Framework

I value morality.
The standard is mitigating structural violence.
Structural violence is based in moral exclusion which is flawed because exclusion is
based on arbitrarily perceived difference.
Winter and Leighton 01. Winter, D. D., and Dana C. Leighton." Structural violence." Peace, conflict
and violence: Peace psychology for the 21st century (2001): 99-101.

to recognize the operation of structural violence forces us to ask questions about how and why we tolerate it, questions which often have painful
Finally,

answers for the privileged elite who unconsciously support it. A final question of this section is how and why we allow ourselves to be so oblivious to
structural violence. Susan Opotow offers an intriguing set of answers, in her article Social Injustice. She argues that our normal perceptual cognitive processes divide people into in-groups and
out-groups. Those outside our group lie outside our scope of justice. Injustice that would be instantaneously confronted if it occurred to someone we love or know is barely noticed if it occurs
to strangers or those who are invisible or irrelevant. We do not seem to be able to open our minds and our hearts to everyone, so we draw conceptual lines between those who are in and out
of our moral circle. Those who fall outside are morally excluded, and become either invisible, or demeaned in some way so that we do not have to acknowledge the injustice they suffer. Moral
we must be vigilant in noticing
exclusion is a human failing, but Opotow argues convincingly that it is an outcome of everyday social cognition. To reduce its nefarious effects,

and listening to oppressed, invisible, outsiders. Inclusionary thinking can be fostered by relationships,

communication, and appreciation of diversity. Like Opotow, all the authors in this section point out that structural violence is not inevitable if we
become aware of its operation, and build systematic ways to mitigate its effects. Learning about structural violence may be
discouraging, overwhelming, or maddening, but these papers encourage us to step beyond guilt and anger, and begin to think about how to reduce structural violence. All the authors in this
section note that the same structures (such as global communication and normal social cognition) which feed structural violence, can also be
used to empower citizens to reduce it. In the long run, reducing structural violence by reclaiming neighborhoods, demanding social
jus- tice and living wages, providing prenatal care, alleviating sexism, and celebrating local cultures, will be our most surefooted path to building

lasting peace.

Theories that can’t create material change in the real world are counter-productive
and threaten actual solutions to oppression.
Curry 14. Tommy J. “The Cost of a Thing: A Kingian Reformulation of a Living Wage Argument in the
21st Century” (2014) Victory Briefs, p. 55-56 Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, Texas
AandM
Despite the pronouncement of debate as an activity and intellectual exercise pointing to the real world consequences of dialogue, thinking, and
(personal) politics when addressing issues of racism, sexism, economic disparity, global conflicts, and death, many of the discussions concerning
these ongoing challenges to humanity are fixed to a paradigm which sees the adjudication of material disparities and sociological realities as the
conquest of one ideal theory over the other. In “Ideal Theory as Ideology,” Charles Mills
outlines the problem contemporary
theoretical-performance styles in policy debate and value-weighing in Lincoln-Douglass are confronted
with in their attempts to get at the concrete problems in our societies. At the outset, Mills concedes that “ideal
theory applies to moral theory as a whole (at least to normative ethics as against metaethics); since ethics deals by definition with
normative/prescriptive/evaluative issues, it is set against factual/descriptive issues.” At the most general level, the
conceptual chasm
between what emerges as actual problems in the world (e.g.: racism, sexism, poverty, disease, etc.) and
how we frame such problems theoretically—the assumptions and shared ideologies we depend upon
for our problems to be heard and accepted as a worthy “problem” by an audience—is the most obvious
call for an anti-ethical paradigm, since such a paradigm that insists on the actual as the basis of what can be considered
normatively. Mills, however, describes this chasm as a problem of an ideal-as-descriptive model which argues that for any actual-empirical-
observable social phenomenon (P), an ideal of (P) is necessarily a representation of that phenomenon. In the idealization of a social
phenomenon (P), one “necessarily has to abstract away from certain features” of (P) that is observed before abstraction occurs. This
gap
between what is actual (in the world), and what is represented by theories and politics of debaters
proposed in rounds threatens any real discussions about the concrete nature of oppression and the
racist economic structures which necessitate tangible policies and reorienting changes in our value
orientations. As Mills states: “What distinguishes ideal theory is the reliance on idealization to the exclusion,
or at least marginalization, of the actual.,” so what we are seeking to resolve on the basis of “thought” is
in fact incomplete, incorrect, or ultimately irrelevant to the actual problems which our “theories” seek
to address. Our attempts to situate social disparity cannot simply appeal to the ontologization of social phenomenon—meaning we cannot
suggest that the various complexities of social problems (which are constantly emerging and undisclosed beyond the effects we observe) are
totalizable by any one set of theories within an ideological frame. be it our most cherished notions of Afro-pessimism, feminism, Marxism, or
the like. At best, theoretical endorsements make us aware of sets of actions to address ever developing problems in our empirical
world, but even this awareness does not
command us to only do X, but rather do X and the other ideas which
compliment the material conditions addressed by the action X. As a whole, debate (policy and LD) neglects the need to
do X in order to remedy our cast-away-ness among our ideological tendencies and politics. How then do we pull ourselves from this seeming ir-
recoverability of thought in general and in our endorsement of socially actualizable values like that of the living wage? It is my position that Dr.
Martin Luther King Jr.’s thinking about the need for a living wage was a unique, and remains an underappreciated, resource in our attempts to
impose value reorientation (be it through critique or normative gestures) upon the actual world. In other words, King aims to reformulate the
values which deny the legitimacy of the living wage, and those values predicated on the flawed views of the worker, Blacks, and the colonized
(dignity, justice, fairness, rights, etc.) used to currently justify the living wages in under our contemporary moral parameters.

