PERFORMATIVE DEBATE
This file is a compiled list of cards that interrogates the debate about debate. This consists
of the cutting of the following four dissertations:
ON THE PERFORMANCE GOOD SECTION
DANA POLSON
SHANARA REID BRINKLEY
DAVID PETERSON
ON THE PERFORMANCE BAD SECTION
BRENDON BANKEY
CASSEY HARRIGAN
These individuals are all former debaters that have thought about, observed, studied,
researched and decided to invest their dissertation on the changes that have been occurring
within our debate community. The context in which they are written should be argued
within the debates you will have this coming year as being the MOST QUALIFIED sources
because they come from people who have a vested interest in the activity and are writing
specifically about the controversy of this.
THANKS GO OUT TO: ALEX, CHARLIE, AMAN and CRAYTON for the hard work
and dedication of this file.
DEBATE BAD (IN DEFENSE OF PERFORMANCE DEBATE)
Performance debate disrupts the norms of traditional policy debate and public
education to bridge the gap between theory and real life.
Polson 12 (Dana Roe Polson, PhD in Language Literacy and Culture, UMBC, Baltimore city
public and public charter schools high school teacher, “’Longing for Theory:’ Performance
Debate in Action” Dissertain directed by Dr. Christine Mallinson, Assistant Professor, Language,
Literacy, and Culture pp. 2)CEFS
Policy debate in Baltimore urban high schools is often all but invisible to anyone but the practitioners.
With the exception of occasional news stories and a 2003 60 Minutes segment featuring the Walbrook
High School debate squad as an example of the success of Urban Debate Leagues, urban policy debate
exists in a somewhat isolated, insular bubble. A performance debate squad, which enacts a radical
praxis that disrupts the norms of the more traditional policy debate, would therefore similarly exist
under the radar, or even more so. The rhetoric and practice of performance debate is not aligned with
the Discourse of public schooling today; it does not fit with reform efforts emphasizing standards, merit
pay, accountability. And yet, students engaged in it are acting, in the sense of both performing and
doing, in rigorous, activist intellectual work. They are engaging in an activity that is often described as a
game, and yet by talking back, they challenge its norms and practices in order to make it relevant to
their lives as debaters and as change agents. Further, the activity is performed with the support of a
counterhegemonic community that uses structural understandings such as those provided by Critical
Race Theory to bridge the gap between theory and real life. The practice creates critical space for
leadership development through such structural understanding and by creating space for voice to be
heard and critique to be enacted in debate.
Performance debate seeks to insert elements of blackness into this space and your
attempt to downplay it represents an incomplete analysis on your part—vote
[aff/neg]
Polson 12 (Dana Roe Polson, PhD in Language Literacy and Culture, UMBC, Baltimore city
public and public charter schools high school teacher, “’Longing for Theory:’ Performance
Debate in Action” Dissertain directed by Dr. Christine Mallinson, Assistant Professor, Language,
Literacy, and Culture pp. 14-15)CEFS
Performance debate looks and sounds much different from traditional debate. It is not a
traditional practice, from the presence of Black bodies in a majority-white activity (with the notable
exception of the Urban Debate Leagues, or UDLs—pronounced “oodles”—which are usually
filled with students of color), to the performance of rap music, poetry, and other art forms during a
round, to the strong critique of white supremacy as a political system. People sometimes seem to
define performance debate by its obvious formal creativity—the playing of hip hop music, for example,
or the reading of narrative. Initially, this interest in form seemed less intellectual to me, as steeped in
Eurocentric epistemology as I am, than the critical analysis that the practitioners perform. Kelley (2008)
admonishes us, however, to pay attention to style or form in African American cultural productions,
noting that it is a crucial part of understanding the art. (I will discuss this more extensively in
Chapter 5). Therefore, either attempt, to highlight form or to downplay it, represents an incomplete
analysis of the interplay between form, content, and context. The meaning and significance of policy
debate as a genre, and of performance debate as part of that genre, depends on just such an interplay
of these elements of form, content, and context, according to Miller (1984, p. 159). In order to
understand what performance debate is, these concepts are helpful.
Their standard for what is “evidence” ignores the power that form has in shaping this
space, this is specifically true in the context of the Black aesthetic.
Polson 12 (Dana Roe Polson, PhD in Language Literacy and Culture, UMBC, Baltimore city
public and public charter schools high school teacher, “’Longing for Theory:’ Performance
Debate in Action” Dissertain directed by Dr. Christine Mallinson, Assistant Professor, Language,
Literacy, and Culture pp. 16)CEFS
Form is the symbolic representation of substance. “Form shapes the response of the reader or listener
to substance by providing instruction, so to speak, about how to perceive and interpret.... seen thus,
form becomes a kind of meta-information, with both semantic value (as information) and syntactic (or
formal) value” (ibid). The use of musical and narrative forms in performance debate exemplifies this
meta-information. The form of performance debate includes different sorts of speech within a
round, such as poetry, spoken word, narrative, autobiography; it also may include live or
recorded music. The form provides instruction to the listener about how to perceive and interpret the
debate. In this case the breaking of debate norms signals that something different is happening: the
listener should pay close attention. The artistic and narrative forms used by critical debaters are often
culturally African American and so they instruct us that what we are about to hear is different from the
white policy debate norm, specifically. The forms also, as information, challenge what is regarded as
acceptable evidence in debate. For example, in contrast to the policy-wonk evidence often used in
traditional debate (often statistic-filled work from think tanks), critical debate tends to use the work of
radical, anti-racist sources, often of authors from outside the policy debate tradition such as Charles W.
Mills, Tim Wise, and Molefi Assante. The musical selections are used as both form and substance, as
well; they disrupt the traditional debate norms of form but also provide text used as part of the
substantive ideas of the debate.
Their move to suggest that performance debate is “bad for the activity” only serves to
force neutrality on this activity, which is necessarily violent. Our performance disrupts
this to make the community less exclusionary.
Polson 12 (Dana Roe Polson, PhD in Language Literacy and Culture, UMBC, Baltimore city
public and public charter schools high school teacher, “’Longing for Theory:’ Performance
Debate in Action” Dissertain directed by Dr. Christine Mallinson, Assistant Professor, Language,
Literacy, and Culture pp. 16-18)CEFS
Finally, situation or context is the third aspect of genre and our attempts to find meaning in
genre. The context embraces content and form and “enable[s] interpretation of the action
resulting from their fusion” (ibid). What is the context that enables interpretation of critical
debate? I think that is a contested question. Many members of the traditional debate community
find critical debate “bad for debate.” Performance debate proponents might say that they are directly
challenging traditional debate conventions that have become mechanistic and are inherently racist, and
that debate must find new ways of becoming less exclusive and more relevant. Specifically, many
debate community members such as Preston (a coach and author) suggest that traditional debate
practices and pedagogy result in difficulty recruiting minority debaters. He cites Hill as having “noted
that learning and communication styles of African Americans may differ from the learning and
communication norms of the policy debating community” (Preston, Jr., 2006, p. 162). A call to solve
this problem becomes one of the foundations of performance debate practice. Through content and
form, performance debaters call for and demonstrate a practice that is inclusive and challenges
the norms of the community. Reid-Brinkley quotes a Louisville debater in-round: The
university of Louisville enacts a full withdrawal from the traditional norms and procedures of
this debate activity. Because this institution, like every other institution in society, has also
grown from the roots of racism. Seemingly neutral practices and policies have exclusionary effects
on different groups for different reasons. These practices have a long and perpetuating history.
(Reid-Brinkley, 2008, p. 114) Reid-Brinkley argues that many performance debate tactics are
rhetorical strategies “designed to disrupt the normativity of traditional debate practices.... genre
violation [is] a means of using style and performance to combat the social ideologies that result in
unequal power relations across race, gender, and class within the national policy debate community”
(pp. 78-79). Reid-Brinkley identifies four types of genre violations in critical debate: sonic and
spatial disruption, violations of strategic norms, violations of expectations regarding the
resolution, and violations of the policymaker debate persona. We can see here the interplay of
content, form and context in her argument. The disruptive aural presence of rap music in a debate
round, for example, is not coincidental to a substantive message critiquing Eurocentric epistemology
and white-normed debate practices, for example. I will discuss such genre violations much more in
Chapter 5, as I explain performance debaters’ attempts to do debate rather than just talking
about it [social change].
It's time for everyone to ask the big questions, like "why do you debate?" and how
that connects to how you debate.
Polson 12 (Dana Roe Polson, PhD in Language Literacy and Culture, UMBC, Baltimore city
public and public charter schools high school teacher, “’Longing for Theory:’ Performance
Debate in Action” Dissertain directed by Dr. Christine Mallinson, Assistant Professor, Language,
Literacy, and Culture pp. 20-21)CEFS
I watched study participant Charles Bernschein conduct a workshop with a small group of new Varsity
debaters once. He presented three questions he believed should be the foundation of an approach to
Varsity debate. They were, “Why do you debate? What’s your case? How do they connect?” These
questions were interesting to some of the students and were familiar to one of the students who had
been already been participating in a performance debate style. To one young man, though, they were
challenging. It was interesting to watch the discussion, as that young man posed his questions: “What
does that have to do with debate? Is this a valid question to think about in a debate round?” His implicit
assertion was that a student’s reason for wanting to debate had no place in the argumentation of policy
debate, that debate was about the topic in the traditional framework, and students should bring
nothing of themselves into the round. Bernschein countered the student, saying, “If debate is about
trying to explore ideas that matter to you...[to] make change...then we should debate in a way we can
do that. It should be about trying to make change.” And yet, that premise is exactly what traditional
debate proponents might question: is debate about trying to explore ideas that matter to students? Is it
about making change? Bernschein then summed up with two points he wanted the students to
remember. First, he said, students should “Debate with a purpose,” both because it makes debating
clearer and stronger and because students should know why they debate and how it connects to their
arguments: “Connect what you do with how you actually do it.” Second, he used the word agency,
saying, “What you [do]...as an individual can affect the world around you.” He contrasted that
perspective with an attitude that “stuff happens to me,” saying that people who believe that can be
“depressed and unhappy.” He said this choice in attitude was about power, and “what do you feel you
have power over” (Observation, December 8, 2010).
Their synthetic solution to the “clash of civilizations” doesn’t solve for serious change.
Polson 12 (Dana Roe Polson, PhD in Language Literacy and Culture, UMBC, Baltimore city
public and public charter schools high school teacher, “’Longing for Theory:’ Performance
Debate in Action” Dissertain directed by Dr. Christine Mallinson, Assistant Professor, Language,
Literacy, and Culture pp. 23)CEFS
Solt, a proponent of traditional debate, believes that the “split in debate between critical and policy
approaches has gone beyond culture war to full-blown clash of civilizations” and is pessimistic about an
end to the split because the “two groups involved simply want to do debate in fundamentally different
ways” (2004, p. 44)He suggests secession, exclusion, or synthesis as possible avenues for the
debate community. Critics such as Solt do not seem to respond to the fundamental critical critique of
policy debate as exclusionary and white-normed. Therefore there seems to be no irony realized in
suggesting that the more traditional policy debaters, who are also more likely to be white, secede from
the community as a whole or that they exclude the performance debaters, who are largely debaters of
color. He does favor the synthesis, in which the best of each style is normed for the community as a
whole. Since he does not seem to understand the critique of traditional debate that is being made,
however, it is difficult to see how such a synthesis would respond to the serious charges made by
critical debaters about the debate community rather than simply being an assimilative practice that
subsumed those concerns.
Kritikal arguments bring the humanities back to the activity, and it's too late to get rid
of them anyway.
Polson 12 (Dana Roe Polson, PhD in Language Literacy and Culture, UMBC, Baltimore city
public and public charter schools high school teacher, “’Longing for Theory:’ Performance
Debate in Action” Dissertain directed by Dr. Christine Mallinson, Assistant Professor, Language,
Literacy, and Culture pp. 25)CEFS
Shanahan also believes that attempting to eradicate critical styles of debate is not only foolish, but too
late: “To consider debate without Kritiks, at this time, is like considering a policy alternative by wishing
away the status quo. Kritiks are part of contemporary ‘policy’ debate” (Shanahan, 2004, p. 67).
Shanahan agrees with Bruschke that the debate community should join the rest of academia in dealing
with intellectual conflict, and points out that ignoring such critical thinking for some years damaged the
debate community. “Even the most casual glance across a variety of disciplines demonstrated the
irrefutable relevance of so-called post-structuralism and postmodernism to debate practice. .... How
could such a sophisticated argumentative community fail to consider and evaluate the relevance of
such far-reaching and important changes in academic scholarship?” (Shanahan, 2004, p. 73). For many
years, then, the collegiate policy debate community isolated itself from intellectual currents in
humanities departments. Shanahan suggests that this isolationism kept them from using those ideas to
advance their practice and to stay relevant to academic as a whole. Becoming more open to intellectual
ideas, as opposed to attempting to preserve the discipline as-is, is therefore a positive development,
according to Shanahan and Bruschke.
Traditional debate embodies the systems of whiteness
Polson 12 (Dana Roe Polson, PhD in Language Literacy and Culture, UMBC, Baltimore city
public and public charter schools high school teacher, “’Longing for Theory:’ Performance
Debate in Action” Dissertain directed by Dr. Christine Mallinson, Assistant Professor, Language,
Literacy, and Culture pp. 26-27)CEFS
The anti-racist writer and educator Tim Wise was a debater in high school, and he writes “the activity is
very, very white. I mean this not merely in terms of its demographic, but also in terms of its style at the
most competitive levels, its form, and its content. All of it literally exudes whiteness and privileges white
participants in any number of ways” (2007, p. 31). Wise goes on to describe the ways in which he
sees the activity as white. There is the financial aspect, of course; travel to national competitions and
to attend pricy debate camps (which lasted 2-3 weeks at the time he debated in the 1980’s and
generally last 7 weeks now) is very expensive. But he points out that if the barriers were limited to
affordability, he would see a class privilege rather than whiteness, though the two are linked in the
United States. Instead, Wise sees a “world of make-believe” in which the jargon, speed-reading, and
obscurity of the work are the point, the way to win. He points out that switch-side debating and the
need to win, using whatever arguments are necessary, ensure that “personal principles don’t matter.”
Wise labels these characteristics as being “white-identified”: In my experience it appeals to the way
white folks, especially the affluent ones that can typically afford debate, view the world, and equally
seems repugnant to people of color for the same reasons. White folks have the luxury of looking at life
or death issues of war, peace, famine, unemployment, or criminal justice as a game. So for me to get
up and actually debate, for example, whether or not full employment is a good idea or racial
profiling is a bad one—as if there’s really a debate about that or should be one—is already a
white-identified act (Wise, 2007, p. 33).
(AT = Opportunity) The communicatory norms of debate naturally favor some groups
above others in the same way that all of society does.
Polson 12 (Dana Roe Polson, PhD in Language Literacy and Culture, UMBC, Baltimore city
public and public charter schools high school teacher, “’Longing for Theory:’ Performance
Debate in Action” Dissertain directed by Dr. Christine Mallinson, Assistant Professor, Language,
Literacy, and Culture pp. 28-29)CEFS
Defenders of the traditional style of debate would refer to equality of opportunity in debate; there are
no special barriers to minority and female participation. However, using Critical Race Theory, critical
debaters talk instead about equality of outcome and then demand that we look at what in the practice
is causing this inequality. With some sarcasm, Bill Shanahan writes,“Who would argue that our
debate-worlds do not emerge from a series of basic practices that raise enormous access barriers,
produce insular and, at times, idiosyncratic knowledge, and operate from a given, homogenous reality?
Many would, naturally...” (Shanahan, 2004, p. 67) Bruschke phrases this challenge as the continued
dominance of the “debate haves,” who are “systematically favored” by “seemingly neutral standards of
speech clarity and issue coverage, as well as quality of evidence and strategic choice” (2004, p. 85). He
says that the debate community is free to choose its response to this inequality and that the easiest
way is actually for it to support critical debate about how these stylistic issues affect who participates.
He identifies this issue as an affirmative action challenge that the debate community should
step up to meet: “The best proof we’ll ever have of the liberatory potential for competitive academic
debate will be emancipating ourselves, and serving as a positive example of the diversity and respect
that an open clash of ideas can create” (2004, p. 88).
Your impacts are overly pessimistic. Kritiks can only make policy debate better.
Polson 12 (Dana Roe Polson, PhD in Language Literacy and Culture, UMBC, Baltimore city
public and public charter schools high school teacher, “’Longing for Theory:’ Performance
Debate in Action” Dissertain directed by Dr. Christine Mallinson, Assistant Professor, Language,
Literacy, and Culture pp. 29)CEFS
Finally, again unlike Solt’s clash of civilization response, critical debate proponents believe that this
clash of styles and philosophies will benefit debate in the long run. “The tradition of policy debating is
incredibly rich and will emerge from this much needed revolution stronger and better” (Shanahan,
2004, p. 68). Stronger and better, according to Warner and Bruschke, because “If offered access
to the creative form of debate, new participants can appropriate it and make their very debating a
critique of the domination in debate in ways that those sharing a majority worldview cannot imagine
on their own” (Warner & Bruschke, 2001, p. 14). It’s not simply a matter of weathering an
unpleasant storm; critical debate is deeply beneficial to the community. Shanahan sees that “The
resulting beautiful, ugly din of voices better reflected the increasing diversity of the debate community
and the longstanding variety of alternative political ideologies” (Shanahan, 2004, p. 76).
Whites have to engage in these discussions too so it’s not just people of color doing
the moral and political work that’s needed for change.
Polson 12 (Dana Roe Polson, PhD in Language Literacy and Culture, UMBC, Baltimore city
public and public charter schools high school teacher, “’Longing for Theory:’ Performance
Debate in Action” Dissertain directed by Dr. Christine Mallinson, Assistant Professor, Language,
Literacy, and Culture pp. 54-55)CEFS
Practically, Crenshaw’s question is essential for this dissertation: to work with my subject risks speaking
for, but to avoid the subject because it is race-based while I am white implies, to Crenshaw, apathy or
disconnectedness. I must be engaged; I must affirmatively practice anti-racism. To not do so leaves the
work to non-white people; it defines the work as theirs to do. Leslie Roman (1993) notes that the
very concept of race “all too often has been used as a synonym for groups and persons who
have been positioned as racially subordinate” (p. 71). Race, then, is equivalent to people of
color; racial problems are their problems; people are the problem. Whites, in this all-too-often
scheme, are invisible and unproblematic. But what if white conferred dominance is actually the
problem; how ironic! White is a color, too, and white people have to bear part of the burden of the
moral and political work Crenshaw describes. People have asked me why a white woman is researching
this Black debate practice. Some of those people have been African American, and while it is not for me
to deem their question as valid or not, I agree with them that it is. I asked because I was curious; I asked
because the critical practice I saw in my school was so different from anything else going on around me.
As I kept asking, I discovered that what I had seen was only part of the practice, that it was much bigger
and deeper than I had expected. Where I had expected to see class critique, I saw a deep critique of
white supremacy that drew me in and transformed my own analytical interests. I attempt, here, to do
some part of the “moral and political work of resisting racism” through this writing.
Debate's more than just a game, for a lot of people it IS their future.
Polson 12 (Dana Roe Polson, PhD in Language Literacy and Culture, UMBC, Baltimore city
public and public charter schools high school teacher, “’Longing for Theory:’ Performance
Debate in Action” Dissertain directed by Dr. Christine Mallinson, Assistant Professor, Language,
Literacy, and Culture pp. 118-119)CEFS
Once committed, students who are successful at the high school varsity level have a real chance at
receiving debate scholarships to college. Debate becomes far more than an interesting extra-curricular
activity: it may be the only way a student can afford to attend college. UDL students are often not part
of a middle class home in which college is an expectation and the financial aspects will be worked out
by adults at home. It’s all a balancing act for lower-income families, and these students are the
relatively lucky ones. Without debate scholarships, many would either not attend college, would attend
community college or would have to decide whether to take out expensive loans. Two participants, a
current and a former college debater, spoke about the reality of debate scholarships . As Janice
Cooper said, it’s “not a game, it’s real, we have to do this to pay for college!” (interview, p. 16).
Darnell Collins related a story about leaving one collegiate debate program mid-career, due to
conflict within the program. Without the debate scholarship he held, however, he could not
afford tuition at the out-of-state school and had to withdraw. In the end he was extremely
successful on another collegiate debate program, but his transfer highlights again the reality of
money for lower-income students. He was not free to debate or not to debate at the university
he attended—his debate participation determined his access to that school (Collins, interview,
p. 26). Debate is then a method of access to higher education for highly successful urban debaters. We
see the importance of economic capital here, again, and the fact that for BUDL debaters, economic
capital makes important determinations about life chances.
The reputation system in debate prioritizes traditional white voices over performative
ones.
Polson 12 (Dana Roe Polson, PhD in Language Literacy and Culture, UMBC, Baltimore city
public and public charter schools high school teacher, “’Longing for Theory:’ Performance
Debate in Action” Dissertain directed by Dr. Christine Mallinson, Assistant Professor, Language,
Literacy, and Culture pp. 129-130)CEFS
However, given the tendency of many judges at the high school level to disfavor the performance
styles of debate, the influence of rep can seem to be multiplied when wielded by a traditional team,
who is usually enacting a normed performance of whiteness. Two debaters described having strongly
believed they won a round, only to hear the judge give the win to the other (traditional) team. In these
cases, the other teams were seeded highly at the tournament. These participants suggest there is a
wish on the part of judges for these high-powered, usually white teams to win over competitors so as
to continue their ascent. Kenneth described one such losing debate: “...it was a rep debate. We lost to
them because their reputation was better than us. And then we debated them again for a second time,
and we [were convinced we] beat them again, like the judge literally took 45 minutes to judge this, to
evaluate this round afterwards. And we wound up losing to them on the rep debate too. [I was] so
mad” (Kenneth, interview, p. 27). Darnell Collins also shared his belief that lack of a rep, when
confronted with a white team with a rep, can affect minority debaters: ... we’re going against
two like first-round bid white dudes, and our judge is a white male. So, the judge, of course based
on what the image of success you see in debate, like he had no problem saying okay, well, y’all have
another year so, y’all can lose this round and not break in this tournament because they need to be
successful. Is what is perceptually given to people.... when they rep you out, pretty much. And then
the teams that are seen expendable are teams that you know are usually minorities.... They
were giving no leeway. And I think part of that is because of race, but not all of it, but I think
that their performance is the one that is normalized, so it’s okay. (interview, pp. 19-21) Darnell
Collins had the distinct impression, in this case, that as the newer Black debaters competing against the
white team with first-round bids, This belief in bias against performance or minority debaters may seem
like sour grapes to some. I do not have any kind of objective assessment of such an event, nor is
it really possible to come by one. Judges in debate rounds have complete power, and it is
impossible to tell what they might have been thinking. However, data (reported in more detail
below) shows both the prevalence of whiteness in policy debate, and that at least at the time of a 1997
study, there was evidence of judging bias against non-white, non-male debaters. Such complaints
should not be dismissed, but rather heard and considered as part of a thoughtful look at how race
affects the experience of minority debaters. While I will look more closely at race in debate in Chapters
4 and 5, I do want to look at the most notable studies on race in debate here, given that Royster’s data
shows that race has a profound effect on social networks and social capital.
The inherent whiteness in debate demeans black participants, which only serves to
make debate more white and more exclusionary.
Polson 12 (Dana Roe Polson, PhD in Language Literacy and Culture, UMBC, Baltimore city
public and public charter schools high school teacher, “’Longing for Theory:’ Performance
Debate in Action” Dissertain directed by Dr. Christine Mallinson, Assistant Professor, Language,
Literacy, and Culture pp. 132-134)CEFS
Loge’s point about retention of African American students may have an influence on debate
participation. Rogers (1997) noted that rates of participation in debate had remained virtually
unchanged since Loge’s 1990 study and suggested that white male bias on the part of the community
that makes up most of the judging pool was a major reason for this gap. Rogers collected a total of 113
surveys based on the question, “Why do you think that women and minorities are both less likely to
participate and less likely to succeed in CEDA debate?” (Rogers, 1997, p. 2). Rogers noted that white
males in his survey most often believed that “the majority of women and minority competitors were
deficient in the skills necessary for success...due to some cultural ‘flaw’ linked to emotion, cognitive
process and/or, specifically in the case of minorities, verbal ability” (ibid). Women and minorities
responded by saying that the white men had a white male bias that “[looked] for and [rewarded]
argumentation styles that mirror their perceptions of what good debate should be” (ibid). Rogers’
study showed strong evidence for the existence of such a bias among white male debate
community members. “Dominant critics ‘see’ significant differences [amongst white males and
women and ethnic minority group members]. [The dominant critics] reported positive
perceptions of the subgrouping Males in both the Logic and Emotion behavioral topoi, while
they expressed negative perceptions for Females and Minorities in both categories” (Rogers,
1997, p. 14). Hill believes that low rates of wins (such as might result from judging bias described by
Rogers) also contribute to low rates of participation for African Americans. “The consequences of not
adhering to the mainstream forensics models more often than not results in losses and/or low rankings.
Since winning in competition is one of the primary extrinsic motivations for African Americans in
forensics, frequent losses can lead to a decrease in motivation and an eventual exit from the activity”
(Hill, 1997, p. 229). Hill describes the choice African American debaters must make between the
norms and practices of African American culture and those “written and unwritten demands of debate
competition [that are] very similar to those of the mainstream culture, [including] autonomy, specific
communication styles, message choice, and certain cognitive styles” (ibid). Hill says that African
Americans are “socialized to maintain the integrity of the culture at all costs” in various ways,
including possibly contradicting mainstream culture or by promoting the value of African
American culture. For African Americans who coexist in mainstream and African American culture, Hill
suggests that there are many tensions and quotes a study participant associating the academic
demands of forensics competition with whiteness: [African Americans] see the academic demands so
affiliated with white superiority and authority, kind of being under control. It’s a demeaning kind of
thing where they relate the academic portion of it to an academic system that has for so long
deliberately kept them out and made things unreachable, made things more difficult for others.
[Looking at academic forensics, they would say] ‘Oh! This is just another White man’s game
thing, there’s really nothing in it for me to really sink my intellectual teeth into.... I’m still going
to have to play the White man’s game in forensics as I do in the outside world. Why bother...when it’s
like that shit I’m trying to escape?’ (Hill, 1997, pp. 228–229) For Hill, then, there are cultural
reasons for low African American participation: the whiteness of the activity forces a choice for
African American students between their sense of cultural authenticity and participation.
Loge’s delineation between the Whiteness of policy debate and cultural styles of African
American debaters calls to mind the work of Ogbu (as well as Fordham & Ogbu, 1986) on the
allegedly oppositional culture of involuntary minorities and the problem for them of acting
white. Some may interpret low African American participation in policy debate, and
explanations such as Sheldon Hill’s, above, as African American students’ refusal to act white in
policy debate, and compare this to the self-destructive behavior Ogbu describe as culturallybased and widespread. In this reading, African American students would be counterproductively refusing to participate in a beneficial activity because it was seen to be culturally
White and would fear being identified as White if they participated. I do not think this reading
is accurate, and have significant problems with Ogbu’s theory.
Performance debate empowers black and minority students by eliminating the forced
choice between assimilation and exiting the activity.
Polson 12 (Dana Roe Polson, PhD in Language Literacy and Culture, UMBC, Baltimore city
public and public charter schools high school teacher, “’Longing for Theory:’ Performance
Debate in Action” Dissertain directed by Dr. Christine Mallinson, Assistant Professor, Language,
Literacy, and Culture pp. 142)CEFS
If one finds Foster’s argument persuasive, which I do, why deal with Ogbu at all? In part
because, as Foster describes, the narrative has such strong appeal to so many people, and
because of this appeal, his work is well-known and must be dealt with. Further, Foster finds
many of Ogbu’s formulations useful and ultimately wants to rework them rather than reject
them. Sheldon Hill’s assertion that African American debaters are turned off by the cultural and
epistemological whiteness of policy debate reminds us of Ogbu—are these African American debaters
afraid to achieve because they equate that with “acting white?” I believe that these are really two
separate issues. Ogbu is describing what he takes to be cultural reasons for academic
underachievement by involuntary minority students. Hill is describing why current or potential
academic achievers interested in debate might eschew policy debate for other activities. Students
potentially interested in the reading, writing, speaking, and thinking of debate are certainly not
oppositional towards learning. If they are turned off by policy debate’s normative whiteness, then,
other factors must come into play. They may indeed be afraid of “acting white,” while not being
oppositional toward learning or achievement at all. Instead, with perhaps a nascent sense of positive
racial consciousness, they may reject further assimilation into white cultural norms, in the case of an
optional enrichment activity. Further, I would argue that the policy debate world is in some ways hyperwhite: it rewards and represents white cultural and epistemological norms to a degree many students
might not experience in public schools, even majority-white ones. But again: this rejection of whiteness
does not necessarily equate with rejection of academic success. While I will look at this issue of
cultural authenticity more specifically in chapters 4 and 5, I will mention here that I think
performance debate finds away around this bind for African American debaters. The style gives them a
practice that is race-based and conscious, within the policy debate community. There is no forced
choice to assimilate or to leave the activity. As coach participant Jason Burton put it, And so like
the question was, what motivates students to participate in the activity? And for, for us, that
was the style component of the activity... when we brought the hip hop music into it and changed
the style of it, that we saw had an effect on the way it motivated students to use their life experiences,
their personal narrative, you know um being able to see how things within the arguments that they
were making about social policy actually could affect the communities and the lives around them.
