1AC – Plan

Resolved: In the United States, colleges and universities ought not consider
standardized tests in undergraduate admissions decisions.
If you want me to specify SAT/ACT just ask me in cross

Hernandez 18 Theresa E. Hernandez, 5-22-2018, 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., "Abolish Standardized Testing For College Admissions", HuffPost, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/abolish-
standardized-testing-for-college-admissions_n_5b045869e4b003dc7e470ee3, Accessed on 8-16-2019 // JPark

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. 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
To accept any “predictive” measure that
achievements of racially minoritized and low-income students.
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.
 1AC – Advantage
Status quo reliance on standardized testing penalizes dual language and
immigrant students.
Suárez-Orozco 15, Carola, Hirokazu Yoshikawa, and Vivian Tseng. "Intersecting Inequalities: Research to Reduce Inequality for
Immigrant-Origin Children and Youth." William T. Grant Foundation (2015). Dr. Carola Suárez-Orozco is a Professor of Human
Development and Psychology at UCLA. Hirokazu Yoshikawa is the Courtney Sale Ross Professor of Globalization and Education at
NYU Steinhardt and a University Professor at NYU. Vivian Tseng is the Senior Vice President, Programs at the William T. Grant
Foundation. She leads the Foundation's grantmaking programs and its initiatives to connect research, policy, and practice to improve
child and youth outcomes. Accessed August 16, 2019 // JPark

Schools are seldom focused on meeting the

needs of dual language students—at best they tend to be
ignored, and at worst they are viewed as contributing to low performance on state mandated
high-stakes tests (Menken, 2008; Suárez-Orozco et al. 2008). There is considerable debate on the role of educational
assessments in general, and high stakes assessments in particular, in contributing to unequal outcomes for English Language
Learners (APA, 2012; Menken, 2008: Solórzano, 2008; Valenzuela, 2005). Standardized
tests used to screen for
learning differences and high stakes decisions were largely designed and normed with middle class
populations (Agbenyega & Jiggetts, 1999), or they were adapted from work with those populations (Birman & Chan, 2008).
Such tests assume exposure to mainstream cultural knowledge and fail to recognize culture of
origin content knowledge (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005; Solano-Flores, 2008). This can lead to underestimates of
students’ abilities and competencies. Timed tests penalize second-language learners who
process two languages before they settle on a single answer (Solano-Flores, 2008). And when
culturally or linguistically sensitive approaches are not utilized, individuals’ needs often go
unrecognized or, conversely, they can be over-pathologized (APA, 2012; Kieffer, et al., 2009; Suzuki, et al., 2008).
We should systematically recognize the sources of bias in assessment, particularly with second-
language learners. Solano-Flores (2008) argues that the sources of bias are reflected in “Who is given tests in what language
by whom, when, and where?” (Solano-Flores 2008). When students do poorly on tests, it cannot simply be assumed that they lack
the skills (though in some cases that is a partial explanation). For instance, students may not have been exposed
to culturally-relevant materials or do not have the vocabulary in English. Sometimes this issue is
one of retrieval time; second-language learners may simply need more time to process two
languages. Double negatives are an issue for second-language learners. Unfamiliar test
formats especially place newcomer immigrants at a disadvantage. Issues of cultural and
linguistic fairness in assessment are a critical area of research importance (Solano-Flores & Trumbull,
2003; Solano-Flores, 2008) that must constantly and systematically be addressed when working with this
population (APA, 2012). In the current climate of high stakes educational assessment, school districts
are sometimes pressured to prematurely reclassify students from English Language Learners to
Fluent English Proficient (Escamilla, Mahon, Riley-Bernal, & Rutledge, 2003). In many other cases, immigrant
students languish as “long term ELLs” (Olsen, 2010). With poorly implemented school assessments and a miscellany
of language learning policies, there is wide variability between districts and states in this classification—seldom is
reclassification tied to the research evidence on what it takes to attain the level of academic
language proficiency required to be competitive on standardized assessments (Cummins, 2000; Kieffer,
Lesaux, Rivera, & Francis, 2009). As higher stakes have become attached to standardized tests, this issue has heightened
consequences for English language learners and the schools that serve them.

Empirics prove—immigrants are left in the dust.

Aparicio Fenoll, Ainhoa. 6-2017 "English Proficiency and Test Scores of Immigrant Children in the US." Institute of Labor
Economics. The IZA Institute of Labor Economics is an independent economic research institute that conducts research in labor
economics and offers evidence-based policy advice on labor market issues. Ainhoa Aparicio-Fenoll is currently an Assistant Professor
at Collegio Carlo Alberto and University of Turin. She received her PhD in Economics in 2010 at Universitat Pompeu Fabra. Accessed
August 16, 2019 // JPark *Bracketed for settlerist language (“native” changed to “US-born”)

There are close to 250 million first and second generation immigrants worldwide (United Nations, 2016). A tenth of them, 25 million,
are younger than 14. Social cohesion and ultimately economic outcomes in receiving countries clearly depend on how well
immigrant children are able to integrate. Results from the ìProgramme for the International Assessment of Student Achievements
(PISA) show that in
the US, as in most OECD countries, immigrant children tend to perform worse in reading,
mathematics, and science compared to [US born] children (OECD, 2015). The current paper addresses the
following question: How much of such differences in achievement can be accounted for by a lack of English proficiency? This is an
important question because the answer can help to inform policy makers in the debate on optimal education policies for migrant
children. In particular, my findings highlight the importance of investing in English as a Second Language programs to help
non-
English proficient immigrant children in primary education overcome the difficulties
encountered in language-related tests. There is a large literature documenting that migrant students in the
US who are not proficient in English perform worse compared to [US born] students. For instance,
Zehler et al. (2003) report that 76 percent of third graders whose command of English is limited, score
below (and often well below) grade level on English tests. Findings in Akresh and Redstone Akresh (2011) suggest that
at least part of these differences are due to language proficiency. The authors show that foreign-born Latino children
achieve higher scores when tests are conducted in Spanish instead of English. Even for
economically advantaged immigrant students, Collier (1987), Cummins (1981), and Cummins and Nakajima (1987)
report that it takes those students at least four years to catch up with students in terms of academic
English skills. Furthermore, early differences in academic achievement and cognitive test scores seem to translate into
differences later on. Latino children whose parents are non-US born English speakers are less likely to enroll in postsecondary
education, and they are twice as likely to drop out of high school compared to non-Latino whites (Pew Hispanic Center 2002; Fry
2003). Moreover, a sound command of the host countryís language has been found to have positive and significant effects for
migrants’ labor market outcomes, see Bleakley and Chin (2010), Chiswick and Miller (2010), and Dustmann and Fabbri (2003). 1
Although it seems obvious that low English proficiency would affect cognitive test scores, identifying the exact impact of language
proficiency on individuals’ academic performance is challenging (Gang and Zimmermann 2000; Frick and Wagner 2001). The fact
that immigrant children typically come from less advantageous socioeconomic backgrounds makes it di¢ cult to disentangle
language barriers from other effects linked to children’s migrant status. Moreover, virtually all tests—with very few exceptions—are
conducted in English which makes it hard for researchers to distinguish between errors arising from misunderstandings and lack of
English proficiency and those caused by low academic ability (Crawford, 2004). To identify the causal effect of language proficiency
on cognitive test scores, I follow a methodology proposed by Bleakley and Chin (2004, 2010). The authors rely on findings by
language learning theorists indicating that starting age and length of exposure are key factors behind acquiring language proficiency.
In particular, I instrument English proficiency by
comparing children from English-speaking countries to
children from non-English-speaking countries who migrated to the US at different ages. For my
estimations I use data from the New Immigrant Survey, a rich data set on legal immigrants and their children in the US which
contains a large set of demographic and socioeconomic variables. Most importantly, it includes information about children’s and
parental English proficiency and country of origin, children’s age at arrival, as well as results from four standardized tests
administrated to children (Letter-Word Identification, Passage Comprehension, Applied Problems, and Calculations). My
findings show that speaking English very badly or badly can explain 27-33% of the
achievement gap between [US born] and immigrant children in standardized language-related
tests. However, I find no significant language effects for applied mathematics problems or calculations.

That’s cyclical—barriers to college entrance compound through self censorship.