1. Only consequentialism explains degrees of wrongness—if I break a promise to

meet up for lunch, that is not as bad as breaking a promise to take a dying
person to the hospital. Only the consequences of breaking the promise explain
why the second one is much worse than the first.
 Advantage 1 - Anxiety
High levels of anxiety correlate with lower test scores
Beth Ann Fulton 2016 Beth Fulton is a principal research scientist at Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
Organization https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3361&context=dissertations "The Relationship Between Test
Anxiety and Standardized Test Scores"//wwVN

The number of standardized achievement tests that students in the United States are
required to take has increased significantly during the past decade. Researchers have found
that test anxiety is often a problem related to the increase in testing. This correlational study
investigated the relationship between anxiety levels of 50 4th grade students and their standardized test
scores. Test anxiety questionnaires and pulse rates were used as a measure of the anxiety level of each
of the 4th grade students just before the standardized test was administered, and standardized test
scores were used as a measure of academic performance. The data were analyzed using 2 separate
Pearson correlations. The first determined the relationship between students’ responses on a test
anxiety questionnaire and their academic test scores; the second correlation determined the
relationship between students’ pulse rates and their test scores. The results indicated a significant
relationship between the students’ levels of test anxiety as measured by pulse rate and performance
on the State Standardized Science test, but no significant relationship between students’ levels of
anxiety as measured by the questionnaire. The findings of this study are important to school
administrators, teachers, and parents because they could illuminate how test anxiety may impair
students’ academic performance on standardized tests and thereby mask their true abilities. This
study has important implications for positive social change by providing research-based findings that
could lead to the development of test anxiety prevention strategies at the local site.

Students are subject to great anxiety especially under high stakes tests that may
determine their future
Joseph J. Fraas 2014 Fraas, Joseph (2014) School Counselors' Perspective on High-Stakes Testing:
Exploring the Impact of High-Stakes Testing on Students and Counselors.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/98a5/f45627b8391a65782cf04ad24cae86bc6adb.pdf//wwVN

This is in addition to the math, reading, spelling, social studies, and science tests they currently take.
Zeidner (1998) feels it should not come as a surprise that based on the amount of testing that occurs
in school that testing causes anxiety in many people. Feelings of stress and anxiety are
understandable considering the profound impact these tests can have on determining the path
people take in life. 45 For the purpose of this study, stress is defined as a person’s response to a
change, or stimulus, in the environment. This change can be physical and/ or emotional (Burchfield,
1979; Hobfoll, 1989). A bee sting may cause swelling and pain and future sightings of bees could lead to
fear. Test anxiety is defined as an emotion, or the cognitive and behavioral reactions of fear,
apprehension, and nervousness to the outcomes of a test (Zeidner, 1998). Frase-Blunt (n.d.) claim the
psychological toll of testing on students is causing increased levels of anxiety, some of which are
higher than ever before. Brown et al. (2004) and Fleege, Charlesworth, Burts and Hart (n.d.) agree that
tests cause increased levels of anxiety in students, even students as young as kindergarten . Teachers
described a highly stressful testing environment for teachers and students. This was especially
apparent when the test was too hard for a student, with some witnessing students crying from the
stress related to high-stakes tests, which these teachers feel are not developmentally appropriate
(Mabry, Poole, Redmond, & Schultz, 2003). Former Secretary of Education, Richard Riley, has said states
must review their testing programs to ensure students are not under excessive stress, so students are
challenged and not traumatized (O’Neill, 2001). Interviews conducted with school counselors showed
they see more students with anxiety-related problems after the implementation of testing. Anxiety
related problems include sleep issues, drug and alcohol use, misbehavior, and avoidance problems.
Students suffering from test anxiety may be easily distracted during a test, have difficulty recalling
relevant information, express concern of embarrassment at their likely failure, and may suffer from
poor mental health (Zeidner, 1998).

Anxiety causes increased risk of suicide and decreases the quality of life.
Collins 15. Sam P.K Collins., Sept 1, 2015, "Most Americans Don’t Know The True Danger Of Anxiety," Think Progress,
https://thinkprogress.org/most-americans-dont-know-the-true-danger-of-anxiety-85bc4a08dd2f/, Sam Pk Collins(also known as Ras Plo Kwia
Glebluwuo) is a grassroots journalist and educator with multidisciplinary experience as a writer, editor, producer, researcher, and
filmmaker.//AAA