(Jason Burton, group interview I, p. 4) Burton’s team at the time was working out stylistic
choices that felt to them more culturally familiar. As he points out, these culturally familiar
styles led them to bring their own experience into debate, and to understand how the theory
they were using in debate related to their communities. Performance debate thus does what I
think Ogbu’s schools should do: instead of blaming involuntary minorities’ culture for lack of
achievement, they should recognize the full historical and cultural depths of the problem. A
mismatch between white ways of schooling and the culture of African American children, a mismatch
that devalues the children and their culture, is a profound problem not to be explained away by the
existence of often successful voluntary minorities. While I do reject what I see as Ogbu’s
overgeneralization, if it were true that even some African American students reject schooling
(or debate) as white spaces, perhaps we should consider this situation carefully rather than
reject it as unlike the often-effective instrumental responses of voluntary minorities. Instead of
idealizing dominant white ways of being in schools, we could investigate some African American
students’ responses to those white ways as critique, as critical resistance, rather than as an automatic
and counterproductive reactivity. Indeed, Yosso suggests that resistant capital is a feature of
African American cultural wealth: “Resistant capital refers to those knowledges and skills
fostered through oppositional behavior that challenges inequality” (Yosso, 2005, p. 80). Ogbu
sometimes seemed to write as if the problems faced by involuntary minority students in schools were
all in their or their parents’ heads; what if they were, instead, contemporary examples of structural
racism?
Assimilation to the norms of policy debate does not create equal opportunity, Rashad
Evans proves.
Polson 12 (Dana Roe Polson, PhD in Language Literacy and Culture, UMBC, Baltimore city
public and public charter schools high school teacher, “’Longing for Theory:’ Performance
Debate in Action” Dissertain directed by Dr. Christine Mallinson, Assistant Professor, Language,
Literacy, and Culture pp. 167-168)CEFS
Rashard Evans is a Black debater from New Jersey who won CEDA in 2001, with a ...white woman
named Sarah Holbrooke. Um, he was he was actually the first Black person to win CEDA. ... He
actually posted a very prom- ah, he posted an eDebate post20 where he actually talked about,
cause he was he was always one of the people who was an example of, traditional debaters.
And one of the things he said was that he experienced a lot of racism as a Black debater doing more
traditional style of debate. Um, so even when those of us do benefit you know, from you know the
resources that the society gives... they're subject to other forms of subjugation, other forms of racial
aggression, and so forth that still makes their experience distinct from you know, the larger white
majority. So in the debate context that's important. (Duane Hartman, group interview II, p. 4).
Evans debated prior to the emergence of performance styles of debate. As Duane Hartman says, he
debated in a traditional, mainstream style. He was undoubtedly used as an example of Black
debaters fitting in to the community and excelling. However, even for Rashad Evans, racism was a
problem. He assimilated, at least in terms of outward performance, and yet, he still experienced
problems as a Black man in the debate world. Prior to the Louisville team’s emergence, the choice of
rejecting or assimilating seemed to be the two options for debaters of color. And yet we see that for
Rashad Evans, a decision to assimilate did not mean that a person of color would be treated
equally to his or her white peers. John Calmore (2005) describes racialized Black identity as
performance, and whiteness as audition (p. 100).21 “Non-white performance in a dominantly
white setting has been a historical predicament.... Indeed, the rights enjoyed by white males could only
be obtained by assimilatory behavior.... white performance was the quid pro quo for white privilege”
(Calmore, 2005, p. 102). This assimilatory behavior, this performance of whiteness by a person of
color, is always audition for Calmore, because of a historical “universality of [combined] white
experience [and] judgment as the authoritative standard that binds people of color and normatively
measures, directs, controls, and regulates the terms of proper thought, expression, presentment, and
behavior” (Calmore, 1995, p. 318). Performance of whiteness is always conditional to
acceptance from whites; who as part of white dominance “normatively measure” the
performance for acceptability. Rashad Evans may have performed whiteness and through the quid
pro quo described by Calmore, achieved some success in the white-normed debate world. However,
according to Calmore his performance was always an audition, always subject to special scrutiny. Some
found that performance wanting and he was then subject to racialized performance of white
dominance.
Our performance breaks the silence and complicity that the community has taken in
relation to real issues like whiteness.
Polson 12 (Dana Roe Polson, PhD in Language Literacy and Culture, UMBC, Baltimore city
public and public charter schools high school teacher, “’Longing for Theory:’ Performance
Debate in Action” Dissertain directed by Dr. Christine Mallinson, Assistant Professor, Language,
Literacy, and Culture pp. 174-177)CEFS
As he points out, for him, being heard at all led to thinking more deeply about how he could use that
hearing and listening more fully. He could be heard not just literally but as a thinker and generator of
intellectual ideas. Having his own opinions about the world and having them be heard was
tremendously important to Aaron. He mentioned this repeatedly in our interview. Traditional
debate did not allow Aaron the kind of hearing he wanted. He preferred performance debate, in which
he was continually encouraged to create arguments less tethered to the resolution or traditional norms.
Referring to student debaters, he asked aloud, Why deny them ... a place where they can make their
own arguments? Especially if debate is a place where they c- ...that’s not really any true education.
That’s not education. (Aaron, interview, p. 19). Aaron was developing opinions, researching,
refining, testing, all the things that Scott Smith found so fabulous about debate in general—
and that Charles Bernschein believes in as a basic pedagogy. Aaron is working from a more
Freirian take on education than traditional debate pedagogues would, of course. Beginning with
a validation of the voice, students can also start to use the voice as a tool for change. This style is
distinct from more traditional policy styles, where debate is a game. For performance debaters, the
voice in debate is used to call for change, often inside and increasingly outside the debate round.
Aaron said: You have to tell, I guess people, or debaters that your voice is validated. It is
important. Not only is it important, but it is a mechanism in which you can also make change. And I
think, not only outside the debate community but inside it, and I think I taught, I had to teach
myself that. (interview, p. 11). Janice Cooper, college debater, agreed, finding traditional norms
of debate restrictive to being able to speak fully and freely: There’s a difference between a rule
and a norm. ... But like the norm is speedreading, and spreading, and having to affirm the national
government. Those are norms that we don’t abide by because we feel as though you should be able to,
like that should be a space where you should come in and be able to like speak your piece. And you
shouldn’t have to conform to certain types of restrictions. (Janice Cooper, interview, p. 2). Here,
Janice affirms, in a sense, her self-creation of a space in which she can speak freely. The
interesting thing here is that no one has invited Janice to speak her mind in debate; the norms
militate against that. However, Janice and other performance debaters thus create their own
spaces through speech. The practice of performance debate is so difficult, in part, because it breaks
some of many silences we construct around issues of power. Sometimes speaking your piece means
not just saying what’s on one’s mind, but breaking silences constructed to protect the powerful from
recognition. Bailey (1998) points out that “silence about privilege is itself a function of privilege
and it has a chilling effect on political discourse” (p. 16).Whiteness, for example, is un-marked,
normed, and therefore invisible and silent. Continuing to keep quiet about whiteness continues the
privilege. The practice of speaking out, then, is not the joining of an in-progress conversation, or the
addition of an alternative voice in some way. Instead, there is an overwhelming silence that has to be
broached in order to do the practice. Even in schools where students of such marginalized social
location are the majority, the misrecognition and the avoidance hold, and these things are
rarely discussed. How are these metaphorical, conceptual silences seen in debate practice?
How are they perpetuated? Aaron, a high school student at the time of the interview, believed that
students, in general, “stay silent” about the social issues they are experiencing. He attributed this
issue to the conventional vision of poverty as evidence of deviance: I think when you’re dealing
with the population like urban city kids, a lot of times we stay silent about a lot of it, really
heavy issues….I think probably why a lot of people don’t like talking about social issues in this
school is because they probably live in those certain issues….poverty is also seen as this notion
of lacking something. You’re lacking money, in this case, your you’re lacking some type of
moral or ethical backgrounds... [many people]… look down upon poverty seeing that as being
bum, poor, you know, like, you know, being deviant, trying to always get over on somebody....
(Aaron, interview, p. 10-12) Poverty is therefore a marker of lack, and poverty is taken to be
evidence of, at best, laziness or lack of ambition, and at worst, deviance and moral or ethical
deficiency. This implicit moral judgment of “bum, poor...deviant,” made by people who have
resources, silences people who lack them. Thus silenced, they are unable to explore a
structural position that might look at their poverty in a different, more empowering way. As
Freire tells us regarding oppression: we “must first critically recognize its causes.” Aaron also
saw the debate community at large as ignoring the socio-economic conditions of debaters
(ibid). This ignoring could be seen, for example, in the kinds of debate resolutions that are
chosen yearly,23 which often relate to foreign affairs or, in the case of the 2012 resolution,
space exploration. Aaron saw the debaters’ silence compounded by the debate world’s complicity.
Their wrong forum arguments are reprehensible because for so many people in this
community there is no other forum, and this space is key for urban empowerment.
Polson 12 (Dana Roe Polson, PhD in Language Literacy and Culture, UMBC, Baltimore city
public and public charter schools high school teacher, “’Longing for Theory:’ Performance
Debate in Action” Dissertain directed by Dr. Christine Mallinson, Assistant Professor, Language,
Literacy, and Culture pp. 182-83)CEFS
At the Paul Robeson Charter School, some students live not with their biological parents but with
grandparents, aunts or uncles, or other guardians. Many students do not have relationships with their
biological fathers, though they often hunger for them. 182 Occasionally there is a homeless child, and
every year there are at least a couple students known not to have enough to eat. Sometimes girls
become pregnant; some young people enter the juvenile justice system. However, most of our students
would best be described, in the terminology of the David Simon and Ed Burns26, as stoop kids as
opposed to corner kids. Stoop kids hang out close to home and are responsive to adult advice and
intervention. Corner kids are those involved in the drug trade or regular violence. While Paul Robeson
kids are most often stoop kids, they are not usually not children of economic privilege. As noted earlier
in this dissertation, the majority of the students qualify for free and reduced meals; 99% identify as
African American; they lack racial and economic privilege; and almost without exception, they live in
Baltimore neighborhoods that regularly see the drug trade, violence, and poverty. In the school’s
almost 10-year history, two of its former students have been murdered. Taken together, these
factors show a student body in need of critical work toward recognition of their circumstances as
oppressive, and they show the way such recognition can empower action towards change. The practice
of performance debate tends to center itself on or begin from such recognition of student social
location. One coach participant explained, “Well, the resolution for us... starts from a
perspective of what those words [of the resolution] mean to someone living in their [the
students on the debate team’s] social condition” (Andre Rubens, group interview II, p. 19). In
other words, for someone experiencing racism, or poverty, or hunger, or police brutality himself or
herself, what does this resolution mean? How does it relate to the student? What connections can be
formed? Duane Hartman explained this perspective further: I feel like I’ve always been really
good at being able to get students involved in the discussion, the conversation that was
happening in the classroom, because it’s always about where the students are. You know the
questions that that [my colleague] was saying you ask when you talk about police presence,
you know in one of … the practices that I did, we talked about, you know what [does] a police
presence mean? What does that look like to you? How does that make you feel? And these are
all things that students want to talk about. They have no other forum where they are allowed
to talk about those things and feel like something’s going to happen as a result of it. (Group
interview II, p. 22). In the standardized-test-focused curricula of 2012 US public schools, Duane is right
that there is often “no other forum” for talk about the pressing conditions of city life for students.
Students often live in neighborhoods in which “police presence” is no exaggeration, and they rarely
have the opportunity for structured talk about it in school. Individual adults in schools may create such
forums for students lucky enough to encounter them, but the norms are silence and the utter
depoliticizing of students’ social locations as mere personal matters.
Their framework destroys the urban debater’s ability to get the theory that they long
for and find new frameworks for looking at issues.
Polson 12 (Dana Roe Polson, PhD in Language Literacy and Culture, UMBC, Baltimore city
public and public charter schools high school teacher, “’Longing for Theory:’ Performance
Debate in Action” Dissertain directed by Dr. Christine Mallinson, Assistant Professor, Language,
Literacy, and Culture pp. 182-83)CEFS
What would such problem-posing education, such “unveiling of reality,” look like for students? C.
Wright Mills’ concept of the sociological imagination is useful here. The sociological imagination is a
way of thinking based on a distinction between troubles and issues. These are the “personal troubles of
milieu” as opposed to the “public issues of social structure” that occur when “various milieu overlap
and interpenetrate to form the larger structure of social and historical life” (Mills, 1959, p. 8). Mills
uses unemployment to illustrate this distinction. If a couple of people in a city of several million
are unemployed, those people are experiencing troubles. If, however, a third of the city is
unemployed, “Both the correct statement of the problem and the range of possible solutions
require us to consider the economic and political institutions of the society, and not merely the
personal situation and character of a scatter of individuals” (Mills, 1959, p. 9). In the case of my
students, they were stating the problem and thus were considering solutions as being “personal
situation and character” rather than looking at them on a structural, institutional level. Once we are
employing a sociological imagination to understand issues as opposed to troubles, we are least
understanding the problem at a more appropriate level of analysis. What oppresses people? We are
looking at larger-scale institutional and structural explanations, as opposed to troubles-based
explanations such as “Black people are lazy,” which fail to take into account anything other than
psychological explanations for individual behavior. They fail to notice the issues facing various groups in
society more than other groups. They do not allow us to talk productively about racism, or wealth
inequality, or any of a number of structural issues. In this section, I look at how the performance debate
practice takes an approach that develops students’ sociological imaginations by helping them explore
and defend generally structural explanations, before taking a deeper look at how CRT is used to
examine race in such a structural light. For some students, this kind of structural talk and theorizing
meets a deeply felt need for making sense of their worlds. Perhaps these are students for whom
the deep division between American Dream ideology and patterns of inequality has always
been a contradiction; perhaps they reject psychological or cultural explanations for inequity In
my titular phrase, Aaron described an urban debater as someone who longs for theory : I think
our urban debater is a person that longs for theory. Like bell hooks, I long for some theory to... it
sounds corny, but, I long for some theory to umm, to express what I was going through. .... How did [a]
paradigm like capitalism and a paradigm like government work, in my context of my social-economic
condition. And all that questioning, to me made me even long for theory even more. (Aaron, interview,
p. 21).
Performance debate allows debaters to connect global issues with their social
location.
Polson 12 (Dana Roe Polson, PhD in Language Literacy and Culture, UMBC, Baltimore city
public and public charter schools high school teacher, “’Longing for Theory:’ Performance
Debate in Action” Dissertain directed by Dr. Christine Mallinson, Assistant Professor, Language,
Literacy, and Culture pp. 191-192)CEFS
The attempt, then, is to allow students to connect the arguments they hear in debate with their own
experiences. The result is that students are speaking from their social location. They are not just
talking about “what went on at home” as emotional venting or commiseration, however
valuable that may be; instead, they are becoming cognizant of the structural nature of their
home and community lives and linking them to the concepts they learn about in debate. There
is an analytical approach. Aaron explained: And I think ... what gets people into debate, is when
they apply those arguments that they read to their lives and see how they actually connect to
the real world themselves.... I just don’t look at arguments and say ‘Hmm, I’m gonna run this.’
and say okay I look into the arguments and say ‘ok how does this work in the real world. Like,
what do people really think about these type of arguments. And how do people feel about
them, and economic social conditions or political conditions that we live in now. (Aaron,
interview, p. 3) Performance debate revolves around the pertinence of social location to
argumentation and theorizing. Andre Rubens, a coach, explained how his students created such
connections between social location and theory: Well the resolution for us, like when we debate each
year, starts from a perspective of what those words mean to someone living in their social condition.
So for example when you when you’re in the inner city and you think of police presence, what
does that mean to you? Usually that means squad cars yelling out with bullhorns at your
friends. Or presence that scares you to death when you hear that siren. What is it, that that
tense feeling when [imitates police car siren pull-up noise] woo-woop! of a police siren, what
does it mean when you hear that. .... what does this resolution, ... how do you feel about it,
speaking as a person from where you’re from. What does this mean to you. (Andre Rubens,
group interview II, p. 19) As noted in Chapter 1, while performance debate used to more often take a
metaphorical approach to a resolution or to reject it altogether in favor of a metacognitive look at the
debate community, the relationship to the resolution has changed as the practice has evolved. As
Rubens puts it, his team’s practice started with the relationship between the resolution and the
debaters’ own experience with component parts of the resolution, in this case, “police presence” and
their own experiences with it. By doing so, the team not only connected their own experiences to the
resolution but connected themselves to people affected by United States “liberal” foreign policy. They
were able to link their oppression to others’, creating a sense of solidarity with people very far
away and developing a more general understanding of the way power is used to oppress.
Rubens noted, “when we conceive of the question of Iraq and Afghanistan, we can make
parallels between how the military acts in Iraq and Afghanistan as the same way the police do
in urban America” (group interview II, p. 1). So, in this case we see that not only are various US
oppression linked, such as gender and race, but also that performance debate can foster a more global
outlook. Global white supremacy, a concept discussed by Charles W. Mills, can be seen if the US military
and local US police forces are compared, or if the oppression of Black and Brown people world-wide is
noticed.
Performance allows debaters to conduct a real world analysis of real world problems
that allows for self actualization.
Polson 12 (Dana Roe Polson, PhD in Language Literacy and Culture, UMBC, Baltimore city
public and public charter schools high school teacher, “’Longing for Theory:’ Performance
Debate in Action” Dissertain directed by Dr. Christine Mallinson, Assistant Professor, Language,
Literacy, and Culture pp. 200-202)CEFS
The city school Collins went to, like all but the most elite Baltimore schools with entrance
requirements, was and is majority Black. Collins describes a fairly segregated existence growing up,
one in which the meaning or import of Blackness isn’t necessarily germane. He went on to describe how
he understood (or, as he suggests, was passively taught) that Black people “on the streets” or in the
school halls—as opposed to classrooms—were bad people who lack motivation: ... people that are on
the streets [are seen] as these bad people that you should always delineate yourself from. .... [also,] I
was one of those students that was like ‘ok these hall-walkers don’t want anything for their lives and
they’re just out here just doing stuff,’ He goes on to describe a shift in his thinking But ... that’s not
necessarily a productive thing to do. Like there, like I think that those people are your people as
well, but they’re, they’re probably going through things that we never perceive on the surface.
Like sometimes you just think ‘oh they’re just lazy’ or ‘they just want to get money fast,’ stuff
like that, but they’re they’re concepts that I think that I’ve learned through reading people like
Cornel West ... like you know he talks about this concept of nihilism, when you lose this sense
of hope and love and meaning for life, and that’s kinda what a lot of people that do destructive
things to themselves are going through. But I mean there’s no cure for that, but it’s only through
loving yourself and loving your culture and affirming yourself in that way how you try to cope with
those things. But instead of questioning this perspective, or whether the young people in the halls are
being ill-served by the education in city schools, ...[most] people don’t ever ask those fundamental
questions, and they think that you know okay we can just build more prisons in Baltimore and we’ll just
house them. Once they get to a certain level. Sixteen years, when they’re sixteen years we can drop
them from roll, they don’t come to school as much, and we can just start to, um, you know put them
into a system or put them in the system and that’s where they’ll be for the rest of their lives. He
described precisely how this shift happened for him. He went away to a college with a
pioneering performance debate team, which ...kind of opened my eyes to that. It may not have
been the specific people that did that, but it’s more so the arguments and what I started to
read as a result of going [there] and interacting with people who were really pro-Black about
their identity, um, so I I think through the style, one of the things I can say I gained from the
style of debate that I do is more self-actualization and like knowing who I am. And I think that’s
something that’s really lacking for high school students. They don’t really know who they are.
And they just do stuff that isn’t you know productive, because they don’t have a sense of self.
They’re just living. They’re just they’re alive, but they’re not really living, if you know what I
mean. (all excerpts, Collins, interview, p. 13) Darnell Collins experienced a radical shift in his
thinking when he went away to college and started to debate in a performance style. He went from a
personal, troubles-based way of looking at Blackness and Black people’s experience in the US to a more
structural way of seeing that experience, based in CRT. Instead of interpreting lack of school success as
laziness or, as Aaron might have said, a lack of morals, he began to look deeper at the social location of
many African Americans. He describes himself as starting to ask “fundamental questions,” and to
believe that on a systemic level there is a loss of hope and meaning on the part of individuals, and a
system shift towards incarceration and punishment that mirrors that loss of hope and perpetuates it
into a cycle. Further, Darnell describes a race-positive, pro-Black process of identity formation that
happened for him in college and that gave him a “sense of self” that allowed him to live as opposed to
being alive.
The negative's strategy of doubling only serves to appropriate our argument and
disguise the power of whiteness.
Polson 12 (Dana Roe Polson, PhD in Language Literacy and Culture, UMBC, Baltimore city
public and public charter schools high school teacher, “’Longing for Theory:’ Performance
Debate in Action” Dissertain directed by Dr. Christine Mallinson, Assistant Professor, Language,
Literacy, and Culture pp. 205)CEFS
As we saw in Chapter 3, Bourdieu points out repeatedly that the only way that many social
actions can be accomplished is by their misrecognition as disinterested. The misperception of
interest “legitimizes these practices and thereby contributes to the reproduction of the social
order in which they are embedded” (Swartz, 1997, p. 90). One way that the racial order of
whiteness is reproduced is by such misrecognition of whiteness as disinterested. In a segment from a
video recording of the 2008 CEDA quarterfinals between Towson and Fort Hays, I will show how a white
team, perhaps unintentionally, attempts to disguise the interest of whiteness. The Fort Hays team
attempts to appropriate the Black Towson team’s argument in a post-modern strategy they call
“doubling” and that they are unable to perceive as having racial overtones. Further, they hear one of
Towson’s structural race arguments as a personal charge of racism and spend much of the
cross-examination deflecting those arguments in a way that attempts to disguise the power of
whiteness.
Performance debate forces real and personal discussions of race for those in positions
of privilege, Fort Hays proves.
Polson 12 (Dana Roe Polson, PhD in Language Literacy and Culture, UMBC, Baltimore city
public and public charter schools high school teacher, “’Longing for Theory:’ Performance
Debate in Action” Dissertain directed by Dr. Christine Mallinson, Assistant Professor, Language,
Literacy, and Culture pp. 217-218)CEFS
In this debate video, we see the issues of race and recognition and structure brought to life, enacted in
a debate round. The question of whether Fort Hays’ decision to strike a judge was an act of structural,
exclusionary racism; the question of whether Towson’s decision to make that strike the object of
sustained critique in the round was a critique of that exclusion or a personal attack; the question of
whether doubling is a metaphor for the rejection of competitive, destructive, binary thinking, or a form
of racist appropriation; all these questions are seen in speeches and heated cross-examination sessions
during this debate. As performance debaters assert, the intellectual work of this racial critique is
conducted during debate. While Fort Hays may have wanted Towson to approach them privately
about what they saw as a personal charge of racism, that was precisely the point of Towson’s very
public in-round argument: that the charge was not, in fact, personal at all, but exemplified the kind of
structural exclusion that happens all the time in debate and in US society, without explicit racist intent.
Towson was saying that that is exactly the problem: that we do not recognize the interests of
whiteness.
Debate is a critical space where the performance aspect is driven by speaking for
those who cannot speak.
Polson 12 (Dana Roe Polson, PhD in Language Literacy and Culture, UMBC, Baltimore city
public and public charter schools high school teacher, “’Longing for Theory:’ Performance
Debate in Action” Dissertain directed by Dr. Christine Mallinson, Assistant Professor, Language,
Literacy, and Culture pp. 233)CEFS
“Debate becomes critical.” Again, we see debate not as game-playing but as part of the real world.
Debate trains people to “articulate their oppression persuasively to gain resources to change.” Another
respondent echoed this importance of voice and indeed, the responsibility to use that voice on behalf
of the community: When you have the privilege as most people do not, to have access to certain
information and certain breadths of knowledge, and being around people who can develop you, not
just intellectually but culturally too, that you have a responsibility to speak for the communities or
people from communities who don’t have a voice. People from the inner city. People who are
young. People who are poor. People who are without role models or without leadership ... I
think that that purpose is what drives the performance aspect of debate for most Black people. Which
is different from the purpose for most privileged white people. (Andre Rubens, group interview, p.
14)
Their move to suggest that black performance debate is the modern Talented Tenth is
actually flawed.
Polson 12 (Dana Roe Polson, PhD in Language Literacy and Culture, UMBC, Baltimore city
public and public charter schools high school teacher, “’Longing for Theory:’ Performance
Debate in Action” Dissertain directed by Dr. Christine Mallinson, Assistant Professor, Language,
Literacy, and Culture pp. 234-35)CEFS
I think the Talented Tenth is actually the wrong metaphor for leadership in the performance debate
community. Du Bois, later in his life, sharply criticized and disavowed a reliance on the Black
elite to lead, believing that they were more preoccupied with individual gain than with group
struggle, and willing to work within current structures rather than calling for radical change.
They were becoming Americanized, Du Bois believed, and deradicalized. This deradicalization “occurs
when more privileged African Americans (re) align themselves to function as a middle class interested
in individual group gain rather than race leadership for mass development” (James, 1997, p. 24).
Instead of his youthful belief in the Black elite, “Gradually, black working-class activists
surpassed elites in Du Bois’s estimation of political integrity and progressive agency. He
democratized his concept of race leaders through the inclusion of the radicalism of nonelites”
(James, 1997, p. 21). The young people who have emerged as leaders in the performance debate
community were definitely not those Du Bois would have identified as the Talented Tenth in 1903. Du
Bois was talking to and about the Black elite, the educated middle class. Earlier in Du Bois’s life,
he assumed that those people, college-educated, were the natural leaders. My participants who might
be seen as potential leaders do not come from such backgrounds. Many do end up going to college and
becoming potential leaders, but they are privileged through this process rather than prior to it. In
addition, their focus is most definitely political as opposed to cultural. Nowhere in my research did I
hear a Bill Cosby-esque injunction for Black people to shape up and work harder. Instead, the
critique is focused on “uplift as group struggle” for continued liberation. Finally, these young leaders are
most definitely radicalized as opposed to interested in incremental change that rocks no boats. From
CRT and their open critique of white supremacy to their willingness to call for change openly in debate
rounds, these young leaders are contentious and bold.
Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle proves that performance debate gives debaters many
of the same portable skills as traditional policy.
Polson 12 (Dana Roe Polson, PhD in Language Literacy and Culture, UMBC, Baltimore city
public and public charter schools high school teacher, “’Longing for Theory:’ Performance
Debate in Action” Dissertain directed by Dr. Christine Mallinson, Assistant Professor, Language,
Literacy, and Culture pp. 235-36)CEFS
Two of my participants, and many of their former debate peers, are involved with a Baltimore group
called Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle (LBS). The website of the LBS establishes their identity: We are a
dedicated group of Baltimore citizens who want to change the city through governmental policy action.
Our purpose is to provide tangible, concrete solutions to Baltimore’s problems and to analyze the ways
that external forces have contributed to the overall decline of our city. (“Leaders of a Beautiful
Struggle,” n.d.) As we see in this statement of identity, then, LBS as one model of leadership is
focused on the political and on an analysis of external influences; this focus is very different
from a racial uplift position, and their model of leadership very different from the Talented
Tenth. LBS has developed platforms regarding jobs, education, incarceration, and many other issues
facing Black people in the city. They hold monthly forums for discussion of these topics, inviting guests
and discussing the topics themselves. Further, one of the LBS members ran for City Council this year. He
lost, but plans to run again. The training my participants discuss, therefore, is not in the abstract: it is
training for the real world, for their own empowerment and that of their communities. This work is
extending into local high schools, as well, and Paul Robeson High School now has students involved in
LBS. They attend events and meetings not only to help out but as a form of leadership training.
Your focus on terminal impacts only holds up the epistemology of whiteness that
makes your impacts inevitable and makes ours invisible.
Polson 12 (Dana Roe Polson, PhD in Language Literacy and Culture, UMBC, Baltimore city
public and public charter schools high school teacher, “’Longing for Theory:’ Performance
Debate in Action” Dissertain directed by Dr. Christine Mallinson, Assistant Professor, Language,
Literacy, and Culture pp. 241-242)CEFS
We see whiteness in the epistemology of traditional policy debate, with its Eurocentric, rationalistic
epistemological stance. For example, this rationalistic stance leads to the common traditional debate
practice of emphasizing the terminal impact. Debaters like to use drastic terminal impacts to argue that
their case should be favored because if it is not, the result would be the terminal impact: often, nuclear
war. Competing terminal impacts in debate seem to favor the most severe. In the words of one
debating blogger, “It seems as though debate is stuck in a loop of nuclear wars and no value to life.
We have a difficult time of conceiving of a terminal impact that doesn’t end in some ultimate
destruction. Without terminal impacts such as nuclear war or the root of all claims, we have a
tough time comparing and weighing impacts” (“Impact hyperbole: A dilemma of contemporary
debate practice,” 2010). In a rationalistic mode that privileges the terminal impact, however, racism
holds little sway, as do any moral arguments. Because if the price is the planet dies from nuclear war,
what can be worse? Kenneth described: [We need to change the] traditional way of researching and
producing education, right. ‘Cause the way that things are researched, I guess, in the status quo is, like,
every affirmative case ends in what’s called this terminal impact. The most worst thing that can ever
happen. And that is always like nuclear war. Like, nuclear war is always the terminal impact. (Kenneth,
interview, p. 17) He continued, describing the epistemology behind our thinking to be the root of
social ills: [Dr. King’s focus was not so much violence against the body as it was] the ah, ah white
mindset behind all those things, right, like so even if the physical impact was hurting the body, the
white ideas behind the physical impacts are what justify those impacts.... This mindset will always
recreate the problem. So you know if you try to solve for nuclear we will always be on the brink of
nuclear war if this like epistemology remains the same. And so we say that we need to deconstruct
this Eurocentric, masculine epistemology and replace it with an Afrocentric feminist
epistemology. (Kenneth, interview, p. 23-24)
Whiteness’s creation of the dichotomy of the black being the body and the white
being the mind makes traditional policy debate uniquely harmful for black
participants.
