This gendered security discourse causes inevitable violence and war that turns the case. Rejecting the 1AC opens up space for a feminist reconceptualization of security.
Shepherd 7 [Laura J., Department of Political Science and International Studies, University of Birmingham, “Victims, Perpetrators and Actors’ Revisited:1 Exploring the Potential for a Feminist Reconceptualisation of (International) Security and (Gender) Violence,” BJPIR: 2007 VOL 9, 239–256]
As Spike Peterson and Jacqui True comment, ‘our sense of self-identity and security may seem disproportionately threatened by societal challenge to gender ordering’ (Peterson and True 1998, 17). That is, the performance of gender is immanent in the performance of security and vice versa, both concern issues of ontological cohesion (as illustrated in Table 2). Taking this on board leads me to the conclusion that perhaps security is best conceived of as referring to ontological rather than existential identity effects. Security, if seen as performative of particular configura- tions of social/political order, is inherently gendered and inherently related to violence. Violence, on this view, performs an ordering function—not only in the theory/practice of security and the reproduction of the international, but also in the reproduction of gendered subjects. Butler acknowledges that ‘violence is done in the name of preserving western values’ (Butler 2004, 231); that is, the ordering function that is performed through the violences investigated here, as discussed above, organises political authority and subjectivity in an image that is in keeping with the values of the powerful, often at the expense of the marginalised. ‘Clearly, the west does not author all violence, but it does, upon suffering or anticipating injury, marshal violence to preserve its borders, real or imaginary’ (ibid.). While Butler refers to the violences undertaken in the protection of the sovereign state—violence in the name of security—the preservation of borders is also recognisable in the conceptual domain of the inter- national and in the adherence to a binary materiality of gender. This adherence is evidenced in the desire to fix the meaning of concepts in ways that are not challenging to the current configuration of social/political order and subjectivity, and is product/productive of ‘the exclusionary presuppositions and foundations that shore up discursive practices insofar as those foreclose the heterogeneity, gender, class or race of the subject’ (Hanssen 2000, 215). However, the terms used to describe political action and plan future policy could be otherwise imagined. They could ‘remain that which is, in the present, never fully owned, but always and only redeployed, twisted, queered from prior usage and in the direction of urgent and expanding political purposes’ (Butler 1993, 228). The concepts both produced by and productive of policy could reflect an aversion to essentialism, while recognising that strategic gains can be made through the temporary binding of identities to bodies and constraining of authority within the confines of the territorial state. This is, in short, an appeal to a politics of both/and rather than either/or. Both the state (produced through representations of security and vio- lence) and the subject (produced through representations of gender and violence) rely on a logic of sovereignty and ontological cohesion that must be problematised if alternative visions of authority and subjectivity are to become imaginable. International Relations as a discipline could seek to embrace the investigation of the multiple modalities of power, from the economic to the bureaucratic, from neo- liberal capitalism to the juridical. Rather than defending the sovereign boundaries of the discipline from the unruly outside constituted by critical studies of develop- ment, political structures, economy and law, not to mention the analysis of social/ political phenomena like those undertaken by always-already interdisciplinary feminist scholarship, IR could refuse to fix its own boundaries, and refuse to exercise sovereign power, in terms of authority, over the meanings of its objects of analysis. Future research on global politics could look very different if it were not for the inscription of ultimately arbitrary disciplinary borderlines that function to constrain rather than facilitate understanding. It may seem that there is a tension between espousing a feminist poststructural politics and undertaking research that seeks to detail, through deconstruction, the ways in which particular discourses have failed to manifest the reforms needed to address security and violence in the context of gendered subjectivity and the constitution of political community. In keeping with the ontological position I hold, I argue that there is nothing inherent in the concepts of (international) security and (gender) violence that necessitated their being made meaningful in the way they have been. Those working on policy and advocacy in the area of security and violence can usethereconceptualisation I offer ‘to enable people to imagine how their being-in-the-world is not only changeable, but perhaps, ought to be changed’ (Milliken 1999, 244). As a researcher, the questionI have grown most used to hearing is not ‘What?’ or ‘How?’ but ‘Why?’. At every level of the research process, from securing funding to relating to the academic community, it is necessary to be able to construct a convincing and coherent argument as to why this research is valuable, indeed vital, to the field in which I situate myself. A discursive approach acknowledges that my legitimacy as a knowing subject is constructed through discursive practices that privilege some forms of being over others. In the study of security, because of the discursive power of the concept, and of violence, which can quite literally be an issue of life and death, these considerations are particularly important. Further- more, as a result of the invigorating and investigative research conducted by exemplary feminist scholars in the field of IR,17 I felt encouraged to reclaim the space to conduct research at the margins of a discipline that itself functions under a misnomer, being concerned as it is with relations inter-state rather than inter- national. As Cynthia Enloe has expressed it, To study the powerful is not autocratic, it is simply reasonable. Really? ... It presumes a priori that margins, silences and bottom rungs are so natu- rally marginal, silent and far from power that exactly how they are kept there could not possibly be of interest to the reasoning, reasonable explainer (Enloe 1996, 188, emphasis in original). If this is the case, I am more than happy to be unreasonable, and I am in excellent company.