While an increasing number of Americans see mental and physical health equally,
viewing depression and bipolar disorders as risk factors for suicide, a new study suggests
that few understand that when unmitigated, anxiety disorders too can endanger one’s
life. The study, released by the Anxiety and Depression Association of America (ADAA), the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, and
the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention, showed that although 90 percent of respondents have been affected by suicide and knew of
its link to depression and bipolar disorder, less than half knew that anxiety could inflict the same damage. In August, researchers from the three
mental health and suicide prevention groups asked more than 2,000 adults about their perceptions about mental health and suicide. They took
into account age, gender, region, race and ethnicity, income, and education level in an effort to ensure the sample group reflected the U.S.
There’s a significant body of research that demonstrates that individuals
population. “
suffering from anxiety disorders and depression face an increased risk for suicidal
thoughts and attempts,” Dr. Mark Pollack, president of the AADA, wrote in a press
statement. “Effectively diagnosing and treating both anxiety disorders and depression, especially when they co-occur, are critical
pathways to intervening and reducing suicide crises,” said Pollack, also chairman of psychiatry at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago.
Anxiety, while considered a normal part of life, can become serious when feelings
interfere with job performance, school work, and relationships. Signs of anxiety disorderoften include
fatigue, headaches, muscle tension and aches, irritability, and nausea. The National Institute of Mental Health designates post-traumatic stress
disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and phobias among the most common types of anxiety, affecting more than 40 million Americans
annually. Risk factors for anxiety disorder include gender, childhood trauma, and stress brought on by an illness, a buildup of tension from
seemingly insignificant situations, genetics, and alcohol and drug abuse. Though both conditions are different, anxiety disorder can coexist with
depression when untreated, with the former causing a constant nagging feeling and the latter bringing on hopelessness and despair. Experts
In recent years, clinicians have
say this combination often debilitates its subjects and cause fluctuations in mood.
observed that suicidal risk factors for those with depression increase when they also
have anxiety disorder. Studies in years past have made this assertion. The National Institutes of Health, for instance, conducted
in-person interviews with nearly 35,000 Americans in the mid-2000s, 70 percent of whom had an anxiety disorder. Researchers said the data
showed a significant link between the presence of anxiety disorder and a suicide attempts, concluding their report with a recommendation that
clinicians continue to assess suicidal behavior among patients who experienced anxiety.
 Advantage 2 - Bias
Standardized testing for college admissions puts minority and low-income students at
a distinct disadvantage
Thomas’18
(Billy R. Thomas Thomas had been named the first UAMS Vice Chancellor for Diversity Affairs. His position reflects the expansion of the
institution’s resources regarding diversity issues. The center works to help increase the number of minority students seeking doctorates and
“create a workforce that reflects the diversity of the patients and students we serve.”. 7-27-18.
https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/letters/standardized-tests-favor-students-from-high-income-families///SAK)

Standardized Tests Favor Students From High-Income Families To the Editor: It is correct that a high ACT or SAT can and does set students apart (“How the ACT and
SAT Help Disadvantaged Students Get Into College,” The Chronicle,June 20). It facilitates enrollment both nationally and at top-tier schools. In most cases it is
accompanied by a full ride and serves as a confidence builder. Even though standardized test scores may provide much-needed financial assistance to low-income
students, their use results in merit-based support across all socioeconomic groups and favors students from higher income families. The
number of low-
income minority students who score high on either the ACT or SAT is small, resulting in a small
number admitted to not only upper-tier schools but college in general. Standardized test score are directly affected by
both race and class. Historically, white students have scored higher on standardized tests than minority

students. Even when adjusting for socioeconomic status, the scoring gap persists. For instance,
minorities of high socioeconomic status score higher than low socioeconomic-status minorities but
significantly lower than low socioeconomic-status whites. This is due to multiple variables in the K-12
educational system. Many minority students attend schools that are under resourced, have high
student-to-teacher ratios, have no AP courses, and are lacking in tutoring and counseling services. This
places them at a distinct disadvantage and generates a small pool of minority students with high ACT
or SAT scores. I support the efforts of the University of Chicago in making the ACT and SAT optional and moving to a more holistic admissions process that
takes into account race, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, gender, ableism, gender identity, geographical location, and first-generation status. Awareness,
implementation, and adherence to the current Supreme Court ruling in Fisher vs University of Texas at Austin will mitigate many of the effects of implicit bias on the
admission process. Admissions committee members must also be trained in the utilization of the holistic admissions process. If we do not bring about a dramatic
shift in our admissions process, our efforts to diversify and enhance the educational process in higher education will fall way short.