Kanno and Varghese 10 Yasuko Kanno & Manka M. Varghese (2010) Immigrant and Refugee ESL Students’ Challenges to Accessing Four-
Year College Education: From Language Policy to Educational Policy, Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 9:5, 310-328, DOI:
10.1080/15348458.2010.517693 Accessed on August 19, 2019 // JPark*Bracketed for settlerist language (“native” changed to “US-born”)

Self-Censorship Most students were acutely aware of their nonnative-speaker status, and this identity
often held them back in taking advantage of opportunities and resources. The confining effects of what may be called
“ESL habitus”—the propensity for self-censorship because of one's ESL status—were real. In the
first place, many students noted that ESL students simply self-eliminate from applying to four-year universities because they
assume that they would not be admitted, or that even if they were admitted, they would feel overwhelmed by the
enormity of the challenges ahead. Clearly, the students we interviewed were either not afflicted with such self-doubt or learned to
overcome it along the way because they in fact came to NGU. However, many knew other ESL students who eliminated themselves
without trying, as Shammy, a Vietnamese student, explained: Most of the ESL, you know, student they just think about go to
community college. Just like some of them really rare though think about going to university. Yeah, 'cause I have three, I mean two
friends here in high school here. And they also think about going to community college. They never think about going to university.
Even some of our participants doubted whether they were good enough to attend university. Anna, a Ukrainian student
who transferred to NGU from a community college, told us that she did not even think about
applying to university until a friend suggested that they apply together. Even then her initial reaction was
one of self-doubt, and at the center of her self-doubt was the issue of English: “I was like I can't do it. My English is low and I
don't think so. I don't think I'll be accepted.” Even after they entered university, the sense of intimidation continued for
some students. Many of our participants reported that they were intimidated to speak up or ask questions in a large class. Although
this may be typical of most freshman students (Beyer et al., 2007), ESL students' hesitation came from their self-consciousness about
English (Leki, 2007). Dania, an Ethiopian student who transferred from a community college to the School of Nursing, said, When I'm
in English [i.e., ESL] class, I'm always comfortable. I can ask anything I want, I can say anything I want. You know what I mean? But in
nursing class, I get scared to ask question and you know what if I say something wrong and what if they teacher say something. And
that will make me a little embarrass so I don't even ask question, mostly. As Dania's comments indicate, when there was no pressure
to compare themselves with native speakers, our participants felt freer to speak up. A few other students also noted that they were
much more comfortable speaking in their ESL classes because everyone else was a nonnative speaker. Students who transferred
from community colleges acutely felt a shift in the expected standards. They said that they had felt comfortable asking English
language questions in community colleges but hesitated to do so at NGU. Jason, a Vietnamese student, explained: I think a lot of
people who go to [community] college [are] just average people. You know. Maybe like people here are more smart. And if you go
ask something like, they think it's so basic, maybe you not really intelligent, you know. In the theoretical framework, we noted that
the process of cultural reproduction requires students' acquiescence. Here we can see an ESL
student acquiescing to the university's institutional culture that frames the lack of [US Born]-
level English proficiency as a deficit. Community colleges accept a number of ESL and academically underprepared
students; Jason is saying that among such “average people,” it is acceptable to ask questions related to the English language—but
not at the university. Rather than questioning the underlying
cultural norms that privilege [US Born]
speakers' linguistic capital and ignore ESL students' multilingual competence, Jason has internalized
this deficit orientation and associates her lack of [US Born]-level proficiency with shame. As Bourdieu
(Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992) states, “Symbolic violence, to put it as tersely and simply as possible, is the violence
which is exercised upon a social agent with his or her complicity” (p. 167, emphasis added).

ESL/ELL students are at a disproportionate risk of being poor.

Chao 13 Jessica Chao and Jen Schenkel, Lotus & Grain LLC, and Laurie Olsen, Sobrato Family Foundation. Since 2011,
Grantmakers for Education has offered a series of investigative programs designed to examine the role grantmakers can play in
creating more equitable systems of education. GFE’s programming included place-based programs in El Paso, Texas, Newark, New
Jersey, Oakland, California, and Minneapolis, Minnesota. Jessica Chao and Jen Schenkel, Lotus & Grain LLC, and Laurie Olsen,
Sobrato Family Foundation. 2013. Grantmakers for Education. “Educating English Language Learners APRIL 2013 GRANTMAKING
STRATEGIES FOR CLOSING AMERICA’S OTHER ACHIEVEMENT GAP”. Accessed on 9-4-2019 // JPark

English learners are a heterogeneous group, and needs differ from one commu - nity to another. Thereis no single profile
of English learners, nor one single approach or policy that will meet educational goals and
needs. They have different home language backgrounds, levels of language proficiency, socioeco - nomic standing, academic
expectations, academic back - grounds and immigration status. Each of these factors impacts their experiences, needs and success in
school. ELLs enter US schools at varying ages and without the foundational understanding of the
English language that the curriculum requires for accessing grade-level content. Their
educational preparation, and particularly the strength of their language and literacy development in their home language,
makes an enormous difference in how smoothly they are able to learn English and overcome
academic gaps that emerge when they do not comprehend the language of academic instruction. Most ELL students are
from low-income families. The vast majority of ELLs are from families that are struggling
economically and have parents with dispropor - tionately low schooling levels. In every state,
nearly 60 percent of ELLs live in families whose income falls below 185 percent of the federal
poverty line. English learners are geographically dispersed. In the past, most English learn - ers typically lived in six states,
where policies, educational ser - vices and programs have developed and grown in response. But since the 1990s a new pattern has
emerged. While more than one in four ELL students still live in Califor - nia, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois and Arizona, the fastest
growth has taken place in parts of the country that have had little or no prior experience of serving ELLs in their educational systems.
This includes states like South Carolina (more than 800 percent growth in a decade), In - diana, Arkansas and others. Nevada had
such tremendous growth in English learners over the past decade that it now has the highest ELL density of any state—more than 31
percent of its students. The
needs of communities and schools that are gearing up to serve ELLs for the
first time are significantly different from those with more experi - ence. Local needs assessments are
among the many crucial requirements of these educational systems.

Only college educations can reliably alleviate intergenerational poverty.

Urahn 12 Susan K. Urahn, Erin Currier, Diana Elliot, Lauren Wechsler, Denise Wilson, and Daniel Colbert, Pursuing the American
Dream: Economic Mobility Across Generations (Washington, D.C.: The Pew Charitable Trusts, July 2012).
https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/reports/economic_mobility/pursuingamericandream
pdf.pdf The Pew Charitable Trusts is an independent non-profit, non-governmental organization, founded in 1948. With over US $6
billion in assets, its stated mission is to serve the public interest by "improving public policy, informing the public, and stimulating
civic life". Accessed August 27, 2019 // JPark

Mobility by Education Having

a college degree improves Americans’ chances of surpassing their
parents’ family income and wealth. Having a college degree has long been viewed as one of the most promising ways
to climb the economic ladder, and for good reason. The wage premium associated with a college degree rose dramatically during the
past generation, and increased returns on education directly translate into upward absolute mobility gains.13 For example, 88
percent of those with a college degree exceed their parents’ family income, compared with 83
percent without a college degree (see Figure 17).14 College degree holders also have greater absolute wealth
mobility than non-degree holders. Overall, 57 percent of college graduates have more assets than
their parents, compared with less than half (46 percent) of those without a college degree. The
greatest gains in absolute wealth during the prior generation were for college degree holders
raised in the bottom wealth quintile; 85 percent have more wealth than their parents. For
those raised in the fourth wealth quintile, the advantage of a college degree is most notable:
nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of college graduates have more wealth than did their parents,
compared with just one-third (34 percent) of non-graduates. Earning a four-year college
degree promotes upward mobility from the bottom and prevents downward mobility from
the middle and top of the family income and wealth ladders. A college degree makes individuals much less
likely to become stuck at the bottom of the family income and wealth ladders. For those raised at the bottom of the
family income ladder, almost one half (47 percent for family income) without a college degree
are stuck there as adults, compared with 10 percent with a college degree. Similarly, 45 percent without
a degree are stuck at the bottom of the family wealth ladder, compared with 20 percent with a degree. Having a four-year
degree also makes one more likely to rise from the bottom of the ladder all the way to the
top—over three times more likely for family income and over four times more likely for family
wealth. A college education additionally protects against downward mobility. At the top of the family
income ladder, over half (51 percent) of those with a college degree raised at the top stay there
compared with a quarter of those without a college degree. Thirty-nine percent without a college degree fall
from the middle compared with only 22 percent with a degree. Similar patterns exist for family wealth.