Patriarchy lead to war, prolif, environmental destruction, and eventually extinction
Warren and Cady 94—Warren is the Chair of the Philosophy Department at Macalester College and Cady is Professor of Philosophy at Hamline University (Karen and Duane, “Feminism and Peace: Seeing Connections”, p. 16, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3810167.pdf, JB)
Operationalized, the evidence of patriarchy as a dysfunctional system is found in the behaviors to which it gives rise, (c), and the unmanageability, (d), which results. For example, in the United States, current estimates are that one out of every three or four women will be raped by someone she knows; globally, rape, sexual harassment, spouse-beating, and sado-masochistic pornography are examples of behaviors practiced, sanctioned, or tolerated within patriarchy. In the realm of environmentally destructive behaviors, strip-mining, factory farming, and pollution of the air, water, and soil are instances of behaviors maintained and sanctioned within patriarchy. They, too, rest on the faulty beliefs that it is okay to "rape the earth," that it is "man's God-given right" to have dominion (that is, domination) over the earth, that nature has only instrumental value, that environmental destruction is the acceptable price we pay for "progress."And the presumption of warism, that war is a natural, righteous, and ordinary way to impose dominion on a people or nation, goes hand in hand with patriarchy and leads to dysfunctional behaviors of nations and ultimately to international unmanageability. Much of the current" unmanageability" of contemporary life in patriarchal societies, (d), is then viewed as a consequence of a patriarchal preoccupation with activities, events, and experiences that reflect historically male-gender identified beliefs, values, attitudes, and assumptions. Included among these real-life consequences are precisely those concerns with nuclear proliferation, war, environmental destruction, and violence toward women, which many feminists see as the logical outgrowth of patriarchal thinking. In fact, it is often only through observing these dysfunctional behaviors-the symptoms of dysfunctionality that one can truly see that and how patriarchy serves to maintain and perpetuate them. When patriarchy is understood as a dysfunctional system, this "unmanageability" can be seen for what it is-as a predictable and thus logical consequence of patriarchy.'1 The theme that global environmental crises, war, and violence generally are predictable and logical consequences of sexism and patriarchal culture is pervasive in ecofeminist literature (see Russell 1989, 2). Ecofeminist Charlene Spretnak, for instance, argues that "militarism and warfare are continual features of a patriarchal society because they reflect and instill patriarchal values and fulfill needs of such a system. Acknowledging the context of patriarchal conceptualizations that feed militarism is a first step toward reducing their impact and preserving life on Earth" (Spretnak 1989, 54). Stated in terms of the foregoing model of patriarchy as a dysfunctional social system, the claims by Spretnak and other feminists take on a clearer meaning: Patriarchal conceptual frameworks legitimate impaired thinking (about women, national and regional conflict, the environment) which is manifested in behaviors which, if continued, will make life on earth difficult, if not impossible. It is a stark message, but it is plausible. Its plausibility lies in understanding the conceptual roots of various woman-nature-peace connections in regional, national, and global contexts.
Patriarchy is the root cause of war and will lead to nuclear holocaust
Reardon 93 [Betty, Women and peace: feminist visions of global security, p.31]
A clearly visible element in the escalating tensions among militarized nations is the macho posturing and the patriarchal ideal of dominance, not parity, which motivates defense ministers and government leaders to “strut their stuff” as we watch with increasing horror. Most men in our patriarchal culture are still acting out old patterns that are radically inappropriate for the nuclear age. To prove dominance and control, to distance one’s character from that of women, to survive the toughest violent initiation, to shed the sacred blood of the hero, to collaborate with death in order to hold it at bay—all of these patriarchal pressures on men have traditionally reached resolution in ritual fashion on the battlefield. But there is no longer any battlefield. Does anyone seriously believe that if a nuclear power were losing a crucial, large-scale conventional war it would refrain from using its multiple-warhead nuclear missiles because of some diplomatic agreement? The military theater of a nuclear exchange today would extend, instantly or eventually, to all living things, all the air, all the soil, all the water.If we believe that war is a “necessary evil,” that patriarchal assumptions are simply “human nature,” then we are locked into a lie, paralyzed. The ultimate result of unchecked terminal patriarchy will be nuclear holocaust. The causes of recurrent warfare are not biological. Neither are they solely economic. They are also a result of patriarchal ways of thinking, which historically have generated considerable pressure for standing armies to be used.