Not considering standardized testing in admissions will increase diversity-

standardized testing is not an accurate representation of success and puts low income
and minority students at a disadvantage- using tests perpetuates a system of
inequality
Hernandez’18
(Theresa E. Hernandez is a scholar of higher education policy working toward her doctorate at the
University of Southern California. Her research examines issues of race, gender, class and intersectional
equity in academia. 5-22-18. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/abolish-standardized-testing-for-college-
admissions_n_5b045869e4b003dc7e470ee3.//SAK)
A new study from the National Association for College Admission Counseling provides evidence that test-optional policies ― a variety of policies that allow students
not to submit scores on standardized tests like the SAT or GRE during the admissions process ― can help colleges improve their diversity without sacrificing
academic quality. The study found that schools
that do not require the SAT/ACT saw an increased enrollment of
underrepresented students of color relative to comparable institutions that require a test score and that admitted students who did not
submit scores were just as likely to graduate as admitted students who did. The report also found that high school grade point average (GPA) was a better predictor
of success in college GPA than test scores for non-submitters. As of January 2018, over 1,000 colleges and universities have stopped requiring SAT or ACT scores for
undergraduate applicants. The conversation also extends to the graduate level, where institutions are grappling with whether to use standardized tests, which ones
and how. In particular, the Inclusive Graduate Education Network and the Alliance for Multicampus, Inclusive Graduate Admissions, are promoting and studying the
effects of inclusive holistic review practices. These projects are also exploring what factors of an application are most important for admission to graduate school
versus success in graduate school. (Full disclosure: I am affiliated with IGEN and AMIGA, but the opinions here are mine and do not necessarily represent these
projects or anyone affiliated with them.) The NACAC report contrasts with Measuring Success: Testing, Grades, and the Future of College Admissions, a recent book
published by scholars tied to the testing industry, which argues test-optional policies are either ineffective at increasing diversity or do no better than similar
institutions that require these tests. Unfortunately, this debate sidesteps a serious issue: the urgent need to seek solutions beyond the ways that selective college
admissions are conducted today. We need to pay attention to the deeper purposes that selection criteria serve — and for whom.
The use of
standardized tests in admissions disproportionately exclude people of color and other marginalized
groups. The truth is that overwhelming research has shown that performance on these tests is better
at predicting demographic characteristics like class, gender and race than educational outcomes. This
disproportionately excludes racial minorities, women and low-income persons from selective colleges.
For many practitioners in higher education, these tests are simply the most efficient and common metric for evaluating students. But efficiency can no longer be an
excuse for maintaining a flawed system. The only result we can expect from that course of action is efficiently maintaining the status quo of inequality. The makers
and advocates of standardized tests promote the notion that equality requires we use a singular metric to evaluate everyone in the same way. But one common
tool cannot equitably measure the potential of people who have been afforded different chances in life. Our limited resources must be redirected to finding better
ways to reach equitable outcomes, which will require offsetting prior inequality of opportunity and resources. As of January 2018, over 1,000 colleges and
universities have stopped requiring SAT or ACT scores for undergraduate applicants. From
academics to policymakers, people
mistakenly believe that standardized tests are better at predicting college outcomes, like grades and
graduation, than they really are. This uncritical belief in the current system of admissions allows those who have benefited to feel that they
earned their position completely on their own. In reality, our success is a combination of our effort, our opportunities and the resources to make the most of both.
This misplaced faith also makes us complicit in the exclusion of those who have not had our same
privileges. Even if standardized tests perfectly predicted achievement, they would be doing so on the
basis of accumulated resources that have helped children from privileged backgrounds to reach the
levels of success that they have by the time they take the test. These testing disparities do not
represent students’ potential to learn and achieve. As Jerome Karabel documented in The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission
and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, standardized tests played a devious role in the history of admissions at selective institutions. Selection criteria like the
SAT/ACT and GRE come out of historical actions that have defined merit purposefully to exclude students based on their social identities, including religious
affiliation. Add
to that history generations of underfunded schools and a bevy of other racial and class-
based discriminations that continue to hamper the achievements of racially minoritized and low-
income students. To accept any “predictive” measure that perpetuates these inequalities, even
indirectly, is a disservice to communities of color and poor people today and robs future generations
of their potential. For the United States to live up to its highest potential, we have to stop turning away students from the possibilities of higher
education just because their backgrounds have not afforded them the same opportunities or the resources needed to take advantage of earlier opportunities. To
that end, researchers like Estela Bensimon highlight the responsibility of our educators and educational institutions to better serve marginalized students in order to
support the success of all students. So how do we move forward? Some research indicates that holistic review may be better at judging a
student’s potential given the context of their prior experiences. Many highly selective institutions such as Harvard, Yale and
Columbia already claim to practice a version of holistic review due to the U.S. Supreme Court’s backing of this approach in affirmative action cases. However, these
options are largely used and researched in tandem with standardized tests that produce racially and class-based disparate outcomes. We
have inherited
a society built on grave injustices, and we perpetuate them through both intentional acts and failures
to redress what has been done. Higher education, from college to graduate school, can provide the
opportunities and resources for people to make the most of their potential but only if we make access
to it more equitable. The only way forward is to enact policies and practices, especially in education, that are corrective and redistributive. The time has
come to end the perpetuation of systemic inequity through institutional practices that appear facially neutral, but which have a disparate impact by race and class.
Ending the use of standardized tests at all levels of admissions is one of the ways we can do so.
 Solvency
Removing the SAT would level the playing field and cause marked improvements in
mental health- the SAT is hopelessly biased- multiple warrants.
Page 14 (Kelsey Page, opinions fellow for The Stanford Daily. She is a freshman enjoying her time being undecided, but she is considering
something in the social sciences, MS&E, or both, 2 December 2014, Stanford Daily, https://www.stanforddaily.com/2014/12/02/i-am-more-
than-a-number-the-case-against-sat-scores-in-college-admissions/) //MS

Over two million students take the SAT test every year, making it the most widely-used college
admissions test in the country. One of the most the most pressure-packed tests a young adult can take,
the SAT brings back memories of stress and anxiety for many students. The American Psychological
Association’s annual Stress in America survey reported 31 percent of teens feeling overwhelmed and
another 30 percent feeling sad or depressed as a result of stress, pointing to school and school-related
activities as a key cause. With stress levels rivaling those of adults, students could really benefit from
eliminating some stress-inducers from their daily lives. Considering the SAT is a proven to be reflection
of socioeconomic status (SES) and a poor indicator of success in college, it is time that the test gets
removed from the college admissions process once and for all. The belief that the standardized test is
the “great leveler” that sets all students on an equal playing field for evaluation is a huge misconception.
It has been empirically proven year after year that performance on SAT and ACT tests is positively
correlated to a student’s SES by College Board data and National Center for Fair and Open Testing
research. Thus, those who are already advantaged in education are given another leg up in college
admissions. The reasons for the correlation are not difficult to uncover. Money buys expensive SAT
practice test books, test prep classes, private college counselors, etc. While there are a myriad of factors
that create SES-related inequality in education, the SAT test in particular is a measure of whether a
student can afford to “learn the tricks” of the tests. Even signing up for the test costs about $50. While
students can receive aid from the government, the fee waivers only cover two tests, while others who
can afford it can and do take the test three or more times. The College Board claims that its new 2016
format for the test will be “less coachable.” However, now the essay prompt will be published
beforehand, enabling students with writing tutors to craft an entire, edited response before they even
step into the testing center. Regardless of changes in the focus of the test and content, test prep
agencies will adapt their products to teach to the new test and offer the same preparation advantages
as before. Regardless of the “coachability” of the test, stereotype threat disadvantages minorities at the
start. Identifying as black, female or any other identity associated with negative stereotypes in
education before taking a test causes test takers’ inhibiting doubts to increase. The very tangible process
of bubbling in a disadvantaging identity at the beginning of a test like the SAT causes test takers to
perform worse than when they do not self-identify. Again, the privileged in society are further
advantaged on the SAT.