Polson 12 (Dana Roe Polson, PhD in Language Literacy and Culture, UMBC, Baltimore city
public and public charter schools high school teacher, “’Longing for Theory:’ Performance
Debate in Action” Dissertain directed by Dr. Christine Mallinson, Assistant Professor, Language,
Literacy, and Culture pp. 247-248)CEFS
Doing Performance; Performing the Body Coach and former debater Duane Hartman said that he often
heard the question, “why can’t Black people just do traditional debate?” and then folks would “list off
all the names of successful Black debaters” (Hartman, group interview I, p. 11). What does the
performance of the body look like in traditional debate? According to Mitchell, “The purpose of debate
becomes unrelenting pursuit of victory at a zero-sum game.... Debate practice involves debaters
‘spewing’ a highly technical, specialized discourse at expert judges trained to understand enough of the
speeches to render decisions” (Mitchell, 1998, p. 5). As we will see in this chapter, there are a number
of attributes connected to epistemology of traditional debate, as well as corresponding attributes that
signal performance debate’s agentic alternative. These attributes are signaled through performance of
Black or white bodies, as well. Mitchell, Wise, and others depict traditional debate as spewing, as milea-minute reading of evidence (which is not exclusive to traditional debate, anymore), as part of a split
between the technical, specialized, and policy-oriented traditional style on the one hand and a
performance debate style that calls for something different and new on the other. Ten years ago,
Warner and Bruschke called for control of debate to shift to newer, ‘non-traditional’ debaters: “If
offered access to the creative form of debate, new participants can appropriate it and make their very
debating a critique of the domination in debate in ways that those sharing a majority worldview cannot
imagine on their own.... We can either discuss among ourselves [debate professionals] what elements
of debate style make it such a white-dominated activity, or we can listen to the unique styles and
expressions of new-found debaters and validate them with positive feedback. We can use our ballots to
affirm new styles of debate” (Warner & Bruschke, 2001, pp. 14–15). Duane Hartman, former debater
and coach, described traditional policy debate as not a normal performance of the Black body. He
continued, “The body is always excluded from intellectual thought. And it’s always the mind and any
interpretation of what the mind says about the body that is considered intellectual.” He pointed out the
dichotomy that is drawn between “Black being the body, white being the mind. If instinct and
experience are knowledge, but embodied, and if those are considered the province of Black ways of
knowing, as opposed to academic knowledge which is prioritized.... these need to be equalized instead
of dichotomized and hierarchical” (Hartman, group interview I, p. 11). Here we see how the
epistemology of performance debate is intimately linked to the stylistic aspects, to the doing of debate,
the performance of the body.
The performance of the black body disrupts this whitenormed activity.
Polson 12 (Dana Roe Polson, PhD in Language Literacy and Culture, UMBC, Baltimore city
public and public charter schools high school teacher, “’Longing for Theory:’ Performance
Debate in Action” Dissertain directed by Dr. Christine Mallinson, Assistant Professor, Language,
Literacy, and Culture pp. 250-251)CEFS
The use of performance in the colloquial sense, as a performance of art, in this case most usually Black
cultural styles, is, as Hartman suggests, only part of the way that performance is invoked and
manipulated here. Reid-Brinkley (2008) asserts that bringing a Black body into the policy debate
space itself provides a spatial disruption to a whitenormed space and activity. She argues that many
critical debate tactics are rhetorical strategies “designed to disrupt the normativity of
traditional debate practices.... and combat the social ideologies that result in unequal power
relations across race, gender, and class within the national policy debate community” (pp. 7879). One of these genre violations is “sonic disturbance and displacing spatial privilege” (ibid). Most
debate tournaments are held at majority-white colleges and universities; non-UDL tournaments are
most often at majority-white secondary schools. Reid-Brinkley describes these spaces as normatively
white, and places in which the focus is meant to be on the mind rather than the body. When Black
bodies enter these spaces, they are not the norm and thus their very presence disrupts the whiteness of
the space and the attempt [of white people] to disembody the space, according to the Collins’
description of Eurocentric epistemology. In addition to the mere presence of the Black body,
though, as Willie points out, the Black person has to choose their racial performance. While
assimilating into white debate spaces would presumably require a choice to act white, the deployment
of a performance debate practice might reject that choice. A performance debater might act Black. Part
of acting Black in this sense would mean refusing to ignore race, would mean rejecting a colorblind
ideology. Calmore notes that “racial performance transgresses the bounds of race as category,
and incorporates and activates race as consciousness” (Calmore, 2005, p. 109). Race
consciousness is thus part of racial performance.
Hip Hop helps to break down the disembodied whiteness of the activity.
Polson 12 (Dana Roe Polson, PhD in Language Literacy and Culture, UMBC, Baltimore city
public and public charter schools high school teacher, “’Longing for Theory:’ Performance
Debate in Action” Dissertain directed by Dr. Christine Mallinson, Assistant Professor, Language,
Literacy, and Culture pp. 251-252)CEFS
Further, the hip-hop music that animates many critical debate rounds is a sonic disturbance to this quiet
white space, an aural representation of the Black bodies playing it. The presence of music in a debate
round, the Blackness of hip-hop, etc., all conspire against this disembodied whiteness. As Duane
Hartman said: [Performativity] deals with the performance of the body. And being able to identify
something by the performance of the body. And that doesn’t necessarily have to be active, you
know, it could just be looking at you. What makes a woman a woman is based on the
performance of that body. And so that gender becomes a performative identity. And so their
argument became the way in which we express ourselves within debate, is based on the
performance of our bodies as Black males, Black females. (Hartman, group interview I, p. 11)
What might the “unique styles and expressions” that Ede Warner and Jon Bruschke (both
veteran collegiate debate coaches) called for look like? Jason Burton described the beginnings
of performance debate at the University of Louisville as an effort to increase participation of
Black students. He said that the Ede Warner, who was the founder of that program, “began to
introduce hip-hop music into debate rounds” as a way of doing so (Jason Burton, group interview I,
p. 3). The beginnings, then, had to do with changing the style of debate to include culturally Black art as
part of the debate performance. These performances often still include hip-hop music, often prerecorded, as part of debate. In addition, to give just a few examples, students from Paul Robeson
High School have played West African percussion and danced, read narratives about their
families, created poetry. Student participant Jessica Cooper describes singing in debate, as a
way of being comfortable in debate by making it relate to her experience: “... in debate we, like
I’ll sing my first speech because like, like first it was like a way for me to be comfortable in the
round....For me, singing was a way for me to make myself comfortable and a way for me to
make debate relate to me and my community” (Jessica Cooper, interview, p. 2).
Our in round solvency shifts the agency from the state to us as debaters.
Polson 12 (Dana Roe Polson, PhD in Language Literacy and Culture, UMBC, Baltimore city
public and public charter schools high school teacher, “’Longing for Theory:’ Performance
Debate in Action” Dissertain directed by Dr. Christine Mallinson, Assistant Professor, Language,
Literacy, and Culture pp. 256-257)CEFS
One of the ways performance debaters see themselves doing something as opposed to just talking is a
concept they call in-round solvency. If something about a debater’s argument is addressed and
solved for in the round, then she has in-round solvency. The concept of in-round solvency only
makes sense in non-traditional speeches; traditional debaters would not claim in-round solvency
for an argument that depends on the US government to enact. While fiat says that for the sake
of the debate round, we will all pretend that there would be no barriers to enact the plan (the
opponents cannot argue that there’s no way that would be approved in the real world; fiat
says thast we assume the plan could be approved), no one is saying that the round itself does
enact. The power of discourse, then, is different in performance debate arguments because the actor is
not the USFG, but, in some cases, the debaters themselves; the focus is often not the state but the
state of debate. There is a radical shift in who has potential agency. As Janice Cooper says, “We talk
about specifically affirming... ourselves in this round, like that’s an act of actual in-round
solvency, because we in this round are like the most oppressed....” The response of more
traditional debaters to performance debate arguments is often to downplay or avoid them.
Janice says that she and her partner make “real” arguments, and she hopes that “the debate
community will start to realize that, like, we’re not just talking, like we’re actually making real
arguments they should actually try to prepare for and actually look out for” (Cooper, interview, p.
15). I heard more than once the argument that talking about issues of race during a debate round,
where it could actually have an impact, is different from talking about (in the sense of pretending
to make) foreign policy changes. I think that individual agency is the key to the argument here.
The playing-the-game takes away from individual agency; not playing a game, i.e., performance debate,
asserts individual agency and is therefore doing something. Kenneth explained this position: A lot
of teams like to participate in some hypothetical world where...the affirmative pretends to be
the federal government, and ... when the judge signs his ballot affirmative, the plan gets
passed, this problem gets solved, and, ... like we stop nuclear war. When the judge signs the
ballot, nuclear war gets stopped. And I guess the problem with that is like back to like the objectivity
thing, it disconnects you from the real world. Like it takes away from what you as an individual person
can do cause you’re constantly pretending to be something that you’re not. And so, like, like what
[theorist] Carrie Crenshaw says, like using your individual agency to fix problems that you know you
have control over. .... By us taking advantage of our individual agency and talking about whiteness and
bringing it to the forefront of discussions, like, we [he and his debate partner] do more action than you
[an opponent] do, even if you pretend to do something. (Kenneth, interview, p. 19)
There are ethical ways in which we, personally, can advocate for certain USFG actions.
Polson 12 (Dana Roe Polson, PhD in Language Literacy and Culture, UMBC, Baltimore city
public and public charter schools high school teacher, “’Longing for Theory:’ Performance
Debate in Action” Dissertain directed by Dr. Christine Mallinson, Assistant Professor, Language,
Literacy, and Culture pp. 275-76)CEFS
As the performance debate praxis has evolved over the course of the past ten years or so, the attitude
toward the resolution and strategy has shifted. Having a plan text is no longer verboten; if the linking of
an argument to the resolution is not oppressive, then performance debaters might make that
connection. Kenneth described his shift in thinking on plan texts and strategy. Before, he said, “we had
to defend like, I guess, traditional debate in its entirety was bad, like plan text bad, and I guess like it’s
always a hard debate to win, in the mind of a judge.” However, his practice changed to include plan
texts at times. It’s a little bit more strategic as well, as like it doesn’t hurt to do it. Where now it could
be like, look, we’re not like saying that like plan texts are bad, we’re not saying we can’t talk about the
Federal Government, we’re just saying that we can change the way in which we have these discussions.
Which is I guess a little bit more strategic, but, it’s pretty true. (Kenneth, interview, p. 13) Kenneth goes
on to explain his team’s transition from advocacies to a plan text: Before this year, cause we never used
to have a plan text, we never used to say the Federal Government should do anything, and so we
always used to have a personal advocacy. But ...now recently, developing our argument...you can still
have like a plan text, and still advocate your personal agency. [Before,] saying that the Federal
Government should do anything was just endorsing their actions and the Federal Government was just
this evil entity that we can like never endorse til it changes... [But now,] saying that the Federal
Government should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan ...is not me endorsing their actions, it’s me saying
they should get out... (ibid). Kenneth’s explanation shows us one way in which performance debate is a
vitally fluid and dynamic practice. For some years, performance debaters actively avoided plan texts.
Their use now shows that the practice grows and changes, both intellectually and strategically.
Personal belief in arguments is what makes performance debate so liberatory.
Polson 12 (Dana Roe Polson, PhD in Language Literacy and Culture, UMBC, Baltimore city
public and public charter schools high school teacher, “’Longing for Theory:’ Performance
Debate in Action” Dissertain directed by Dr. Christine Mallinson, Assistant Professor, Language,
Literacy, and Culture pp. 278-79)CEFS
The difference between strategy and belief is real for the performance debaters I interviewed, in a way
it would not be for privileged students who adopted the practice or even for Kritik debaters who use
critical but not race-based practices. Most debaters, as we have seen, are white and at minimum
middle-class. Most are male. While not downplaying individual struggles debaters may have, as a
group they are largely very privileged. While they might legitimately believe in various struggles for
greater equity and justice, as I do as a privileged white middle-class woman, based on their own
personal experience they have much to be grateful for and less to critique. This situation is different
from my performance debate participants. Duane Hartman talked about one of the songs they used in
rounds: “[The artist] makes the argument, you know, that one of the problems with you know high
theory and theorizing about things like...democratic socialism is that people in poverty have to live dayto-day the experiences of their suffering. So I think...the difference is that for a lot of the Kritik
debaters... for them it’s an argument” (group interview II, p. 2). For the privileged, debate is an
argument, or it might be a game, but it certainly has little to do with their day-to-day life. For
my participants, they saw debate differently. As we saw in Chapter 1, Bruschke divides the
debate community between the Playas who use critical arguments and tactics in order to win and the
True Believers who use them to expose privilege and change the predominantly still-white, still-male
face of debate (2004, p. 84). This division is on the collegiate level. At the high school level, debate is
still overwhelmingly practiced in a traditional style; playas don’t so much use critical arguments as
simply play to win at that level using policy-based argument.
Switch side destroys conviction and advocacy for performance debaters.
Polson 12 (Dana Roe Polson, PhD in Language Literacy and Culture, UMBC, Baltimore city
public and public charter schools high school teacher, “’Longing for Theory:’ Performance
Debate in Action” Dissertain directed by Dr. Christine Mallinson, Assistant Professor, Language,
Literacy, and Culture pp. 280-81)CEFS
Switch-side debating as a debate norm is rooted in a liberal belief in hearing all sides of an issue, in
suspending judgment, etc. Most debate community members believe that switch-side debating both
increases argumentation skills and increases empathy with other points of view (Warner & Bruschke
(2001), Solt (2004), English et al (2007). In this view, performance debaters who do not switch sides
are somewhat provincial, tied to identity politics instead of conducting a wide-ranging search for truth;
their critical project keeps them from truly critical thinking, as their minds are already made up.
Performance debaters reject these assumptions, including the assumption that critical research in
general is somehow political or ideological in opposition to some purer, more objective non-critical
research. The problem with this argument is that it denies us access to arguments about
hegemony and power; if each debate has to be argued switch-side, tabula rasa, as if we didn’t hold
some powerful insights into the nature of power through critical theory, then we are denied the
explanatory power of those theories. We are stuck in a liberalism of an imaginary policy world. In many
ways, then, performance debaters challenge the standard policy debate paradigm of game-playing,
through their insistence on authenticity in debate and through their performance of Blackness and of
other identities counter to the mainstream performance of white maleness. For many African American
debaters, the performance debate practice is kept more real than an assimilative practice would be, for
them. Debaters depend on debate for scholarship; they are not playing around. Debaters speak from
conviction and belief, rather than exclusively strategically; they are not role-playing or trying out
arguments for fun. Debaters disrupt whiteness and genre norms; they are not playing within the
standard rules of the game.
Signifying allows black debaters to critically analyze race, class, and gender ideologies.
Reid-Brinkley ‘3 (Reid-Brinkley ‘3 (THE HARSH REALITIES OF “ACTING BLACK”: HOW
AFRICAN-AMERICAN POLICY DEBATERS NEGOTIATE REPRESENTATION THROUGH RACIAL
PERFORMANCE AND STYLE by SHANARA ROSE REID- BRINKLEY (Under the Direction of
CHRISTINE HAROLD)BA,Emory University, 2001 Alabama, 2003 (Assistant Professor, PhD
University of Georgia)
The Louisville debaters signify on a number of practices and procedures of the policy debate community.
Henry Louis Gates defines signifyin' as "the trope of revision, of repetition and difference, which” he derives “from the Afro-American idiom.”48
Signifyin' is "often characterized by pastiche, and, most crucially, it turns on repetition of formal
structures and their differences." Signifyin' may "include marking, loud-talking, testifying, calling out (of
one's name), sounding, rapping, playing the dozens, and so on."50 The Louisville debaters repeat
traditional practices and engage in a strategic reversal of those practices in an effort to create new
meanings and norms. Through this process, the debaters critically analyze the race, class, and gender
ideologies critical to the normative practices and procedures of the community. Such practices and procedures
that are under review include the use of and dependence on expert evidence in debate speeches. Green and Jones, in particular, also engage in
the signifyin’ practice 79 of loud-talking, most evidently in the cross-examination period where debaters directly engage one another.
Rhetorical strategies can be used to combat social ideologies in the debate space.
Reid-Brinkley ‘3 (Reid-Brinkley ‘3 (THE HARSH REALITIES OF “ACTING BLACK”: HOW
AFRICAN-AMERICAN POLICY DEBATERS NEGOTIATE REPRESENTATION THROUGH RACIAL
PERFORMANCE AND STYLE by SHANARA ROSE REID- BRINKLEY (Under the Direction of
CHRISTINE HAROLD)BA,Emory University, 2001 Alabama, 2003 (Assistant Professor, PhD
University of Georgia)
In this critical analysis of the Louisville Project, I argue that the Louisville debaters engage in two
rhetorical strategies designed to disrupt
the normativity of traditional debate practices: 1) the African American practice of signifyin', and 2)
genre violation as a means of 78 using style and performance to combat the social ideologies that result
in unequal power relations across race, gender, and class within the national policy debate community. It
is these two rhetorical strategies that make Louisville’s rhetoric seem argumentative and
confrontational. Yet, as I argue at the end of this chapter, without the radical nature of their protest, the connection between the
normative practices of policy debate participation and the lack of racial diversity on the national
tournament circuit may have remained hidden. Secondarily, I argue that the Louisville projects dissemination onto the high school level,
particularly amongst UDL students, may foster a crisis within the UDL structure that necessitates a re-evaluation of non-profit partnership with local cultural
communities.
Hip-Hop and aesthetics are rhetorical tactics used to alter the normative structures of
debate.
Reid-Brinkley ‘3 (Reid-Brinkley ‘3 (THE HARSH REALITIES OF “ACTING BLACK”: HOW
AFRICAN-AMERICAN POLICY DEBATERS NEGOTIATE REPRESENTATION THROUGH RACIAL
PERFORMANCE AND STYLE by SHANARA ROSE REID- BRINKLEY (Under the Direction of
CHRISTINE HAROLD)BA,Emory University, 2001 Alabama, 2003 (Assistant Professor, PhD
University of Georgia)
Significant for this project is the importance of style and identity performance as a rhetorical strategy in
social movement rhetoric. Specifically, this project investigates the significance of sub-cultural style as a strategy for confrontation in
42
43
“militant” rhetoric. Dick Hebdige defines sub-cultural style as “…the expressive forms and rituals…of subordinate groups.” The use of
African-American and hip hop music and aesthetic styles in the traditional spaces of academic policy
debate may operate to combat the ideologies of whiteness that actively maintain the dominant, normative
44
order of debate. Hebdige contends that sub-cultural style is a “challenge to hegemony” that “offends the silent majority.” The use of
African-American and hip hop cultural styles in debate are “improper” and as such function as “tactics”
that “insinuate” themselves “into the other’s place, fragmentarily, without taking it over in its entirety,
45
without being able to keep it at a distance.” As a “tactic,” the use of sub-cultural style is a maneuver
through enemy territory in an attempt to negotiate dominant norms. Style, according to Hebdige, can either maintain or
subvert social dominance. He notes that as a means of resistance style can be a means of revolt; a “refusal” to perform the self through the normal
46
practices of a community. He further contends that if language “shapes and positions the subject” then the “ways in which things are said” result
47
in “rigid limitations on what can be said.” And, if there are limitations on what we can say, then there are limitations on what we can be.
Elim rounds are necessary for performance debate in order to generate public
awareness and broader community response because those who are in the audience
wish to mimic the strategy of the elite teams.
Reid-Brinkley ‘3 (THE HARSH REALITIES OF “ACTING BLACK”: HOW AFRICAN-AMERICAN
POLICY DEBATERS NEGOTIATE REPRESENTATION THROUGH RACIAL PERFORMANCE AND STYLE
by SHANARA ROSE REID- BRINKLEY (Under the Direction of CHRISTINE HAROLD)BA,Emory
University, 2001 Alabama, 2003 (Assistant Professor, PhD University of Georgia)
I also chose to limit my focus to the elimination rounds because so-called “out rounds” are widely
attended by spectators. We’re not talking about sports fans who travel around watching their favorite debate team. Policy debate isn’t
really that accessible to outsiders, those not in some way attached to the debate community. Yet, many teams do not make it to the elimination
rounds and many judges may not be used during those rounds. So, they are the spectators for elimination debates. In the pre-elimination rounds, it
is usually just the debaters and the judge/ judges. Yet, elimination rounds often provide a platform for speaking to the
broader community. Not everyone may see an important elimination debate, but they will surely hear it
discussed by those who did. I suggest that elimination day is singularly significant in transmitting the
cultural norms of the community. The most successful debaters are on display in front of the community.
That they are successful encourages them to be mimicked. Many a young debater will learn a great deal
about what it means to be the best by watching those the community has already marked as the best. The
rounds used for this analysis from the 2004 CEDA Nationals include the double octo-finals round against Emory University’s, Bob Allen and
Mike Greenstein, a team that had been ranked one of the “sweet sixteen;” the octo-finals round against Brad Hall and Jamie Carroll from Wake
Forest University, also members of the “sweet sixteen” (they would also go on to be the number two team at the 2006 NDT) and the quarterfinals round against California State University at Fullerton’s Clark and Ward.
Performance is essential in creating educational opportunity in American society .
Reid-Brinkley ‘3 (THE HARSH REALITIES OF “ACTING BLACK”: HOW AFRICAN-AMERICAN
POLICY DEBATERS NEGOTIATE REPRESENTATION THROUGH RACIAL PERFORMANCE AND STYLE
by SHANARA ROSE REID- BRINKLEY (Under the Direction of CHRISTINE HAROLD)BA,Emory
University, 2001 Alabama, 2003 (Assistant Professor, PhD University of Georgia)
Contemporary racism is reproduced and maintained through discursive constructions that are circulated
through ideologies. Ideologies help to make stereotypical representations intelligible to an audience. As
long as racism remains a social phenomenon in our society, racial ideologies will likely remain a critical
tool by which racial difference is signified. All racial ideologies do not function the same way; they are
often complicated by intersections of class, gender, sexuality and context. And, as ideologies often
function to dominate, they also create circumstances for resistance. This project seeks to engage both dominance and
resistance; how racial ideologies reproduce social dominance, and how those affected by that dominance attempt to resist it. The rhetoric
surrounding race and education offers one space from which to analyze the social reproduction of racial dominance. Looking to specific contexts
through which we analyze the significance of racial ideologies allows us as scholars to map out the forces of power active through racial
difference. Specifically, a rhetorical focus can map the public discursive maneuvers that (re)produce and resist
these social ideologies. The rhetoric surrounding race, culture, and performance within educational
discourse is of critical importance to the future course of educational opportunity in American
society. We must understand the strategies of signification that are most persuasive and powerful
to the general public audience. What representations of racial others are most intelligible to the
public and how might racial others respond to that intelligibility? As our previous discussion of the “acting
white” thesis and the rise of cultural explanations of racial difference indicate, contemporary ideological representations of race have changed and
in some ways remained the same. We must interrogate the use of ideological representations of race, gender, class, and 21 sexuality as rhetorical
strategy in public deliberations. And, it is important to read the social actors involved and watching as embodied.
Ideology represent an imaginary distance from reality that blinds individuals to the
real problems present within their existence.
Reid-Brinkley ‘3 (THE HARSH REALITIES OF “ACTING BLACK”: HOW AFRICAN-AMERICAN
POLICY DEBATERS NEGOTIATE REPRESENTATION THROUGH RACIAL PERFORMANCE AND STYLE
by SHANARA ROSE REID- BRINKLEY (Under the Direction of CHRISTINE HAROLD)BA,Emory
University, 2001 Alabama, 2003 (Assistant Professor, PhD University of Georgia)
The Marxist conception of ideology, reformulated and popularized by Louis Althusser, revolves around the
assumption that social bodies are trapped within a “false consciousness” that blinds them to the truth.
Althusser argues that “ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence.” Such a
conception of ideology was necessary to explain why the working class did not rise up against the ruling
class. Such ideologies were theorized as part of the superstructure resulting in the limited ability of
subjects to exercise agency. For Althusser, dominant ideologies allowed the social structure to reproduce itself without ensuing
conflict. Ideology functioned to naturalize the dominant structure encouraging individuals to participate by
engaging in practices and behaviors designed to maintain that system. More importantly, ideologies
were thought to construct an imaginary reality by which social beings became dependent on the
structure as it functions, in order to make sense of their very lives. In essence, ideology was considered to be
deterministic, binding individuals to the imaginary reality.
The position of inferiority is established in a relationship between cultural affiliation
rather than biological notions as have been seen in the past.
Reid-Brinkley ‘3 (THE HARSH REALITIES OF “ACTING BLACK”: HOW AFRICAN-AMERICAN
POLICY DEBATERS NEGOTIATE REPRESENTATION THROUGH RACIAL PERFORMANCE AND STYLE
by SHANARA ROSE REID- BRINKLEY (Under the Direction of CHRISTINE HAROLD)BA,Emory
University, 2001 Alabama, 2003 (Assistant Professor, PhD University of Georgia)
Or consider
the relationship between culture and biology in another way. Professor of Philosophy Lawrence Blum argues that
ways of talking about the very groups previously alleged to be biologically inferior have been used
to exclude these groups or to sustain them in inferior positions. For example, these groups are thought to
have inferior cultures, or to be wedded to ways of life allegedly inconsistent with some vision of a
“new
54
particular national culture.” For Blum, society may no longer adhere to biological notions of difference, but
instead produces new discourses by which to maintain “inferior positions” previously substantiated by
biological difference. Those examples of inferiority that had been previously attached to biological
difference are now explained by cultural affiliation. Whereas within classical conceptions of race, racial
inferiority was represented as a state of nature, the result of “God’s Will,” cultural explanations of such
inferiority is about individual choice. The racial minority becomes the active agent in their own
subjugated status, for it is through their individual choices, guided by a misguided culture that produces
racial inferiority.
The absence of colored bodies in spaces is what allows “white privilege" to maintain
itself even if educational spaces aren't directly discriminatory they create structures
that reject performance but fail to recognize that blackness is a performance within
itself.
Reid-Brinkley ‘3 (THE HARSH REALITIES OF “ACTING BLACK”: HOW AFRICAN-AMERICAN
POLICY DEBATERS NEGOTIATE REPRESENTATION THROUGH RACIAL PERFORMANCE AND STYLE
by SHANARA ROSE REID- BRINKLEY (Under the Direction of CHRISTINE HAROLD)BA,Emory
University, 2001 Alabama, 2003 (Assistant Professor, PhD University of Georgia)
The fact that bodies of color remain present despite the fact that they are supposed to be absent "is
exactly what maintains white privilege.”61 Educational structures may or may not be directly racially
discriminatory, "rather, they take the form of cultural values, methods of learning, styles of interaction,
and other educational rituals that continually reinforce the culture of power.”62 In essence, Warren suggests that
bodies of color represent a bodily contaminant that can only result in a systemically cycling psychosis as
these bodies can never fully be rendered absent. Thus, if the body can never be rendered fully absent
then it is exceedingly relevant to the racial signification process in educational spaces and public
discourse about those spaces. The speaking subject is a talking body. The body becomes critical in understanding and evaluating
what the speaking subject says and what is said about the speaking subject. Thus, a rhetorical consideration of the
representation and performance of black people in a majority white environment, must engage the
body as rhetorical. Rhetoric and argumentation scholar Melanie McNaughton's essay, "Hard Cases: Prison Tattooing as Visual
Argumentation," suggests that “Given daily contact with the bodies of others, understanding the ways that bodies argue visually is important to
understanding the operations of rhetoric in our lives.”63 For McNaughton who is interested in visual argumentation through prison tattooing,
the body as an integral site of rhetorical voice problematizes our current emphasis in the field of rhetoric toward ignoring the body in favor of a
focus on verbal discourse. If the body speaks, whom does it speak 16 to and what might it be saying? McNaughton's study leads us toward
theorizing the body as argumentative, and yet her study does not really look to the body as argument, as much as it looks to the style or the
styling of the body as argument. Tattoos
are an overlay on the surface of the body, and while certainly difficult
and painful to cover or remove, they simply cover the body and are not of the body. While tattooing
may represent and signify violence to the average onlooker, according to McNaughton, that violence is
indicative of a cultural affiliation and not an inherent state of that marked body. In other words, the tattoo
wearer could signify other than a violent subjectivity were the tattoo not there Thus, tattooing might still clearly fit under the more traditional
rubric of style or performance.
The theory of cultural marking can not be separated from the flesh because the
surface level is still a signifier of biological construction. Making bodies of color impure
in the wholistic sense of the social body.
Reid-Brinkley ‘3 (THE HARSH REALITIES OF “ACTING BLACK”: HOW AFRICAN-AMERICAN
POLICY DEBATERS NEGOTIATE REPRESENTATION THROUGH RACIAL PERFORMANCE AND STYLE
by SHANARA ROSE REID- BRINKLEY (Under the Direction of CHRISTINE HAROLD)BA,Emory
University, 2001 Alabama, 2003 (Assistant Professor, PhD University of Georgia)
Particularly, I am interested in the speaking body of the other, that
body that pollutes, or darkens the purity of the
holistic social body. Post-structural education theorist John Warren describes schooling in terms of the institutional maintenance of
purity.55 Schools represent at their best, a pollutant and contaminant free environment, as critical to the
educational and social maturation of student minds. Warren notes that "the body is perceptually
rendered absent in an effort to center perceptual attention on the mind."56 In other words, in the school
environment the presence of the body is a social pollutant of the educational space. The body must be invisible in order to
focus on the mind. The educational system attempts "to erase the impact of the body."57 Warren
suggests that bodies of color, in particular, exceed attempts to render them absent.58 For cultural theorists
Homi Bhabha and Franz Fanon, the colored, or more specifically, the black body signifies a difference from white bodies
that makes the colored body significantly more visible in majority white societies.59 The black body
represents dirt or a stain, or to use symbolic anthropologist Mary Douglas' language, a “pollutant,” on
and in the social body, one that must be controlled and contained. Color is written on the skin,
encrusted on the “flesh” of the body at the “surface” level.60 The Deleuzian metaphor of a body without organs is
particularly useful here. For it is the flesh that signifies, not the internal processes of the body. And, yet the flesh
signifies on internal processes of the biological body. The colored body signifies a biological difference,
an inherent difference, from non-colored or white bodies. In other words, despite the fact that significant gains have been
made in reducing the social belief in 15 the biological difference between the races, American public and social discourse tends toward that
belief, while political correctness reduces the ways in which such beliefs can be expressed. Such an ambivalent stance results in the shading of
the consistencies between all human bodies, resulting in a body without organs, where the surface level of the skin comes to (re)present
biological difference.