War is the product of gendered understandings of life in which the masculine dominates the feminine – it can be removed only when these understandings change
Workman 96 (Thom, Poli Sci @ U of New Brunswick, YCISS Paper no. 31, p. 5, January 1996, http://www.yorku.ca/yciss/publications/OP31-Workman.pdf)
The gender critique of war provides a generalized account of wars and the way they are fought. The gender critique tells us why we have wars at all. While it is suggestive with respect to the frequency, character, and scope of war, it does not try to account for the timing and location of specific wars. It tells us why war is viewed widely as an acceptable practice or way to resolve human differences (although this acceptance invariably is accompanied with obligatory protestations of reluctance). The gender critique of war, for example, cannot account for the timing and location of the 1991 Gulf War, although it can provide an explanation of the warring proclivities of modern Western states, especially the inconsistency between the peaceful rhetoric of the US and its incessant warring practices. It can account for the spectre of war in the aftermath of Vietnam, with the end of the Cold War, and with the election of George Bush. It is less able to account for the appearance of war in the Middle East in January of 1991. The opening intellectual orientation of the gender critique of war rests upon a constructivist view of human understanding and practice, that is, a view that anchors practices, including war, within humankind's self-made historico-cultural matrix. This view is contrasted starkly with those that ground human practices psychologically or biologically or genetically. War is not viewed as a natural practice as if delivered by the Gods; it arises out of human-created understandings and ways-of- living that have evolved over the millennia. More specifically, the assumption that men (the nearly exclusive makers and doers of war) are biologically hard-wired for aggression and violence is resisted, as is the related notion that women are naturally passive and non-violent. The explanation for war will not be found in testosterone levels. It is not the essential or bio-social male that makes war. War is the product of the gendered understandings of life—understandings of the celebrated masculine and the subordinated feminine—that have been fashioned over vast tracts of cultural time. And since war arises from human-created understandings and practices it can be removed when these understandings change. War is not insuperable. Indeed, the rooting of war in human created phenomena is recognized as a response to the political incapacitation associated with biologically determinist arguments: "Attempts of genetic determinists to show a biological basis for individual aggression and to link this to social aggression, are not only unscientific, but they support the idea that wars of conquest between nations are inevitable."8
Patriarchy is the root cause of war, which in turn recreates patriarchy
Workman 96 (Thom, Poli Sci @ U of New Brunswick, YCISS Paper no. 31, p. 7, January 1996, http://www.yorku.ca/yciss/publications/OP31-Workman.pdf)IM
The practices of war emerge within gendered understandings that inflect all spheres of social life. As we created "man" and "woman" we simultaneously created war. Contemporary warfare, in complementary terms, emerges within the inner-most sanctums of gendered life. Gender constructs are constitutive of war; they drive it and imbue it with meaning and sense. War should not be understood as simply derivative of the masculine ethos, although it numerous facets accord with the narratives and lore of masculinity. The faculty of war is our understanding of man and women, of manliness and womanliness, and particularly of the subordination of the feminine to the masculine. It is the twinning of the masculine and the feminine that nourishes the war ethic. This can be illustrated by examining the infusion of the language of war with heterosexual imagery typically of patriarchy, that is, with ideas of the prowess-laden male sexual subject conquering the servile female sexual object. Both sex and war are constituted through understandings of male domination and female subordination. The language is bound to be mutually reinforcing and easily interchangeable. War is a metaphor for sex and sex is a metaphor for war. A recent study of nicknames for the penis revealed that men were much more inclined to metaphorize the penis with reference to mythic or legendary characters (such as the Hulk, Cyclops, Genghis Khan, The Lone Ranger, and Mac the Knife), to authority figures and symbols (such as Carnal King, hammer of the gods, your Majesty, Rod of Lordship, and the persuader), to aggressive tools (such as screwdriver, drill, jackhammer, chisel, hedgetrimmer, and fuzzbuster), to ravening beasts (such as beast of burden, King Kong, The Dragon, python, cobra, and anaconda), and to weaponry (such as love pistol, passion rifle, pink torpedo, meat spear, stealth bomber, destroyer, and purple helmeted love warrior).11 The intuitive collocation of sexuality with domination, conquering, destruction, and especially instruments of war is confirmed by this study. Both sex and war, however, are manifestations of the gendered notions of power-over, submission, inequality, injury, contamination, and destruction. Both practices are integral expressions of patriarchal culture and proximate to its reproduction. It is hardly surprising that the language of sexuality and war is seamless.