Standardized tests fail to predict academic success and give advantages to students
with more resources.
Hernandez 18 [Theresa E. Hernandez (Theresa E. Hernandez is a scholar of higher education policy working toward her doctorate at the
University of Southern California. Her research examines issues of race, gender, class and intersectional equity in academia.), 5-22-2018,
"Abolish Standardized Testing For College Admissions" HuffPost, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/abolish-standardized-testing-for-college-
admissions_n_5b045869e4b003dc7e470ee3]
 test-optional policies ― a variety of policies that allow students not to submit scores
A new study from the National Association for College Admission Counseling provides evidence that

on standardized tests like the SAT or GRE during the admissions process ― can help colleges improve their diversity without sacrificing

academic quality. The study found that schools that do not require the SAT/ACT saw an increased enrollment of underrepresented students of color relative to comparable
institutions that require a test score and that admitted students who did not submit scores were just as
likely to graduate as admitted students who did. The report also found that high school grade point average (GPA) was a better predictor of success in college
GPA than test scores for non-submitters. As of January 2018, over 1,000 colleges and universities have stopped requiring SAT

or ACT scores for undergraduate applicants. The conversation also extends to the graduate level, where institutions are grappling
with whether to use standardized tests, which ones and how. In particular, the Inclusive Graduate Education Network and the Alliance for
Multicampus, Inclusive Graduate Admissions, are promoting and studying the effects of inclusive holistic review practices. These projects are also exploring what factors of an application are most important for
admission to graduate school versus success in graduate school. (Full disclosure: I am affiliated with IGEN and AMIGA, but the opinions here are mine and do not necessarily represent these projects or anyone
affiliated with them.) The NACAC report contrasts with Measuring Success: Testing, Grades, and the Future of College Admissions, a recent book published by scholars tied to the testing industry, which argues
test-optional policies are either ineffective at increasing diversity or do no better than similar institutions that require these tests. Unfortunately, this debate sidesteps a serious issue: the urgent need to seek

The use of
solutions beyond the ways that selective college admissions are conducted today. We need to pay attention to the deeper purposes that selection criteria serve — and for whom.

standardized tests in admissions disproportionately exclude people of color and other marginalized
groups. The truth is that overwhelming research has shown that performance on these tests is better at
predicting demographic characteristics like class, gender and race than educational outcomes. This
disproportionately excludes racial minorities, women and low-income persons from selective colleges.
For many practitioners in higher education, these tests are simply the most efficient and common metric
for evaluating students. But efficiency can no longer be an excuse for maintaining a flawed system. The
only result we can expect from that course of action is efficiently maintaining the status quo of
inequality. The makers and advocates of standardized tests promote the notion that equality requires we use a singular metric to evaluate everyone in the same way. But one
common tool cannot equitably measure the potential of people who have been afforded different
chances in life. Our limited resources must be redirected to finding better ways to reach equitable outcomes, which will require offsetting prior inequality of opportunity and resources. From
academics to policymakers, people mistakenly believe that standardized tests are better at predicting college outcomes, like grades and graduation, than they really are. This uncritical belief in the current
system of admissions allows those who have benefited to feel that they earned their position completely on their own. In reality, our success is a combination of our effort, our opportunities and the resources

Even if standardized tests perfectly

to make the most of both. This misplaced faith also makes us complicit in the exclusion of those who have not had our same privileges.

predicted achievement, they would be doing so on the basis of accumulated resources that have helped
children from privileged backgrounds to reach the levels of success that they have by the time they take
the test. These testing disparities do not represent students’ potential to learn and achieve. As Jerome Karabel
documented in The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, standardized tests played a devious role in the history of admissions at selective institutions.

Selection criteria like the SAT/ACT and GRE come out of historical actions that have defined merit
purposefully to exclude students based on their social identities, including religious affiliation. Add to that history
generations of underfunded schools and a bevy of other racial and class-based discriminations that continue to

hamper the achievements of racially minoritized and low-income students. To accept any “predictive”
measure that perpetuates these inequalities, even indirectly, is a disservice to communities of color and
poor people today and robs future generations of their potential.

Access to a college education is key to breaking a cycle of income inequality and

poverty faced by low income and minority individuals
Greenstone et al’ 13
(Michael Greenstone is a Nonresident Senior Fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution. He is the Milton Friedman Distinguished
Service Professor in Economics, the College, and the Harris School, as well as the Director of the Becker Friedman Institute, Director of the
interdisciplinary Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago, and the Director of the Tata Center for Development at the University of
Chicago. He previously served as the Chief Economist for President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers. Adam Looney is the Joseph A.
Pechman senior fellow in Economic Studies at Brookings. He is also affiliated with the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Mr. Looney is an
expert on U.S. tax policy. Jeremy Patashnik J.D. Candidate at Columbia Law School. Muxin Yu currently works at Chinese Academy of Sciences.
Muxin does research in Inorganic Chemistry. Their most recent publication is 'Cation-Induced Strategy toward an Hourglass-Shaped Cu 6 I 7 –
Cluster and Its Color-Tunable Luminescence'. The Hamilton Project offers a strategic vision and produces innovative policy proposals on how to
create a growing economy that benefits more Americans. The Project’s strategy reflects a judgment that long-term prosperity is best achieved
by fostering economic growth and broad participation in that growth, by enhancing individual economic security, and by embracing a role for
effective government in making needed public investments. 6-26-13. https://www.brookings.edu/research/thirteen-economic-facts-about-
social-mobility-and-the-role-of-education///SAK)

