompetent is overwhelming. In fact, BIA should read out as “Bureau of Incompetent Asses.” It finally
took a lawsuit filed by Eloise Cobell, a Blackfeet Indian woman, to take the BIA and its parent, the
Department of the Interior, to task for more than 100 years of the most destructive behavior that
damaged the lives of thousands of Native Americans. The total acts of incompetence by the BIA would take volumes to
illuminate requiring much more space than can be crammed into this small blog post. But let’s start with a few of the trust
responsibilities entrusted to the BIA for its wards, the American Indians. First and foremost was the
mismanagement of the land owned by tribes and individual Indians. On those lands were deposits of
gold, silver, copper, zinc, uranium, cadmium, forests filled with virgin timber, water, natural gas, oil and
more. All of these resources were managed or mismanaged by the BIA for more than 100 years. The
judge initially assigned to handle the lawsuit was District Judge Royce Lamberth. He was told by the accounting firm of Price-Waterhouse, the
keeper of the Oscar envelopes, that $50 billion had been ripped off from the Indian accounts. Judge Lambert became totally frustrated with the
dallying and dodging of the Secretaries of the Interior that he twice cited then for contempt before ruling in favor of the plaintiffs. He became
such a powerful advocate of the Indian people that he was finally removed as the judge in this case. Prior to his removal he said, “This
case
serves as an appalling reminder of the evils that result when large numbers of the politically powerless
are placed at the mercy of institutions engendered and controlled by a politically powerful few.” After 13
years of litigation the case that became known as the Cobell Settlement is now history. Just before Christmas of 2012 checks were sent out to
some of the 390,000 Indians who were plaintiffs in the settlement that eventually was pared down to $3.4 billion. Attorneys for the plaintiffs
were awarded $85,383,749.16 and the Native American Rights Fund and Mark Kester Brown, received $13,616,250.84. This means that $99
million went to the lawyers. The $85 million went to Dennis Gingold, Thaddeus Holt, Kilpatrick Townsend and to the law firm of Stockton LLP.
But consider this: The 390,000 plaintiffs, those individual Indians who had given up the most in land and resources, received a settlement of
$1.5 billion while a larger amount of $1.9 billion went back
to the BIA or Department of the Interior to be used by
tribes in attempting to consolidate the fractionated land on the Indian reservations, lands that became a
fractionated mess because of the very incompetence of the BIA, the agency overseeing the tribal lands.
Another $60 million was set aside to provide scholarships for higher education for American Indian and Alaska Native youth, never mind that as
part of the many treaty agreements between the tribes and the federal government always included financial provisions for the education of
the Indian youth. The
Bureau of Incompetent Asses had nearly 13 years to get the names and addresses of
the 390,000 plaintiffs so that when it came time to actually mail out the payment checks they could be
assured that they would be received. It seems that incompetence is hereditary within the Bureau.
Hundreds of Indian plaintiffs not only did not receive a settlement check, but thousands of checks
were sent out to non-existent addresses. Those checks were bounced back to the Bureau for further
consideration and are now fodder for further BIA incompetency. And now those unfortunate individuals who did not
receive their checks because of this are being told that they have until March 1, 2013 to file for payment and, of course, that complaint will be
handled by the very Bureau that messed it up in the first place. Eloise Cobell, the lead plaintiff in the case, would have been awarded $2 million
for her efforts. She passed away, a victim of cancer, last year. Three other plaintiffs received payments ranging from $150,000 to $200,000.
How $50 billion in actual accounting losses dwindled down to $3.4 billion over the course of the lawsuit boggles the mind. Across America
untold numbers of boxes containing unreadable accounts of Indian individuals were found in warehouses, garages and sheds, records so badly
damaged that they merely added to the gross injustice served upon the American Indian for more than 100 years. My
award for gross
incompetence goes to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and they still hold that first place honor after more
than 33 years of my reporting. The sad thing is that their incompetence has hurt so many
impoverished American Indians. The BIA’s place in the Hall of Shame is assured.