Trump is pushing for rollback of federal role in civil rights issues
Eilperin et al 17 (Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post's senior national affairs correspondent, covering how the new administration is transforming a range of U.S. policies and the federal government itself. She is the author of two books—one on sharks, and another on Congress, Emma Brown, Staff writer at the Post focused on national education and about people with a stake in schools, including teachers, parents and kids. She’s also covered D.C. and Virginia schools, Darryl Fears, Darryl Fears, writer at the Post for more than a decade, mostly as a reporter on the National staff, “Trump administration plans to minimize civil rights efforts in agencies”, The Washington Post, 3/29/2017, Online: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-administration-plans-to-minimize-civil-rights-efforts-in-agencies/2017/05/29/922fc1b2-39a7-11e7-a058-ddbb23c75d82_story.html?utm_term=.836de0301444, 7/27, DTS)
The Trump administration is planning to disband the Labor Department division that has policed discrimination among federal contractors for four decades, according to the White House’s newly proposed budget, part of wider efforts to rein in government programs that promote civil rights. As outlined in Labor’s fiscal 2018 plan, the move would fold the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, now home to 600 employees, into another government agency in the name of cost-cutting. The proposal to dismantle the compliance office comes at a time when the Trump administration is reducing the role of the federal government in fighting discrimination and protecting minorities by cutting budgets, dissolving programs and appointing officials unsympathetic to previous practices.The new leadership at the Environmental Protection Agency, for instance, has proposed eliminating its environmental justice program, which addresses pollution that poses health threats specifically concentrated in minority communities. The program, in part, offers money and technical help to residents who are confronted with local hazards such as leaking oil tanks or emissions from chemical plants. Under President Trump’s proposed budget, the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights — which has investigated thousands of complaints of discrimination in school districts across the country and set new standards for how colleges should respond to allegations of sexual assault and harassment — would also see significant staffing cuts. Administration officials acknowledge in budget documents that the civil rights office will have to scale back the number of investigations it conducts and limit travel to school districts to carry out its work. And the administration has reversed several steps taken under President Barack Obama to address LGBT concerns. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, for example, has revoked the guidance to implement a rule ensuring that transgender people can stay at sex-segregated shelters of their choice, and the Department of Health and Human Services has removed a question about sexual orientation from two surveys of elderly Americans about services offered or funded by the government. The efforts to reduce the federal profile on civil rights reflects the consensus view within the Trump administration that Obama officials exceeded their authority in policing discrimination on the state and local level, sometimes pressuring targets of government scrutiny to adopt policies that were not warranted. Administration officials made clear in the initial weeks of Trump’s presidency that they would break with the civil rights policies of his predecessor. Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered a review of agreements to reform police departments, signaling his skepticism of efforts to curb civil rights abuses by law enforcement officers. His Justice Department, meantime, stopped challenging a controversial Texas voter identification law and joined with the Education Department in withdrawing federal guidance allowing transgender students to use school bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity.