Plan solves – Hampshire proves

Jaschik 15, Scott. Scott has been a judge or screener for the National Magazine Awards, the Online Journalism Awards, the Folio
Editorial Excellence Awards, and the Education Writers Association Awards. Scott served as a mentor in the community college
fellowship program of the Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media, of Teachers College, Columbia University. He is a
member of the board of the Education Writers Association. From 1999-2003, Scott was editor of The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Scott grew up in Rochester, N.Y., and graduated from Cornell University in 1985. Inside Higher Ed. “Test Blind Success”.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/09/21/hampshire-reports-successful-admissions-year-going-test-blind. September 21,
2015//JH // RCT by JPark Bracketed for Ableist language

This last year has seen an increasing number of colleges go test optional, meaning that applicants decide for themselves
whether to submit SAT or ACT scores. Many of these colleges report increases in application numbers, particularly from minority
applicants. But some have suggested that these moves are motivated more by a goal of gaming the
rankings and promoting colleges' own interests than by promoting diversity. When a college is test
optional, the theory goes, everyone with scores above the average for that college will continue
to submit their scores, while others won't, so the average SAT score goes up, and rankings may
follow. But there is one competitive college in America today whose testing policy can't be seen as gaming the rankings -- and
that's because its policy results in U.S. News & World Report refusing to rank it. That institution is Hampshire College, which last year
announced that it was going "test blind." (It had already been test optional.)
Test [non considering] means that
Hampshire will not look at applicants' test scores -- even if they are submitted. Admissions officers do
review high school records, essays and more, but no applicant is evaluated by an SAT or ACT score. (Sarah Lawrence College was test
blind for several years, but in 2012 returned to test optional.) On Sunday evening, Hampshire released the results of the first full
admissions cycle without any testing and without any ranking in U.S. News. And the numbers have Hampshire officials celebrating --
despite a significant decline in the number of applicants. The
enrolled class is larger, and the yield is up
significantly, as is enrollment of minority and first-generation students. The primary measure of
academic quality -- high school grade point average -- stayed the same (3.5). "I really believe we admitted the
best class in decades, using a truly holistic admissions process," said Meredith Twombly, dean of enrollment and retention. Twombly
linked the success of the college's efforts in part to its willingness to stop being ranked. Applications fell significantly,
from 2,600 to 2,050, and Twombly said such a drop would terrify someone looking to go up or even stay in the same place in the
rankings. But she said that not being ranked left her to not worry too much about that decline. She attributed it to the other changes
Hampshire made when it went test blind. In the past, applicants could have used the Common Application and one "Why
Hampshire?" question. This year, without test scores to consider, the college kept its previous requirements, but added two
essays and a graded high school paper. Those additions meant that students who might have been casual applicants, figuring it
was easy enough to add one more college on the Common Application, opted not to apply, Twombly said. The numbers back
up her theory that those who did apply were more serious about the college than were some applicants
in years past -- and they also are more diverse: The freshman class that enrolled has 380 students, up from 331 a year ago.
Those gains reflect a nearly 50 percent increase in the yield rate (the percentage of accepted applicants who
enroll), from 18 to 26 percent. The percentage of minority students increased from 26 to 31 percent. (That
figure covers all American, nonwhite students, a majority of whom are black or Latino.) The percentage of students
whose parents never attended college increased from 12 to 18 percent. The number of
international students increased from 10 to 27. (While those numbers are small, Twombly noted that
conventional wisdom holds that potential international students and their parents tend to be particularly reliant on rankings.)
Hampshire, which is known as a place where students are expected to create a customized course of study, is in some ways an
unusual college that may attract students who aren't impressed by rankings. Twombly said that before the college went test blind, it
did focus groups with juniors and seniors at the college about how much they cared about rankings, and found that the answer was
"not much."

More empirics prove diversity – UT system proves.

Tough 9-11 Wired interviews Paul Tough, Paul Tough is the author, most recently, of "The Years That Matter Most: How College
Makes or Breaks Us." His three previous books include "How Children Succeed: Grit, Curiosity, and the Hidden Power of Character,"
which was translated into 27 languages and spent more than a year on the New York Times hardcover and paperback best-seller
lists. 9-11-2019, "College, Calculus, and the Problem With the SAT", Wired, https://www.wired.com/story/college-calculus-problem-
with-the-sat/, Accessed on 9-17-2019 // JPark

WIRED: But despite the growing number of small colleges that are now “test optional,” I wonder how big universities can
practically handle admissions without standardized tests, given the number of students who apply. They need
some way to quickly cull the field. Did you come away from your research thinking there could be a real alternative? Tough: I did! As
it happened, a lot of my reporting took place at the University of Texas in Austin, and UT has an unusual admissions system. Two
decades ago, the Texas legislature passed a law requiring UT to automatically accept high
school seniors from anywhere in Texas whose high school grades placed them close to the top
of their class. Those automatic admits now make up at least two-thirds of every incoming
freshman class at UT. The admissions process for that part of the class isn’t just “test optional”—it’s
more like “test [non considering].” UT’s admissions officials are forbidden by law from considering those students’ SAT
scores in deciding whom to admit. That has helped to create an unusual student body at UT. Each freshman class
includes some excellent students from the wealthy suburbs of Dallas, who have test scores and family incomes and
demographic profiles that match freshmen at selective colleges anywhere in the country. But it also
includes plenty of excellent students from rural West Texas and the Rio Grande Valley and
Houston’s Third Ward—many of whom have much lower SAT and ACT scores and much lower
family incomes. If they lived in Michigan or Virginia or North Carolina, they would be unlikely to be admitted to their state’s
flagship university. But in Texas, their hard work in high school earns them admission to the finest university in the state. And
generally, once they get there, they succeed.

ESL students are more likely to be GPA discrepant—means the plan increases
diversity
Sanchez and Mattern 18 [Edgar, educational psychology from UT and senior research
director for ACT; Krista, Director of the ACT] “Measuring Success: Testing, Grades, and the
Future of College Admissions,” When High School Grade Point Averages and Test Scores
Disagree: Implications for Test Optional Policies, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018 RE // RCT
by JPark

Despite the various methods that have been used to define discrepancy, there has been
remarkable consistency in identifying which students are most likely to display discrepancy
between their test scores and HSGPA. Studies have found that students who have higher
HSGPAs than test scores tend to be female, minority, and low-income students (Edmunds and Sanchez
2014; Kobrin, Camara, and Milewski 2002; Mattern, Shaw, and Kobrin 2011; Ramist, Lewis, and Jenkins 1997; Sanchez and Edmunds
2015; Sanchez and Lin 2017). For example, Sanchez and Lin (2017) found that the gender distribution of students who had a high
HSGPA but a moderate or low ACT Composite score to be more heavily represented by females (66% and 62%, respectively).
Additionally, for students with a moderate HSGPA and low ACT Composite score, only 60% of
students were female. More than 50% of students with a high HSGPA and low ACT Composite
score or moderate HSGPA and llaow ACT Composite score were minority and lowincome
students. On the other hand, only a small percentage of minority and low-income students
constituted the high HSGPA and high ACT Composite score group (8.77% of minorities; 9.63% of low-income
students) as well as the high ACT Composite score and moderate HSGPA group (12.78% of minorities;
12.57% of lowincome students). There are also several noteworthy findings about the differences between these groups. HSGPA
discrepant students are more likely to have lower socioeconomic status backgrounds (e.g.,
household income, parental education level) than either the SAT discrepant or consistent
achievement groups (Mattern, Shaw, and Kobrin 2011; Ramist, Lewis, and Jenkins 1997). HSGPA discrepant
students also tend to speak languages other than English at home (Kobrin, Camara, and Milewski 2002).
Furthermore, an examination of subgroup differences reveal that while the average discrepancy for the student subgroups of
gender, race/ethnicity, and family income can be considered consistent (difference in standardized achievement between −1 and 1),
this average discrepancy was often nonzero (Sanchez and Edmunds 2015). African
American and Hispanic, female,
and low-income students, for example, tended to have slightly higher standardized HSGPAs than
ACT Composite scores. Conversely, white, male, and middleand higher-income students tended
to have a slightly higher standardized ACT Composite score than HSGPA
Reforming ESL programs fail—they’re blanket solutions.
Raeff 15 Anne Raeff, 6-30-2015, Anne Raeff teaches English learners at East Palo Alto Academy. Her novel Clara Mondschein’s
Melancholia came out in 2001 and she has just completed a memoir. She wrote this for “Reimagining California,” a partnership of
the California Endowment and Zócalo Public Square., "My Immigrant Students Don't Test Well—But They're Learning", Time,
https://time.com/3942058/immigrant-student-education-resilience/, Accessed on 8-16-2019 // JPark