CHAPTER 3: EDUCATION CAN PLAY A PIVOTAL ROLE IN IMPROVING SOCIAL MOBILITY Promoting increased social mobility requires reexamining
a wide range of economic, health, social, and education policies. Higher
education has always been a key way for poor
Americans to find opportunities to transform their economic circumstances. In a time of rising
inequality and low social mobility, improving the quality of and access to education has the potential
to increase equality of opportunity for all Americans. 9. A college degree can be a ticket out of poverty.
The earnings of college graduates are much higher than for nongraduates, and that is especially true
among people born into low-income families. Figure 9 shows the earnings outcomes for individuals born into the lowest
quintile of the income distribution, depending on whether they earned a college degree. In a perfectly mobile society, an individual would have
an equal chance of ending up in any of the five quintiles, and all the bars would be level with the bold line. As the figure shows, however,
without a college degree a child born into a family in the lowest quintile has a 45 percent chance of remaining in that quintile as an adult and
only a 5 percent chance of moving into the highest quintile. On the other hand, children born into the lowest quintile who do earn a college
degree have only a 16 percent chance of remaining in the lowest quintile and a 19 percent chance of breaking into the top quintile.
In other
words, a low-income individual without a college degree will very likely remain in the lower part of
the earnings distribution, whereas a low-income individual with a college degree could just as easily
land in any income quintile—including the highest.
 Underview
1. 1AR theory –
A. AFF gets it because otherwise the neg can engage in infinite abuse, making
debate impossible.
B. Drop the debater – the short 1AR irreparably skewed from abuse on substance
and time investment on theory.
C. No RVIs – the 6-minute 2nr can collapse to a short shell and get away with
infinite 1nc abuse via sheer brute force and time spent on theory.
2. Aff RVIs —
A. Skew – there’s no 2AC to develop carded offense and the 1AR has to over-cover
since the 6 minute 2NR is devastating which encourages them to under-develop
T in the NC and over-develop in the NR – need the RVI to develop good, in-
depth T offense
B. Reciprocity – T is a unique avenue to the ballot that the aff can’t access – makes
T structurally unfair without the RVI.
 Method
Reject absurd political scenarios – hidden assumptions, lack of credible authors
supporting entire chains, and future political developments mean we don’t
need to win more uncertainty to prove case outweighs.
Cohn 13 Nate Cohn covers elections, polling and demographics for The Upshot, a Times politics and policy site. Previously, he was a staff
writer for The New Republic. Before entering journalism, he was a research assistant and Scoville Fellow at the Stimson Center, 2013,
"Improving the Norms and Practices of Policy Debate," http://www.cedadebate.org/forum/index.php?topic=5416.0;wap2 //RS

“. The combined effect was devastating: As these debates are currently argued and judged, I suspect that the negative would win my ballot more than 95 percent of the time in a debate between two teams of
equal ability.¶ But even if a “soft left” team did better—especially by making solvency deficits and responding to the specifics of the disadvantage—I still think they would struggle. They could compete at the
highest levels, but, in most debates, judges would still assess a small, but meaningful risk of a large scale conflict, including nuclear war and extinction. The risk would be small, but the “magnitude” of the

impact would often be enough to outweigh a higher probability, smaller impact. Or put differently: policy debate still wouldn’t be replicating a real world policy assessment, teams reading
small affirmatives would still be at a real disadvantage with respect to reality. . ¶ Why? Oddly, this is the unreasonable
result of a reasonable part of debate: the burden of refutation or rejoinder, the responsibility of debaters to “beat” arguments. If I introduce an
argument, it starts out at 100 percent—you then have to disprove it. That sounds like a pretty good idea in principle, right? Well, I think so too.

But it’s really tough to refute something down to “zero” percent—a team would need to completely and totally
refute an argument. That’s obviously tough to do, especially since the other team is usually going to have some decent arguments and pretty
good cards defending each component of their disadvantage—even the ridiculous parts. So one of the most fundamental assumptions about

debate all but ensures a meaningful risk of nearly any argument—even extremely low-probability, high magnitude
impacts, sufficient to outweigh systemic impacts. ¶ There’s another even more subtle element of debate practice at play.
Traditionally, the 2AC might introduce 8 or 9 cards against a disadvantage, like “non-unique, no- link, no-impact,” and then go for one and two.