Republican’s hate the plan – causes democratic resistance
Cauterucci 17 (Christina, “What Will Happen to Title IX Under Trump?”, Slate, 2/2/2017, Online: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2017/02/trump_could_undo_obama_s_title_ix_protections_for_rape_victims_and_trans.html, 7/27, DTS)
Obama’s Department of Education was behind the now-famous “Dear Colleague” letter that established sexual assault and harassment as critical Title IX issues in 2011. The letter said that schools should usually be able to complete investigations of alleged sexual misconduct within 60 days and directed schools to evaluate cases based on the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, rather than the more stringent “clear and convincing evidence” standard some had used. The directive prohibited schools from making victims sign nondisclosure agreements and told colleges they’d be put on notice if they didn’t take immediate action to prevent harassment of victims. The department’s Office of Civil Rights, or OCR, opened investigations into more than 300 schools for failing to appropriately respond to sexual violence after the letter came out. In 2014, the administration further strengthened its guidelines for protecting students, recommending evidence-based prevention programs and requiring schools to conduct surveys about sexual violence on campus. Republicans did not like the OCR’s beefed-up power to enforce Title IX’s protections against discrimination. Sexual assault claims should be “investigated by civil authorities and prosecuted in a courtroom, not a faculty lounge,” the 2016 GOP platform stated. Obama had set out to “micromanage” universities’ systems for addressing rape, it said, and the OCR’s “distortion of Title IX … must be halted.” The platform took even greater umbrage at the Department of Education’s interpretation of Title IX as a prohibition of discrimination against transgender students. With its order to protect trans kids from abuse in schools, the Obama administration was “determined to reshape our schools—and our entire society—to fit the mold of an ideology alien to America’s history and traditions,” the GOP platform said. As the country’s top Republican, who seems liable to act in accordance with whatever extreme advice he gets first, Trump will almost certainly take the GOP’s disdain for federal discrimination protections to heart. The first sign of the Trump administration’s coming assault on Title IX was the president’s nomination of Betsy DeVos for secretary of education. DeVos, who may squeak by the Senate in a Mike Pence tiebreaker, said in her confirmation hearing that it would be “premature” to pledge that she’d hold to Obama’s Title IX guidance. “If confirmed, I look forward to understanding the past actions and current situation better, and to ensuring that the intent of the law is actually carried out in a way that recognizes both the victim ... as well as those who are accused,” she said. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, said she was “not happy” with the way DeVos spoke of campus sexual assault when the two of them met before the hearing. Students and Title IX advocates have been tweeting #DearBetsy for weeks, asking the potential future secretary to uphold the department’s strengthened capacity to make schools address sexual assault and its 2016 guidance on protecting trans students from discrimination. Gender justice activists have also demanded that the Department of Education keep publishing its list of schools under investigation for Title IX violations, as it began doing under Obama, as well as its public list of schools that have asked for exemptions from Title IX on religious ground. DeVos is unlikely to be sympathetic to these pleas. The DeVos Urban Leadership Initiative, the nominee’s family foundation, has given large sums to the ultra-conservative Alliance Defending Freedom. That group is currently bringing a legal challenge against Obama’s guidance on protecting trans students. DeVos herself has given $10,000 to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which is working to repeal the stricter guidelines the Department of Education set forth on campus sexual assault under Obama. Whether or not DeVos gets the job, Trump could loosen up the department’s rules for Title IX compliance. There are nearly 300 OCR investigations of alleged Title IX violations started under Obama that are still open; Trump and his education secretary can choose to close these investigations or judge the results by a completely different set of benchmarks. Since the Republican Party has called for the government to stop telling universities how seriously they should take rape accusations, Trump and Congress will most likely direct funding away from Title IX enforcement, hobbling the department’s capacity to investigate and report on discrimination in schools. The president could also pull the “Dear Colleague” guidance in favor of a directive that focuses on the rights and well-being of accused rapists, telling colleges to require a higher burden of proof than “preponderance of the evidence.” Trump could also revoke the guidance that protects trans students under Title IX, meaning trans students could still sue their schools for discrimination, but the Department of Education wouldn’t back them up. One small measure of hope for Title IX advocates can be found in Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch. As a judge on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Gorsuch was part of a 2007 panel that unanimously affirmed a former University of Colorado student’s right to sue the school for violating Title IX. The student alleged that she was sexually assaulted by a group of football players and visiting recruits; Gorsuch and his two fellow judges agreed that the university had ignored several other similar complaints and evidence that its football recruiting practices were encouraging sexual violence. After hearing about a pattern of sexual assault in the football program, Gorsuch’s panel wrote, the school “did little to change its policies or training. … It responded in ways that were more likely to encourage than eliminate such misconduct.” If Gorsuch is confirmed, he’ll be on the bench to rule on whether Title IX gives transgender students the right to use the appropriate bathrooms in their schools. Gavin Grimm, a trans boy who was denied access to the boy’s room at his Virginia public school, is arguing that the Obama administration’s guidance on Title IX should protect him from discrimination at school. This will be the first case solely focused on trans rights the Supreme Court will have heard in its entire history. More than 20 states are also in the process of challenging that Title IX guidance on trans students. If the Trump administration pulls that guidance, U.S. attorneys will no longer defend it, and the multistate case won’t make it to the Supreme Court. There hasn’t been much concrete going on besides the DeVos nomination to grasp onto yet, but advocates are already preparing to fight for the Title IX protections the Obama administration advanced. Aides for Rep. Jackie Speier, D-California, who has made sexual assault one of her major issues in Congress, told BuzzFeed she’s getting buy-in from fellow House members for a potential working group on sexual assault and Title IX issues. Speier also has plans to reintroduce legislation that would give students another avenue to sue schools for poor handling of sexual assault cases.