My students made tremendous progress, but this progress looked like failure on the standardized tests:
Their academic abilities were still far below grade-level and all tests are in English, which they
have not yet mastered. By the time they are seniors, they most certainly will not be able to read Silas Marner. My most
gifted Mam-speaking student is now in 11th grade, and is taking Algebra II in a regular high school class. The young man who was
beaten up in his early days in Oakland is also on track to graduate, but many students have dropped out to have babies and work.
Yet, this is not necessarily a failure. They have learned to speak English and how to read and write. They know that the universe
began with a Big Bang and that paper comes from trees. Over the past 20 years there has been a constant debate about
how to educate immigrants, and most of this debate has focused on the acquisition of English: what
proficiency in English is, how long it should take a student to reach it, and whether total
immersion, bilingual education, or sheltered classes taught in English works best. Recently
there has been an emphasis on cultural awareness and how to integrate this into the curriculum.
All of these things are certainly part of the equation, but I have learned that there is no algorithm, no one ideal way
to address all the needs of all English learners. Because newcomers bring with them a great
variety of skills and come from such diverse academic and cultural backgrounds, programs
must be flexible. We cannot serve these students if we let ourselves be controlled by state and federal
edicts or by the data accumulated by standardized tests and scientific studies. We must meet
students where they are, keeping in mind what they have brought with them. There should be more
vocational programs for students who are not on a college track and partnerships so that students can take hands-on courses in such
fields as health technology, mechanics, and carpentry. When
schools provide newcomers with the extra
support they need and a safe, nurturing, and rigorous academic community, they will make
progress. This progress will not necessarily be evident in the data, but it will be evident to them.
This progress will be the foundation for a new generation of Americans.

Tests are inevitably culturally biased.

Reynolds and Suzuki, Phd, 12 Cecil R. Reynolds Phd Cecil R. Reynolds PhD Texas A& M University, Department of
Educational Psychology, Lisa A. Suzuki PhD, New York University 9-26-2012, "Bias in Psychological Assessment", Wiley Online Library,
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/9781118133880.hop210004, Accessed on 9-30-2019 // JPark

6.1 Culture Fairness, Culture Loading, and Culture Bias A third pair of distinct concepts is cultural
loading and cultural
bias, the former often associated with the concept of culture fairness. Cultural loading is the degree to which a
test or item is specific to a particular culture. A test with greater cultural loading has greater
potential bias when administered to people of diverse cultures. Nevertheless, a test can be culturally
loaded without being culturally biased. An example of a culture‐loaded item might be “Who was Eleanor Roosevelt?” This question
may be appropriate for students who have attended U.S. schools since first grade with curriculum highlighting her importance as a
historical figure in America. The cultural specificity of the question would be too great, however, to permit its use with European and
certainly Asian elementary school students, except perhaps as a test of knowledge of U.S. history. Nearly all standardized tests have
some degree of cultural specificity. Cultural loadings fall on a continuum, with some tests linked to a culture as defined very
generally and liberally and others to a culture as defined very narrowly. Cultural loading, by itself, does not render tests biased or
offensive. Rather, it creates a potential for either problem, which must then be assessed through research. Ramsay (2000; Ramsay &
Reynolds, 2000b) suggested that some characteristics might be viewed as desirable or undesirable in
themselves but others as desirable or undesirable only to the degree that they influence other
characteristics. Test bias against Cuban Americans would itself be an undesirable characteristic. A subtler situation occurs if a
test is both culturally loaded and culturally biased. If the test's cultural loading is a cause of its bias, the
cultural loading is then indirectly undesirable and should be corrected. Alternatively, studies
may show that the test is culturally loaded but unbiased. If so, indirect undesirability due to an
association with bias can be ruled out. Some authors (e.g., Cattell, 1979) have attempted to develop culture‐
fair intelligence tests. These tests, however, are characteristically poor measures from a statistical standpoint
(Anastasi, 1988; Ebel, 1979). In one study, Hartlage, Lucas, and Godwin 1976 compared Raven's Progressive Matrices (RPM), thought
to be culture fair, with the WISC, thought to be culture loaded. The researchers assessed these tests' predictiveness of reading,
spelling, and arithmetic measures with a group of disadvantaged, rural children of low socioeconomic
status (SES). WISC scores consistently correlated higher than RPM scores with the measures examined. The problem may be
that intelligence is defined as adaptive or beneficial behavior within a particular culture. Therefore, a test free from
cultural influence would tend to be free from the influence of intelligence—and to be a poor predictor of
intelligence in any culture. As Reynolds, Lowe et al. 1999 observed, if a test is developed in one culture, its
appropriateness to other cultures is a matter for scientific verification. Test scores should not be given the same interpretations for
different cultures without evidence that those interpretations would be sound.

Resolving anti-immigrant violence is the foremost ethical priority –

standardized tests police linguistic identities and generate violence.
Mäkelä Tampere 7 Hanna MäKelä Tampere, 11-5-2007, University School of Modern Languages and Translation Studies
English Philology Pro Gradu Thesis May 2008, "Legitimating Existence – Gloria Anzaldúa Constructing ...", mafiadoc,
https://mafiadoc.com/legitimating-existence-gloria-anzaldua-constructing-tampub_5a1bd2431723dd7c08aa217c.html, Accessed on
8-20-2019 // JPark