View the aff through the lens of empirics – the BIE has never been successfully
reformed.
Tennant 15 citing Maggie Severns, education reporter for Politico (Michael, November 30, “Indian
Schools Prove Uncle Sam Should Be Expelled From Education,” The New American,
https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/22047-indian-schools-prove-uncle-sam-
should-be-expelled-from-education) AAB

For at least the last half-century, progressives have championed and achieved greater federal spending
on and involvement in education; and during that entire time, public-school educational outcomes have
steadily worsened. No one should be surprised by the outcomes, for as Politico reported recently, the one domestic school system run entirely by
the federal government “remains arguably the worst school system in the United States, a disgrace the
government has known about for eight decades and never successfully reformed.” The school system in
question is the one operated by the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), a division of the Department of the Interior. BIE’s network consists of 183
schools for Native American children across reservations in 23 states. “The 48,000 students unfortunate enough to attend BIE schools,” writes Maggie Severns, “have some of the lowest test scores and graduation rates in the
country — even as the education they’re getting is among the nation’s most expensive: At $15,000 per pupil, the system costs 56 percent more than the national average.” In 2013, for instance, just five percent of BIE students
were able to perform mathematics at grade level. Only 53 percent of BIE students graduate from high school; the national public-school graduation rate is 81 percent. “In 2011, when the latest national assessment was taken for

which BIE data is available,BIE students performed worse than every major urban district in the country except Detroit,” notes Severns. Much of this can be laid at the feet of socialism, which never succeeds
in providing high-quality goods and services at low prices regardless of how often it is supposedly
reformed. Some is the result of politics and bureaucratic infighting. The rest is attributable to the
federal government’s legacy of mistreatment of the American Indians. Severns traces the history of the Indian schools from the post-Civil War
era to the present, and the facts she presents are not pretty. Early schools, established as the feds were alternately exterminating the
natives and forcing them onto reservations, were used to strip Indian children of their heritage. “Some
progressive educators,” Severns observes, “saw an opportunity to remake Indian children in their own image.” At the first
such institution, former U.S. Army Captain Richard Henry Pratt’s Carlisle Indian Industrial School, founded in Pennsylvania in 1879, “students were banned from speaking their Native languages, dressed to look like white students
and were even given new names,” says Severns. As economist Ludwig von Mises observed in his book Liberalism, this is a common problem where government-run schools exist and one reason to abolish them: “The school
can alienate children from the nationality to which their parents belong and can be used as a means of oppressing whole nationalities.
Whoever controls the schools has the power to injure other nationalities and to benefit his own.”

BIE needs to be shuttered, not given a new coat of paint – it’s counterproductive and
inevitably doomed to fail
Tennant 15 citing Maggie Severns, education reporter for Politico (Michael, November 30, “Indian
Schools Prove Uncle Sam Should Be Expelled From Education,” The New American,
https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/22047-indian-schools-prove-uncle-sam-
should-be-expelled-from-education) AAB