GOP hates Title IX enforcement—they literally threatened to abolish the Department of Education over this issue.
Fox News, 2017 (“Congressional Republicans Look to Rein in Obama’s Actions on College Sexual Assault”, 1/12/17, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/12/congressional-republicans-look-to-rein-in-obamas-actions-on-college-sexual-assault.html, DVOG)
Republican furor about the Department of Education stems from 2011 when the department began pressing colleges to more aggressively police sexual assaults and threatening to take away Title IX funding from schools that failed to do so. Title IX is a law enacted in 1972 that prohibits any educational program or activity that receives federal financial assistance from denying benefits to or discriminating against someone based on their sex.
“Some of the most egregious examples of executive overreach and intimidation” took place at the department, “and I believe it was this type of overreach that the American people repudiated in this election,” Lankford told the College Fix.
Officials at the Education Department “have abused ‘Dear Colleague’ letters and ‘guidance documents’ to mandate policies for schools without adhering to legally required regulatory processes,” he said.
Lankford is referring to letters sent by the OCR to schools in April 2011 that made sexual assault a form of harassment prohibited by Title IX. The department currently has some 216 schools under investigation, while other schools have expelled accused students on what critics say is scant evidence, often with no legal recourse or due process.
Gender preference in education is unpopular
Knowles, assistant professor of law, 14 (Robert, Assistant Professor, Valparaiso University Law School. "The Intertwined Fates of Affirmative Action and the Military" Loyola University Chicago Law Journal. 45 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 1027)
Moreover, the military must take these measures despite the fact that it would be swimming against the current of public opinion. The type of strong affirmative action measures required for full integration of the military are, to the say the least, controversial. n23 Many states have enacted measures, which the Supreme Court upheld, outlawing race and gender preferences in public education and employment. n24 And even where affirmative action has survived political efforts to eliminate it, it still faces increasing hostility from the courts. n25
Trump’s recent legislation on women in STEM was merely political appeasement
Burch 17 (Tom, Staff writer at Paste Magazine, focusing on domestic politics in regard to education, “Dissecting Trump: Is Trump Supporting Women in STEM or Paying Lip Service?”, Paste, 3/10/2017, Online: https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/03/dissecting-trump-is-trump-supporting-women-in-stem.html, 7/28, DTS)
Who wouldn’t support a bill designed to “encourage women and girls to study science, technology, engineering and mathematics and to pursue careers that will further advance America’s space science and exploration efforts?” The INSPIRE Act it’s so cheesily called—also requires NASA to use existing astronauts, scientists, engineers, and innovators to “inspire the next generation of women to consider participating in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and to pursue careers in aerospace.” It sounds damn good on paper, especially for someone who denies and decries science as much as he does. Let’s not forget that back in 2016, when questioned on “women in STEM,” the President dismissively commented: “There are a host of STEM programs already in existence,” as published by Scientific American. Clearly, this bill wasn’t on his radar as recently as two months ago, when it was initially proposed by R-VA Barbara Comstock. Let’s also not forget that Trump’s cabinet is stuffed with an anti-science, anti-climate change army. His head of the EPA, Scott Pruitt, wants to dismantle the EPA, a $9 billion science organization. His pick for Secretary of Energy, Rick Perry, is not a scientist—unless you equate “animal science” with nuclear physics—but he is a climate change skeptic and someone who advocated dismantling the Energy Department as recently as 2012. Trump tapped Rex Tillerson, the former Exxon CEO, for Secretary of State. Tillerson, unlike the picks above, acknowledges climate change, but he’s also been accused of hiding climate change research for years. Oh, and Trump himself, is anti-vaccine, which, in a way, is also anti-science. Going off Trump’s current science directives in his 2018 budget plan, the EPA budget will be cut by 40 percent. Within the EPA, Trump plans to remove 97 percent of funding toward Great Lakes restoration—because who needs fresh water. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will be gutted. Trump also signed an Executive Order to review the EPA’s Clean Water Rule, which essentially ensures safe drinking water to over 100 million Americans. Weakening this rule allows a little more fracking and a little less regulation. Needless to say, it sounds pretty paradoxical for the President to encourage women to take up STEM careers when, based on the man’s current track record of undermining science, there probably won’t be many STEM jobs remaining. Ultimately, yes, the signing of these two STEM bills are great for women and great for science. That said, the big picture still suggests Trump’s policies are threatening, not friendly, to both.