The white culture is antagonist and determines the culture of certain bodies to be
inferior
Reid-Brinkley ‘3 (THE HARSH REALITIES OF “ACTING BLACK”: HOW AFRICAN-AMERICAN
POLICY DEBATERS NEGOTIATE REPRESENTATION THROUGH RACIAL PERFORMANCE AND STYLE
by SHANARA ROSE REID- BRINKLEY (Under the Direction of CHRISTINE HAROLD)BA,Emory
University, 2001 Alabama, 2003 (Assistant Professor, PhD University of Georgia)
While culture has become the politically correct means of targeting racial minorities as the active agents
of their own disadvantage, the racial and ethnic body remains the signifying reference for cultural
explanations of inferiority. Although, the biological, here read as the 14 internal structure of the human body, may no longer hold
explanatory sway, race is still read as hereditary, signified through visual markers on and of the body. Certain
bodies thus can be marked by cultural inferiority, but such markings remain necessarily, not tangentially, attached to certain
kinds of bodies.
Although , there has been a paradigm shift from biological to cultural race
construction the difference still remains dependent on remnants of bodily race
discriminations.
Reid-Brinkley ‘3 (THE HARSH REALITIES OF “ACTING BLACK”: HOW AFRICAN-AMERICAN
POLICY DEBATERS NEGOTIATE REPRESENTATION THROUGH RACIAL PERFORMANCE AND STYLE
by SHANARA ROSE REID- BRINKLEY (Under the Direction of CHRISTINE HAROLD)BA,Emory
University, 2001 Alabama, 2003 (Assistant Professor, PhD University of Georgia)
According to the dominant public discourse,
if race is no longer a biological construction, but is instead a cultural
one, then the material conditions faced by racial minorities within U.S. society are more about failures
of minority cultures than a statement about discrimination and oppression within the broader society. In
other words, we can blame racial and ethnic minorities for their social and economic difficulties because cultural affiliation is a choice rather
than an essential characteristic. And yet, this
shift from biological explanations of racial difference to cultural
explanations still indicates a considerable dependence on the signifying body as critical to articulating
racial difference. In other words, cultural explanations of difference remain dependent on the visual
difference of racial bodies that are attached to cultural practices and result in the maintenance of racial
ideologies bred out of biological explanations of race. Philosopher Tamas Pataki writes: The classical conceptions of race are
incoherent, and the ideologies that incorporate them are false; both are generally repudiated in considered discussion today. But their shadows
remain, and preserve some of their menace. Even where racism is conceived broadly to include enmity against cultural, national, and kindred
groups, these categories may in 13 certain circumstances be treated as if they were classical racial ones: the enmities directed against these
groups take on the conformations projected by racial conceptions.53 As Pataki argues, classical
conceptions of race, which
include the belief in fundamental biological differences between races, remains a critical narrative
within contemporary racism. While biological explanations of racial difference seem to have waned,
even cultural explanations are necessarily affected by the remnants of beliefs in the biological
differences between races. Or consider the relationship between culture and biology in another way. Professor of Philosophy
Lawrence Blum argues that “new ways of talking about the very groups previously alleged to be biologically inferior have been used to exclude
these groups or to sustain them in inferior positions. For example, these groups are thought to have inferior cultures, or to be wedded to ways
of life allegedly inconsistent with some vision of a particular national culture.”54 For Blum, society may no longer adhere to biological notions
of difference, but instead produces new discourses by which to maintain “inferior positions” previously substantiated by biological difference.
Those examples of inferiority that had been previously attached to biological difference are now explained by cultural affiliation. Whereas
within classical conceptions of race, racial inferiority was represented as a state of nature, the result of “God’s Will,” cultural explanations of
such inferiority is about individual choice. The racial minority becomes the active agent in their own subjugated status, for it is through their
individual choices, guided by a misguided culture that produces racial inferiority.
“Acting white” articulates the agency that raced bodies must perform in order to have
a culture that is understood by the general public. Race is socially constructed and
constituted meaning it is more or about culture than biology.
Reid-Brinkley ‘3 (THE HARSH REALITIES OF “ACTING BLACK”: HOW AFRICAN-AMERICAN
POLICY DEBATERS NEGOTIATE REPRESENTATION THROUGH RACIAL PERFORMANCE AND STYLE
by SHANARA ROSE REID- BRINKLEY (Under the Direction of CHRISTINE HAROLD)BA,Emory
University, 2001 Alabama, 2003 (Assistant Professor, PhD University of Georgia)
The significance of the “acting white” hypothesis in American discourse is evidence of the changing nature of racism in contemporary American
society. “Acting
white” represents the agency by which racial bodies may choose to perform themselves
based on ideological representations of race. In other words, the most significant result of the “acting
white” hypothesis and other cultural explanations of the black/ white achievement gap is a
strengthening of the general public’s understanding of culture as a clear referent in their reflection on
the achievement gap. Such a shift in public discourse is an excellent example of the difference between
modern racism and contemporary racism. For contemporary scholars, race is no longer seen as merely
biological. In other words, it is no longer seen as merely “of the body.” Instead, race is constructed
according to social practice, belief, and values. Thus, race is no longer about biology, as much as it is
about culture. Globalization theorists Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri argue that we have experienced a shift from biological
explanations of race to cultural explanations for racial difference. They argue that the divisions of race are no longer binary, based in exclusion,
opposition, or maintained through the construction of fixed boundaries: "Imperial racism or differential racism, integrates other with its order
and then orchestrates those differences in a system of control. Fixed and biological notions of peoples thus tend to dissolve into a fluid and
amorphous multitude, which is of course shot through with lines of conflict and antagonism, but none that appear as fixed and 12 They
note that difference, whether it be racial, ethnic, gendered, or sexual, is no longer rejected in favor of
sameness, rather it is sought, accepted and embraced, as society moves away from biological to cultural
explanations of racial difference. Racial difference no longer articulates itself within racial hierarchies, according to Hardt and
51 52
Negri, instead race read as cultural difference exists along a plane of equality, each race equal to the other.eternal boundaries."
The shift
away from biological explanations of race to cultural explanations of race has precipitated the
weakening of racial binary oppositions and thus has changed the nature of race as a signifier.
There is inherent value in policy debate because of the academic rigor of the activity
yet the space has historically co-opted racial ideologies by creating a space that is
close minded to difference.
THE HARSH REALITIES OF “ACTING BLACK”: HOW AFRICAN-AMERICAN POLICY DEBATERS
NEGOTIATE REPRESENTATION THROUGH RACIAL PERFORMANCE AND STYLE by SHANARA ROSE
REID-BRINKLEY (Under the Direction of CHRISTINE HAROLD)BA,Emory University, 2001 MA,
University of Alabama, 2003 (Assistant Professor, PhD University of Georgia)
The attempts at educational reform are not limited to institutional actors such as the local, state, and federal governments. Non-profit
organizations dedicated to alleviating the black/white achievement gap have also proliferated. One such organization, the Urban
Debate
League, claims that “Urban Debate Leagues have proven to increase literacy scores by 25%, to improve
grade-point averages by 8 to 10%, to achieve high school graduation rates of nearly 100%, and to
produce college matriculation rates of 71 to 91%.” The UDL program is housed in over fourteen
American cities and targets inner city youths of color to increase their access to debate training. Such
training of students defined as “at risk” is designed to offset the negative statistics associated with black
educational achievement. The program has been fairly successful and has received wide scale media attention. The success of the
program has also generated renewed interest amongst college debate programs in increasing direct efforts at recruitment of racial and ethnic
The UDL program creates a substantial pool of racial minorities with debate training coming out
of high school, that college debate directors may tap to diversify their own teams. The debate community serves
as a microcosm of the broader educational space within which racial ideologies are operating. It is a space in which academic
achievement is performed according to the intelligibility of one’s race, gender, class, and sexuality. As
policy debate is intellectually rigorous and has historically been closed to those marked by social
difference, it offers a unique opportunity to engage the impact of desegregation and diversification of
American education. How are black students integrated into a competitive educational community from which they have traditionally
minorities.
been excluded? How are they represented in public and media discourse about their participation, and how do they rhetorically respond to
such representations? If
racial ideology is perpetuated within discourse through the stereotype, then mapping
the intelligibility of the stereotype within public discourse and the attempts to resist such intelligibility is
a critical tool in the battle to end racial domination.
The mis-association of “whiteness” with educational success amongst black students
is part of the oppositional mentality of contemporary practices that mimic white
success.
THE HARSH REALITIES OF “ACTING BLACK”: HOW AFRICAN-AMERICAN POLICY DEBATERS
NEGOTIATE REPRESENTATION THROUGH RACIAL PERFORMANCE AND STYLE by SHANARA ROSE
REID-BRINKLEY (Under the Direction of CHRISTINE HAROLD)BA,Emory University, 2001 MA,
University of Alabama, 2003 (Assistant Professor, PhD University of Georgia)
Rather than characterize black underachievement as an effect of systemic and social, race and class
oppression, U.S. news media focuses on cultural explanations of the gap, including the “acting white”
thesis. Black students are characterized as agents who choose not to participate in successful
educational practices as an opposition to educational spaces marked and mediated by whiteness.
Education scholars Signithia Fordham and John Ogbu coined the phrase “acting white” in their groundbreaking essay on low income black
student failure in the public education system and it has become increasingly commonplace in news media vocabulary.36 Fordham and Ogbu
offer a qualitative analysis of a low achieving, majority black, high school in Washington, D.C. Their
findings indicate that these
students associate academic achievement in schools with whiteness. Education researcher Prudence Carter notes that
according to Fordham and Ogbu’s study, “black students equate speaking Standard English and other achievement oriented behaviors, such as
studying hard and excelling in school, with whites.”37 Tony Sewell adds “…listening to white music and putting on ‘airs’,” to this list.38
Furthermore, as a result of such associations, according
to “acting white” proponents, black students often develop
oppositional identities that reject educational achievement. In other words, “to avoid being labeled as
‘white,’ these students succumb to peer pressure not to do well in school
Particular ideologies reinforce dominative social and economic structures taking
personal agency out of the hands of the individual.
Reid-Brinkley ‘3 (THE HARSH REALITIES OF “ACTING BLACK”: HOW AFRICAN-AMERICAN
POLICY DEBATERS NEGOTIATE REPRESENTATION THROUGH RACIAL PERFORMANCE AND STYLE
by SHANARA ROSE REID- BRINKLEY (Under the Direction of CHRISTINE HAROLD)BA,Emory
University, 2001 Alabama, 2003 (Assistant Professor, PhD University of Georgia)
However, current scholarship has been expressly critical of such a conceptualization of ideology,
particularly, within the field of cultural studies, as it made the critical turn away from the study of
dominant ideology and toward the cultural and everyday practices by which subjects engage ideological domination.
Noted theorists, including Michel Foucault, Raymond Williams, and Stuart Hall have offered significant critiques of such a view of the relations
of power in a 19 In other words, ideology is defined as a result of economic structures. Thus, the economic structures are pre-existent and thus,
And, third, if the individual or the subject is not critical to the
development of such ideological structures, but are instead determined by them, then social subjects
become agent-less. They become simply social beings produced by the superstructure. social system.
One criticism of this version of ideology is that it assumes there is a truth, somewhere out there, that we
uninfluenced by ideology, but simply productive of it.
67
are unable to ascertain because of the false consciousness produced through ideological discourses.
Second, as Foucault argues, “ideology stands in a secondary position relative to something which functions as its infrastructure, as its material,
68
economic determinant, etc.” Despite significant criticism of the concept of ideology, it remains significantly useful in the study of social
domination. We can agree that there is not some true expression of reality out there that we are somehow blinded from seeing. We
can
agree that ideology is both produced by and produces economic and social structures. And, we can
agree that social actors and their actions are not determined by ideology as much as social actors are
strongly influenced toward accepting those ideologies as within their best interest, an internalization of
ideological discourse as inscribed through various apparatuses of power. Yet, as media and communications scholar Nicolas Garnham cautions,
the focus on resistance in cultural studies can prevent us from studying the manner in which dominance is maintained, both through structure
69
and discourse. He notes that it is the responsibility of intellectuals to map out structural and social dominance.
The illustrating of the “at risk” black youth through media and social interactions
create a fear and paranoia of the threat of the colored community through the
descriptions and stereotypes that whites used to portray the black community as a
whole. Inevitably leading to presupposed actions and assumptions.
Reid-Brinkley ‘3 (THE HARSH REALITIES OF “ACTING BLACK”: HOW AFRICAN-AMERICAN
POLICY DEBATERS NEGOTIATE REPRESENTATION THROUGH RACIAL PERFORMANCE AND STYLE
by SHANARA ROSE REID- BRINKLEY (Under the Direction of CHRISTINE HAROLD)BA,Emory
University, 2001 Alabama, 2003 (Assistant Professor, PhD University of Georgia)
As I mentioned in chapter one, inner
city youths of color have become quite visible in American public discourse
(re)presenting the failure of American public education and the ills of poverty. In our national
imagination inner city youths are the Lost Ones, those left behind in under-funded school systems, with
outdated materials, in dilapidated buildings. Representation of black youths in both the news media and
popular culture articulate and/or maintain race, class, and gender based stereotypes that demonize
inner city black youths.1 Turn on a television, go to the movies, listen to the radio and it is often clear that these youths represent the
vast underbelly of American society, signifying criminality, violence, gratuitous sexuality, and
irresponsibility.2 Such representations breed an unreasonable fear of poor black youths. And yet,
simultaneously, the representation of such realities also sadden us: The newborn black baby born with
HIV inherited from a crack-addicted mother; The pre-teen who lives with her seventy year old
grandmother, in a poor neighborhood in the city, because her parents are indifferent or unavailable; Or,
the seven year old in ragged clothing who only eats a healthy meal because he received free lunch at
school. For some, such images tug at the heart strings. For others it breeds contempt, creating a certain
level of ambivalence toward poor, youths of color. For what can we do with a population that we fear,
desire, and feel sorry for all at the same time?
Burke argues that there are methods of redemptions that can be excessed in order to
cleanse oneself of guilt through self victimization and mortification
Reid-Brinkley ‘3 (THE HARSH REALITIES OF “ACTING BLACK”: HOW AFRICAN-AMERICAN
POLICY DEBATERS NEGOTIATE REPRESENTATION THROUGH RACIAL PERFORMANCE AND STYLE
by SHANARA ROSE REID- BRINKLEY (Under the Direction of CHRISTINE HAROLD)BA,Emory
University, 2001 Alabama, 2003 (Assistant Professor, PhD University of Georgia)
Literary theorist and critic Kenneth Burke suggests that we view redemption through the motive of guilt. Communications
scholar James Jasinski notes that for Burke, "Guilt arises from disruptions to, or violations of, the social order or from threats to the social
order."31 Guilt is "debilitating," thus, "…there emerges a need to ‘cure’ the social order -- to
cleanse it of guilt and achieve a
state of social redemption."32 Burke identifies two strategies of redemption: mortification, or "Selfvictimization in which the members of society internalize the 'sins' that 32 threaten the social order and
engage in other behavioral reforms; and victimage (scapegoating) - "Some individual or group is
selected, and all of the society's problems - its sins are blamed on the chosen individual or group."33 For
this discussion of the coverage of the UDL, our focus will be on the rhetoric of victimage or scapegoating. For
Burke, the scapegoat is
a “chosen vessel” designed to “cleanse” a social community “…by loading the burden of their own
iniquities upon it.”34 Burke notes further that these “iniquities” exist within both the social body and
the scapegoat population, so it is critical to dispose of these “iniquities” through a “ritualistic” cleansing
of the social body.35
Blacks have still been relegated to poorest communities within the U.S. and used as
the poster child of welfare and poverty
Reid-Brinkley ‘3 (THE HARSH REALITIES OF “ACTING BLACK”: HOW AFRICAN-AMERICAN
POLICY DEBATERS NEGOTIATE REPRESENTATION THROUGH RACIAL PERFORMANCE AND STYLE
by SHANARA ROSE REID- BRINKLEY (Under the Direction of CHRISTINE HAROLD)BA,Emory
University, 2001 Alabama, 2003 (Assistant Professor, PhD University of Georgia)
Framing Poverty and Racial Dysfunction. Blacks
are disproportionately represented in the total population of the
poor or near poor in the United States. For the past twenty-five years, the black poverty rate has
hovered around the 30% mark, and while this is an improvement from the 1970’s and 1980’s, on
average black households earn 60% on the dollar in comparison to white households.38 Despite the
higher percentages of poverty amongst the black population, the media often portray the connection
between poverty and blackness in excess of the actual representations of blacks within that economic
class. Gilens calls it a "racialization of poverty images" in the news media. As he argues, since the 1960s "the complexion of the
poor grew darker.”39 Prior to the 1960s the image of poverty was white, thus government support and media representation of the poor
lacked any racial character.40 He argues further that the white poor, the elderly, and those in the working class were portrayed in a much more
positive light, as the hardworking American down on their luck.41 While
Blacks became increasingly representative of the
image of the American poor, the framing of racialized poverty recycled the historical stereotyping of
Blacks as lazy.42 Black poverty was more a symptom of pathology, rather than an example of being
down on one's luck. As the 21st Century begins, the image of poverty and welfare has consistently been
portrayed by black faces, although the rising Hispanic population is becoming a representative image of poverty as well.43 Geography
and media scholars Myrna Breitbart and Ellen Pader observe: "Interestingly, media commentaries rarely, if ever, mention racial differences as a
35 barrier to success. Socioeconomic class, a code for race in the national discourse, provides a way for the reporters to avoid talking about
racism."44 Conversations about social ills that are characterized in terms of race or racism are fraught with difficulties.
The general
white American society opposes racism, but dislikes taking action to address systemic racism. Thus,
Americans are more responsive to arguments that economic class provides a barrier to achievement and
success. Class shields race in our national imagination. It supplements structural and social racism.45 Low income, poor, urban,
and inner city are code words for racial minorities.46 Race becomes argumentatively neutral as
socioeconomic class becomes the explanation of choice for characterizing the issues UDL students face.
The black community has inevitablely been consistent with media representation of
an inferior culture.
Reid-Brinkley ‘3 (THE HARSH REALITIES OF “ACTING BLACK”: HOW AFRICAN-AMERICAN
POLICY DEBATERS NEGOTIATE REPRESENTATION THROUGH RACIAL PERFORMANCE AND STYLE
by SHANARA ROSE REID- BRINKLEY (Under the Direction of CHRISTINE HAROLD)BA,Emory
University, 2001 Alabama, 2003 (Assistant Professor, PhD University of Georgia)
The poverty frame along with the frame of opportunity here constructs the students in opposition
to the stereotypes people often have of inner city youths. Blacks are generally stereotyped as
lazy, irresponsible, and lacking in work ethic. Thus, the media constructs UDL participants as
responsible, active agents committed to bettering their own lives. Communication scholar Tali Mendelberg
observes that “large numbers of white Americans believe that blacks tend to shirk their responsibilities and…this belief leads whites to oppose
52
many government policies on matters of race.” Psychologist David Schneider’s 2004 study of race and class stereotypes reveals that whites are
more likely to “generally” believe that most blacks are of lower socio-economic class status and identify them through stereotypes including
53
It is likely that the consistent media representation of the
poor as differently raced, the more likely racial and ethnic minorities are perceived of as lower
class. Thus, the white poor are crowded out of representations of poverty. Blacks that are
perceived to be middle class face less racial stereotyping by whites. Schneider concludes that
this may not "prove that the stereotype of blacks is really a stereotype of working class/
unemployed people, but it certainly is consistent with the idea that to the extent that perceivers
have a prototype of blacks as working class or unemployed, the occupational group rather than
the race will dictate stereotypes." Yet, Schneider's conclusions seem overly simplistic in
explaining the complexity of stereotyping at the intersection between race and class. In other
words, it may be the articulation of race and occupational status (or socio-economic status), a
“welfare blacks, streetwise blacks, and ghetto blacks.”
blending of stereotypes that fits within the sphere of modern racism. In the contemporary 38 American context of increasing calls for diversity
from the public and social institutions and the social importance of politically correct speech, class functions to remove some of the stain of race
and ethnic difference. Such a cleansing increases the likelihood of assimilation into the normative cultural practices associated with economic
class status. In other words, how one dresses and speaks, what extracurricular activities one participates in can drape the colored body in
representations of economic success and vocational achievement. Thus, to some extent, class status can function as a cleanser for bodies
historically stereotyped as different and thus other. Those Blacks of lower socioeconomic status do not have the same protection; they are naked
bodies, their color and gender visible to the racial majority. Thus, they are bound by the stereotypes attached to race.
As a result of stereotypes in relation to poverty and black life as a whole it is the
target for violence and humiliation that is portrayed by word and all through out
media such as labeling a mother of several children living in the ghetto as a “welfare
queen”
Reid-Brinkley ‘3 (THE HARSH REALITIES OF “ACTING BLACK”: HOW AFRICAN-AMERICAN
POLICY DEBATERS NEGOTIATE REPRESENTATION THROUGH RACIAL PERFORMANCE AND STYLE
by SHANARA ROSE REID- BRINKLEY (Under the Direction of CHRISTINE HAROLD)BA,Emory
University, 2001 Alabama, 2003 (Assistant Professor, PhD University of Georgia)
Wade constructs the barriers students face as a family issue rather than a structural issue. Unemployment
or underemployment and substance abuse are the family’s problem, relegating these to the realm of the
private sphere, hence outside of public consideration. According to this position, it is within the family and cultural context that children are
taught values and behaviors that are antithetical to their future success. It is not the structural ills of class or race that are to blame for the black
achievement gap; it is the family and the culture that breeds pathology. 42 Physical and verbal aggressions become associated
with black poverty where certain sections of black culture are the representative image of violence. And,
we accept the image of the violent black youth seeing him or her as of course violent because of what we
have been taught to assume about their day to day experiences in urban ghettos. It is not just the black
family, in general, that is constructed as pathological; it is the black mother, in particular, who is the
representative cause of this pathology. As Roxanne Donovan and Michelle Williams note, “Black women are seen as
the major contributor to inner city poverty and all its associated problems, including the poor academic
performance and high incarceration of Black youths. This image made it easier to ignore how poverty,
under-funded schools, employment discrimination, and institutionalized racism created these social
67
problems.” At the intersection of race, gender, class, and sexual oppression, black women have faced
68
varying negative stereotypes, most notably those connected to black women’s sexuality. Such a portrayal
often posits black women to blame for the instability of the black family unit. Particularly, the prevalence
of female headed households in black communities has resulted in the cultural demonization of black
mothers. The welfare queen, or the devious black mother is a stereotype that is recycled within American
public discourse. Most often the welfare queen is a black woman, although Latino women are
increasingly being included within the purview of the stereotype. This stereotype is culturally connected
to the devastating congressional report filed in 1965 by Daniel Moynihan. While attempting to describe
the structural barriers to "negro" progress in America, the Moynihan Report served a devastating blow to
the black community. The report posited that the instability of the black family was caused by
overbearing black women who displaced needed male presence. The welfare queen is simply a modern narrative
69
produced through a stereotype of black femininity made popular by the Moynihan report. In the 43 news representation of UDL participants, the
media utilizes the stereotypes of dysfunctional black families and bad black mothers.
A2: FW
Relying on framework shows us that you don’t want to engage in breaking down the
dominant norms, this is not the wrong forum, the wrong time, nor the wrong side.
EITHER YOU ARE WITH US OR YOU ARE AGAINST US.
Peterson 14|UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE DEBATING RACE, RACE-ING DEBATE: AN
EXTENDED ETHNOGRAPHIC CASE STUDY OF BLACK INTELLECTUAL INSURGENCY IN U.S.
INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE DISSERTATION submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements
for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Sociology by David Kent Peterson) A.B.
An important symbolic marker in the debate activity that designated which teams were
considered to be in ostensible alliance with the black radical effort was whether or not teams
relied upon a “framework” argument. In relying upon the framework argument, teams are in
effect publicly declaring their lack of support for the black radical effort in debate. Rather than
attempting to engage the substance of the various black radical discourses, the framework
argument evaded this confrontation. The “framework” argument was a package of discourses
arguing that the black intellectual insurgency in debate violates fundamental community norms
necessary for the maintenance of the competitive integrity and educational benefits of the
debate activity. Debaters relying on “framework” did not necessarily disagree with the
argumentative content of the insurgency. In fact, in many cases they expressed explicit
agreement; they simply argued it was neither the right place nor the right time for such an
intervention. The position was characterized on several occasions by the black students as,
“Darkie go home!” The key norm the majority of debaters were attempted to protect was that
all debates revolve around the enactment of a specific government policy. The framework
argument posited that the students simply should not have to address any arguments that
were not relevant to a strict and literal interpretation of the topic23. The fundamental value
associated with doing so was to preserve the debate space as a training ground uniquely
structured to prepare students to enter the world of policy-making. Traditional debate was
viewed as educationally beneficial because it taught students how policy works, and
familiarized them with current events and international 23 For example, if the topic was “This
House Believes the USFG Should Substantially Develop its Fossil Fuel Industry” the only
acceptable way to initiate the debate would be to defend the hypothetical enactment of a
specific federal policy proposal such as allowing drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge 120 political economy. Equipped with this knowledge, debaters could enter the political
arena equipped to maneuver the machinery of state power through its existing levers.
The way that we debate is to break down those barriers of your “Framework”, our style of
debate is the only way to commit to change.
Peterson 14|UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE DEBATING RACE, RACE-ING DEBATE: AN
EXTENDED ETHNOGRAPHIC CASE STUDY OF BLACK INTELLECTUAL INSURGENCY IN U.S.
INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE DISSERTATION submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements
for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Sociology by David Kent Peterson) A.B.
An important question for the Resistance movement that was deeply embedded in the larger
debate about Afro-pessimism was exactly how to perform under the white gaze. Several
students felt that a rhythmic form of speaking, hip hop and poetic expression, was one of the
ways to disrupt a white normative framework. The politics of these performances became an
important issue of contention. The students are ultimately placed in a damned-if-you-do /
damned-if-you-don’t position in that if they don’t break the traditional mold they risk
reinforcing standard, white ways of speaking. On the other hand, if they do break the
traditional mold they are easily viewed within a well- worn trope of the anti-intellectual (and
anti-social) black. While some believed that these performances disrupted the white
normative framework of debate, others felt that they reinforced and satisfied white desires by
providing a spectacle that pleased, rather than challenged white sensibilities. Many students
felt that the performances were akin to “tap dancing in front of master” and feeding white
desire to consume the spectacle of black performance. Others felt that the performances
contained the seed of alternative ways of speaking and arguing that were politically
empowering and could open up possibilities of ethical and inclusive engagement.
Debate Key
Debate has a big impact on Minority groups, it affects if they get into college, get a
scholarship and keeps them away from other things. Minority students debating and
expressing their minds have often spread the word and gotten others to join.
Peterson 14|UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE DEBATING RACE, RACE-ING DEBATE: AN
EXTENDED ETHNOGRAPHIC CASE STUDY OF BLACK INTELLECTUAL INSURGENCY IN U.S.
INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE DISSERTATION submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements
for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Sociology by David Kent Peterson) A.B.
Efforts were made to make debate not be viewed only or completely as a white activity. An
older white debate coach explained that when he was in high school, “One day I spotted a sign
on campus encouraging people to come to a reception to join the debate or forensics team.
The sign said “Richard Nixon debated—you should too.” White students were being told to
debate because former presidents debated, black students were being told to debate
because Malcolm X debated. In Alex Haley’s Autobiography of Malcolm X there is a segment
where he discussed Malcolm X joining the Norfolk Colony prison debate society. I've told how
debating was a weekly event there, at the Norfolk prison colony. My reading had my mind like
steam under pressure. Some way, I had to start telling the white man about himself to his
face. I decided I could do this by putting my name down to debate … Once my feet got wet, I
was gone on debating. Whichever side of the selected subject was assigned to me, I'd track
down and study everything I could find on it. I'd put myself in my opponents' place, and decide
how I'd try to win if I had the other side; I'd figure a way to knock down all those points. 62
Several students reported simple motives for initially joining the debate team. As one student
put it when I asked how he came to be involved in debate, “trophies and pizza.” Several
students explained that the teacher of the debate class in their school provided free food to
debate participants, which was enough to get them involved initially. Also, the potential to earn
recognition in the form of a trophy was attractive to many students. Each of the students I
interviewed, however, became committed participants that were eventually recruited to
debate in college. At some point, regardless of their initial reasons for joining they became
“gone on debate.” Nearly all students reported that after joining the debate activity they
found it to be a space of relative academic freedom in which they could present ideas and be
combative in a way that they would be punished for doing in a regular course. Debate was an
escape from ordinary classroom settings and many students reported an interest in being able
to skip school for entire days in order to attend debate competitions. After becoming involved
with their high school debate teams the majority of the black students who are current
college debaters were approached by directors of college debate teams and recruited to join
university debate teams. Most of the students were offered scholarships, a fact which
complicates much of their critical efforts as is explained in later chapters. A few students joined
the debate team as “walk-on” debaters to their college teams. It is common to learn of the
debate team through a public speaking course as most debate teams are housed within
communication studies departments. After learning of the resistive efforts taking place within
the debate activity a few students were motivated to invest their time and energy even though
they did not receive any scholarships. Some students were approached by classmates who
were members of the debate team and encouraged to join.
