A Response to “Can We Make Intercollegiate Debate More Diverse?”

Julia Wood (1994) wrote in the introduction to her book Gendered Lives, Studying communication, gender, and culture requires courage, because it involves us in unsettling questions about our culture and our personal identities. It forces us to think seriously about how our society defines gender and what that means for our personal lives, safety, relationships, and professional opportunities. We have to be willing to consider new ideas openly and to risk values and identities that are familiar to us. Further, with awareness comes responsibility. Once we are informed about gender and communication, we can no longer sit back passively as if this is not our concern. It is our concern both because it affects each of us directly and because we are part of a collective world. (p. 8) Stepp's article requires those of us involved in academic debate to think seriously about issues of gender and minority representation in an activity that we tout as preparing our students to become part of a collective world. For that reason alone, the article is a contribution to our field. However, in order to make informed policy it is important to look closely at the information as well as considering diverse perspectives. Initially, I think those of us involved in academic debate are committed to the idea that participation in the activity is one of the most valuable learning experiences a student can have. Why else would we spend the amount of time and make the sacrifices we do to keep the activity going? Stepp's literature review points out alarming statistics on gender and minority representation. However, a greater concern seems to be overall participation in the activity. As a member of the NDT community, I have watched tournaments decrease in size particularly at the novice and junior division level. My colleagues in CEDA have indicated a trend toward the same in their organization. Many coaches live in areas with strong high school debate programs and yet in trying to recruit find that students choose not to go on in debate in college. While the numbers of students participating in debate in Phi Rho Pi, the national community college forensic organization, have remained strong, a large number of these students choose not to debate upon transferring to a four year institution. These trends seem to indicate a larger problem than just women and minority participation. Stepp's own inquiry into why novice CEDA debaters fail to continue found reasons that appear to be activity specific rather than gender specific such as: "varsity debate requires too much time, academic restrictions, students switch to Lincoln Douglas debate, varsity is not fun or rewarding, other responsibilities, varsity is too advanced, and racism exists" (Stepp, 1994). While this research directs us to focus on the low numbers of women and minorities, I am afraid the numbers of men with initial debate interest who choose not to continue might be equally distressing. As we attempt to eliminate barriers to participation in this activity, I am concerned that some of the literature may lead us in the wrong direction. These are: (1) literature which argues that topics are a barrier, (2) there is no narrative in debate, (3) women experience dissonance due to socialization, and (4) that the academic debate culture is dominated by white males. One area that seems problematic is the argument that debate resolutions do not focus on real people but rather abstract ideas and hypothetical examples (Bartanen, 1995). While my experience has been with NDT topics, I cannot think of one topic which did not deal with "real people". In fact, some years the topics seem eerily real! In one debate round last year, the affirmative argued in favor of increased United States assistance to the Palestinians. The negative argued that if the United States gave more assistance to the Palestinians it would cause the Israeli right wing to revolt with an impact of potential assassination of the Israeli Prime Minister. …