5.3 Identifying the Self and Transcending Duality By clearly stating that the listed languages are the languages and language barriers
of the borderlands, and by resisting the domination of English in her self-expression, Anzaldúa not only points out the depreciatory
attitudes towards Chicano English and towards its speakers, but she also creates an analogous situation for the reader, with which
she herself and other Chicanos have had to deal all their lives. She
transfers the frustration and irritation of the
language barrier and of the sense of not being able to understanding fully what is being
communicated. A reader who does not understand Spanish or Chicano English is thus not able
to understand the full meaning of the messages Borderlands/La Frontera sends out. Similarly, this
is another means of contrasting the Anglo impact and the “indigenous”culture of the Mexican American – implying the difficulties in
communication in
the United States where non-English speakers are shunned and punished, in
schools, in workplaces, in the academia. Language, then, is an essential means for Anzaldúa to
further mediate the barriers and discrimination the border people face. Deleuze and Guattari (1986) list
three characteristics of a minor literature; in it everything about it is political, everything assumes a collective value and “in it
language is affected with a high coefficient of deterritorialization.”To elaborate, Deleuze and Guattari contrast the minor and major
literatures, where in the major literature the environment serves as a mere background setting when the attention is on the
individual protagonist’s needs and opinions, whereas in a minor literature the space is overcrowded with political connotations that
gather up political agenda. What is collective about a minor literature, according to Deleuze and Guattari, is that in it “what each
author says individually already constitutes a common action”, thereby contributing to a collective, national consciousness with its
politicality. Thirdly, a minor literature is a literature built inside a major language by a minority, and therefore it is constructed by
nature.100 To put it simply, a minor literature has a politically charged agenda with which it is trying to saturate the minority with
resistance. Quintessential is thedeterritorialization of the “master”language and literature. In the fifth
essay of Borderlands/La Frontera called “How to Tame a Wild Tongue”Anzaldúa describes the meaning of language as a
means of identity formation. In this essay she also uses to some extent the idea of self-definition through exclusion:
saying what you are by stating what you are not. In this kind of naming oneself the basic binary oppositions
can be used as a starting point, but they soon will prove to be inadequate; in a multicultural and
multi-layered society it does not suffice to define the self merely on the basis of gender or race
or religion or sexual orientation. First it needs to be stated, what exactly is being defined, that is, the
appropriate vocabulary for self- definition needs to be sought. What do you call yourself, who do you allow
to define yourself and most importantly, why do you define yourself and to what ends? In the case of being aware of one’s heritage
and culture, it is just as important, what language is used in the definition of the self. Anzaldúa calls Chicano Spanish a border tongue
that has developed naturally in the borderlands, and argues at the same time, that it is called a deficient and mutilated form of
Spanish by the linguistic purists and by most Latinos. Herrera-Sobek (2006) agrees and notes how Chicano Spanish has “creatively
transformed” English into Spanish by, among other things, adding verbs to the (nonstandard) Spanish lexicon. Herrera-Sobek also
condemns as ignorant people, who
call the Chicano language with derogatory terms such as “gutter”or
“pig” Spanish, and maintains that “there is nothing mysterious about Chicano Spanish. Any
linguist knows the process of language change when two languages are in contact.”101 When
deprived of a legitimate language the Chicano have to sort to other means of expressing themselves by verbal communication –they
have to choose a variant of Spanish that is considered appropriate by the society. Anzaldúa
calls the hegemonious
society’s attack on the language of the Chicano a violation the First Amendment of the American
Constitution.102 For Anzaldúa language is something basically human and intrinsically linked
with the concept of identity and self-expression of people of color: “ethnic identity is twin skin to
linguistic identity –I am my language”103 Nevertheless, because the position of the Chicano between the Anglo- American cultural
values and those of Mexican is still obscure and so is the case with their language, “the struggle of identities continues, the struggle
of orders is our reality still. One day the inner struggle will cease and a true integration take place”. This “integration” would imply
the restoration of the Chicano identity into the identity of the new mestiza, since they are a “synergy of two cultures”, who
possess degrees of identification and acculturation with both cultural spheres.104 As a mestiza
Anzaldúa is neither male nor female, heterosexual or gay, Indian or Spanish, but everything and everywhere –left without
recognition for her gender or race, as well as with no validation for her sexual orientation, she
creates an identiityty unprecedented for herself and others alike: As a mestiza I have no country,
my homeland cast me out; yet all countries are mine because I am everywoman's sister or
potential lover. (As a lesbian I have no race, my own people disclaim me; yet I am all races because there is the queer of me in
all races.) I am cultureless because, as a feminist, I challenge the collective cultural/religious male- derived beliefs of Indo-Hispanics
and Anglos; yet I am cultured because I am participating in the creation of yet another culture [... ]105 Scholl (2001) discusses
hybrid narratives and intersections in identities especially in terms of queer people of color and
argues that their identities cannot be enclosed under any particular category and therefore they
cannot be separately analyzed first in terms of their race, then their ethnicity, then their sexual
identities but through understanding the “particular ways all these identities intersect and are
negotiated.”After this understanding we start to realize the evident complexity of identities in general.106 Anzaldúa is
negotiating the mestiza identity, but she does it inside her Self, and inside Borderlands/La Frontera –no one from outside is called to
take part as an opposite party in the negotiation but as mere listeners as she is in discourse with her Self and her text. Throughout
her work Anzaldúa calls for the cooperation of different oppressed groups: the gay, the subjugated women of color and ethnic
minorities in general. Her social criticism is mostly based on empowering the margin through the mestiza identity and
especially in terms of race and gender, but also in terms of queerness. Anzaldúa strongly relies on the power her writing as a
force capable of reforming the structures of the society, and defines her task as a feminist writer in “La
Prieta”: “I am a wind- swayed bridge, a crossroads inhabited by whirlwinds. Gloria, the facilitator, Gloria the mediator, straddling the
walls between abysses.”107 Moreover: “The rational, the patriarchal and the heterosexual have held sway and legal tender for too
long. Third world women, lesbians, feminists and feminist-oriented men of all colors are banding and bonding together to right that
balance. Only together can we be a force.”108 The
language as well as the identity of the border people
presents itself to Anzaldúa as a synergetic combination of different variations of languages
and influences of cultures, which work with particular degrees of identification with different
contexts: La Raza is to her the common nominator for all Mexican Americans of Indian and
Hispanic or Spanish descent. La Raza is something Anzaldúa identifies with before she calls herself mexicana or Chicana,
so the latter can be seen as subcategories of the first. Still, the words are laden with the weight of the meanings. The choice of
words varies greatly in terms of connotations linked with the specific nominators for the borderlands inhabitants and their
identification with certain cultural or linguistic identities, as she explains: As a culture we call ourselves Spanish when referring
ourselves as a linguistic group and when copping out. It is then that we forget our predominant Indian genes. We are 70 to 80%
Indian. We call ourselves Hispanic or Spanish-American or Latin American or Latin when linking ourselves to other Spanish-speaking
peoples of the Western hemisphere and when copping out. We call ourselves Mexican-American to signify we are neither Mexican
nor American, but more the noun “American” than the adjective “Mexican”(and when copping out).109 Here, “copping out”means
that the Chicano denies their “true”heritage of Indian blood, and try to appear as something other than they (to Anzaldúa) really are
–they have internalized the racism of their environment. Or rather, the borderlanders can be
seen as denying some entities of the minority’s identities by putting forward others.
Fragmentation and attempting to manage in different social situations and contexts is the
main cause for this type of fluidity of identity as well as linguistic code-switching. Deprivation
of a legitimate language leaves the person without an identity and a sense of self, and