The debate space is unique as it is the only forum in which a debater can publicly question
white supremacy. Debating about racial problems produces debaters that are more open to
talking about racial exclusions within the political system, Policy debate is the forum for
change.
Peterson 14|UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE DEBATING RACE, RACE-ING DEBATE: AN
EXTENDED ETHNOGRAPHIC CASE STUDY OF BLACK INTELLECTUAL INSURGENCY IN U.S.
INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE DISSERTATION submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements
for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Sociology by David Kent Peterson) A.B.
Extended case method ethnographers select cases on the basis of their societal significance
rather than their generalizability and transportability to other cases. This often means that
deviant cases are the best cases (Burawoy 2002; Small 2009). Given that white supremacy is
normative and systemic rather than deviant and isolated, the practices that “sustain its
circuituous, contentless logic” could be mapped in virtually any local site or “case.” However,
I argue that policy debate activity has a unique societal significance and that it provides a
fruitful empirical terrain upon which to understand the construction and contestation of
racial meanings and norms. The activity of intercollegiate debate is representative in many
respects but is also deviant and unique. The discourses that circulate in policy debate are
drawn from every corner of the academy as well as from the fields of politics and law and
thus the activity reflects the normative structure of the larger intellectual universe of which it
is a part. Debate is unique, per the explanation above, in that it is structured in such a way to
enable an interrogation of and critical discussion of these norms and values that, for a variety
of reasons, is possible in few other institutional locations. This significance stems from four
main characteristics of the debate activity. First, because the silence around whiteness has
been breached and questions of white power and privilege are made the subject of public
discourse, the debate activity provides a unique opportunity to understand nuances in the
way that “whiteness as a form of power is defined, deployed, performed, policed and
reinvented.” Secondly, this discourse on whiteness is not just engaged by those “shooting
from the hip,” or speculating on a subject about which they have 22 never been forced to
contemplate. On the contrary, in the debate activity, questions of racial power and privilege
have become the subject of research and discussion, not in fleeting moments, but rather over a
sustained period of time. Gary Allan Fine (2001) described competitive policy debate as “a
world of talk,” the participants of which are trained specifically to be effective listeners and
talkers with the confidence to take on a range of contentious issues. Also, Fine argues that
policy debaters tend to be relatively well informed about social issues and current events and
far more liberal than the general society. As an educational activity, policy debate is designed
to foster the skills to effectively navigate civil society, evaluate argumentation and arrive at
solutions to social problems. These characteristics of debaters and the debate activity allow
for identification of more nuanced and sophisticated racial discourse that operates at higher
levels of abstraction than is typical in other social realms. The debate activity thus represents
a limit-case that enables a closer approximation of the limits of civil society in grappling with
and reconciling racial domination. Third, questions of racial power and privilege cannot be
evaded or ignored by the mostly white male participants of the debate activity. In many ways,
the white participants are placed on the defensive as demands are made of them to address
and account for the operation of white supremacy. Failure on the part of debate participants
to muster an adequate and reasonable accounting, based in research and a certain degree of
thoughtfulness not required elsewhere, carries tangible consequences, namely the loss of
competitive success. Additionally, because black students in debate focus their criticisms on
the normal and embedded, rather than deviant and spectacular, operation of racial power in
the banal conduct of daily institutional life, the questions were engaged at a higher level of
abstraction that required their peers to attempt to think about structures of power and
privilege. Finally, students and teachers in the debate space 23 not only have to think about,
conduct research on, and speak about these contentious questions, they have to do so in
dialogical interactions with their black peers in which their accounts and articulations are
criticized. Thus, contestation over the meaning of racial power and privilege can be examined
in situ, in the context of struggle over institutional resources, in specific and sustained
interactions across the colorline.
Debate has a unique relationship with the public to connect the debaters with outside
audience, specially expanding participation of females and minority groups.
Peterson 14|UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE DEBATING RACE, RACE-ING DEBATE: AN
EXTENDED ETHNOGRAPHIC CASE STUDY OF BLACK INTELLECTUAL INSURGENCY IN U.S.
INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE DISSERTATION submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements
for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Sociology by David Kent Peterson) A.B.
The extra-curricular activity of competitive debate in institutions of secondary and higher
education is a unique empirical terrain upon which to examine contentious racial discourse.
As a public, the activity of competitive debate has a unique relationship to the public, and to
both the dominant and oppositional discourses therein. Warner defines the public is a “social
totality.” Publics, reference the totality of people in a given field. Some publics have a
concrete audience “bounded by the event or by the shared physical space” while others come
into being “only in relation to texts and their circulation”(50). The activity of debate is a
public in both senses of the term. The debate community is comprised of a delimited set of
individuals that are known, or at least knowable, to one another and who meet several times
a year to occupy the same physical space of the debate competition. The purpose of this
coming together is to facilitate organized argumentative exchanges between undergraduate
students. The debate activity is especially important to the present study for three reasons.
First, the activity of debate is a microcosm of the public sphere, embodying principles of
rational argumentation and empowering participants to be skilled agents of civil society.
Second, the unique organizational structure of the activity makes it possible for discourses
that are otherwise confined to “counterpublic spaces” to circulate and gain a hearing within
its public. Debate has been described as a “discursive laboratory” in which, unlike other
extra-curricular intellectual activities – i.e. Model U.N., Moot Court, Academic Decathlon – the
only rule, apart from time limits, is that everything is debatable (Mitchell 1998). Second, the
debate activity is the site of a unique diversity effort that seeks to expand debate
participation to previously excluded women and racial minorities and, through this
participation, to diversify the wider public sphere (Reid- Brinkley 2008; Mezuk 2010).
Debate is the unique spot to persuade the judge and everyone around you that there
is something wrong with the norms of society, in debate, the arguments of racial
inequality are valued.
Peterson 14|UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE DEBATING RACE, RACE-ING DEBATE: AN
EXTENDED ETHNOGRAPHIC CASE STUDY OF BLACK INTELLECTUAL INSURGENCY IN U.S.
INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE DISSERTATION submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements
for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Sociology by David Kent Peterson) A.B.
The activity of competitive debate has long been a training ground par excellence in
communicative competence that seeks to strengthen civil society and activate citizenship
(Mitchell 1998). Gary Allan Fine argues that “debate represents an ideal type of system in
which persuasion (the decision of the judge) emerges through conflict.” As such, “debate
serves as a model for knowing in a world in which truth moves ever farther from those who
purport to be its spokepersons” (Fine 2001; 66)12. As such, debate strives to embody the
principles of the Habermasian public sphere and to serve as Habermas’s “guardian of
reason”13. Habermas believed that the public sphere, a modern invention, was the essential
bulwark of democratic universalism and that it represented the sphere in which normative
consensus could be generated through intercommunicative interactions, argumentation and
debate. The debate activity fashions itself as a space in which the institutionalization of these
values is its primary purpose.
Black Debate Good
Policy debate is the key public space for urban debaters from minority groups to be heard
and express their minds, Dr. Warner proves with the Louisville Project.
Peterson 14|UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE DEBATING RACE, RACE-ING DEBATE: AN
EXTENDED ETHNOGRAPHIC CASE STUDY OF BLACK INTELLECTUAL INSURGENCY IN U.S.
INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE DISSERTATION submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements
for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Sociology by David Kent Peterson) A.B.
This debate about debate, motivated by the larger debate within the academy initiated by “the
cultural turn,” emerged and raged through the 1990s. This was also a period of intense struggle
over questions of representation and affirmative action in the field of higher education. The
interlocutors of the debate within debate were almost exclusively white and predominantly
male. 59 Two developments beginning in the late 1990s and early 2000s would have a major
impact on the diversification of the debate space which appears, despite its limitations, to have
achieved considerable success in expanding black participation in the debate activity. The first is
the institution of the Urban Debate Program (UDP), an initiative of George Soros’ Open Society
Institute (OSI). The second is an effort on the part of Dr. Ede Warner of the University of
Louisville to recruit a predominantly black debate team with the goal of intervening into the
debate about debate by focusing centrally on issues of racial exclusion. This effort came to be
known as the “Louisville Project.” The black debaters who entered the debate activity
challenged both sides of this ideological divide that had developed between traditional
debaters and critical debaters (Reid-Brinkley 2008). The door had been opened to critical
literature so black students began drawing literature from black studies and focused their
criticism more directly on the activity itself and both camps of the ideological divide. These
debaters were initially concerned with expanding diversity in the debate activity and
identifying the debate norms as specifically white. They adopted much of the style of the
critical performance teams but included more performative elements, challenging the lack of
representation in the debate activity as well as intervening in the aesthetics of the activity that
were forged in a virtually all white and mostly male crucible. The following chapter describes
these interventions in greater detail. George Soros’ “Open Society Institute” (OSI) is a private
grant-making foundation with the express mission to “promote the development and
maintenance of open societies around the world by supporting a range of programs in the areas
of educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to
complex and often controversial issues (Breger 2000). OSI has utilized the activity of
competitive debate as a “civil society building” tool in the former Soviet Union, China, Iraq,
Palestine and other nations considered to be in need of 60 democratic resources. The UDP is
one of many initiatives funded by OSI with the justification that “because debate provides
urban youth with the skills they need to actively participate as citizens in an open society, so
that their voices are heard and their opinions are considered in public discourse, both in their
communities and beyond” (Breger 2000; 1). By providing the opportunity for students of
poorly funded inner-city schools to engage in debate, the UDP sought to give these students a
chance “to excel in a rigorous intellectual activity which will positively affect all aspects of
their lives” (Breger 2000; 1). The activity of competitive debate and the diversity initiatives
taking place therein do not simply view debate as a site deserving of desegregation, but rather
as a site, the desegregation of which, will facilitate the general diversification of the wider
institutional landscape. Today, UDP boasts that more than 40,000 urban public school students
in over 30 U.S. cities, mostly African-American and Latino, have competed in Urban Debate
Leagues. The program claims, with backing from peer-reviewed empirical studies, that “policy
debate” is the most academically rigorous of all interscholastic speech activities and that
expanded participation promotes educational equity and prepares youth for future success in
media, business, law, government and the academy (Mezuk 2009). The UDP has received
investments from urban school districts totaling over eleven million dollars as well as
substantial and growing investment from various private sources15.
UDPs have been influential and played a very crucial role in the expanding amount of
minorities attending college.
Peterson 14|UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE DEBATING RACE, RACE-ING DEBATE: AN
EXTENDED ETHNOGRAPHIC CASE STUDY OF BLACK INTELLECTUAL INSURGENCY IN U.S.
INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE DISSERTATION submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements
for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Sociology by David Kent Peterson) A.B.
I focus here on the pathways that led to students becoming involved with high school and
university debate teams. The majority of black students in the debate activity are alumni of
the Urban Debate Program (UDP) and receive full or partial scholarships as members of the
debate team. There are a diverse range of reasons why students joined the UDP. The UDP
operates by 15 These figures are taken from the National Association of Urban Debate League
(NAUDL) website at www.urbandebate.org. 61 enlisting high school teachers to volunteer to
run the mostly afterschool program. In some cases, there is a debate course that is offered
within the schedule of courses, and in many cases it is simply an after school program. In
either case, teachers, whether they have experience with competitive debating or not, are
recruited to operate the program. Several students reported being approached by the debate
teacher and informed about the debate team. Many students were approached by the teacher
who thought the debate team might be a good outlet for them. The promise of potential
college scholarship opportunities was also a strong selling point for many students that
motivated them to become involved with the debate team.
Black debate coaches are often excluded from the debate community and mostly out rounds
because teams don’t want a black judge I the back when debating a “race” team.
Peterson 14|UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE DEBATING RACE, RACE-ING DEBATE: AN
EXTENDED ETHNOGRAPHIC CASE STUDY OF BLACK INTELLECTUAL INSURGENCY IN U.S.
INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE DISSERTATION submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements
for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Sociology by David Kent Peterson) A.B.
The Resistance group demonstrates the important role played by black professors and graduate
students who serve as coaches in the debate activity. Dr. Shanara Reid-Brinkley is one of the
more prominent and influential coaches. Though a professor at and coach of the University of
Pittsburgh, she describes herself as a coach of the “movement.” She and others provide
advice and guidance to all of the members of Resistance who want or need it. Dr. ReidBrinkley is also 69 a leading scholar of the Resistance whose work is widely used by Resistance
teams. Whereas the debaters receive awards and are recognized in various other ways for
their success, the black coaches in the debate activity are particularly invisible as they are
typically excluded from judging debates, particularly the important elimination rounds. The
reason for this is that they are not preferred by significant segments of the community. Each
of the debaters are allowed to assign each judge a rank order reflecting their preference for this
judge. Tournament directors use a software program that assigns judges to debates based upon
mutual preference16. Most debaters do not want to be paired against a black team in the
presence of a black judge and typically view the black judges as incapable of judging the
traditional debate format. Even black coaches who have mastered the traditional debate
format are given very low preference by the debate community.
The way we debate is important to make outside communications, with professors, authors,
etc., and to make a change inside and outside of debate.
Peterson 14|UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE DEBATING RACE, RACE-ING DEBATE: AN
EXTENDED ETHNOGRAPHIC CASE STUDY OF BLACK INTELLECTUAL INSURGENCY IN U.S.
INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE DISSERTATION submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements
for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Sociology by David Kent Peterson) A.B.
Debate coaching was once a respected professional responsibility for a tenured professor in the
academy. In the 1980s, that disappeared because of the need to publish or perish, and debate
programs were turned over to graduate-assistant coaches who were eager to bring about
innovation. Sadly, recent decades have emphasized gamesmanship and "postmodern"
techniques that have only a limited relationship to rhetorical standards and the rigors of
realistic policy debate” (1). Interestingly, an important feature of the black student effort in
debate has been to forge connections with black academics outside of the debate activity.
The students of the Resistance have also forged important connections with black academics
whose work they study and utilize in the course of debates. At one national competition at UC
Berkeley participants of the debate activity were surprised to see Angela Davis walking the halls
and checking out the debate competition. One of the black students from Towson University
called her and told her they would be debating so she came to watch them. Most of the black
students discussed with her the 73 struggle in the debate activity and received photos with her
and autographs. Several other professors have visited the competitions and have established
relationships with the students, providing them encouragement and support. Dylan
Rodriguez describes the struggle in the debate activity as intellectual guerilla warfare and
cites the efforts of debaters as an example of the importance of academic work and the way
in which it is being utilized by college and high school students in debate. Frank Wilderson has
met with groups of debaters, visited competitions in support of the Resistance and has even
given a keynote address at one of the debate competitions.
There is 3 distinctive ways that race debaters have engaged the question of racial inequalities
in the debate community. Identify white norms, the educational process of debate, and the
criticizing of the presuppositions of afro centrism .
Peterson 14|UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE DEBATING RACE, RACE-ING DEBATE: AN
EXTENDED ETHNOGRAPHIC CASE STUDY OF BLACK INTELLECTUAL INSURGENCY IN U.S.
INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE DISSERTATION submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements
for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Sociology by David Kent Peterson) A.B.
The discourse of this insurgent intellectual movement can be broadly categorized into three
distinct though sometimes overlapping waves. The first wave focused primarily on
multiculturalism and the strengthening of diversity initiatives in the activity. Though this
wave has sought to identify white norms and practices, the primary political goal was
expanded access. The second wave emphasizes systemic “white supremacy” and the
indictment of core methodologies and epistemologies that they understand to govern the
activity. This second wave focused on more radical nationalist solutions and attempted to
appropriate the space of debate as a site of radical black discourse. This wave sought, not
merely incorporation into the activity, but more importantly intervention into the
educational processes of the activity. The third wave raised the level of abstraction even
further and moved to a more sustained focus on the meaning of blackness and the parasitic
nature of the relationship between blackness and the world. Rather than attempting to
rescue the activity of debate, these pessimistic discourses sought to confront the debate
activity with an “unflinching paradigmatic analysis.” The third wave involved not merely a
criticism of both the liberal and leftist segments of the debate activity but also criticized 74
presuppositions of black nationalism and Afro-centrism that characterize much of the second
wave. These broad discourses represent the dominant discursive tendencies on the part of the
Resistance movement and loosely correspond with specific time periods.
The main priority of the black movement within debate is to increase MEANINGFUL black
participation in debate.
Peterson 14|UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE DEBATING RACE, RACE-ING DEBATE: AN
EXTENDED ETHNOGRAPHIC CASE STUDY OF BLACK INTELLECTUAL INSURGENCY IN U.S.
INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE DISSERTATION submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements
for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Sociology by David Kent Peterson) A.B.
First wave: multiculturalism and diversity The first iteration of the black radical movement in
debate can be described as relying upon a multiculturalim/diversity frame. This approach
operates primarily within a liberal democratic framework that supports a general optimism in
the capacity of democratic institutions to resolve differences in racial power. The key goal was
to identify and transform any barriers to the diversification of the debate activity. This
approach is also critical of existing institutional norms insofar as they exclude AfricanAmerican speaking styles. It seeks to interrogate white privilege for the purpose of generating
support for expanded black participation and allowing black students a voice in the
determination of key debate norms and procedures. While features of this approach go
beyond a simple multicultural framing, I describe it as such because the primary political
objective articulated was to “expand meaningful black participation” in the debate activity.
The central demand of the debaters made on the community was to work to increase black
participation. The approach was radical in the sense that major transformations of
institutional norms were called for that would make this participation “meaningful.” Those
leading this approach believed in the capacity of dialogue within a liberal framework, albeit one
that opened itself not only to diverse bodies, but also to diverse communication styles. As will
be seen, later approaches contrasted with this early approach in attempting to hijack rather
than simply diversify the debate space as well as in the embrace of more militant political
ideologies such as Black nationalism, Black feminism, revolutionary Pan-Africanism and Afropessimism.
African American speaking styles are not expressed in debate today, including more black
participation would add a different Variety of cultures into debate.
Peterson 14|UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE DEBATING RACE, RACE-ING DEBATE: AN
EXTENDED ETHNOGRAPHIC CASE STUDY OF BLACK INTELLECTUAL INSURGENCY IN U.S.
INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE DISSERTATION submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements
for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Sociology by David Kent Peterson) A.B.
Dr. Warner equipped his students with arguments about the need to both expand black
participation in debate and alter dominant norms and procedures to facilitate black retention.
The outcome of the competitive round was to be the mechanism for effecting expanded
access. The University of Louisville attempted to create competitive consequences for failing
to actively work to expand black participation in the activity (i.e. targeted recruiting, outreach,
hiring black staff). In each of their debates the Louisville squad challenged their opponents to
acknowledge and confront their white privilege. Additionally, they challenged each of the
other participating squads within the national network of debate to adopt a specific diversity
initiative that would increase black participation. Failure to do so, they argued, should result in
losing the debate round. 76 Additionally, they called for a number of alterations to the
dominant norms and procedures of the debate activity that they argued would help to
facilitate the recruitment and retention of black students. They claimed that the norms that
govern the debate activity were forged in a white and masculine crucible with the virtual
absence of meaningful participation from black people and so the inclusion of black people
into the activity necessitated the incorporation of black cultural forms. They argued that
methods of speaking that predominated within the debate activity privileged and reproduced
a white habitus. Citing a study of the debate activity by Shelton K. Hill (1997) Louisville argued
that the exclusionary practices of the debate activity and the lack of black students therein
can be explained primarily by the “white ways of speaking” and interpreting language. They
argued that African-American speaking styles were not valued in debate and that black
students did not want to participate because of a perception that they could only succeed in
the activity by acting white. They were the first group of students to introduce music, singing
and poetry into their debate speeches. They not only refused to speak in the rapid-paced
speech delivery that had become standard in the activity but they argued that other teams
should be penalized for doing so. Secondly, they demanded a de-emphasis on academic
intellectuals as the exclusive source of authority in the debate activity. Third, they demanded
that judges break from the strictly logocentric methods of judging debates and instead
incorporate an ethical component into their evaluative criteria. This approach to debate,
particularly their naming and confrontation of white privilege, generated a great deal of
frustration and resistance from the majority of the activity. Despite this resistance, two black
women on the Louisville debate team, Elizabeth Jones and Tonia Green, emerged as one of the
most successful debate teams in the country between 2002-2004 (Reid-Brinkley 2008). Their
debate career culminated in a quarter-final finish at the National Debate Tournament in 2004.
Debate is a way that black students challenge dominant educational structures, past example
have been Emporia and Towson.
Peterson 14|UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE DEBATING RACE, RACE-ING DEBATE: AN
EXTENDED ETHNOGRAPHIC CASE STUDY OF BLACK INTELLECTUAL INSURGENCY IN U.S.
INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE DISSERTATION submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements
for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Sociology by David Kent Peterson) A.B.
As will be discussed below, the University of Louisville would ultimately energize and inspire
students participating in Urban Debate Leagues around the country. Though most of the
students they inspired would ultimately depart from a multicultural framing, one team from
Emporia State who became influential in the Resistance group would frame their efforts as
seeking toward a multicultural democracy. They both hail from Kansas City Missouri and were
recruited from high school to compete in debate. In the debates, Emporia read passages from
literature on critical pedagogy interspliced with their own written prose and occasional
poetry. They argued that classrooms are the center of democratic practice and they
advocated a shift away from debating about government policy toward a debate relevant to
the configuration of the classroom space. They isolated debate as a potentially powerful site
wherein inroads can be made into challenging larger educational structures. These students
made a conscious effort not to focus their advocacy on specifically racial questions so as to
avoid debates devolving into “identity politics.” However, their rhetorical choices drew from
African-American oral traditions. As Tara, one of the Emporia students explained to me, The
part of debate that never intrigued me was the argumentative part, I was never really
interested in proving people wrong or being overly strategic. The thing about debate that roped
me in was this thing about oration. I was also a big fan of listening to people speak. Growing
up in the church I was always impressed with the ability of somebody to use their voice to
persuade, to convince people to change their behavior, to motivate people, to get people
live. I was watching one person be able to change the entire atmosphere just by saying a
couple things and using inflection and picking the right words and associating it with the right
situation, I was just captivated by people’s ability to do that so debate for me was this
opportunity to speak for 9 minutes at a time without being interrupted and 78 nobody could
stop me, so I was able to express myself and speak my mind so it was the ability to orate and
to speak to persuade.
The style of debate you chose to engage through determines the impact you leave behind,
per formative debaters tend to inspire more young debaters to fight against the dominant
norms of debate.
Peterson 14|UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE DEBATING RACE, RACE-ING DEBATE: AN
EXTENDED ETHNOGRAPHIC CASE STUDY OF BLACK INTELLECTUAL INSURGENCY IN U.S.
INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE DISSERTATION submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements
for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Sociology by David Kent Peterson) A.B.
The effort of the University of Louisville galvanized a generation of young students who had
found themselves in one of the many urban debate leagues around the country. As one
student explained, “once I saw Louisville [debate] I knew I could never debate the same way
again.” An indication of the influence of the students from Louisville could be seen when they,
after several years of being absent from competition (they both graduated in 2004), visited a
major national tournament at the University of Kentucky in 2011. The second they stepped
onto campus they were greeted as celebrities by the many young black debaters who had seen
videos of their old debates. They expressed astonishment at the increase of black participation
and the radicalization of oppositional arguments. Though the students were clearly inspired by
the University of Louisville and eager to replicate their successes, they pushed the critical
envelope beyond the discourse relied upon by the University of Louisville. They had
witnessed and heard stories about the way in which Louisville challenged the debate activity
and the recalcitrance of debate participants to self- 80 reflect. They thus possessed a
particularly oppositional orientation when they entered the activity. They also entered with
more experience in traditional debate training than was possessed by most of the Louisville
students. Witnessing the lack of meaningful efforts to expand diversity, the new cohort of
black students de-emphasized the call for inclusion. As one student told me, “we didn’t say
let us in, we just did us.” They were concerned with more fundamental issues of structural
white supremacy that characterized even well-intentioned white liberal discourse.
A small, underfunded competes better when describing the inequalities in debate and how
they feel against the dominant norms in debate, Louisville is a prime example.
Peterson 14|UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE DEBATING RACE, RACE-ING DEBATE: AN
EXTENDED ETHNOGRAPHIC CASE STUDY OF BLACK INTELLECTUAL INSURGENCY IN U.S.
INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE DISSERTATION submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements
for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Sociology by David Kent Peterson) A.B.
The students who entered the activity of college debate wanted the benefits of the activity
but they wanted it on their own terms and the Louisville squad had proven that a debate
team could be black and could be successful. They also saw that the majority of the white
students in the activity were not particularly good at engaging with these issues and that a
significant number activity’s gatekeepers could be persuaded of the legitimacy of a critical racial
challenge. So deploying an approach to debate that radically departed from the dominant
debate norms was a way of achieving success, in a sort of guerilla warfare manner, in a
competitive activity in which the success of a given debate team was typically correlated with
the amount of money that team’s university spent on researchers and scholarships. By
deploying this radical approach, students from smaller schools with fewer resources (these
were the schools to which most black students were recruited) could compete at higher levels.
Critical race theory, broadly conceived, provided a set of arguments that offered a metacommentary on the range of arguments circulating in the debate activity. The students
became deeply familiar with these discourses and argued that a consideration of racial
domination was a prerequisite to considering any other issues. Whereas the traditional
debaters came into debates with literally, thousands of documents that they have poured
over, notated, highlighted and meticulously organized, the Resistance 81 debaters could
come into the debate with a single folder with hundreds of passages of literature and they
could be victorious despite being outgunned. Success meant recognition on a national stage,
if only to an insular debate activity and it was appealing to many black students from inner
cities around the U.S.
We want to make you feel uncomfortable, but not for what you did, but for what the
dominant structures, though you cant be the leader of our liberation, we want you to
understand that there is some messed up things happeing and we need to all work together
to fix them .
Peterson 14|UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE DEBATING RACE, RACE-ING DEBATE: AN
EXTENDED ETHNOGRAPHIC CASE STUDY OF BLACK INTELLECTUAL INSURGENCY IN U.S.
INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE DISSERTATION submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements
for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Sociology by David Kent Peterson) A.B.
The goal of TU was to intervene into this production of knowledge and so they took a
confrontational approach. Kevin, explains of their efforts, Our emphasis was never on calling
people racist, though there were instances where we felt it was important to implicate
individuals more directly. If you relegate these things to abstract theories then people will
just compartmentalize them and it won’t actually affect them. We wanted to affect people so
they would actually have to think about their whiteness. We wanted to agitate; we wanted to
make people feel uncomfortable… But the emphasis was never on individuals. The goal was
to illuminate larger structures of domination, but we wanted people to connect those larger
structures with their own behaviors and the things going on in their daily lives.
Debate Community Bad in SQUO
The debate community today is seen as the Social world, perpetuating practices of white
supremacy, the only way to change that is by critically challenging the norms of the white
elitist in debate, we don’t debate this way just to call you racist, it’s to open up your eyes to
reality.
Peterson 14|UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE DEBATING RACE, RACE-ING DEBATE: AN
EXTENDED ETHNOGRAPHIC CASE STUDY OF BLACK INTELLECTUAL INSURGENCY IN U.S.
INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE DISSERTATION submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements
for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Sociology by David Kent Peterson) A.B.
Corey and Kevin argued that the contemporary social world, and the United States in
particular, can best be characterized by practices of “white supremacy.” To support this
assertion, they read passages from an array of critical race theorists (Charles Mills, Derrick
Bell, Richard Delgado) and black feminist scholars (bell hooks, Patricia Hill Collins) and played
clips of music and poetry, in a break from the established norm of relying solely on written
academic literature, from African-American artists such as Lauryn Hill, Nas, and Tupac Shakur.
They argued further that the intercollegiate competitive debating activity functions to
perpetuate white supremacy. To support this assertion they cited the demographic
predominance of white males in the activity and, more importantly (to them), their own
feelings of exclusion and the operation of “white normativity” and “white aesthetics” at the
heart the debate activity’s institutional culture. Kevin explained, The debate community, in
terms of its norms and procedures and tradition, endorses epistemologically white European
ideas of the world as the best way to engage in political contestation and this then obscures
other approaches to developing ideas about knowledge that can be beneficial for people
outside of the traditional white male heterosexual framework. TU refused to engage in a
traditional debate about US government policy and demanded instead that their white
opponents critically interrogate whiteness and white supremacy. They proposed a framework
for debate according to which their opponents should be selected “the winner” only 83 on the
condition that they could convincingly articulate how their approach to debate, and their
desired framework for debate, accounted for and confronted white supremacy. Kevin explains
that, We accused the debate community of the crime of commission with white supremacy in
terms of the type of scholarship that’s being produced. Because white supremacy is the
status quo, by not deploying any political analysis that takes this into consideration will then
act to extend the invisibility and pervasiveness of white supremacy. Towson argued they
should be selected the “winner” if they could demonstrate that their opponents failed to meet
this burden. This proposed framework invited a debate about the nature of white supremacy in
the post-civil rights era, the extent of its influence, and the significance of its social
consequences. Ideally, Corey and Kevin hoped the debate activity could be a space where
debates could be had concerning both the nature of social power and privilege as well as the
most appropriate and effective methods of resistance.
Yes, some things we are arguing are self-serving, but it is only because we have been
excluded from the debate community for so long that it is the only way to make a point and
actually make change. Debaters of the resistance are attempting to make a change inside and
outside of debate, the white people in debate and society don’t let us.
Peterson 14|UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE DEBATING RACE, RACE-ING DEBATE: AN
EXTENDED ETHNOGRAPHIC CASE STUDY OF BLACK INTELLECTUAL INSURGENCY IN U.S.
INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE DISSERTATION submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements
for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Sociology by David Kent Peterson) A.B.