underpinned by dozens or perhaps hundreds of discrete assumptions,

Yet in reality, disadvantages are

each of which could be contested. By the end of the 2AR, only a handful are under scrutiny; the majority
of the disadvantage is conceded, and it’s tough to bring the one or two scrutinized components down to “zero.”¶ And then there’s a bad

understanding of probability. If the affirmative questions four or five elements of the disadvantage, but the
negative was still “clearly ahead” on all five elements, most judges would assess that the negative was “clearly ahead” on
the disadvantage. In reality, the risk of the disadvantage has been reduced considerably. If there was, say, an 80 percent chance
that immigration reform would pass, an 80 percent chance that political capital was key, an 80 percent chance that the plan drained a sufficient
amount of capital, an 80 percent chance that immigration reform was necessary to prevent another recession, and an 80 percent chance that
another recession would cause a nuclear war (lol), then there’s a 32 percent chance that the disadvantage caused nuclear war. ¶ I think these

issues can be overcome. First, I think teams can deal with the “burden of refutation” by focusing on
the “burden of proof,” which allows a team to mitigate an argument before directly contradicting its content. ¶ Here’s how I’d
look at it: modern policy debate has assumed that arguments start out at “100 percent” until directly refuted. But few, if any,

arguments are supported by evidence consistent with “100 percent.” Most cards don’t make
definitive claims. Even when they do, they’re not supported by definitive evidence—and any reasonable
person should assume there’s at least some uncertainty on matters other than few true facts, like 2+2=4.¶ Take Georgetown’s immigration
uniqueness evidence from Harvard. It says there “may be a window” for immigration. So, based on the negative’s evidence, what are the odds
that immigration reform will pass? Far less than 50 percent, if you ask me. That’s not always true for every card in the 1NC, but sometimes it’s
even worse—like the impact card, which is usually a long string of “coulds.” If you apply this very basic level of analysis to each element of a
disadvantage, and correctly explain math (.4*.4*.4*.4*.4=.01024), the risk of the disadvantage starts at a very low level, even before the

hasn’t introduced any evidence at all

affirmative offers a direct response. ¶ Debaters should also argue that the negative

to defend a long list of unmentioned elements in the “internal link chain.” The absence of evidence to defend the
argument that, say, “recession causes depression,” may not eliminate the disadvantage, but it does raise uncertainty—and it doesn’t

take too many additional sources of uncertainty to reduce the probability of the disadvantage to
effectively zero—sort of the static, background noise of prediction.¶ Now, I do think it would be nice if a good debate team would actually
do the work—talk about what the cards say, talk about the unmentioned steps—but I think debaters can make these observations at a meta-
level (your evidence isn’t certain, lots of undefended elements) and successfully reduce the risk of a nuclear war or extinction to something
indistinguishable from zero. It would not be a factor in my decision.¶ Based on my conversations with other policy judges, it may be possible to
pull it off with even less work. They might be willing to summarily disregard “absurd” arguments, like politics disadvantages, on the grounds
that it’s patently unrealistic, that we know the typical burden of rejoinder yields unrealistic scenarios, and that judges should assess debates in
ways that produce realistic assessments. I don’t think this is too different from elements of Jonah Feldman’s old philosophy, where he basically
said “when I assessed 40 percent last year, it’s 10 percent now.”¶ Honestly, I was surprised that the few judges I talked to were so amenable to
this argument. For me, just saying “it’s absurd, and you know it” wouldn’t be enough against an argument in which the other team invested
considerable time. The more developed argument about accurate risk assessment would be more convincing, but I still think it would be
vulnerable to a typical defense of the burden of rejoinder. ¶ To be blunt: I want debaters to learn why a disadvantage is absurd, not just make
assertions that conform to their preexisting notions of what’s realistic and what’s not. And perhaps more importantly for this discussion, I could
not coach a team to rely exclusively on this argument—I’m not convinced that enough judges are willing to discount a disadvantage on “it’s
absurd.” Nonetheless, I think this is a useful “frame” that should preface a following, more robust explanation of why the risk of the
disadvantage is basically zero—even before a substantive response is offered.¶ There are other, broad genres of argument that can contest the
substance of the negative’s argument. There are serious methodological indictments of the various forms of knowledge production, from
journalistic reporting to think tanks to quantitative social science. Many of our most strongly worded cards come from people giving opinions,
for which they offer very little data or evidence. And even when “qualified” people are giving predictions, there’s a great case to be extremely
skeptical without real evidence backing it up. The world is a complicated place, predictions are hard, and most people are wrong. And again,
this is before contesting the substance of the negative’s argument(!)—if deemed necessary.¶ So, in my view, the low probability scenario is
waiting to be eliminated from debate, basically as soon as a capable team tries to do it.¶ That would open to the door to all of the arguments,

It’s been tough to talk about racism or

previously excluded, de facto, by the prevalence of nuclear war impacts.

gender violence, since modest measures to mitigate these impacts have a difficult
time outweighing a nuclear war. It’s been tough to discuss ethical policy making, since it’s hard to argue that any
commitment to philosophical or ethical purity should apply in the face of an existential risk. It’s been tough to introduce unconventional forms
of evidence, since they can’t really address the probability of nuclear war.

A particularist approach is key- overarching theories ignore material injustice.

Pappas 16. (Gregory Fernando Pappas [Texas A&M University] “The Pragmatists’ Approach to Injustice”, The Pluralist Volume 11,
Number 1, Spring 2016, BE