therefore other means are essential in surviving the borderlands. For Anzaldúa it is more important to
assert in self-definition rather than subjugating to the naming from outside. Here, the definition of self includes claiming to be a
representative of something other than the dominant culture. In Borderlands/La Frontera Anzaldúa hardly ever calls the Chicano or
herself American, but since it is essential to the expansion of the mestiza consciousness, she on several occasions states the things
she considers herself to be. Showalter (1994) calls these the acts “un-naming and self-naming”–making a statement of what you are
and what you by no means consider yourself being. According to her these acts “have long been fundamental to
cultural identity and self-assertion”110 and in the case of the mestiza, they certainly are. Lorde (1984) argues that for
black men and women it is self-evident that if the black do not define themselves, others will, “for their use and to our
detriment.”111 Moreover, Smith (1977) contends that the almost non-existing literature of Black lesbian women has “everything to
do with the politics of our lives, the total suppression of identity that all Black women, lesbian or not, must face.”112 In the
American society the situation of the black is parallel to that of the Chicano –they too are trying to find ways of resistance and ways
of empowerment. In Borderlands/La Frontera Anzaldúa talks about the sense of being nothing or of not existing, when the Anglo
and the Chicano cultures cancel each other’s influences out: “we are zero, nothing, no one. A veces no soy nada ni nadie. Pero hasta
cuando no lo soy, lo soy.”The Spanish would translate to “at times I am nothing and no one. But until I am nothing, I am
something.”113 Anzaldúa goes on to describing what she does identify with: When not copping out, when we know we are more
than nothing, we call ourselves Mexican, referring to race and ancestry; mestizo when affirming both our Indian and Spanish (but we
hardly ever own our Black ancestry); Chicano when referring to a politically aware people born and/or raised in the U.S.; Raza when
referring to Chicanos; tejanos when we are Chicanos from Texas.114 From
the passage one could conclude that
voicing your multiple heritage is a way of becoming to terms and empowering your culture’s
legacy and thus, by simultaneously voicing your marginality you own it. When the declaration
is performed by the person him/herself, it brings authority to the Self. Anzaldúa does not fail to point out the
suppressive nature of Chicano Spanish towards women, and that “language is a male discourse”, using as an example the word
“nosostras”spoken by Puerto Ricans and Cubans, stating her shock of realizing there exists a female form of us in Spanish, when
Chicanas had always referred to themselves as “nosostros”and “were robbed of our female being by the masculine plural.”115 As
she points out how the Chicano society labels girls and women as gossips or liars for talking too much, or how the Latino society
named speakers of Chicano Spanish as cultural traitors ruining the Spanish language, she draws attention to both linguistic sexism as
well as linguistic terrorism inside the language users, inside her own culture.116 Anzaldúa is trying to make the
Chicanos and especially the Chicana women aware of the linguistic terrorism and to resist it by not being ashamed or afraid of using
their language. A way to cope in the pressure of the borderlands is to transcend and break down
everyday dualities in the society through resistance. The aim is to break free from mental and
other conformation to outer influences, and to change the way one thinks. The change has to come
from inside the oppressed body, otherwise it will not be effective. Changing the common thought-patterns and
questioning the society’s dichotomies is the first step to transcending the limits imposed by
the various cultures in the borderlands: The work of mestiza consciousness is to break down the subject-object
duality that keeps her a prisoner and to show how in the flesh and through the images of her work how duality is transcended. The
answer to the problem between the white race and the colored, between males and females, lies in healing the split that originates
in the very foundation of our lives, our culture, our languages, our thoughts. A
massive uprooting of dualistic
thinking in the individual and collective thinking is the beginning of a long struggle, but one that
could, in our best hopes, bring us to the end of rape, of violence, of war.117 In other words, the crucial change in the society will
only be achieved through empowering the margin and altering the ways of thinking among the Chicano/a, starting from the
individual and ending in the collective mind of the minority. The expansive, border-crossing new mestiza consciousness is intricately
characterized by hybridity, flexibility, and plurality, and this is clearly shown in the way Anzaldúa identifies
herself as a “Chicana dyke-feminist, tejana patlache118 poet, writer, and cultural theorist”119. For the social change to happen, the
mestizaje process was needed to resist thinking along the lines of conventional binary opposites. Division between concepts such as
male and female, white and of color, hetero-and homosexual, etc. had to be disposed of conclusively. In other words, Anzaldúa
wanted to show the Chicano that if she can name herself all the things once thought to be pejorative, and still be proud of her mixed
background, others could follow her example. Thus
liberation from the racialised, sexualized and genderized
society’s dichotomies could be reached.
The aff spills over to better material change – there’s an ethical obligation to do
it.
Dandaneau 18 [Steven P. Dandaneau, sociology from Brandeis] "Dr. King and Standardized
Testing," No Publication, https://firstgen.naspa.org/blog/dr-king-and-standardized-testing 4-2-
2018 RE
That’s where the USC Center for Enrollment Research, Policy, and Practice meeting provides reason for hope. To hear tell of it, many
who gathered placed standardized testing in the crosshairs. Based on decades of compelling historical, statistical, theoretical and
educational research—not to mention mountains of anecdotal experience—a
new generation of enrollment experts
argue that test optional admission and scholarship decisions should give way to test-adverse
policies and practices. If the ACT, SAT, and their kin epitomize institutional discrimination—
culturally biased, geared to ratify rather than subvert existing class inequalities, susceptible to
gaming, derived from theoretically and historically disreputable sources--why would educators
not reject their use and warn students away from them? Yet, year after year, these exams are
used to erect predictable barriers for students who, for no fault of their own, were born, raised,
and schooled in the bottom half of the social class system.¶ Vested interests will protest. The morally
lazy will prefer the status quo. But when did Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. or the many in league with him in the struggle for
social justice abide predictable discrimination, countenance systemic injury and harm, turn a blind eye to intellectual bankruptcy?¶
A successful national movement to eliminate use of standardized tests for admissions and
scholarship allocation would strike a blow against prevailing inequality and injustice in higher
education. No single alternative reform would do more to make our institutions more first-
generation student-ready, first, by eliminating the perhaps greatest barrier to access and
affordability, and, second, by fostering a learning environment in which the diversity of
intelligences and life experiences is recognized and respected. It would not solve all our problems nor render
schooling in America fair and democratic. It would be a significant leap in the right direction, and it might
inspire additional forms of social change.¶ I had occasion during my university’s celebration of Dr. King’s legacy to
share some of these ideas with colleagues. I was surprised at how many readily agreed that standardized testing would be useless
were it not for its odious discriminatory consequences. Two physicists reported that, from their vantage, the GRE was as unhelpful
as standardized exams aimed at prospective undergraduate students. Our new Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer interviewed for
his position, in part, by sharing his personal, if you will, score-story; how a scarlet letter ACT nearly prevented him from gaining
access to higher education. In my work, I often speak with prospective students and their families about honors opportunities. Few
respond with anything but recognition and gratitude for efforts to disavow the value of standardized test results. This includes
students whose scores place them in the highest percentiles.¶ I would venture that few
are vested in standardized
testing. Most, I believe, would welcome its demise and the flourishing in its wake of
multifaceted evaluation of genuine merit and discernable potential, increase in need-based
institutional aid, and heightened awareness concerning both overt and subtle forms of class
privilege. Most would welcome the expansion of opportunity and diversity, and reintroduction
of primary reliance on sensitive and skilled scholarly judgment in admissions decisions and
scholarship allocation. If Dr. King were with us, I think he would march against standardized tests. Reiteration of his dream
aside, today’s educational leaders might honor Dr. King’s social justice legacy by taking it upon
themselves, as only they can, to eliminate standardized testing from higher education.