Corey and Kevin cited three main objectives in rejecting the traditional debate framework and
confronting their mostly white fellow debaters. Their first objective was, they admitted,
somewhat self-serving. They were both interested in anti-racist political action and
community building outside of the debate activity. Confronting the debate community in an
oppositional manner provided them a political training ground for doing so. Kevin explains,
Knowing the world we live in is run by people who think like many of the people in the
debate community in terms of policy analysis and social issues, I felt it would be productive to
test these ideas in the face of overwhelming opposition in order to get the best possible test
of these ideas. Going somewhere where people might be more friendly 84 to the criticism or
might feel better about it being in a different form doesn’t allow for the type of test that I
think is important. Thus, they sought to take advantage of the argumentative prowess
possessed by college debaters in order to sharpen their own ability to advocate for
“oppressed people.” The fact that white students did not volunteer to be faced with such a
criticism (as in the case, for example, of white students electing to take a course AfricanAmerican studies or attend an anti-racism workshop), and were unlikely to face such a criticism
elsewhere, meant for Towson that the reaction and response of these students would provide a
particularly valuable training scenario. Like most other students I interviewed, the students
from TU were active in their University’s Black Student Union (BSU). However, the relationship
between the debate team and the BSU is unique in the case of TU. The debaters at TU, devised
a plan to utilize the TU campus in an effort to effectuate larger social change in Baltimore and
beyond. These students, devised a plan to utilize campus organizations to train themselves to,
as one student put it, “take over the city of Baltimore.” The plan was to take control of
leadership in the BSU, the entire Student union, and the university debate team. The debate
team was crucial to this plan because it provided a unique site in which to receive training in
public speaking and argumentation. They would use this training to help them launch a
number of political projects outside the debate activity. Kevin, made headlines as one of the
youngest candidates for city council in the city’s history and his organization is active in a
number of community-based initiatives. Alumni from TU have recently started a summer
debate training institute at Morgan State University for radical debaters. Additionally, many
of them work as teachers in the Baltimore Public School system, have gained positions of
leadership within the Baltimore UDL and other community organizations and are intent upon
utilizing the 85 activity of competitive debate to develop local leaders that act in the interests
of the Black population there.
The objective is not only expanding the participation of black debaters, but it is the treatment
and the inclusion of these debaters in the debate community. Today, the minority debaters
are only seen as entertainment.
Peterson 14|UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE DEBATING RACE, RACE-ING DEBATE: AN
EXTENDED ETHNOGRAPHIC CASE STUDY OF BLACK INTELLECTUAL INSURGENCY IN U.S.
INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE DISSERTATION submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements
for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Sociology by David Kent Peterson) A.B.
However, Corey and Kevin did not merely seek to gain preparation for a politics taking place
elsewhere. Rather they viewed the debate activity itself as an important battleground in the
war for racial justice. Their second objective was to foster greater African-American
participation in the debate activity, an activity they viewed as providing powerful educational
benefits. Through their style and oppositional approach, they sought to legitimize a method
of debating that would appeal to underrepresented college students, particularly AfricanAmericans. Corey explains, “for black people to be able to come into the debate activity and
feel comfortable is another big thing for me because I don’t think they do. And when I look at
black debaters I think they feel like, you know, ‘I don’t wanna be here.’” Similarly, Kevin
explained, In part, I was trying to test methodologies for debate that would help the debate
community orient its scholarship toward challenging structures of domination and provide a
space for people who are typically marginalized, a space that could affirm a sense of their
identity and provide them with useful tools that they would hopefully utilize outside the
debate community. Towson considered it a travesty that the benefits of participation in debate
were being monopolized by mostly white male college students. Indeed, the debate activity
allows college students a unique opportunity to accumulate cultural capital and develop
important skills (public speaking, critical thinking, research), which are indispensable to any
professional field. Additionally, few (if any) extra-curricular academic activities present the
opportunity to accumulate the quality of social capital provided by debate participation in the
form of a nationwide network of professors, graduate students and fellow undergraduates that
meet several 86 times a year at universities throughout the U.S to engage in in-depth
intellectual interactions. For Towson, however, it was not sufficient to merely expand the
quantity of underrepresented students in college debate, they demanded that the quality of
the activity and the range of issues addressed therein must reflect more than white
masculine concerns.
The objective is to educate the white debaters that will become the next leaders of the
country to understand the exclusions and the injustices done within the community, absent
this education, they only perpetuate the oppression done by the dominant leaders.
Peterson 14|UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE DEBATING RACE, RACE-ING DEBATE: AN
EXTENDED ETHNOGRAPHIC CASE STUDY OF BLACK INTELLECTUAL INSURGENCY IN U.S.
INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE DISSERTATION submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements
for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Sociology by David Kent Peterson) A.B.
The third of objective was to educate the mostly white male debaters who, they argued, will
likely enter into positions of institutional power and authority. They wanted to encourage
these students to orient their scholarship towards, in Kevin’s words, “challenging structures of
domination,” rather than merely to seek successful careers in academia, law and politics.
Corey explains, Those people [college debaters] are gonna be the people running this fuckin’
nation (laughter). They’re gonna be politicians, they’re gonna be businesspeople and they
need to be aware of the people they are making decisions for and how and how they feel.
There might even be a president that comes out of debate, all types of powerful people are
produced by the [debate] community and I would want them to have been faced by [me and
Kevin] so they can understand how the people from the bottom actually feel about race
relations and politics. Corey and Kevin were very specific about identifying white supremacy
as an institutional, rather than merely individual problem. However, they maintained that
institutional structures are reproduced through individual inaction as much as action and that
nobody, least of which educated white males, is free from culpability in the existence and
perpetuation of white supremacy. Corey and Kevin emphasized the danger described by Tim
Wise of the way in which debaters were being taught to think about the world. Tim Wise
(2004) writes, 87 Because debaters are encouraged to think about life or death matters as if
they had little consequence beyond a given debate round, the fact that those who have come
through the activity go on to hold a disproportionate share of powerful political and legal
positions- something about which the National Forensics League has long bragged- is a matter
that should concern us all. Being primed to think of serious issues as abstractions increases
the risk that the person who has been so primed will reduce everything to cost-benefit
analysis, which rarely prioritizes the needs and interests of society’s less powerful. Rather, it
becomes easier at that point to support policies that benefit the haves at the expense of the
have-nots, because others whom the ex-debaters never met and never had to take seriously
will be the ones to feel the damage” (72).
The debate community is rigged and only focuses on perpetuating white domination,
debaters have used less technical styles of debate to have the community understand that
we don’t have to debate the way everyone else does to cause a change.
Peterson 14|UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE DEBATING RACE, RACE-ING DEBATE: AN
EXTENDED ETHNOGRAPHIC CASE STUDY OF BLACK INTELLECTUAL INSURGENCY IN U.S.
INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE DISSERTATION submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements
for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Sociology by David Kent Peterson) A.B.
Another team who has been influential in this second wave has been Oklahoma University.
Compared to all other teams, they placed a greater emphasis on radicalizing their mode of
conveyance. They utilized music, poetry and hip hop expression to make their 88 intervention
into the debate activity. One of the team members, Tyron, was recruited to attend OU from
the Oakland Urban Debate league and given a full scholarship to debate. The other member,
Jared, is from rural Texas and was a walk-on member of the team who had never debated in
high school. He became familiar with the debate team through one of his classmates who
approached him and told that the debate team is a place that fosters and encourages critical
thought and that he might find a home there. These two students became partners and after a
rocky start became one of the most successful and feared debate teams in the country. Like
most of the other students highlighted here they were very active on campus, organizing
various political events and attempting to bring awareness to issues of race and class
domination. Compared to the other teams they were slightly less rigorous in their handling of
the technical aspects of academic scholarship and came to the activity with very little
technical debate skills. Still, they utilized key literature from the field of whiteness studies,
particularly the work of philosopher George Yancey. Jared and Tyron begin the first 20-30
seconds of their speeches by mocking the traditional debate speaking style and poise. They
transition sharply out of this by pausing and exclaiming “what the fuck do I look like!” Their
speeches then proceed in a fast-paced rhyme that, among other things, highlights the social
circumstances from which they come, and attempt to describe the reality of white supremacy
– mass incarceration, police violence, drug addiction, homelessness, etc. They then charge
debate with being a “rigged game” due to its privileging and perpetuation of an unspoken
white habitus. In order to describe the ways in which the debate activity reflects what they
call whiteness they continually mimic, in a mocking way, the speaking styles of the mostly
white debaters.
Debate is structured the same way as society, it is the only place to express the oppression of
a debater to a more privileged debater, to have them understand that real world things apply
when trying to change a policy.
Peterson 14|UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE DEBATING RACE, RACE-ING DEBATE: AN
EXTENDED ETHNOGRAPHIC CASE STUDY OF BLACK INTELLECTUAL INSURGENCY IN U.S.
INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE DISSERTATION submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements
for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Sociology by David Kent Peterson) A.B.
The debaters had a sense that, in their approach to debate, they were confronting American
society. They were confronting the racism of American society which they saw 89 embodied
in the activity of debate and the demeanor and attitude of the participants. The activity
allowed them an opportunity to compete with and intellectually best wealthy white students
from Ivy League universities. The students who entered the debate activity were familiar with
the outrage created by the University of Louisville and the way in which their efforts were
minimized and ignored. They thus entered the space of debate with the view that it was a
space of struggle, but one in which they could feel a sense of community in struggle. All the
while, they were travelling the nation on their universities’ dimes, interacting with national
network of students and professors from every range of university (from community college to
Ivy League and everything in between). Jared form Oklahoma described it in the following way,
I describe the debate activity the same way I describe the American dream and the way
American society works. I feel like for a black male, in order to progress you have to be
seduced and you have to give in to whiteness. In debate I feel pressured to suppress all my
beliefs, suppress my style and aesthetics to be successful in the activity. That’s the same way
it is in real life. So I could just say that debate is a straight-up white institution that debate is
purely a space of white privilege, and just say fuck it, pass it up. But debate allows me to do
things like travel the country and do things I would never be able to do without it. I don’t
wanna have to suppress the way I wanna say something and the way I want to describe
something, I don’t wanna always have to codeswitch. Debate and the rest of society makes
you do that so we were trying to get the benefits of debate but challenge all that at the same
time. The reasons why I’m doing that is to come and confront individuals that benefit from
the same institutions marginalize and disenfranchise me and my community and gave me a
space to really be able to articulate myself, put my thoughts together and verbalize the way I
feel about these things. It also 90 gives me a chance to travel around the country and see parts
of the country that I’ve never seen before. It gives me a space to get deep into literature and
philosophies that I wouldn’t be exposed to by just going to regular class or just the shit you
get in public schools. The main thing is that I see the activity how I see American society, the
way debate is constructed is modelled exactly on how society is constructed. So debate is a
place where my activism in debate allows me to sharpen my tools and to take them out to
the next level in the real world, to be able to challenge and speak to those individuals who
have the biggest impact on the way society is organized.
Afro Pessimism is critical to creating change within politics and presenting alternatives
to the way things are done now, the Status Quo obviously isn’t working for the black
community now.
Peterson 14|UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE DEBATING RACE, RACE-ING DEBATE: AN
EXTENDED ETHNOGRAPHIC CASE STUDY OF BLACK INTELLECTUAL INSURGENCY IN U.S.
INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE DISSERTATION submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements
for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Sociology by David Kent Peterson) A.B.
The most recent discursive shift of the Resistance in debate has been to the critical discourse of
Afro-pessimism. This involves a fundamental indictment of the ethicality of the political, social
and economic structures that comprise American society. Debaters of this third wave demand
that their opponents either defend the ethicality of these structures or account for the ways in
which they attempt to deconstruct them. This initiates a debate about the potential to
recuperate and recover democracy, the role of violence in black liberation struggle, and the
nature of racial domination in the contemporary moment. The main influence in this debate is
from the critical intervention into the field of critical theory and black studies described by
Frank Wilderson III as “Afro-pessimism.” Rather than celebrate Blackness as a cultural identity,
Afro- pessimism theorizes it as a position of accumulation and fungibility (Saidiya Hartman);
that is, as condition—or relation—of ontological death. “Afro-Pessimists are framed as
such…because they theorize an antagonism, rather than a conflict—i.e. they perform a kind of
‘work of understanding’ rather than that of liberation, refusing to posit seemingly untenable
solutions to the problems they raise.” In this sense, Afro-pessimism was critical of
establishment politics as 91 well as the various alternatives presented by the left as holding out
the possibility of eliminating oppression.
It is not enough to just engage through authors, we should be allowed to add our
social location within debate to find the distinction between hood knowledge and
academic knowledge.
Peterson 14|UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE DEBATING RACE, RACE-ING DEBATE: AN
EXTENDED ETHNOGRAPHIC CASE STUDY OF BLACK INTELLECTUAL INSURGENCY IN U.S.
INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE DISSERTATION submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements
for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Sociology by David Kent Peterson) A.B.
Related to the debate over the politics of performance was the debate over how students
should orient themselves to critical theory literature. A distinction often made was that
between organic or street intellectuals and academic intellectuals. This played out, as described
above in the debates and discussions between Emporia and Towson but also played out in
slightly different ways by Towson, West Georgia (WGA) and Oklahoma. An important debate
occurred at the 2013 Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) national championship
competition 103 between West Georgia and Oklahoma. In this debate there was a distinction
drawn between “hood knowledge” and “academic knowledge.” Oklahoma insisted on finding a
way to speak and translate academic theory into a form which can be understood by “real
niggas” in the hood. Their approach to doing so was to embody the knowledge they had
learned by delivering it in the form of verse. They argued that it was not enough to provide an
academic analysis of the problem but rather it was necessary to be disruptive in forms of
speaking and ways of being in the debate space. By the end of the debate OU argued that “they
[WGA] lose because they privilege Jared Sexton above Trinidad James.” They argued that
“[rapper] Trinidad James is smarter than academic intellectuals.” The key assumption here is
that black students in academic spaces have a duty to recognize and acknowledge intellectuals,
such as rappers and poets, who are not typically recognized within academic spaces. The goal is
to redefine scholarship in such a way that would consider these artists legitimate intellectuals
with important social analyses that need to be considered. WGA rejected this distinction and
cautioned against viewing entertainers as political and scholarly leaders, even though they liked
and appreciated these artists themselves. WGA responded also, by criticizing the notion of an
authentic black person especially for the conceptualization of authentic blackness as located on
an urban-based male.
DEBATE GOOD (AN INDICT TO PERFORMATIVE DEBATE)
Solvency Turns
Changing discourse in debate without shifting actual power structures risks an illusion
of transformation
Bankey 13
Brendon Bankey is a PhD student at Kansas and has a MA in communication from Wake Forest
University. He debated for Trinity University. “THE “FACT OF BLACKNESS” DOES NOT EXIST: AN
EVOCATIVE CRITICISM OF RESISTANCE RHETORIC IN ACADEMIC POLICY DEBATE AND ITS
(MIS)USE OF FRANTZ FANON’S BLACK SKIN, WHITE MASKS,” August 2013, Pg. 16-17, AFGA)
Not all resistant rhetoric succeeds in displacing power, however. As such, ‘superficial
transformations’ occur when “new discourses emerge without a reversal of power relations,
or where practices change without the existence of thought.” According to Phillips, examining
these stifled discourses of resistance “can help to answer the question of why some
transformations remain superficial while others open deep fractures in our experience of the
present.”46 In accordance with Phillips’ suggestion, I will attend to Reid-Brinkley’s model of
resistance and its “localized point of contingency and transformation” to examine “the
inventional practices” of disruption it employs as a means of assessing the possibility for her
movement to achieve its non-competitive goals. Given recent competitive successes of nontraditional debaters engaging in acts of resistance in the flesh, it seems especially relevant to
assess whether this model of resistance can ensure the vitality of black public voice or whether
it is simply a competitive strategy that allows marginalized debaters to succeed by reversing
power relations to impose new discourses that reinforce racialized essentialisms.
The reliance of racial resistance on biological difference as a basis for strategies creates a
barrier to recognition of resistance by others
Bankey 13
Brendon Bankey is a PhD student at Kansas and has a MA in communication from Wake Forest
University. He debated for Trinity University. “THE “FACT OF BLACKNESS” DOES NOT EXIST: AN
EVOCATIVE CRITICISM OF RESISTANCE RHETORIC IN ACADEMIC POLICY DEBATE AND ITS
(MIS)USE OF FRANTZ FANON’S BLACK SKIN, WHITE MASKS,” August 2013, Pg. 114-115, AFGA)
Reid-Brinkley’s dissertation concerning strategies of bodily resistance, or resistance in the flesh,
in high school and intercollegiate policy debate provides an example of rhetorical scholarship
that appropriates Fanon’s “fact of blackness”—that the black body takes anti-human form as
“an object among other objects” in social spaces—absent a discussion of disalienation. In this
chapter, I apply my reading of Fanon to Reid-Brinkley’s scholarship as a means of illuminating
the extent to which her method for resistance in policy debate undermines Fanon’s goal of
disalienation. Through this criticism, I argue that Reid-Brinkley’s resistance fails to generate a
vision of policy debate “freed from” what Fanon describes as “the springboard of embodying
resistance of others” because, by prioritizing the importance of the body in order to
distinguish her movement from traditional forms of debate, it requires those who resist to
dig “into [their] flesh in order to find self-meaning.” Because of this dependency on the
‘biological difference’ that the skin signifies, the specific inventional strategies Reid-Brinkley
offers for marginalized bodies to resist fail to unlock the “suffocating reification” that Fanon
attributes his objectification to in L’Expérience Vécue du Noir. The unfortunate result of this
reification is the construction of a rhetorical barrier that hinders the ability of traditional
debaters to acknowledge the styles and voices of those engaging in resistance.3
Solvency Turn – Black Aesthetic
Black aesthetics perpetuates a white/black divide that makes solvency impossible
Bankey 13
Brendon Bankey is a PhD student at Kansas and has a MA in communication from Wake Forest
University. He debated for Trinity University. “THE “FACT OF BLACKNESS” DOES NOT EXIST: AN
EVOCATIVE CRITICISM OF RESISTANCE RHETORIC IN ACADEMIC POLICY DEBATE AND ITS
(MIS)USE OF FRANTZ FANON’S BLACK SKIN, WHITE MASKS,” August 2013, Pg. 124-127, AFGA)
Reid-Brinkley’s writings on black aesthetic performance further complicate an understanding of
whiteness and how to confront it. She writes, “The use of African-American and hip hop music
and aesthetic styles in the traditional spaces of academic policy debate may operate to combat
the ideologies of whiteness that actively maintain the dominant, normative order of debate.”
Moreover, she identifies the need for creating an “aesthetic community of resistance” through
cultural methods such as hip hop because they “serve as a call to resistance for AfricanAmericans.” Through musical elements, which have historically “been a critical tool in
maintaining hope and resistance to the tyranny of white racism in black communities around
the world,” non-traditional debaters can create “an aesthetic place or home from which they
might gain strength in their confrontation with [hostile spaces of] the predominantly white
debate community.” Thus, for Reid-Brinkley, “black cultural performative aesthetics [function]
as a rhetorical strategy” that “[disturbs] the aesthetic environment of debate competitions”
and constitute “argumentative support for [non-traditional debaters’] interpretations and
advocacy.”18 From this description, one is left wondering whether a form of black aesthetic
performance exists independent of the whiteness it resists. Black aesthetic performance in
Reid-Brinkley corresponds to a form of resistance whereby the black body stylistically violates
the norms and spaces that traditionally uphold whiteness. This reading of black aesthetic
performance, including its treatment of Fanon, is reminiscent of the Black Arts Movement
(BAM). Eric King Watts’ research on the BAM investigates the role of black aesthetic
performance crafted for the purpose of resisting whiteness. He finds that the black aesthetic
functions as “an ideological system constitutive of a distinct ‘black perspective’ on the beauty
and on the cruelty of black social life” that allows its performers to “make sense of the world
and convey that sense to black people.” A universal understanding of the black aesthetic is
impossible. Rather, the black aesthetic manifests itself in different forms throughout American
history as a response to the contingent constraints imposed upon black folk by social reality.
Watts argues “making sense of the world” through black aesthetic practices “has historically
enabled black folk in America to cultivate a ‘dwelling place.’” He believes that attending to the
unique qualities of a given black aesthetic performance can reveal how “varying conceptions of
a black aesthetic index significant development in black American public expression and
creativity” and shape “the character of a black rhetorical voice.”19
In this instance, The BAM presents a cogent example of the problem posed by inventional
practices of resistance rooted in misappropriations of Fanon. Watts ultimately faults the BAM
for its “reinvention of a black aesthetic” fixated on rationalizing “the ‘purification’ of
‘blackness’ by characterizing the ‘proper’ relations between ‘blackness’ and ‘whiteness’ as
fundamentally oppositional and antagonistic.” He understands the BAM as principally
“inspired by the works of Frantz Fanon and enamored with the concept of an African American
colonial subjectivity.” Because of this admiration for Fanon, the BAM reinterprets “the black
self” as “a historically oppressed and purely objectified body” and as “separated and fixed as
not white.”20 This orientation is easily observable in Reid-Brinkley’s conception of the black
aesthetic. She calls upon black aesthetic performance as a means of connecting individual
argument with the larger diaspora of African-American oppression and defines it in
opposition to a majority white community of policy debate. The interpretive logic present in
this understanding of black aesthetic performance ultimately fails to generate a space for
freedom because it relies on a “paradox of purity” that can never rid itself of the black/white
dialectic. Watts explains how “this paradox is doubly present in the black aesthetic.” He writes:
As artists assume the ethos of the oppressed, they appropriate this dialectic and enact it in two
revised modes. The first mode posits the “purity” of whiteness but transposes its valence.
Rather than synthesizing white goodness, the reinterpreted white/not white pair articulates
the wrongness of whiteness and specifies why black folk are (fortunately) “not white.” But as
artists simultaneously turn inward, toward the black community and work to “affirm
ourselves—each other[,] … affirm the kingdom of heaven within us,” the dialectic is translated
into its opposite: black/not black. This dialectic demonstrates the “purity” and beauty of
blackness by isolating and purging (white) substances that do not properly belong to it; in short,
it identifies values and ideas that are “not black.”The black aesthetic fails to escape the
white/black dialectic because “the two structures” of “whiteness” and “blackness” are
“mutually reinforcing” of each other. Under this interpretive logic of black aesthetic
performance “whiteness is understood as responsible for the ills of the world while blackness
is defined in terms that reclaim a sense of moral agency for black folk in a corrupt world.”
Employing Burke’s concept of the negative, Watts explains that the “paradox of purity” arises
from this understanding of “whiteness” and “blackness” because each dialectical structure
implies the existence of the other “like a disease intimates its cure.” Within this dialectical
entanglement, there can be no authentic expression of blackness without the negation of the
impurity of whiteness. 22
This leads to increasingly radical separation from everything perceived as white
Bankey 13
Brendon Bankey is a PhD student at Kansas and has a MA in communication from Wake Forest
University. He debated for Trinity University. “THE “FACT OF BLACKNESS” DOES NOT EXIST: AN
EVOCATIVE CRITICISM OF RESISTANCE RHETORIC IN ACADEMIC POLICY DEBATE AND ITS
(MIS)USE OF FRANTZ FANON’S BLACK SKIN, WHITE MASKS,” August 2013, Pg. 127, AFGA)
This paradox ultimately turns manic as artists require the “‘destruction’ of whiteness” as a
precondition to forms of black self-expression. The result is that “the dwelling place arising
out of” the black aesthetic “becomes increasingly inhospitable and hostile toward all signs of
‘difference.’” Observing Larry Neal’s participation in the BAM, Watts writes, “Neal’s
hermeneutical rhetoric was conditioned by an aesthetic praxis that produced a sense of
claustrophobia as he was suffocated by the pressures of locating that which is ‘not black.’” In
this sense, black aesthetic performance has no way out of Fanon’s ‘suffocating reification’
because of its dependence on purging whiteness for its vitality. As greater steps are taken to
ensure the separation from white people, this “worldview” ultimately requires a turn inward,
creating the problem Alexander endures whereby members of the black community attempt
to sever off those members guilty of “acting White.”23
This separatism leads to total stagnation of thought in the debate community
Bankey 13
Brendon Bankey is a PhD student at Kansas and has a MA in communication from Wake Forest
University. He debated for Trinity University. “THE “FACT OF BLACKNESS” DOES NOT EXIST: AN
EVOCATIVE CRITICISM OF RESISTANCE RHETORIC IN ACADEMIC POLICY DEBATE AND ITS
(MIS)USE OF FRANTZ FANON’S BLACK SKIN, WHITE MASKS,” August 2013, Pg. 128-129, AFGA)
In the context of policy debate, to propose separatism or nationalism through movements of
aesthetic performance creates a form of self-imposed alienation whereby those moving
within and against the debate refuse to acknowledge the ways they participates in it. As
Watts describes of the BAM, this type of perspective is always “habituated by the threat of
nihilism” because it refuses to identify its owner’s stake in the development and continuation
of the activity. This form of “intellectual alienation is,” for Fanon, “a creation of bourgeois
society…that becomes ossified in a predetermined mold, stifling any development, progress,
or discovery.” The rigid positivism accompanying this worldview imposes a “philosophical
dogma” that “desensitizes us to the lived experiences and feelings of others” and diagnoses
anything in violation of the new ideal aesthetic as an object of whiteness that the community
must resist. This manifests itself from an anxiety toward being with others that limits our ability
to recognize the voice of difference. In his acknowledgment of the limitations of the BAM, Larry
Neal writes:
Insecurity frequently leads us to conclude falsely, that all of our problems would be solved if
the Black masses would only convert to some specific ideological or theological tenets—
namely, the ones we adhere to. But in reality, the problem is far more complex than any one
ideological position because life itself is essentially fluid and changing. In Fanon’s words, this
type of worldview creates “a closed society where it’s not good to be alive, where the air is
rotten and ideas and people are putrefying.” A conception of freedom within this space of selfalienation would require one to eliminate difference from the community or leave it entirely.
27
Performance Race Debate Bad
Performance debate emphasizing suffering leads to stifled action or alienation by
embracing a tortured identity
Bankey 13
Brendon Bankey is a PhD student at Kansas and has a MA in communication from Wake Forest
University. He debated for Trinity University. “THE “FACT OF BLACKNESS” DOES NOT EXIST: AN
EVOCATIVE CRITICISM OF RESISTANCE RHETORIC IN ACADEMIC POLICY DEBATE AND ITS
(MIS)USE OF FRANTZ FANON’S BLACK SKIN, WHITE MASKS,” August 2013, Pg. 130-131, AFGA)
Like Fanon, Moten finds these methods of black performance problematic because they fail to
generate a response that attends to the causes of black suffering. As he states, “Only more
obscene than the brutality unleashed at the whipping post is the demand that this suffering
be materialized and evidenced by the display of the tortured body or endless recitations of
the ghastly and terrible.” For Moten, resistance in this fashion either produces an affect so
overwhelming that it stifles action or it encourages the performer to lock themselves into
cycles of alienation by embracing their role as the tortured body. He finds that attempts to
perform the marks of slavery create a “narcissistic identification” with the suffering body that
exacerbates black folks “indifference to suffering that” often results from the “benumbing
spectacle.” This style of resistance in the flesh functionally “obliterates the other” by holding
non-black bodies accountable to the violence of slavery. This measure of performance raises
the question whether its purpose is to confront white folks in policy debate with the truth of
black oppression or whether those engaging in resistance are content to trap white
opponents into cycles of disaffection as they attempt to comprehend the violence their
assumed ancestors perpetuated on the black body during the United States formation. The first
dilemma fails to escape the metonymy of slavery. Rather than challenge the Y a bon Banania
essence, this style of performance determines the impossibility of ridding the self of its “innate
complex” and asserts the self as a “BLACK MAN” and a visual stand in for the history of
black/white social relations.31 The second dilemma carries this self- assessed blackness into
encounters with white folks and deploys black personal experience as a metonymic weapon
used to cut into the psyche of whiteness. Challenging the assumptions present in either
strategy, Fanon writes:
Performative race arguments limit the ability of performers to disrupt the racial order
Bankey 13
Brendon Bankey is a PhD student at Kansas and has a MA in communication from Wake Forest
University. He debated for Trinity University. “THE “FACT OF BLACKNESS” DOES NOT EXIST: AN
EVOCATIVE CRITICISM OF RESISTANCE RHETORIC IN ACADEMIC POLICY DEBATE AND ITS
(MIS)USE OF FRANTZ FANON’S BLACK SKIN, WHITE MASKS,” August 2013, Pg. 132-133, AFGA)
From this reading of Fanon, the solution to the black body’s supposed presence as a pollutant
in white spaces should not serve as a justification to impose the history of black/white
colonialism and slavery on the next available white body. Rather, we should caution resistance
in the flesh that limits young black bodies’ available means of rhetorical invention to their
facial profile. Kelly E. Happe writes: Performative enactments of race foreclose opportunities
for disrupting race, namely, by securing the consent of those who play a crucial role in
sustaining a racialized social order. … A rhetorical phenomenon that is possible not only
because the body is called upon to produce racial truths (what I describe as the synecdochical
collapse between genotype and phenotype) but because the presumed behavior, or culture, of
racialized groups becomes part of the scene of address. Locating resistance in the body
contains a limited ability to challenge racial essentialisms because it preserves essentialisms
of blackness and whiteness as tropes to be deployed in debate competition. Resistance in this
manner fails to disrupt negative racial essentialisms because each challenge to white
supremacy instills a new universal meaning of the injurious history blackness and the evils of
whiteness in its place.