Since then, there have been various government reports on the woeful state of the BIE schools and a few
halfhearted attempts to reform them. Aside from devolving some authority to tribes and school boards, very little has
changed. There are a number of reasons for this. First, because the BIE doesn’t have sole authority over the
Indian schools — other offices in the Bureau of Indian Affairs have some say in the schools’ physical and
human resources — there is a significant amount of bureaucratic infighting, especially since the schools
account for 35 percent of the Indian Affairs budget. Second, turnover among BIE and local school
leadership has been extremely high, with tenure largely dependent on political acumen. John Tippeconnic,
who managed to put in three years (1992-1995) as BIE director, told Severns, “If you want to stay in a position like [BIE
director], you’ve got to support the agenda of the day,” which, Severns adds, “rarely favored Indian
schools.” Third, “government investigations have found numerous examples of embezzlement and
misspent money” at BIE, writes Severns. Also, two recent acting directors were found to have violated the
department’s ethics rules. Fourth, Indians have relatively little political power. Few representatives and
senators come from districts with significant Indian populations, and the natives themselves are usually
poor and unable to afford high-powered lobbyists to press their case. Meanwhile, their opponents,
which include government employees’ labor unions, are well-funded and organized. Fifth, as a socialist
system, BIE schools are doomed to expense, waste, bureaucracy, and poor results. The school facilities
are dilapidated and in some cases unusable. Recruiting and keeping teachers is a struggle despite the fact that
the average starting salary for some BIE teachers is higher than that of some rural public-school teachers. There are still those who
think such programs can be reformed, and President Barack Obama, naturally, is one of them. After a visit to an Indian
reservation in 2014, Obama got on board a BIE reform proposal from Interior Secretary Sally Jewell.
According to Severns, Jewell proposed “restructuring” the BIE and substituting “education specialists” for
“ineffective bureaucrats,” replacing old schools, and giving “teachers extensive professional
development” and “tribes more control.” The plan is meeting resistance from all quarters. BIE employees and their union
representatives are worried about lost jobs. The Senate seems unlikely to grant the administration’s request for significantly more funds for BIE
schools, although some congressmen would like to do so. Indians
are, quite properly, skeptical that the reforms, if they are
even enacted, will make much difference; some worry that they will exacerbate existing problems and possibly
even create new ones, such as forcing one school to merge with another, distant one. Reforming a
socialist system is impossible. The BIE needs to be shuttered, not given a new coat of paint.
BIE incompetence guts the plan – they won’t reform
Naomi Schaefer Riley 2017 (senior fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum) “No Student Deserves
the Bureau of Indian Education”, February 23, http://www.iwf.org/news/2802923/No-Student-
Deserves-the-Bureau-of-Indian-Education
Ruth Hopkins, a writer at Indian Country Today, set off a small firestorm last month when she tweeted that a Washington source had told her
President Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos“have plans to scrap” the Bureau of Indian Education. There hasn’t been any official
indication from the Trump administration that the tweet is correct, but frankly there are few agencies more worthy of elimination than the one
in question. Just ask Keith Moore, who led the
bureau from 2010-12. He told me it was “an inefficient, ineffective, poorly
structured bureaucracy,” which was also the gist of a memo he sent to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar shortly before resigning. The
first problem he sees is purely structural: The Bureau of Indian Education is part of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, not the Education Department. This means the same agency that oversees natural-resource use and
land development also is in charge of education. Mr. Moore said, “I found it interesting that it was hard to track how the
dollars were spent when they were allocated by Congress.” Only about 7% of Native children attended BIE schools in
2013, according to Education Week. That’s approximately 48,000 students at 183 schools. The education they receive is abysmal. A lawsuit filed
in federal court last month by the Havasupai tribe near the Grand Canyon offers a useful example. The tribe is suing the government over its
terrible management at the tribe’s elementary school. In the 2012-13 school year, students scored in the third percentile for math and the first
percentile for reading. The
problem is not a lack of funding. Bureau of Indian Education schools spent
approximately $20,000 per pupil in 2014, according to an analysis by the Cato Institute, compared with a national average of
$12,400. Even so, their graduation rate is 53% compared with a national average of 81%. The agency can’t even keep the buildings from falling
down. As then-Rep. John Kline (R., Minn.), explained at a hearing in 2015, “You’ve got collapsing roofs, leaking roofs, buckling floors, exposed
wires, popping circuit breakers, gas leaks. That’s totally unacceptable.” According to a 2014 report by the
Government
Accountability Office, the agency was aware that 24 schools had misspent $13.8 million in federal Indian
School Equalization Program funding on unallowable expenses. But as RiShawn Biddle pointed out on the blog Dropout
Nation, “the agency has done nothing to follow-up on the evidence, either by conducting second audits to
determine the weaknesses of the schools’ financial controls, or to sanction the schools and tribes that
operate them for the malfeasance.” Given the management problems at the agency, the situation is
hardly surprising. Its 34th director in 38 years was removed last spring for using his influence to give jobs to a relative as well as a
girlfriend. Rather than be subject to this kind of incompetence and corruption, lawyers for the Havasupai
tribe argue that the tribe, not the federal government, should control education.