Only structural violence can explain material situations. Bagg 16

Samuel Bagg 16, Department of Political Science, Duke University, “Between Critical and
Normative Theory: Predictive Political Theory as a Deweyan Realism,” Political Research
Quarterly June 2016 vol. 69 no. 2 233-244
We could admit, first of all, that resolving disagreement about predicted consequences is useful, and nonetheless maintain that this
is simply not the domain of political theory and philosophy. Those who are understandably weary of efforts to scientize the
humanities might object that this sort of “pragmatism,” though perhaps on the wane in Philosophy departments in the mid-20th
century, began to dominate Political Science with the “behavioral revolution,” and that “predictive” political theory is simply another
name for social science as it developed after Dewey’s death. This objection, however nobly motivated, is misplaced: in short, it is
exactly because we are not scientists in any strict sense that making these kinds of predictions is our
job. The world is not so courteous as to present us only with a limited number of well-defined variables with limited interactions, as
we noted above, nor unlimited time to experiment with different forms of social life. In order to aid important political

judgments, we need to envision the consequences of large-scale changes to material

circumstances, social norms, political institutions, and cultural narratives ; tasks ill suited, in other
words, to the precise tools of science. The role of political theorists, on this conception, is not to do primary
research on the effects of particular empirical interventions, but to synthesize the best work
from a number of diverse fields, including but not limited to the social sciences, making larger-scale
predictions about the consequences of actions and interventions that cannot be tested
scientifically . To call this inherently more speculative practice “prediction,” of course, is to stretch the normal scientific
meaning of the word, as Dewey acknowledged. It is worth adopting his somewhat provocative usage, however, in order to
emphasize the continuity between these practices, which is too often ignored by those on both sides of the ill-conceived descriptive-
prescriptive divide. Using a common language of prediction highlights the ways in which these modes of inquiry ought to discipline
and learn from one another. In response, then, it might be argued that social scientists, who can evaluate the relevant empirical studies with greater precision and reliability, are still better
positioned than political theorists to “discipline” the more expansive and imaginative form of prediction envisioned by Dewey.9 By contrast, it could be added, the sorts of expertise developed by political theorists
are not particularly relevant to the needs of large-scale prediction. The objection is instructive, and several answers to it are necessary. First, we must admit that it contains some truth. At present, many political
theorists lack the tools necessary to properly interpret and synthesize the relevant findings of other fields. Thus, adopting a Deweyan method of inquiry is not entirely inert: at least some of us should change what
we are doing and learn the tools we need to best undertake this kind of large-scale, synthetic prediction. Nevertheless, there are good reasons to think that political theorists are the right disciplinary community
for the job. Consider first our somewhat idiosyncratic devotion to the study of canonical figures in the history of political thought, many of whom – from Aristotle to Hobbes, Rousseau, Marx, and of course Dewey
himself – were not only or even primarily political philosophers. As thinkers of a realist bent are fond of reminding us, political theorists have always drawn from and even contributed to the study of history,
psychology, economics, and whatever else was available to them, often because they have hoped to make exactly the sort of large-scale predictions Dewey recommends. In advocating an approach to political
philosophy grounded in “social theories of power” rather than first principles, for example, Jacob Levy (2015) observes in a realist spirit that if such a social-theoretic approach is “sometimes absent from
contemporary normative theory… that is one reason for looking to the history of political thought, where a greater methodological richness can be found” (4). Political theorists’ training in the history of political
thought therefore has two important implications: first, that we are already accustomed to grappling with this kind of imaginative prediction; and second, that adopting a similarly “interdisciplinary” approach in
our own constructive work does not change the fundamental character of the discipline. Of course, one might think that with the increasing sophistication in our methods of knowledge production since the age of
Aristotle or even of Dewey, there is a good reason we now typically sort ourselves into disciplines. In a sense, this is undeniably true: one cannot hope to be at the forefront of so many fields at once, in the way
that some of these classical figures could. Even now, however, it is not impossible to ground one’s theoretical perspective in a broad, interdisciplinary understanding of human beings and human societies. Indeed,
we might say something even stronger: to be at the forefront of political theory often requires some sort of interdisciplinary synthesis.10 Consider the work, for example, of thinkers as diverse as Elizabeth
Anderson, Anthony Appiah, William Connolly, Jon Elster, Sharon Krause, Helene Landemore, Martha Nussbaum, James Scott, Ian Shapiro, and Cass Sunstein, each of whom treats traditional texts alongside work in
the social and cognitive sciences. Of course, it is not just quantitative and explicitly experimental knowledge that deserves inclusion – the humanities and interpretive social sciences are also essential to the
integrative understanding envisioned here. Since political theorists are more accustomed to using such resources, it does not merit as much attention here, but it does count as yet another reason that it is political
theorists and not social scientists trained explicitly in quantitative methods who are the most natural fit for the sort of prediction I have in mind, which is not simply a kind of statistical meta-analysis. Perhaps most
importantly, in fact, the very critical and normative methods which a predictive approach seeks to transcend are nonetheless crucial background for its pursuit. Though critical theorists are led astray when they
refuse to make any consciously constructive contributions to democratic judgment, for example, Foucault and others are right to challenge the normalizing effects of academic discourses, and the authority with
which we presume to perpetuate them. Thus, it is only with an acute sensitivity to these dangers that we ought to proceed in predictive inquiry. Similarly, though analytic normative theorists have a problematic
tendency to proliferate abstract discussion of principles at the expense of concrete inquiry into the particular situations of judgment we face, these principles often serve as excellent heuristics, pointing our
attention in particularly fruitful directions when examining those concrete circumstances. It is at least partly through engagement with critical and normative theory, in other words, that we become attuned to a
genuine diversity of perspectives, the moral patterns which permeate social life, and the relentlessly subtle ways in which power structures our experience. This traditional sort of “expertise” is as relevant as ever
to political theory in a broadly predictive mode. Despite its scientific inspiration and the language of hypothesis testing, therefore, we should not mistake Dewey’s project for a naïve scientism; an attempt to make
political theory more “objective” or “rational.” As we saw above, his reading of Darwin leads him to question the possibility of a singular rationality. In his interpretations of Dewey, Richard Rorty (1982; 1989) has
emphasized the role of narrative and artistic imagining, which for Dewey is indeed a necessary part of the process of social intelligence: “The first intimations of wide and large redirections of desire and purpose
are of necessity imaginative. Art is a mode of prediction not found in charts and statistics, and it insinuates possibilities of human relations not to be found in rule and precept, admonition and administration” (LW
10, 352, emphasis added). Rorty imagines that this justifies a surrender of philosophy to poetry – that is, a surrender of logic to narrative (1989, 26). Dewey recognized, however, that we can also go beyond these
first intimations about new forms of life, projecting our more systematic social and historical inquiry into the future. For Dewey, art and statistics are both moments of a continuous practice of predictive inquiry,
each with irreplaceable contributions to make. What
a Deweyan perspective recommends, specifically, is leveraging an integrated, interdisciplinary
understanding of human societies to think through the predicted effects of potential “interventions” on larger scales than is possible
to predict scientifically. We might do our best, for example, to imagine all of the various consequences of large-scale racial
integration, as Elizabeth Anderson (2010) does in The Imperative of Integration. Anderson, a pragmatist explicitly inspired by Dewey,
adopts of a wide array of disciplinary lenses to make a synthetic argument that is irreducible to any of them, demonstrating
predictive political theory at its best. Others have applied similar methods in evaluating competing regimes for maintaining civic
“virtue” (McTernan 2014), achieving deliberative conversions (Bagg 2015), enabling secondorder social reflexivity (Aligica 2014; Bell
2015; Knight and Johnson 2011), and weakening the effect of money in politics (Lessig 2011). We
can imagine similarly
wide-ranging predictive approaches to proposed interventions like instituting reparations for
slavery , changing our understandings of marriage, abolishing prisons, enforcing strict norms of gender
equality, opening borders , undermining norms of individual responsibility, or imposing global redistributive
taxes on capital. These proposals vary in feasibility, for judgments about which long-term ideals to
promote in the broader public sphere are just as real, situated, and pressing, as judgments
about which policies to support in the short term . In fact, since legal theorists and scholars of public policy do
occasionally engage in predictive inquiry regarding proposed adjustments to legal and institutional regimes, it is with regard to long-
term ideals – and, crucially, all manner of extra-legal norms, discourses, and narratives – that political theorists may have the most
to contribute. This brings us, then, to our second major objection: that however valuable it may be for political theorists to do, this task does not respond in any obvious way to realist demands. Again, we
must admit from the start that there is some truth to this objection, especially if we assume that contemporary realism is closely tied to classical realists such as Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes. One familiar
doctrine that might be associated with “realism,” for instance, is that because humans are inherently selfish, they could never attain the levels of social cooperation necessary for socialist, communist, or even
liberal internationalist goals. Though this particular claim is not widely-held among contemporary realists, several do exhibit a fear of “utopian” speculation in general, recommending instead an emphasis on basic
security from violence and cruelty.11 From this perspective, speculation about open borders and prison abolition must appear quite fantastical. To those who support such radical goals, meanwhile, “realism”
might seem an odd label for Dewey’s progressive experimentalism. Nevertheless, we can defend a Deweyan predictive approach as a variety of realism in two ways: first, by distinguishing between “substantive”
and “methodological” realism; and second, by emphasizing again the significance of extra-legal norms. It must be admitted that a certain element of the broader realist tradition is pessimistic about the
possibilities of cooperation and skeptical of utopian speculation – an attitude we may call “substantive” realism. Nonetheless, this is only one part of realist tradition, and it is one that contemporary realists have
de-emphasized. In his pivotal “manifesto” for the realist movement, for example, William Galston (2010) summarizes its four basic components: “the injunction to take politics seriously as a particular field of
human endeavor; the proposition that civil order is the sine qua non for every other political good; the emphasis on the evaluation and comparison of institutions and regimetypes, not only principles; and the call
for a more complex moral and political psychology” (408). Of these four, only the second – an emphasis on civil order – plausibly implies a pessimistic “substantive” account of human possibility, and even this
allows for more ambitious political schemes once the demand for order has been satisfied. The other three components, by contrast, are conducive to a wide variety
of social and political projects. Largely eschewing the blanket pessimism of their classical forebears, contemporary
realists are more likely to endorse what might be called “methodological” realism – i.e., a commitment to political
theory that is comparative, contextual , psychologically rich, institutionally innovative, and
grounded in specific situations of political judgment . These commitments, then, are plainly aligned with the
Deweyan approach elaborated here, which gives the lie to any necessary connection between a realist methodology and a
pessimistic, conservative, or quietist conception of the substantive goals to which we may aspire. Pace those partisans of abstraction
who cry “utopophobia” at any mention of particularity or constraint in political philosophy (Estlund 2014), we need not abandon
methodological realism just because we reject the conservatism of certain classical realists. Indeed, we
may productively
advocate for quite radical institutional proposals, such as prison abolition or open borders –
just so long as we do so responsibly, acknowledging the work that must be done to render
those proposals feasible. As this caveat makes clear, a predictive approach does recommend a certain degree of caution.
A Deweyan realist will maintain that such apparently infeasible ideals as prison abolition and open borders may be useful in certain
situations of judgment, as when expressing long-term goals for society. However, she will also readily admit that they will not
typically be called for in everyday political situations requiring collective action, which are highly
constrained by the dispositions of others. In such circumstances, radical action can easily turn
out to be counterproductive , and as noted above, the point is definitively not to engage in reckless
experimentation for experimentation’s sake. Rather, it is the express purpose of predictive
political theory to consider which experiments are worth trying, and under what
circumstances; precisely to avoid, in other words, the sort of rash, irresponsible
“experiments” that have brought us everything from Stalin’s gulag and Mao’s famine to US
misadventures in Latin America and the Middle East. Far from tempering our enthusiasm for
the predictive enterprise, such examples reinforce its vital necessity . Methodological realism can help us
to distinguish when substantive realism is appropriate, and when it may be relaxed.
Thus the standard is minimizing oppression. Prefer additionally—
1] All other frameworks presume an equal starting point which creates
exclusion – that makes them arbitrary which is a side constraint on ethics
because ethics should apply to everyone.
2] Moral theorizing starts with material violence, no one would ever
complain/think of moral system unless they didn’t like the current situation,
they have material harms inflicted upon them or they wouldn’t care enough to
start thinking Why it is bad this is occurring so the AC framework is binding.
The affirmative is a form of scenario analysis that imagines a different world in
a stubborn criticism of the present. It is a persistent, willful critique against the
present that opens the opportunity for empirical analysis and constructive
action.
Kenter Kenter, Renate, and Hugo de Grootkade. "The art of the possible." The Scenario Method and the “Third Debate” in
International Relations Theory, Università di Amsterdam (1998). // JPark