Plan’s unpopular- funding is actually being cut for those programs now
Strauss, education reporter for the Washington Post, 17 (Valerie. March 28. "The irony in Ivanka Trump’s and Betsy DeVos’s push for STEM education" DoA:7/1/17. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/03/28/the-irony-in-ivanka-trumps-and-betsy-devoss-push-for-stem-education/. SRP)
On Tuesday, presidential daughter Ivanka Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos visited the National Air and Space Museum in Washington. According to the Education Department, they were there to “highlight the importance of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education” and to discuss “empowering young women to pursue STEM-related careers.” They also introduced a viewing of “Hidden Figures,” a film about a team of African American women who had a vital, unseen role at NASA when it was first launching men into space. The event came just a short time after President Trump, Ivanka’s father, advanced his first federal budget, which included some revealing proposals for NASA, the country’s space agency. The Trump budget seeks to wipe out NASA’s education office, which oversees efforts to support women and underrepresented minorities in STEM fields, operates camps and enrichment programs, and provides internships and scholarships for young scientists. Joining Ivanka Trump and DeVos at the museum were NASA astronaut Kay Hire; J.R. “Jack” Dailey, the John and Adrienne Mars director at Air and Space; Barbara Gruber, an aerospace educator at the museum; and Rae Stewart, a student educator at the museum. In her introduction to the film, Ivanka Trump said that her father’s administration “has expanded NASA’s space exploration mission” though did not, unsurprisingly, mention that he actually proposed decreasing NASA funding and eliminating the education office. The Trump-DeVos event drew some sharp criticism from Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, who said in a statement: “Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and Ivanka Trump are feigning an interest in STEM careers with a photo op at the National Air and Space Museum while eliminating all funding for NASA’s education programs. This takes chutzpah to a new level. If this administration was genuinely interested in promoting STEM programs, it would walk the walk, not just talk the talk. The next generation of astronauts, scientists, engineers and mathematicians need support, not budget cuts eliminating the very programs being promoted.” There was also no mention of the 13.5 percent in cuts Trump has proposed to the Education Department, which include the reduction or elimination of grants for teacher training, after-school programs and aid to low-income and first-generation college students.
Trump’s current budget cuts deck STEM learning
Ron 17 (Ottinger, national leader and expert in STEM learning, serves as co-chair of the national STEM Funders Network at the University of San Diego, director of STEM Next and continues the work he began as executive director of the Noyce Foundation, “Trump Budget Endangers STEM Learning”, Education Week, 7/24/2017, Online: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2017/07/25/trump-budget-endangers-stem-learning.html 7/28, DTS)
Any observant educator knows that after-school and summer learning opportunities are criticalelements of a great education, helping students to succeed in school, work, and life. That is especially true when it comes to science, technology, engineering, and math. Out-of-school learning makes STEM come alive for young people, providing more room for engaging hands-on activities and experimentation. It can also link them to potential career exploration in growing fields, including robotics, computer science, advanced manufacturing, and alternative energy. That is why, as a lead funder in a national effort to increase STEM-learning opportunities for youths both in and out of school, I am concerned about the Trump administration’s proposed budget cuts to education, particularly those around science learning. They would be devastating for the millions of young people who rely on the essential opportunities after-school and summer learning programs provide. President Donald Trump’s proposed federal budget for fiscal 2018 would eliminate the single largest funding source for these programs: an annual $1.2 billion for after-school programs supported by the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program, which enrolls more than 1 million students across rural, urban, and suburban communities in all 50 states. But the damage wouldn’t stop there. The budget also proposes slashing other critical supports to STEM learning, such as funding for programs through NASA’s office of education and the Institute of Museum and Library Services, as well as professional development for classroom teachers.The sadder news is that there are already a lack of opportunities for out-of-school STEM learning. Every summer, millions of children do not have access to programs because there are not enough seats. We need to scale up—not cut back—high-quality after-school and summer learning programs to ensure a spot for every child who wants to participate.