Debate = Bad Forum
Using a competitive forum to discuss race is flawed – limits and devalues conversation
Bankey 13
Brendon Bankey is a PhD student at Kansas and has a MA in communication from Wake Forest
University. He debated for Trinity University. “THE “FACT OF BLACKNESS” DOES NOT EXIST: AN
EVOCATIVE CRITICISM OF RESISTANCE RHETORIC IN ACADEMIC POLICY DEBATE AND ITS
(MIS)USE OF FRANTZ FANON’S BLACK SKIN, WHITE MASKS,” August 2013, Pg. 51-52, AFGA)
The other problem this understanding of privilege creates is the idea that individual debate
competitions are the ideal place to do the work of community building. There exist a range of
options for communicating difference to each other in spaces of the debate community. To
isolate the importance of this task to debate competitions dismisses the community element
entirely. It also raises the question of why young people searching for the proper script to
articulate their social position must offer it forth for a judge to evaluate its accuracy. Even if
an opponent is seeking to engage authentically, it is the person sitting in the back of the room
that has the final say in the matter. Moreover, I am curious how supporters of strategies
designed at confronting whiteness expect debaters to accomplish the task of exposing one’s
privilege during a three-minute cross-examination period, which is the only time in debate
that places teams in conversation with each other. On this subject of competition, I am
concerned that supporters of resistance will take the success of teams like West Georgia and
Emporia at CEDA and the NDT to mean that meaningful black participation can only occur in
policy debate through competitive means. This is not some backhanded way of saying nontraditional debaters should be content with losing debates; every collegiate debater dreams of
winning the NDT. But are we willing to say that if a student does not ever win a debate at the
NDT or even qualify for the NDT their presence in the community was not meaningful?
Moreover, in the rush to disidentify with policy debate I worry that supporters of resistance
will overlook the meaningful black participation that did occur by debaters who did not
choose to engage in strategies of signifyin(g) or genre violation in the 2012-2013 season.
Debate rounds are ineffective sites of change – lack of audience and transcription
Bankey 13
Brendon Bankey is a PhD student at Kansas and has a MA in communication from Wake Forest
University. He debated for Trinity University. “THE “FACT OF BLACKNESS” DOES NOT EXIST: AN
EVOCATIVE CRITICISM OF RESISTANCE RHETORIC IN ACADEMIC POLICY DEBATE AND ITS
(MIS)USE OF FRANTZ FANON’S BLACK SKIN, WHITE MASKS,” August 2013, Pg. 50-51, AFGA)
Atchison and Panetta’s scholarship investigates the general stubbornness to respond to forms
of activism within policy debate, challenging the notion that “any individual debate” can affect
the capacity “to generate community change.” They “attribute this ineffectiveness” of
focusing on individual debates as a site of activism “to the structural problems inherent in
individual debates and the collective forgetfulness of the debate community.” From a
structural perspective, individual debates generally lack the necessary audience to attract
attention to coalesce community opinion toward a certain team’s criticism of marginalizing
debate practices. While this observation is called into question by the efforts made to record
debates at the 2013 NDT, the majority of “elimination debates do not provide for a much better
audience because debates still occur simultaneously, and travel schedules dictate that most of
the participants have left by the later elimination rounds.” Because of the sheer number of
debates that occur throughout a given season and the lack of efforts to transcribe them,
Atchison and Panetta propose a model for creating community change that requires public
argument striving toward “a larger community dialogue that is recorded and/or transcribed”
as an alternative to strategies of resistance “premised on winning individual debates” to
resolve “a community problem.” Their proposal recognizes the importance of reinvigorating
methods of accessible public argument often disregarded in competitive debate. At the same
time, however, they remain concerned that individual “debate competitions do not represent
the best environment for community change.”
Using competitive debate to cause scapegoats the opposing team
Bankey 13
Brendon Bankey is a PhD student at Kansas and has a MA in communication from Wake Forest
University. He debated for Trinity University. “THE “FACT OF BLACKNESS” DOES NOT EXIST: AN
EVOCATIVE CRITICISM OF RESISTANCE RHETORIC IN ACADEMIC POLICY DEBATE AND ITS
(MIS)USE OF FRANTZ FANON’S BLACK SKIN, WHITE MASKS,” August 2013, Pg. 52-53, AFGA)
The larger problem Atchison and Panetta find endemic to strategies of resistance that treat the
“ballot as currency” for the success of their movement is that those activist approaches
undermine the competitive element of policy debate and eliminate the role for the opposing
team to assist in resolving the community problem. According to Atchison and Panetta, “If
each individual debate is a decision about how the debate community should approach a
problem, then the losing debaters become collateral damage in the activist strategy
dedicated toward creating community change.” Treating the judge’s ballot as the barometer
for the importance of a given strategy of resistance creates a model of debate evaluation
whereby “the losing team serves as a sacrificial lamb on the altar of community change.” This is
not to say that all teams engaging in forms of resistance present advocacies that dismiss the
presence of the opponent. Rather, in those instances when movement teams ask judges to
adjudicate over community problems within individual debates, they dismiss the importance
of competitive engagement with the given controversy and instill a model of debate that
“[increases] the profile of the winning team and the community problem” by “treating
opponents as scapegoats for the failures of the community.”
Using debates to advance a movement fails to expand them and causes backlash
Bankey 13
Brendon Bankey is a PhD student at Kansas and has a MA in communication from Wake Forest
University. He debated for Trinity University. “THE “FACT OF BLACKNESS” DOES NOT EXIST: AN
EVOCATIVE CRITICISM OF RESISTANCE RHETORIC IN ACADEMIC POLICY DEBATE AND ITS
(MIS)USE OF FRANTZ FANON’S BLACK SKIN, WHITE MASKS,” August 2013, Pg. 53-54, AFGA)
Policy debate is, above other considerations, a competition between academic institutions.
And while some schools consider the educational benefits debate provides to be more
important than an evaluation of wins and losses, it is difficult to dismiss the role competition
plays in the activity. Reid-Brinkley acknowledges this role in her discussion of genre violation
when she discusses the “competitive obstacle” the Louisville Project created for their
opponents by choosing to engage in alternative styles of affirming the resolution.23 Note the
importance of the resolution in her analysis: Traditionally in policy debate, the affirmative must
argue in support of the resolution that has been chosen for that year’s debate competition. In
the first affirmative speech of the debate, the affirmative provides a structured nine minute
speech in support of a specific policy idea that provides a justification for the correctness of the
resolutional statement. The speech normally contains three observations or contentions that
argue 1) that the status quo of a political situation provides a barrier to solving a problem and
the affirmative suggests a course of
action to rectify the problem; 2) they outline the potential advantages to their suggested course
of action; and 3) they argue that their suggested course of action will solve the identified
problem and result in the external advantages. Granted, it would be a tremendous disservice
to those in support of Reid-Brinkley’s movement to state that their sole purpose for
resistance is to win debates That said, one cannot deny the strategic advantage afforded to
movement teams that choose to shift the terms of the debate to a discussion of whether or
not marginalized bodies should be included in the activity. Atchison and Panetta’s concern
with the “debate as activism” approach highlights the competitive nature of debate as one of
the primary reasons locating resistance in individual debates creates a barrier to community
change. Debaters, traditional or otherwise, that “have spent countless hours preparing for” a
“proposed resolution” will likely be unwilling to agree with the premise that they should lose
a debate because of a wider community problem whose outcome their present debate
cannot control. Creating “the ballot” as the nexus for resistance “does little to generate the
critical coalitions necessary to address the community problem, because the competitive
focus encourages teams to concentrate on how to beat the strategy with little regard for
addressing the community problem.” Moreover, as Atchison and Panetta observe:
When a team loses a debate because the judge decides that it is better for the community for
the other team to win, then they have sacrificed two potential advocates for change within
the community. Creating change through wins generates backlash through losses.
Kritiks of oppression cause teams to feel excluded from movements and encourage
refutation in round instead of cooperation
Bankey 13
Brendon Bankey is a PhD student at Kansas and has a MA in communication from Wake Forest
University. He debated for Trinity University. “THE “FACT OF BLACKNESS” DOES NOT EXIST: AN
EVOCATIVE CRITICISM OF RESISTANCE RHETORIC IN ACADEMIC POLICY DEBATE AND ITS
(MIS)USE OF FRANTZ FANON’S BLACK SKIN, WHITE MASKS,” August 2013, Pg. 55, AFGA)
“Their perception is that even if they know the authors inside and out, they can’t use certain
authors to argue from their own experience. If a standard for winning is advancing a
compelling narrative that questions privilege, in some way, they can’t win.” These students
feel “They’re dealt out of the game from the outset.” Although Reid-Brinkley argues this
“perception is incorrect” because “many authors in the area of race and ethnic studies…are
members of dominant identity categories,” her position does little to resolve felt violation
experienced by teams that lose debates because their experiences do not correspond to
forms of oppression within the debate community. Given the competitive nature of policy
debate, teams that lose individual debates to arguments about community problems outside
of their control are more likely to engage in forms of counter-resistance focused on defeating
the team advocating community change than agree that they should lose a debate because
their bodies are more privileged than their opponents. In this sense, “the ballot as currency”
model undermines the purpose of resistance by encouraging teams to orient their research
toward defeating arguments about the importance of recognizing individual privilege through
arguments such as Framework in order to win debates.
ROB Bad
ROBs which place the judge as one who needs to solve a community problem excludes
the majority of judges and those who do not directly engage in debate
Bankey 13
Brendon Bankey is a PhD student at Kansas and has a MA in communication from Wake Forest
University. He debated for Trinity University. “THE “FACT OF BLACKNESS” DOES NOT EXIST: AN
EVOCATIVE CRITICISM OF RESISTANCE RHETORIC IN ACADEMIC POLICY DEBATE AND ITS
(MIS)USE OF FRANTZ FANON’S BLACK SKIN, WHITE MASKS,” August 2013, Pg. 51-52, AFGA)
For Atchison and Panetta, “the ballot” a judge casts at the conclusion of a debate should
signify nothing more or less than that person’s decision “to vote for the team that does the
best debating.” This understanding encourages judges to limit their analysis of a debate to
the arguments presented within each team’s allotted times to speak. It would exclude
decisions focused on resolving external abuses such as: determining the appropriateness of
statements or events between a team or program that occurred outside of the immediate
debate; challenging a school’s success at “recruiting minority participants”; criticizing the civil
rights legacy of participants’ academic institutions; or increasing the presence of
underrepresented bodies in elimination debates. By contrast, some non-traditional teams
interested in challenging the marginalizing effects of policy debate formats have begun to
advocate what I call a “ballot as currency” model for judges to evaluate debates. While the
specific terminology is not universally employed, the “ballot as currency” approach
establishes that a judge’s ballot signifies what bodies and practices she deems appropriate
for policy debate. Within this model, a non-traditional team’s ability to accumulate wins is a
referendum on the perceived acceptableness of their bodies for academic spaces.
Beyond the structural factors that limit the visibility of any individual debate, Atchison and
Panetta identify two problems with the “ballot as currency” method for evaluating debates.
First, the “ballot as currency” approach presents the dilemma of “asking a judge to vote to
solve a community problem” with very “few participants” (generally the other people in the
room) allowed to take a stake in the process. This places the course of community change on
the shoulders of those who judge debates between traditional and non-traditional teams and
excludes those “coaches and directors who are not preferred judges and, therefore, do not
have access to many debates.” Furthermore, it excludes those “who might want to contribute
to community conversation, but are not directly involved in competition.” Prioritizing the
“ballot as currency” approach fails to recognize that “debate community is broader than the
individual participants” of a given debate and risks the creation of “an insulated community
that has all the answers” without ever engaging those concerned individuals who do not
attend every competition. The result is that a very narrow set of judges, usually those that
often judge Framework debates, are granted the authority to determine the outcome of
communal change.
AT Atchison and Panetta Indict
Atchison and Panetta recognize the value of personal experience but argue that it is
not effective in debates
Bankey 13
Brendon Bankey is a PhD student at Kansas and has a MA in communication from Wake Forest
University. He debated for Trinity University. “THE “FACT OF BLACKNESS” DOES NOT EXIST: AN
EVOCATIVE CRITICISM OF RESISTANCE RHETORIC IN ACADEMIC POLICY DEBATE AND ITS
(MIS)USE OF FRANTZ FANON’S BLACK SKIN, WHITE MASKS,” August 2013, Pg. 57-58, AFGA)
Evans adopts a more direct criticism of Atchison and Panetta’s method for achieving
community change. Within his review of communication scholarship produced by members of
Wake Forest University’s debate program, he accuses Atchison and Panetta of participating in
“anti-blackness within the debate community and communications theory” for their
scholarship’s treatment of the role of personal experience in debate. Moreover, he argues
that the evidence read in Framework debates from Atchison and Panetta’s scholarship causes
“psychic damage” to non-white bodies by devaluing their stylistic approaches to affirmation. As
such, he identifies Atchison and Panetta and the institutions that support them, Wake Forest
and the University of Georgia, as some of the main “circulators of anti-black thought in debate.”
The dismissal of personal experience in Atchison and Panetta is difficult to locate. At no point
do they deny the role of personal experience in debate. Instead, they acknowledge, “Forcing
teams to consider their purpose in debating, their style in debates, and their approach to
evidence are all critical aspects of being participants in the community.” While they recognize
the role of self-reflexiveness for debaters as members of a larger community, they object to
methods that dismiss the topic for discussion to enforce self-reflexiveness. Moreover, they
identify the tension resulting from strategies that view individual debates as a the site to
enforce a reexamination of debate as “rarely productive” precisely because “the vast majority
of teams” subjected to these strategies “not promoting community change are very interested
in winning debates.” Their assumption is that the tension experienced by teams who lose
debates to strategies that shift the purpose of the ballot will feel inclined to dismiss the
importance of community change. Within this view, the discomfort Reid-Brinkley discusses as
necessary to create change is more likely to generate resentment than reflexiveness.
AT Bankey (For Aff)
[Card Against Bankey] Bankey still believes we should solve community issues using
alternative styles of debate – if we prove we overcome the DAs, then Bankey flows
aff/neg
Bankey 13
Brendon Bankey is a PhD student at Kansas and has a MA in communication from Wake Forest
University. He debated for Trinity University. “THE “FACT OF BLACKNESS” DOES NOT EXIST: AN
EVOCATIVE CRITICISM OF RESISTANCE RHETORIC IN ACADEMIC POLICY DEBATE AND ITS
(MIS)USE OF FRANTZ FANON’S BLACK SKIN, WHITE MASKS,” August 2013, Pg. 116-117, AFGA)
Readers should not interpret this chapter as a dismissal of confrontational rhetoric or
alternate styles of debate that challenge the normative assumptions of policy debate. As
Reid-Brinkley notes, confrontational tactics are necessary at times “to bring to light the ways in
which racial oppression is re-inscribed” in educational systems. Moreover, alternate styles of
debate are necessary for enhancing the potential of policy debate as a unique space of
education for young people. While normative styles of debate contribute significantly to
important skills such as research, time management, and decision-making, they often fall
short at teaching young people the benefits of intercultural communication and how to
accommodate difference. An exclusive adherence to normative styles of debate runs the risk
of producing brilliant analytical thinkers unequipped as citizens in a diverse population. As
Wise states: Until debate is substantially diversified, so that previously ignored voices will
have a chance to be heard on their own terms, and in their own styles, little will change.
What debate needs most is an infusion of persons who because of their life experiences are
almost guaranteed to be less naïve; people who know full well that the system is anything but
fair. Such persons have a right to be heard, and white, upper-middle-class, and affluent
debaters need to hear them. They need to know how power works, and they will never gain
an understanding of that by listening over and over to the voices of others like themselves.
Generic
Anti-Switch Side Debate arguments don’t warrant a rejection of the practice, they justify a
revision of it. Students should accept limitations and provide relevant content for debate.
Debate’s competitive nature forces debaters to research and “step outside their narrowing
personal beliefs”
Harrigan ‘8 [May 2008, Casey Harrigan, the Director at the University of Georgia, Masters
Degree of Communications, Professor at the University of Georgia, Blind Peer Reviewed
Academic Journal. Currently, he is the director of debate at Michigan State University, “A
Defense of Switch Side Debate,” pg. 66-70
http://wakespace.lib.wfu.edu/bitstream/`handle/10339/14746/harrigancd_05_2008.pdf]
The Best Case As with most argumentative positions, the defense of SSD that I have established can be charged with presenting a view of
debate that, by selective consideration of opposing argument, unfairly favors the SSD position. Anticipating charges of bias and to recognize
merit in alternative views, this section reviews what I find to be the strongest case for debating from conviction .
Many anti-SSD
arguments are persuasive, yet I conclude that when viewed holistically and compared to the benefits
of a SSD approach in an on-balance fashion, they do not warrant a rejection of the practice . From
one perspective, anti-SSD critics make a reasonable argument. To debate from a position outside of one’s own beliefs because of topical
constraints gives up a certain degree of freedom. Instead
of possessing absolute flexibility to choose the content
of his or her speech, students are forced to compromise and accept limitations about what is
and is not relevant content for debate. The relative discomfort associated with such a rhetorical position is compounded by
a necessary assumption of risk—that of opening one’s self up to the possibility of rejecting their prior beliefs and accepting something new.
Moreover, as will be discussed later, the way in which current debate topics are written (mandating prescriptive policy action by the United
States Federal Government) adds an element of tension to this equation by forcing some debaters to compromise on their strict opposition to
the traditional mode of politics. In some contexts, the risk associated with such a confluence of events is apparent. With
a shallow
understanding of SSD, it may appear that debate has a pro-institutional and anti-radical agenda
that seeks to channel dissent through avenues familiar to elites; a lens of privilege that sustains
the status quo. Yet, the arguments of this defense of SSD indicate that such discomfort may be
justified—if not necessary—to fulfill the epistemic, moral, and political objectives of debate.
The process of SSD mandates an acceptance of the idea that all currently held ideas are not
correct and that, over time, some will come to be replaced by others. This may be momentarily
upsetting, but the social good is clearly served by such a process. Morally, the acceptance of
tolerance and empathy requires the willingness to set outside of our own egocentric beliefs and
stand in the position of the other. It does not necessarily require rejecting our own beliefs. Instead, debaters are
asked to be willing to consider a position from multiple simultaneous points of view. Finally,
while debaters are required to argue on behalf of state politics, in the long-run the training,
skills, and knowledge that they receive from doing so will make them much more effective
advocates of the anti-bureaucratic cause. Given all of this, while the anti-SSD view is understandable based on the shortterm sacrifices that it may require, it alone does not warrant a reversion to a process of debating from conviction. Uniqueness of the Debate
Space It has been argued that many of the benefits of switching sides could theoretically be achieved through alternative means (Murphy 1957;
1963). After all, debaters should live well-rounded lives and have many academic pursuits outside of the competitive arena. The benefits of
tolerance and critical thinking generated through intensive research and understanding of the opposition’s arguments might be created by
simply spending time reading and understanding multiple sides of complex positions. Practice rounds that simulate actual debating but are
conducted in the privacy and seclusion of the debate office away from public tournaments can expand debaters’ experiences without requiring
SSD. All of this, the anti-SSD advocates such as Murphy say, can capture the benefit of debating both sides without risking its ethical or social
downsides. However, even
if many of the strengths of switch side debate can be achieved in other
ways, it does not mean that they necessarily would be. Some students will seek out avenues to broaden their range
of thinking and encounter beliefs that are contrary to their own. Others will not. For many students, the competitive aspects of contest
debating are the primary motivation for their initial engagement with the tedious and complex literature featured in policy debates.
Without the push of SSD and the competitive drive associated with wins and loses of
competitive contest debating, most would not step outside their narrow personal beliefs and
enter into a meaningful dialogue with opposing arguments. The task of educators is to make the tough choices
about how to direct the learning of their students in order to maximize their educational benefit. SSD is a timetested way to do that.
AT: Weak advocates
Students trained in switch side debate are better able to defend their positions and become
stronger advocates that are more likely to achieve their goals
Harrigan ‘8 [May Casey Harrigan, the Director at the University of Georgia, Masters Degree of
Communications, Professor at the University of Georgia, Blind Peer Reviewed Academic
Journal. Currently, he is the director of debate at Michigan State University, “A Defense of
Switch Side Debate,” pg. 35-41,
http://wakespace.lib.wfu.edu/bitstream/handle/10339/14746/harrigancd_05_2008.pdf]
Third, there is an important question of means. Even the best activist intentions have little practical utility as long as they remain purely
cordoned off in the realm of theoretical abstractions. Creating
programs of action that seek to produce material
changes in the quality of life for suffering people, not mere wishful thinking in the ivory towers
of academia, should be the goal of any revolutionary project. Frequently, for strategies for change, the devil lies
in the details. It is not possible to simply click one’s ruby red slippers together and wish for alternatives to come into being. Lacking a plausible
mechanism to enact reforms, many have criticized critical theory as being a “fatally flawed enterprise” (Jones 1999). For activists, learning the
skills to successfully negotiate hazardous political terrain is crucial. They must know when to and when not to compromise, negotiate, and
strike political alliances in order to be successful. The pure number of failed movements in the past several decades demonstrates the severity
of the risk assumed by groups who do not focus on refining their preferred means of change. Given
the importance of
strategies for change, SSD is even more crucial. Debaters trained by debating both sides are
substantially more likely to be effective advocates than those experienced only in arguing on
behalf of their own convictions. For several reasons, SSD instills a series of practices that are essential
for a successful activist agenda. First, SSD creates more knowledgeable advocates for public
policy issues. As part of the process of learning to argue both sides, debaters are forced to understand the intricacies of multiple sides of
the argument considered. Debaters must not only know how to research and speak on behalf of their own personal convictions, but also for the
opposite side in order to defend against attacks of that position. Thus, when
placed in the position of being required to
publicly defend an argument, students trained via SSD are more likely to be able to present
and persuasively defend their positions. Second, learning the nuances of all sides of a position
greatly strengthens the resulting convictions of debaters, their ability to anticipate opposing
arguments, and the effectiveness of their attempts to locate the crux, nexus and loci of
arguments. As is noted earlier, conviction is a result, not a prerequisite of debate. Switching sides and experimenting
with possible arguments for and against controversial issues, in the end, makes students more
likely to ground their beliefs in a reasoned form of critical thinking that is durable and
unsusceptible to knee-jerk criticisms. As a result, even though it may appear to be inconsistent
with advocacy, SSD “actually created stronger advocates” that are more likely to be successful
in achieving their goals (Dybvig and Iverson 2000). Proponents of abandoning SSD and returning to debating from conviction should
take note. Undoubtedly, many of their ideas would be beneficial if enacted and deserve the support of activist energies. However, anti-SSD
critics seem to have given little thought to the important question of how to translate good
ideas into practice. By teaching students to privilege their own personal beliefs prior to a
thorough engagement with all sides of an issue, debating from conviction produces activists
that are more likely to be politically impotent. By positing that debaters should bring prior beliefs to the table in a rigid
manner and assuming that compromising is tantamount to giving in to cooptation, the case of debating from conviction undercuts the tactics
necessary for forging effective coalitional politics. Without
such broad-based alliances, sustainable political
changes will likely be impossible (Best & Kellner 2001).
Debating both sides does not lead to moderate advocates, if anything, it allows debaters to
develop their positions and evaluate the weaknesses in their opponents beliefs
Harrigan ‘8 [May Casey Harrigan, the Director at the University of Georgia, Masters Degree of
Communications, Professor at the University of Georgia, Blind Peer Reviewed Academic
Journal. Currently, he is the director of debate at Michigan State University, “A Defense of
Switch Side Debate,” pg. 37-41,
http://wakespace.lib.wfu.edu/bitstream/handle/10339/14746/harrigancd_05_2008.pdf]
Second, the
link between debating both sides and the moderation of student’s beliefs is far from
clear. Admittedly, there has been little to no formal empirical research investigating this
connection. Yet, it seems equally likely that SSD may bolster the original beliefs of debaters
(especially if they held beliefs that are found to be desirable after all related issues have been discussed) by allowing him or her to
develop thoughtful responses to the best arguments against their original position. Incidentally, if a
position is so weak that debaters are likely to alter their opinion about it as a result of merely temporarily positioning themselves as advocates
of it, then the utility of such a view must surely be held with a high degree of skepticism. Moreover, even
if SSD does moderate
the beliefs of debaters, this alone is not evidence of an insidious plot to undermine radical
activism. The statistical notion of regression to the mean can explain a great deal of this phenomenon. Referring to the purely statistical
tendency for extreme results to become more moderate over time, it explains how, when beginning from intellectually extreme positions,
debaters can only become more moderate over time. Thus,
any form of debating—from conviction or SSD—is
likely to have the same moderating effect and SSD should not be subject to unique criticism on
these grounds alone. Third, there is an important question of means. Even the best activist intentions have little practical utility as
long as they remain purely cordoned off in the realm of theoretical abstractions. Creating programs of action that seek to
produce material changes in the quality of life for suffering people, not mere wishful thinking in
the ivory towers of academia, should be the goal of any revolutionary project. Frequently, for strategies
for change, the devil lies in the details. It is not possible to simply click one’s ruby red slippers together and wish for alternatives to come into
being. Lacking a plausible mechanism to enact reforms, many have criticized critical theory as being a “fatally flawed enterprise” (Jones 1999).
For activists, learning the skills to successfully negotiate hazardous political terrain is crucial. They must know when to and when not to
compromise, negotiate, and strike political alliances in order to be successful. The pure number of failed movements in the past several
decades demonstrates the severity of the risk assumed by groups who do not focus on refining their preferred means of change. Given
the
importance of strategies for change, SSD is even more crucial. Debaters trained by debating
both sides are substantially more likely to be effective advocates than those experienced only in
arguing on behalf of their own convictions. For several reasons, SSD instills a series of practices that
are essential for a successful activist agenda. First, SSD creates more knowledgeable advocates
for public policy issues. As part of the process of learning to argue both sides, debaters are forced to understand the intricacies of
multiple sides of the argument considered. Debaters must not only know how to research and speak on behalf of their own personal
convictions, but also for the opposite side in order to defend against attacks of that position. Thus, when
placed in the position
of being required to publicly defend an argument, students trained via SSD are more likely to
be able to present and persuasively defend their positions. Second, learning the nuances of all
sides of a position greatly strengthens the resulting convictions of debaters, their ability to
anticipate opposing arguments, and the effectiveness of their attempts to locate the crux,
nexus and loci of arguments. As is noted earlier, conviction is a result, not a prerequisite of debate. Switching sides and
experimenting with possible arguments for and against controversial issues, in the end, makes
students more likely to ground their beliefs in a reasoned form of critical thinking that is
durable and unsusceptible to knee-jerk criticisms. As a result, even though it may appear to be
inconsistent with advocacy, SSD “actually created stronger advocates” that are more likely to
be successful in achieving their goals (Dybvig and Iverson 2000). Proponents of abandoning SSD and returning to debating
from conviction should take note. Undoubtedly, many of their ideas would be beneficial if enacted and deserve the support of activist energies.
However,
anti-SSD critics seem to have given little thought to the important question of how to
translate good ideas into practice. By teaching students to privilege their own personal beliefs
prior to a thorough engagement with all sides of an issue, debating from conviction produces
activists that are more likely to be politically impotent. By positing that debaters should bring prior beliefs to the
table in a rigid manner and assuming that compromising is tantamount to giving in to cooptation, the case of debating from conviction
undercuts the tactics necessary for forging effective coalitional politics. Without
political changes will likely be impossible (Best & Kellner 2001).
such broad-based alliances, sustainable
AT: Coopted
Switch side debate prevents cooption of arguments. Debaters are less likely to stick to their
ideology because debating the other side forces them to think about positions they
previously would not have
Harrigan ‘8 [May Casey Harrigan, the Director at the University of Georgia, Masters Degree of
Communications, Professor at the University of Georgia, Blind Peer Reviewed Academic
Journal. Currently, he is the director of debate at Michigan State University, “A Defense of
Switch Side Debate,” pg. 37-41,
http://wakespace.lib.wfu.edu/bitstream/handle/10339/14746/harrigancd_05_2008.pdf]
Don’t Fear Cooption Critics of SSD have argued that debating both sides is a tactic of cooption
by dominant beliefs because speaking on behalf of “evil” ideas moderates extreme views . Instead
of sharpening and refining the prior beliefs of debaters, the argument goes, engaging in switch side debating changes the beliefs of students,
slowly drawing them “close[r] to the middle” (Massey 2006). Mirroring the broader critical move toward a “depoliticized expression of
struggles,” they argue that this is undesirable because only extreme views are “pure,” in the sense that they avoid entanglement in
bureaucratic structures of government (Boggs 1997, p. 773). Essentially, the argument boils down to “brainwashing”: switching sides causes
students to abandon their original (presumably correct) beliefs in favor of more moderate and less politically effective ideas. Three responses
effectively dispatch with this criticism and support the benefits of SSD. First, the
foundational premise of the case for
switch side debating indicts the notion that true conviction can be held prior to a rigorous
analysis of all sides of an issue through debating both sides. As far back as A. C. Baird (1955), proponents of switch
side debating have argued that conviction was a result of reasoned consideration of the issues
surrounding a particular policy rather than a pre-condition for it. For instance, Baird argues, “Sound
conviction... should stem from mature reflection. Discussion and debate facilitate the maturing of such reflective thinking and conviction”
(1955, p. 6). Many debaters, especially those new to collegiate debate, do not yet have calcified opinions about many controversial subjects.