I want to argue that in the ‘Third Debate’ international relations theory incorporates the ‘linguistic turn’(see note 5, p. 5), which
requires discursive methods, that is, methods which rely on and involve discourses or stories and narrative explanation. (J.W. Lacey,
1996, p.134) Another
requirement of post-positivist methods is that they should be able to
extend inquiry to interpretation and policy in an attempt to move beyond the modernist
methodological limit of prediction and control21 . To do so means to shift the emphasis on explaining and
understanding - which nevertheless remain a crucial part of the process - to (multiple) interpretation and evaluation through
communication and language. I think that the focus of these methods should mainly be on the present
and future, in and for which they should aim to provide ways for concrete and constructive
action. This shift of emphasis is related to the theoretical focus on boundaries and innovation. A post-positivist method
should, instead of determining which data fit in which category, provide a way of exploring
and questioning the boundaries of these categories and of the theories which construct(ed)
them. The latter requires room for reflexivity on theories the method draws from - and on ideas and assumptions upon which it is
based - as an integral part of the method itself. In addition to this, reflexivity on the scientist’s ‘situation’ (see p. 14) In order to be
able to find innovative solutions to current, practical problems, to develop policies which deal with actual situations and to maintain
the ‘limit attitude’ in praxis and theory, a post-positive method should provide a framework with which it is possible to
assess/interpret multiple options involving certainties, supposed certainties and uncertainties. In
order to be able to be
innovative/creative, I believe that imagination, instinct, personal experience etc. should be
taken up as important tools with which these assessments/interpretations are to be
developed. The focus on present and future combined with the one on boundaries and innovation has consequences for the
kind of questions asked. The main question added will be: ‘what if?’ Peter Schwartz experience in this context is that: Social scientist
often have a hard time [using the scenario method], they have been trained to stay from “What if?” questions and concentrate on
“What was?” (P. Schwartz, 1991, p. 31) I believe, the scenario method qualifies as a post-positivist method. It
meets most of the above made requirements. It is a discursive method, which involves storytelling. It moves
beyond modernist ‘prediction and control’, because scenarios do not try to predict the future.
If they did, the future would be presented as a certainty over which there is total control. Instead they try to structure
our perceptions and interpretations of it, therewith aiming at a broader understanding of the
present, but leaving it open at the same time. The future remains uncertain and one can only try to think through
possibilities, without having total control. There is an element of control, though. By using scenarios you try
to get prepared for and to get some grip on uncertainties. So, while the future unfolds you will be able to
respond adequately. Especially focused and decision scenario’s provide ways to determine a concrete
course of action. The stories provide the space in which boundaries of both category22 and theory can be explored and
(imaginatively) be (re)drawn. Stories are not bound or restricted by ‘reality’. The scenario method aims
at being reflexive, and it can be argued that ‘good’ scenarios can only be written when they
are preceded by a deep-searching reflexive process. However, ‘deep- searching reflexivity’ is hard to define. Just
looking for ‘disconfirming’ information and maintaining a self-reflective attitude (see p. 30) might not be enough. In order to further
integrate reflexivity in the scenario method, I want to argue that parts of other methodologies could be attached to it. I will
elaborate on this later (see p. 67) Another required addition is a section in which the people who have taken part in the making of
the scenarios elaborate on their personal situation. Thescenario method is set up to structure uncertainties
and make them an integral part of thinking. Again stories provide the perfect framework to do
this in. Multiple options can be assessed, interpreted and intersected. The perceived certainties and
uncertainties involved can be combined in multiple ways, which enables people to structurally
explore and think them through. Scenarios leave plenty of room for imagination, personal experience etc. They also
leave room for the incorporation of empirical data or results acquired with other (scientific)
methods. All can be addressed in the stories. Thus, the scenario method can easily be combined with other research. Added to
this is the scenario method’s adaptability to scale. You can make scenarios on your own or with a small/large group of people. You
can use them for all sorts of topics ranging from very broad to very specific. Depending on the combination of the above mentioned
variables you can determine in what part(s) of a larger (research) process scenarios are useful or what kind of conclusions/actions
can be drawn from them. Pierre Wack tried to do so by distinguishing learning and decision scenarios. (see p. 29)

Ongoing violence outweighs.

Jackson 12 [Richard; 8/5/12; Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Canterbury, Professor of Peace Studies at the
University of Otago, Director of the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, former senior lecturer at the University of
Manchester; Richard Jackson Terrorism Blog, “The Great Con of National
Security,” https://richardjacksonterrorismblog.wordpress.com/2012/08/05/the-great-con-of-national-security/; // ABML]

It may have once been the case that being attacked by another country was a major threat to the lives of ordinary people. It
may also be
true that there are still some pretty serious dangers out there associated with the spread of
nuclear weapons. For the most part, however, most of what you’ve been told about national security and all the big threats which
can supposedly kill you is one big con designed to distract you from the things that can really hurt you, such as the poverty,

inequality and structural violence of capitalism, global warming, and the manufacture and
proliferation of weapons – among others. The facts are simple and irrefutable: you’re far more likely to die from lack
of health care provision than you are from terrorism; from stress and overwork than Iranian or North Korean nuclear missiles;
from lack of road safety than from illegal immigrants; from mental illness and suicide than from computer hackers; from

domestic violence than from asylum seekers; from the misuse of legal medicines and alcohol abuse than from
international drug lords. And yet, politicians and the servile media spend most of their time talking about the threats

posed by terrorism, immigration, asylum seekers, the international drug trade, the nuclear programmes
of Iran and North Korea, computer hackers, animal rights activism, the threat of China, and a host of other

issues which are all about as equally unlikely to affect the health and well-being of you and your family. Along with this
obsessive and perennial discussion of so-called ‘national security issues’, the state spends truly vast sums on security measures which have virtually no
impact on the actual risk of dying from these threats, and then engages in massive displays of ‘security theatre’ designed to show just
how seriously the state takes these threats – such as the x-ray machines and security measures in every public building, surveillance cameras
everywhere, missile launchers in urban areas, drones in Afghanistan, armed police in airports, and a thousand other things. This display is meant to
convince you that these threats are really, really serious. And while all this is going on, the rulers of society are hoping that you won’t
notice that increasing social and economic inequality in society leads to increased ill health for a growing underclass; that suicide and
crime always rise when unemployment rises; that workplaces remain highly dangerous and kill and maim hundreds of people per year; that there are
preventable diseases which plague the poorer sections of society; that domestic violence kills and injures thousands of women and children annually;
and that globally, poverty and preventable disease kills tens of millions of people needlessly every year. In other words, they are hoping that you won’t
notice how much structural violence there is in the world. More than this, they are hoping that you won’t notice that while literally trillions of
dollars are spent on military weapons, foreign wars and security theatre (which also arguably do
nothing to make any us any safer, and may even make us marginally less safe), that domestic violence programmes struggle to provide
even minimal support for women and children at risk of serious harm from their partners; that underfunded mental health programmes mean long
waiting lists to receive basic care for at-risk individuals; that drug and alcohol rehabilitation programmes lack the funding to match the demand for
help; that welfare measures aimed at reducing inequality have been inadequate for decades; that
health and safety measures at many workplaces remain insufficiently resourced; and that measures to tackle global warming

and developing alternative energy remain hopelessly inadequate. Of course, none of this is
surprising. Politicians are a part of the system; they don’t want to change it. For them, all the insecurity, death and ill-health caused by

capitalist inequality are a price worth paying to keep the basic social structures as they are. A more
egalitarian society based on equality, solidarity, and other non-materialist values would not suit their interests, or the special interests of the lobby
groups they are indebted to. It is also true that dealing with economic and social inequality, improving public health, changing international structures
of inequality, restructuring the military-industrial complex, and making the necessary economic and political changes to deal with global

warming will be extremely difficult and will require long-term commitment and determination. For politicians looking towards
the next election, it is clearly much easier to paint immigrants as a threat to social order or pontificate about the ongoing danger of terrorists. It is also
more exciting for the media than stories about how poor people and people of colour are discriminated against and suffer worse health as a
consequence. Viewed from this vantage point, national
security is one massive confidence trick – misdirection on an epic
scale. Its primary function is to distract you from the structures and inequalities in society which are the real threat to the health and
wellbeing of you and your family, and to convince you to be permanently afraid so that you will acquiesce to all the security measures which keep you
under state control and keep the military-industrial complex ticking along. Keep this in mind next time you hear a politician talking about the threat of
uncontrolled immigration, the risk posed by asylum seekers or the threat of Iran, or the need to expand counter-terrorism powers. The question is:
when politicians are talking about national security, what is that they don’t want you to think and talk about? What exactly is the misdirection they are
engaged in? The truth is, if you think that terrorists or immigrants or asylum seekers or Iran are a greater threat to your safety than the capitalist
system, you have been well and truly conned, my friend. Don’t believe the hype: you’re much more likely to die from any one of
several forms of structural violence in society than you are from immigrants or terrorism. Somehow, we need to challenge the politicians on
this fact