Women in STEM
Plan unpopular- actually funding the programs is unpopular- all their evidence assumes cost-free photo ops
Firozi, reporter for The Hill, 17 (Paulina. March 28. "Ivanka Trump, DeVos urge female students to pursue STEM careers" DoA:7/1/17. thehill.com/homenews/administration/326177-ivanka-trump-devos-urge-female-students-to-pursue-stem-careers. SRP)
First daughter Ivanka Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos teamed up to urge young girls to explore careers in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) during a trip to the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum on Tuesday. Trump told a group of middle school students that just 24 percent of STEM professionals are women, though women make up nearly half of the work force in America, The Associated Press reported. She urged the girls on the trip to "beat those statistics and advance the role of women in STEM fields,” according to Education Week. President Trump’s eldest daughter also encouraged the male students on the trip to "empower your female classmates and support them along the way." "The playing field will only be leveled if we can all work together to eliminate these longstanding barriers,” she said. A female astronaut spoke with the group, mentioning the president’s recent bill granting $19.5 billion to NASA aimed at exploration on Mars. "I know there's probably someone in this audience who's going to be part of that important mission," DeVos said. The Tuesday visit comes as the Trump administration’s budget proposal also calls for cuts to NASA’s education programs and four earth science missions. The president of the American Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten, criticized DeVos and Trump’s effort in a statement, accusing them of "feigning an interest in STEM careers with a photo op at the National Air and Space Museum while eliminating all funding for NASA's education programs." "If this administration was genuinely interested in promoting STEM programs, it would walk the walk, not just talk the talk."
Ev is wrong- Trump hates women in STEM- your ev is all photo-ops
Herman, contributor to Teen Vogue, 17 (Lily. March 28. "3 Ways Donald Trump Is Set to Undermine STEM for Young Women" Teen Vogue. DoA:7/1/17. www.teenvogue.com/story/donald-trump-stem-young-women-girls-ivanka. SRP)
However, despite the fact that DeVos and the president’s daughter claim they’re dedicated to women in STEM, the Trump administration’s policies and actions reveal otherwise. Here are three major ways Donald Trump, in his capacity as president, has been working to undermine STEM opportunities for women. 1. President Trump has called for cutting budgets to STEM education programs. Trump’s recent budget proposal calls for a 13 percent decrease in funding to the Department of Education, to the tune of $9 billion. According to The Atlantic, some of the proposed changes include cutting $1.2 billion in funding for summer and after-school programs and $2.4 billion in grants for teacher training. He has also proposed reducing Federal Work-Study and eliminating Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, which give financial aid to 1.6 million low-income college undergraduates every year. There’s an additional $200 million cut to TRIO, a series of programs that help disabled, low-income, and first-generation students. Federal Pell grants, which help students pay for college, could also see a massive cut, Politico cautions. According to U.S. News & World Report, DeVos has supported Trump’s budget and claims that it helps the “nation’s most vulnerable populations.” Taking into account DeVos’s citing of lower participation rates for women than men in STEM education programs, supporting cuts to programs that offer access to these fields will not help women move on to careers in STEM. Moreover, cuts to programs that affect low-income students, first-generation college students, disabled students, and students of color decreases their ability and desire to enroll in classes in these subjects, along with a fair chance to succeed. 2. President Trump has also called for cutting budgets for STEM research and career opportunities. Even for women who graduate with degrees in STEM-related subjects, getting research grants and jobs in relevant fields could be challenging due to the budget cuts on the table. Trump’s first budget proposal calls for $15.1 billion to be slashed from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, specifically $1.23 billion of research funding at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), one of the leading biomedical research organizations in the country. Various NIH departments face a $5.8 billion cut overall, according to CNN. But Trump still hasn’t addressed the fate of the National Science Foundation, which provides roughly $7 billion in research grants, or about 20 percent of all funding, to academic institutions. In addition, Trump has proposed cutting the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget by $2.6 billion (a 31 percent decrease), getting rid of funding for the Clean Water Plan and other environmental projects, and slashing funding for regional EPA programs (which could severely impact environmental disaster response). 3. President Trump does not appear to believe scientific research. While the president’s daughter and his education secretary tout the importance of science, Trump has long disputed scientific facts supported by the majority of people in STEM. The most prominent example is Trump’s view on climate change; in the past, the current president has called the phenomenon a hoax created by the Chinese government, and his administration even went so far as to remove mentions of climate change from the White House website. By contrast, 97 percent of actively publishing climate-change scientists agree that climate change is real and caused by human activity. Trump has also made a number of problematic comments about vaccines, ebola, and fracking. He even once tweeted that “environmentally friendly” lightbulbs cause cancer, though he provided no scientifically backed evidence. Although DeVos has not publicly addressed her views on climate change, she has said that she supports “the teaching of great science.” However, FiveThirtyEight points out that DeVos has given money to several campaigns for Republican members of Congress who have denied climate change and its human influence. In December, a source close to Ivanka Trump told Politico that the first daughter wanted to make climate change one of her “signature issues,” but she has not yet publicly spoken on the matter or advocated for policies to back her purported intentions.