Thepragmatists’ approach should be distinguished from nonideal theories whose

starting point seems to be the injustices of society at large that have a history and persist through time, where the
task of political philosophy is to detect and diagnose the presence of these historical injustices in particular situations of injustice. For example,
critical theory today has inherited an approach to social philosophy characteristic of the European tradition that goes back to Rousseau, Marx,
Weber, Freud, Marcuse, and others. Accord- ing to Roberto Frega, this tradition takes society to be “intrinsically sick” with a malaise that
requires adopting a critical historical stance in order to understand how the systematic sickness affects present social situations. In other words,

this approach assumes that¶ a philosophical critique of specific social situations can be accomplished
only under the assumption of a broader and full blown critique of soci- ety in its entirety: as a critique of capitalism, of

modernity, of western civilization, of rationality itself. The idea of social pathology becomes intelligible only against the background of a
philosophy of history or of an anthropology of decline, according to which the distortions of actual social life are but the inevitable consequence
of longstanding historical processes. (“Between Pragmatism and Critical Theory” 63)¶ However, this particular approach to injustice is not
limited to critical theory. It is present in those Latin American and African American political philosophies that have used and transformed the
critical intellectual tools of ¶ critical theory to deal with the problems of injustice in the Americas. For instance, Charles W. Mills claims that the
starting point and alternative to the abstractions of ideal theory that masked injustices is to diagnose and rectify a history of an illness—the
legacy of white supremacy in our actual society.11 The critical task of revealing this illness is achieved by adopting a historical perspective
where the injustices of today are part of a larger historical narrative about the development of modern societies that goes back to how
Europeans have progressively dehumanized or subordinated others. Similary, radical feminists as well as Third World scholars, as reaction to
the hege- monic Eurocentric paradigms that disguise injustices under the assumption of a universal or objective point of view, have stressed
how our knowledge is always situated. This may seem congenial with pragmatism except the locus of the knower and of injustices is often

described as power structures located in “global hierarchies” and a “world-system” and not situations.12¶ Pragmatism only questions
that we live in History or a “World-System” (as a totality or abstract context) but not that we are in history (lowercase): in a present situation
continuous with others where the past weighs heavily in our memories, bodies, habits, structures, and communities. It also does not
deny the importance of power structures and seeing the connections be- tween injustices through time, but
there is a difference between (a) inquiring into present situations of injustice in order to detect, diagnose, and cure an injustice (a social
pathology) across history, and (b) inquiring into the his- tory of a systematic injustice in order to facilitate inquiry into the present unique,

context-bound injustice. To capture the legacy of the past on present injustices, we must study history but also seek
present evidence of the weight of the past on the present injustice.¶ If injustice is an illness, then the
pragmatists’ approach takes as its main focus diagnosing and treating the particular present illness, that is, the
particular situation-bound injustice and not a global “social pathology” or some single transhistorical
source of injustice. The diagnosis of a particular injustice is not always dependent on adopting a broader critical standpoint of society in its
entirety, but even when it is, we must be careful to not forget that such standpoints are useful only for understanding the present evil. The

concepts and categories “white supremacy” and “colonialism” can be great tools that can be of planetary
significance. One could even argue that they pick out much larger areas of people’s lives and injustices than the categories of class and gender,

but in spite of their reach and explanatory theoretical value, they are nothing more than tools to make reference to and
ameliorate particular injustices experienced (suffered) in the midst of a particular and unique re- lationship in a
situation. No doubt many, but not all, problems of injustice are a consequence of being a member of a group in history, but even in these cases,
we cannot a priori assume that injustices are homogeneously equal for all members of that group. Why is this important? The possible
pluralism and therefore complexity of a problem of injustice does not always stop at the level of being a member of a historical group or even a
member of many groups, as insisted on by intersectional analysis. There may be unique cir- cumstances to particular countries, towns,
neighborhoods, institutions, and ultimately situations that we must be open to in a context-sensitive inquiry. If an empirical inquiry is
committed to capturing and ameliorating all of the harms in situations of injustice in their raw pretheoretical complexity, then this requires that
we try to begin with and return to the concrete, particular, and unique experiences of injustice.¶ Pragmatism agrees with Sally Haslanger’s
concern about Charles Mills’s view. She writes: “The goal is not just a theory that is historical (v. ahistori- cal), but is sensitive to historical
particularity, i.e., that resists grand causal narratives purporting to give an account of how domination has come about and is perpetuated

the forces that cause and sustain domination vary tremendously

everywhere and at all times” (1). For “

context by context, and there isn’t necessarily a single causal explanation; a theoretical framework that is useful as
a basis for political intervention must be highly sensitive to the details of the particular social context” (1).13¶ Although each situation is
unique, there are commonalities among the cases that permit inquiry about common causes. We can “formulate tentative general principles
from investigation of similar individual cases, and then . . . check the generalizations by applying them to still further cases” (Dewey, Lectures in
China 53). But Dewey insists that the focus should be on the indi- vidual case, and was critical of how so many sociopolitical theories are prone
to starting and remaining at the level of “sweeping generalizations.” He states that they “fail to focus on the concrete problems which arise in
experience, allowing such problems to be buried under their sweeping generalizations” (Lectures in China 53).¶ The lesson pragmatism
provides for nonideal theory today is that it must be careful to not reify any injustice as some single historical force for which particular injustice
problems are its manifestation or evidence for its exis- tence. Pragmatism welcomes the wisdom and resources of nonideal theories that are
historically grounded on actual injustices, but it issues a warning about how they should be understood and implemented. It is, for example,
sympathetic to the critical resources found in critical race theory, but with an important qualification. It understands Derrick Bell’s valuable
criticism as context-specific to patterns in the practice of American law. Through his inquiry into particular cases and civil rights policies at a
particular time and place, Bell learned and proposed certain general principles such as the one of “interest convergence,” that is, “whites will
promote racial advantages for blacks only when they also promote white self-interest.”14 But, for pragma- tism, these principles are nothing
more than historically grounded tools to use in present problematic situations that call for our analysis, such as deliberation in establishing

public policies or making sense of some concrete injustice. The principles are falsifiable and open to revision
as we face situation-specific injustices. In testing their adequacy, we need to consider their function in making us see aspects of injustices we
would not otherwise appreciate.15