Instead, they develop their beliefs over time, as they spend time thinking through the nuances of each relevant argument in preparation for
competitive debating. By arguing
on behalf of both the affirmative and the negative sides of a given
resolution, switch side debaters are exposed to many avenues to test their initial thoughts on
controversial subjects. Traditionally, the formation of belief in this manner has coincided more
closely with the meaning of “conviction.” Defined as beliefs that are formed as a result of “exposing fallacies” through the
“give-and-take of rebuttal,” sound convictions can only be truly generated by the reflexive thinking spurred by debating both sides. While
some students may honestly believe that they have thoroughly considered the merits of a
particular opinion before arguing for or against it in a debate, experimenting with ideas in a
competitive SSD is still a necessary endeavor. Only in debate, a relatively isolated political space, are many arguments
able to be presented in an ideally open, no-holds-barred manner (Coverstone 1995). Moreover, when faced with the prospect of being forced
to advocate a position, students receive the necessary motivation (through competitive and other impulses) to thoroughly research all of the
complexities of a given subject. Also, through the requirement of advocacy, students are encouraged to actively listen, a crucial element of rich
argumentative engagement (Lacy 2002). In
the end, the switch side debater emerges with a deeper
understanding of more sides of an issue and may be ready to come to some degree of
conclusion and conviction about which side to support. Conviction generated through debating
both sides is almost universally preferable to dogmatic and non-negotiable assertions of belief
(Baird 1955, p. 6). Switching sides grounds belief in reasonable reflective thinking; it teaches that decisions should not be rendered until all
positions and possible consequences have been considered in a reasoned manner. This
method is closely linked to the
value that debate places on critical thinking. Unsurprisingly, many authors have noted the
importance of SSD for generating such rigorous decision-making skills (Muir 1993; Parcher 1998; Rutledge
2002; Speice & Lyle 2003; English, Llano, Mitchell, Morrison, Rief and Woods 2007). The critical thinking taught by SSD
provides the ultimate check against dangerous forms of cooption. Over time, certain arguments will prevail
over others only if they have a strong enough logical foundation to withstand thorough scrutiny. Debaters will change their
minds to support the “moderate” side of certain positions only if—after reasoned reflection
and sound conviction—doing so is found to be preferable. While such a “marketplace of ideas” may be marked by
some imperfections, one of its most effective incarnations is undoubtedly in academic debate rounds. There, appeals to wealth, status, and
power are minimized by a focus on logic and formal rules, which protect the ability of all participants to contribute in an honest and open
manner. As a result, it should be assumed that the insights generated through debate’s dialectic process will be generally correct and that any
shifting beliefs are the reflection of a social good (the replacement of false ideas with truth). Conceiving of conviction in this manner redefines
the role of debate into what Baird calls an “educational procedure”: the formation of a pedagogical playground to experiment with alternative
ideas and coalesce assertions and unwarranted beliefs into sound conviction (1966, p. 6). Treating
debate as a training
ground for advocacy and decision-making has several benefits: it allows debaters the
conceptual flexibility to experiment with minority and extreme ideas, protects them from
outside influences, and buys them time before they are forced to publicly put forward their
opinions (Coverstone 1995). As a result, the primary focus of the activity shifts from arguing to deciding,
giving critical thinking its crucial importance. A fundamental premise of the anti-SSD’s claim about cooption is thoroughly
indicted: it is impossible to lose one’s convictions before they have truly been discovered.
Argumentative Pluralism
Only SSD can lead to argumentative pluralism – a minority argument should have an equal
chance to be said as a majority opinion – the minority opinion may be the true opinion but
may be hidden without switch side debate
Harrigan ‘8 [May 2008, Casey Harrigan, the Director at the University of Georgia, Masters
Degree of Communications, Professor at the University of Georgia, Blind Peer Reviewed
Academic Journal. Currently, he is the director of debate at Michigan State University, “A
Defense of Switch Side Debate,” pg. 41-50,
http://wakespace.lib.wfu.edu/bitstream/handle/10339/14746/harrigancd_05_2008.pdf]
Each of the previous examples demonstrates that, in certain extremes, the principles of free speech and pluralism encounter contradictions. To
allow each individual to voice his or her own opinion, in the most absolute sense, means to accommodate even those who seek to silence
others from speaking. To reject views that many consider intolerable or repulsive may reproduce intolerance. Because
argumentative pluralism, as an expression of opinion and a litmus test of societal values, is
crucially important for advancing tolerance, resolving these dilemmas in a manner that most effectively facilitates respect
for difference is an essential task for engaged citizens of liberal democratic societies. With this goal in mind, philosopher John Stuart Mill and
other scholars of rhetoric and argumentation have taken up the cause of providing a meta-theory to guide public deliberation. While Mill
is
correct in his argument that no opinion, no matter how minor, should be suppressed on the
basis of its falsity (a position supported by recent writing on argumentation), his position should be modified to account for two
“special cases” in which suppression of certain views is desirable. First, on the occasion where one interlocutor is actively attempting to silence
another, advocates of openness must, paradoxically, be willing to say “no” and seek closure. Second, for the purpose of argument, a
common starting point, or stasis, is required for debate to begin and must be delineated with
clear lines of relevance. The Importance of Argumentative Pluralism The relevance of argumentation for
advancing tolerant politics cannot be underestimated. The willingness to be open to alternative views has a material
impact on difference in at least two primary ways. First, the rendering of a certain belief as “off limits” from
debate and the prohibition of ideas from the realm of contestation is conceptually indistinct
from the physical exclusion of people from societal practices. Unlike racial or gendered concerns, certain groups
of people (the religious, minority political parties, etc.) are defined almost exclusively by the arguments that they adhere to. To deem
these views unspeakable or irrelevant is to functionally deny whole groups of people access to
public deliberation. Second, argument, as individual advocacy, is an expression of belief. It has the potential to persuade members of
the public to either support or oppose progressive politics. Belief itself is an accurate indicator of the way individuals will chose to act—with
very real implications for openness, diversity and accommodation. Thus,
as a precursor to action, argument is an
essential starting point for campaigns of tolerance. Argumentative pluralism can be defined as the proper tolerance
for the expression of a diversity of ideas (Scriven 1975, p. 694). Contrary to monism, pluralism holds that there are many potential beliefs in the
world and that each person has the ability to determine for himself or herself that these beliefs may hold true. Referring back to the opening
examples, a pluralist would respect the right for the KKK to hold certain beliefs, even if he or she may find the group offensive. In
the
argumentative context, pluralism requires that participants to a debate or discussion recognize
the right of others to express their beliefs, no matter how objectionable they may be. The key here is
expression: although certain beliefs may be more “true” than others in the epistemic sense, each
should have equal access (at least initially) to forums of deliberation. It is important to distinguish pluralism
from its commonly confused, but only loosely connected, counterpart, relativism . To respect the right
of others to hold different beliefs does not require that they are all considered equal. Such tolerance ends at the intellectual level of each
individual being able to hold their own belief. Indeed, as Muir writes, “It [pluralism] implies neither tolerance of actions based on those beliefs
nor respecting the content of the beliefs” (288). Thus, while
a pluralist may acknowledge the right for the Klan to
hold exclusionary views, he or she need not endorse racism or anti-Semitism itself, or the right
to exclude itself. Even when limited to such a narrow realm of diversity, argumentative pluralism holds great
promise for a politics based on understanding and accommodation that runs contrary to the dominant forces
of economic, political, and social exclusion. Pluralism requires that individuals acknowledge opposing beliefs
and arguments by forcing an understanding that personal convictions are not universal. Instead of
blindly asserting a position as an “objective Truth,” advocates tolerate a multiplicity of perspectives, allowing a more panoramic understanding
of the issue at hand (Mitchell and Suzuki 2004, p. 10). In doing so, the
advocates frequently understand that there are
persuasive arguments to be had on both sides of an issue. As a result, instead of advancing a
cause through moralistic posturing or appeals to a falsely assumed universality (which, history has
shown, frequently become justifications for scape-goating and exclusion), these proponents become purveyors of
reasoned arguments that attempt to persuade others through deliberation. A clear example of this
occurs in competitive academic debate. Switch-side debating has profound implications for pluralism. Personal convictions are supplemented
by conviction in the process of debate. Instead of being personally invested in the truth and general acceptance of a position, debaters
use arguments instrumentally, as tools, and as pedagogical devices in the search for larger
truths. Beyond simply recognizing that more than one side exists for each issue, switch-side
debate advances the larger cause of equality by fostering tolerance and empathy toward
difference. Setting aside their own “ego-identification,” students realize that they must listen and understand their opponent’s arguments
well enough to become advocates on behalf of them in future debates (Muir 1993, p. 289). Debaters assume the position of
their opponents and understand how and why the position is constructed as it is. As a result, they
often come to understand that a strong case exists for opinions that they previously disregarded. Recently, advocates of switch
side debating have taken the case of the practice a step further, arguing that it, “originates from a civic attitude
that serves as a bulwark against fundamentalism of all stripes” (English, Llano, Mitchell, Morrison, Rief and Woods 2007, p. 224). Debating
practices that break down exclusive, dogmatic views may be one of the most robust checks against violence in contemporary society. Mill
and Minority Views Undoubtedly, there are many who reject argumentative pluralism in all or
nearly all cases. Absolutists maintain that there are certain positions where no other side exists or where one side is of such a minority
opinion that it does not warrant being the subject of debate. For those who hold a mainstream political view, statements such as, “the State is
beneficial and anarchy would be chaos,” “capitalist globalization is inevitable,” or, in the most extreme, “human life has value,” are taken as
givens. For pluralists, the previous statements can be true but still be open to debate. For argumentative monists, such positions are so “true”
that further discussion would not only be a waste of time, it may also risk changing the minds of some of the debaters to be more tolerant of a
dangerous position (as discussed above). Although commonly associated with the practices of the majority, absolutism
is not
limited to only proponents of the dominant position. In academic debate, a substantial amount
of controversy has existed in recent years over the state-centric nature of policy resolutions (the
subject of debate). Liberals complain that being required to debate about state politics defuses
radicalism by teaching students that bureaucratic politics is the means to all ends (Massey 2006). This
is the flip-side of the previous discussion of absolutism: critics can be so convinced of their positions, even if in the minority, that they refuse
discussion of dominant principles altogether. In On
Liberty, philosopher John Stuart Mill provides a persuasive rebuke of the absolutist
position and a strong argument in favor of both argumentative pluralism and switch-side debate. Fearing the development of a closed society
that resists bold individual intellectual gestures, Mill rejects the position that certain issues should be “off limits” for discussion and argues that
no accordance of governmental or public opinion can justify silencing a minority viewpoint. Even
in cases where there is an
extremely broad consensus, Mill strongly supports free expression. He argues that, “If all mankind
minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind
would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be
justified in silencing mankind” (1975, p. 10). To make his case, Mill divides possible examples into two hypothetical cases: first,
where the minority opinion is right, and second, where it is wrong. In each outcome, Mill eloquently argues that the majority
silencing the opinion is making a mistake because: If the opinion is right, they are deprived of he opportunity of
exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth,
produced by its collision with error. (1975, p. 10) Although controversy over these claims continues, the theoretical foundations for Mill’s
argument remain as strong as ever. Mill’s first premise is the most easily defendable. If a minority viewpoint is actually correct, society would
be making a grave error by silencing it. Like the scientific revolutions spurred by Galileo’s defense of a heliocentric model of the solar system
(incidentally an argument once suppressed by the majority), societal progress is driven forward by a progression of truths. New and more
refined ideas come forth and replace older, slightly misguided beliefs. Immunizations that saved millions of lives from disease and the political
concept of universal human rights are but two examples of how the triumph of truth over fallacy has materially improved the world we live in.
To suppress the truth is to stunt this important process—an act that Mill calls a “peculiar evil” (1975, p. 10). Of course, this argument relies
upon the supposition that some of the things that the
vast majority of people think are true are actually false.
While it is undoubtedly the case that many people holding strong convictions about a certain
argument maintain unwavering certainty in their correctness, Mill refutes the infallibility of
their belief, writing: Those who desire to suppress it…have no authority to decide the question for all mankind, and exclude every
other person from the means of judging. To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their
certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility. Its condemnation may be allowed to
rest on this common argument, not the worse for being common. (p. 10) Moreover, to justify silencing the expression of a minority or majority
opinion on the basis of personal conviction, one must come to the determination that a belief is incorrect not only from their own personal
opinion, but that it is so false that all others would also come to that same conclusion, such that others do not even need to participate in the
same process that informed one’s own opinion. For any one individual to presume to meet all three of these criteria is precisely the inaccurate
assumption of infallibility that Mill criticizes. The second premise, that the
truth is strengthened through collision with
error, is slightly more contentious but ultimately correct. Some absolutists have maintained
that opening up all issues for discussion is more likely to draw the public’s opinion to the
middle than strengthen the original correct position. While empirical support for this claim is sorely lacking, it can
also be rebuked purely on theoretical grounds. Debating both sides of important issues is far more likely to refine and strengthen the support
for truthful positions than weaken it. Dissent and disagreement challenge adherents of the dominant opinion to constantly refine and
reconfigure their position, driving it towards truth. Moreover, the risk involved in this process is slight, because if the dominant position is more
“correct” than the minority, then the chances that the silenced position would sway a large number of people are very slim. Further, Mill’s
premise here accounts for a third (very likely) stage—the position where both the dominant and minority arguments contain elements of truth
and error. In this instance, the collision of the two in public deliberation will (hopefully) produce a combination of opinions that is more errorfree than either of the original positions. Even the relatively conservative Roman Catholic Church understands the merits of such an
argumentative method. Until the practice was abolished by Pope John Paul II in 1983, the Church would summon an individual to assume the
role of the “Devil’s Advocate,” or Advocatus Diaboli, to present all the arguments against the canonization of saints. Once all opposing
arguments were stated, the case for canonization was often greater because it was understood that no possible argument could render the
case unjustified. One additional benefit of free expression that Mill does not explicitly foreground, yet remains critical for scholars of rhetoric, is
the question of advocacy. Not only does the refusal to silence minority positions generate a more error-free position, it also makes the
proponents of those positions much more effective in their attempts to persuade others to accept their views. Debaters
trained to
see both sides of the issue learn the nuances of all positions and understand the strongest
opposition arguments. Thus, they begin the process of deliberation a “step ahead” and can
defuse their opposition from the start (Dybvig and Iverson). This insight is crucial: only skilled and trained advocates can
generate the widespread adherence necessary to make “newfound truths” meaningful. Without strong and persuasive opponents, even the
most error-free arguments will remain confined to the margins of society.
Exceptionalism !
Switch side debate is key to preventing exceptionalism – this is key to breaking down
propaganda and majority held views
Harrigan ‘8 [May 2008, Casey Harrigan, the Director at the University of Georgia, Masters
Degree of Communications, Professor at the University of Georgia, Blind Peer Reviewed
Academic Journal. Currently, he is the director of debate at Michigan State University, “A
Defense of Switch Side Debate,” pg. 54-62,
http://wakespace.lib.wfu.edu/bitstream/`handle/10339/14746/harrigancd_05_2008.pdf]
An Antidote to Exceptionalism A third and final criticism of SSD is an argument linking the practice of debating both sides to the development of
societal norms that reinforce American exceptionalism. While originally a limited and context-dependent claim, this
line of argument
has been expanded to argue that the dominant practice of debate colludes with forces of
domination that seek to marginalize and silence alternative methods and styles of
communication (Ellis 2004; Massey 2006). This critique is fairly complex, and thus requires a moderately lengthy explanation before the
pro-SSD responses can effectively be laid out. Debate as Liberal Training? In 2005, Ronald Greene and Darrin Hicks, drawing on the existing
body of theory relating to SSD, wrote an article claiming that debating both sides “helps liberalism create a governing field” between an
individual’s personal convictions and their belief in the process of deliberation and debate (2005, p. 121). Drawing on the case study of the
previously discussed 1954 “Red China” controversy, in which several debate programs boycotted the topic based on ideological opposition to
engaging the communist nation, Greene and Hicks demonstrated that, during the Cold War, SSD
colluded with forces of
liberalism to contribute to exceptionalism. They argue that this is the case for two reasons. First, during this
period of time, the idea of “free” speech emerged as a way for the United States to distinguish
itself from others and claim a moral superiority over closed societies. As part of many liberal
elements of society, the promotion of free speech allowed the United States to posit itself as
the bearer of reason and civility in opposition to the Soviet Union. Second, Greene and Hicks criticized the shift
to process conviction advocated by Day, in which he has argued that debating both sides is the “highest ethical act” because it places absolute
faith in the “free and full expression” of the democratic process of debate (1966, p. 7). They claimed that Day’s subordination of personal
convictions to a second-order conviction in the belief in debate as a process provided critical sustenance to societal norms governing the proper
behavior of democratic citizens.
Instead of providing an epistemic defense of SSD (in that it facilitated good decisionmaking or critical thinking), Day’s model of SSD was argued to be preferable because it best met the
defining characteristics of democracy. As part of this, Day’s defense of SSD shifted the order of conviction from the personal
(“I say what I believe”) to the process (“I do not always say what I believe, because I believe in the benefits of switch-side debate”). A necessary
component of a firm belief in the process of SSD is the norm of “free and full expression” (Day 1966, p. 13). During the Cold War, the American
promotion of free speech, as opposed to the repression and restrictions imposed on people living behind the “Iron Curtain”, was a key element
of the case for the superiority of democratic society. Greene and Hicks picked up on this theme, arguing that: By instantiating a desire for full
and free expression, the pedagogical technique of debating both sides became a mechanism by which the student-debater-citizen becomes an
exceptional ‘American’ – the bearer of universal norms of liberal democracy. (2005, p. 117) Thus, by debating both sides, democracy is
sustained on the level of an individual’s self-fashioning which, as was very prominent at the time, contained an element of exceptionalist
thinking about liberal values vis-à-vis communism. Additionally, Greene and Hicks noted that, during the debates over the “Red China” issue,
there was a widespread fear that affirming such a topic would turn the American youth into communist sympathizers (Greene & Hicks 2005, p.
114). Instead of questioning the core liberal belief inherent in such a claim (that sympathizing with communism should be rejected), the
defenders of SSD chose not to take issue with this claim and instead only questioned whether
the link to such an outcome was valid. The pro-SSD advocates claimed, along the lines of Baird, that debating both
sides would produce a stronger conviction that would be impervious to communist
propaganda—a reinforcement of liberalism. In contemporary debate, others have taken this charge much further, to its
logical extreme. Teams participating in debate rounds arguing on behalf of extreme positions, such as radical critiques of humanism,
conventional morality, or the state, have drawn upon the work of Greene and Hicks to claim that SSD dangerously risks allowing debate to
become a “form of cultural technology re-affirming a commitment to American Exceptionalism and global domination” (Massey, 2006). To do
so, they extend the argument made in “Lost Convictions” in two ways. First, they expand the scope of its analysis beyond that of the Cold War
and “Red China” controversy and apply it to contemporary debate practice. Second, they explicitly connect American exceptionalism to the
worst instances of U.S. global violence: the “kill-to-save” mentality of American soldiers in the Vietnam war, the preventive invasion of Iraq, and
the unending “war on terrorism” that prioritizes national security over all else. Some
have gone so far as to claim that the
practice of switch side debate, revolving around state-centric issues (as mandated by the resolution), is
meant to produce more effective policy wonks, imperial planners, and even engineers of
genocide (Ellis 2004). Misapplication This extension of the previous claims of Greene and Hicks is where my defense of switch side debate
takes issue. Many of the elements of Greene and Hicks position are undoubtedly true. Like any principled approach to communication, SSD is
laden with ideological presuppositions and biases. It presumes that the marketplace of ideas operates with a degree of efficacy, that
democratic and deliberative approaches to problem-solving produce strong outcomes, and that there is a gap between the “private” debate
round and the “public” realm of advocacy-after-conviction. However, the arguments in “Lost Convictions” alone should not be read as a
sweeping indictment of SSD for two reasons. First, Greene and Hicks make a specific and context-dependent claim about the Cold War that
cannot be easily applied to contemporary discussion of the merits of SSD. 1954 was a time of McCarthyism and anti-Communist witch-hunts. It
was quite possible then that one justification for debating both sides was a re-affirmation of liberalism against the communists. Now, in the
midst of the “war on terrorism,” widespread restrictions on civil liberties, and President Bush’s mantra of “with us or against us,” it seems like
the opposite is truer. Fidelity to the American cause is performed through the willing silence of its citizens. Dissent is quelled and the public is
encouraged to view the world through the singular lens of “freedom” against the forces of terrorism. Debating both sides—and lacking
immediate conviction—is a sign of weakness and waffling in the face of imminent threats to national security. Thus, in the contemporary
context, to reject
SSD and promote argument only through conviction is far more conducive to
supporting American exceptionalism than debating multiple sides is as a liberal democratic
justification. Second, the fact that certain communicative practices like SSD are implicated in operations of power does not alone make
them undesirable. Consistent with the Foucauldian basis of such a criticism, one cannot blanketly assert that power is a monolithic entity that
can be deemed either “good” or “bad.” Instead, it is imperative to examine the “specificity of … practices in order to delineate their forces and
effects” (Muckelbauer 2000, p. 78). Many actions were taken during the Cold War under the pretenses that they would contribute in some way
to the case for U.S. superiority over the Soviet Union. For example, it
could be argued that the racial integration of
schools in the United States was complicit with a narrative of plurality and openness that was,
in at least some ways, exceptional. Does this make the fact that schools were integrated undesirable? Assuredly not.
Bracketed off from the benefits derived from SSD, the interweaving of the practice with liberalism may be a cause for some concern. However,
once the advantages of such an approach are considered, they do not alone merit a whole-sale rejection of the process. Greene and Hicks
acknowledge this when they write that, “In a world increasingly dominated by fundamentalism (religious and otherwise) the development of a
respect for pluralism, tolerance and free speech remains political valuable” (2005, p. 121). Yes, as
instructors and practitioners
of debate, it is our responsibility to remain cognizant of precisely what type of “moral
development” is being taught. But, once that awareness has been raised, the fact that it may
not be totally neutral (an impossible goal) does not warrant abandonment of the switch-sides
approach.
Switch side debate is key to solving exceptionalism
Harrigan ‘8 [May 2008, Casey Harrigan, the Director at the University of Georgia, Masters
Degree of Communications, Professor at the University of Georgia, Blind Peer Reviewed
Academic Journal. Currently, he is the director of debate at Michigan State University, “A
Defense of Switch Side Debate,” pg. 59-60
http://wakespace.lib.wfu.edu/bitstream/`handle/10339/14746/harrigancd_05_2008.pdf]
The arguments advanced by Massey and other vocal critics of switch side debating are susceptible to several other persuasive responses. First,
as have been previously argued by Stannard (2006), many
of the processes that have contributed to American
exceptionalism—globalization, infiltration of academic institutions by agents of imperialism,
etc.—are on-going, inevitable, and independent of the institution of competitive debate. As Alan
Coverstone has noted, the
disengagement of the public from political participation and adoption of a
pure “spectator mentality” has now become the “predominant mode” of politics (2005, p. 5). Any
citizen who been attentive to political developments over the past eight years can tell that
American politics has been overtaken by an administration bent on pursuing illiberal policies
while wrapping themselves in the clothing of liberalism. Given the now almost all-consuming exceptionalist mantra,
debate is one of the last arenas that reward anti-institutional thinking and oppositional rhetoric
(Stannard 2006). It is a tremendous “stretch” to attribute the causal source of exceptionalism to debate (Lacy 2006). Debate isn’t Vietnam.
Nothing in the activity makes students participate. Once involved, there are no thought-police who control the content of students’ speeches.
Those who argue otherwise show a profound lack of respect for the magnitude of violence that
their comparisons draw likeness to. Instead, the exact opposite seems truer: a major and
endemic problem, that contributes to American exceptionalism, is the lack of debate at all
levels of society. Stannard agrees, warning: Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Instead, seek to expand this method of
deliberation to those who will use it to liberate themselves, confront power, and create ethical, nonviolent patterns of problem resolution. If
capitalism corrupts debate, well, then I say we save debate. (2006) The
proper task of critics is not to retreat into
speaking only from conviction. It is to strive to expand SSD to new avenue and to make ideas
that were once considered dogma contestable. The very nature of the approach acts as a counter-weight to imperialism
and “foster[s] resistance to domination” (Stannard 2006). Second, switch side debate’s emphasis on tolerance and empathy, which have been
noted by many authors (Sanders 1982; Muir 1993; Bellon 2000; Lacy 2002), may indeed by one of the strongest “antidotes” to the disease of
exceptionalism (Mitchell & Suzuki 2004, p. 7).
Debate combines a commitment to reason and logic over
emotive and political appeals, a priority placed upon quality research, and vigorous norms of
openness and plurality to create a forum where unwarranted and inappropriate forms of
exceptionalism cannot survive. English et al. have referred to this deliberative attitude as a “bulwark against fundamentalism of
all stripes” (2007, p. 224). SSD teaches that no argument is “off limits,” that issues are more complex
than black and white, and that reflection and contemplation are preferable to rash and
preemptive decision-making. It is thus no surprise, as the Debate Authors Working Group has noted, that many of the most vocal
contemporary critics of the Bush administration’s exceptionalist (and debatably imperialist) policies, including lawyer Neal Katyal and law
professor Laurence Tribe, received a portion of their training in the pedagogical bull-pen of debate. In particular, SSD is an especially effective
tool to combat the “with us or against us” absolutism of contemporary neoconservative ideology. Debating both sides increases debater’s
appreciation of the arguments made by the opposition (English, Llano, Mitchell, Morrison, Rief and Woods, 2007, p. 222). Oftentimes,
as
is frequently the case with complex issues, a reasonable party may conclude that two positions,
which are polar opposites may each contain an element of truth . It is revealed that a compromised position is
preferable to either extreme and that the discrete “with us” and “against us” stances are arbitrary and inaccurate categorizations. Finally,
switch side debate prioritizes deliberative, rather than majoritarian, democracy (Lacy 2006). As far back as Day (1966), there is an emphasis on
the expression of minority view points. Debating
both sides allows debaters the intellectual flexibilit y (through
un-attachment to their personal beliefs) to express dissent and critique even the most firmly established
policies and norms. This ensures a vibrant activist influence in debate that can provide at least a
modest check against the most extreme governmental abuses.
SSD doesn’t lead to exceptionalism
Harrigan ‘8 [May 2008, Casey Harrigan, the Director at the University of Georgia, Masters
Degree of Communications, Professor at the University of Georgia, Blind Peer Reviewed
Academic Journal. Currently, he is the director of debate at Michigan State University, “A
Defense of Switch Side Debate,” pg. 58-59
http://wakespace.lib.wfu.edu/bitstream/`handle/10339/14746/harrigancd_05_2008.pdf]
Second, the fact that certain
communicative practices like SSD are implicated in operations of power
does not alone make them undesirable. Consistent with the Foucauldian basis of such a
criticism, one cannot blanketly assert that power is a monolithic entity that can be deemed
either “good” or “bad.” Instead, it is imperative to examine the “specificity of … practices in order to delineate their forces and
effects” (Muckelbauer 2000, p. 78). Many actions were taken during the Cold War under the 59 pretenses that they would contribute in some
way to the case for U.S. superiority over the Soviet Union. For example, it could be argued that the racial integration of schools in the United
States was complicit with a narrative of plurality and openness that was, in at least some ways, exceptional. Does this make the fact that
schools were integrated undesirable? Assuredly not. Bracketed
off from the benefits derived from SSD, the
interweaving of the practice with liberalism may be a cause for some concern. However, once the
advantages of such an approach are considered, they do not alone merit a whole-sale rejection of the process. Greene and Hicks acknowledge
this when they write that, “In a world increasingly dominated by fundamentalism (religious and otherwise) the development of a respect for
pluralism, tolerance and free speech remains political valuable” (2005, p. 121). Yes, as
instructors and practitioners of
debate, it is our responsibility to remain cognizant of precisely what type of “moral
development” is being taught. But, once that awareness has been raised, the fact that it may not be totally neutral (an
impossible goal) does not warrant abandonment of the switch-sides approach.
Critical Thinking
Switch side debate is the best internal link to critical thinking – being forced to play “Devil’s
Advocate,” a debater is able to foster tolerance and undermine bigotry and dogmatism –
guaranteeing minority viewpoints. This leads to better advocates and decision makers – more
equipped to prevent conflict
Harrigan ‘8 [May 2008, Casey Harrigan, the Director at the University of Georgia, Masters
Degree of Communications, Professor at the University of Georgia, Blind Peer Reviewed
Academic Journal. Currently, he is the director of debate at Michigan State University, “A
Defense of Switch Side Debate,” pg. 5-9,
http://wakespace.lib.wfu.edu/bitstream/`handle/10339/14746/harrigancd_05_2008.pdf]
A crucial element of competitive policy debate is a practice called “switch-side debating” (SSD). SSD
is an argumentative model that requires students to debate both the Affirmative and Negative sides of the resolution over the course of a
multiple-round tournament. In
practice, SSD requires that debaters’ arguments are frequently divorced
from personal conviction; in many cases students are forced to take a position and argue
vigorously on behalf of views that they disagree with. Debaters with ideological beliefs are
thrust into the position of the Devil’s Advocate, assuming the side of the opposition and being
forced to understand the arguments of the opposing view well enough to argue on their behalf.
Instead of approaching the debate topic from the perspective of personal belief, students most often choose arguments from a strategic and
competitive perspective. Because of SSD, the purpose of debate is not to convince others to accept a certain argument as preferable or “true”,
but rather to choose the strongest and most intellectually rigorous position that will have the greatest chance of prevailing under scrutiny (and
thus earning a competitive victory). Policy debate, an activity with few formal rules and requirements, developed this norm of arguing both
sides of a topic for pragmatic, pedagogical, and social reasons. Practically, the contemporary format of tournament contests would be much
more difficult to maintain if the tournament directors were not able to require than an equal number of competitors debate on the affirmative
and negative in any given round. Were students free to choose their own sides, it seems likely that debaters who held strong views for or
against the statement of the resolution would choose to exclusively debate on that side. Given the generally liberal leanings of the debate
community and inevitable biases in topic construction, an unequal division between the sides would be unavoidable (Cripe, 1957). This would
make pairing debate rounds much more difficult, if not impossible. While such pragmatic justifications for SSD are persuasive, they are
admittedly secondary to the greater consideration of pedagogy. Although it is certainly true that debate is a game and that its competitive
elements are indispensable sources of motivation for students who are otherwise apathetic about academic endeavors, the overwhelming
benefits of contest debating are the knowledge and skills taught through participation. The wins and losses (and marginally-cheesy trophies), by
and large, are quickly forgotten with the passage of time. However, the
educational values of debate are so
fundamental that they eventually become ingrained in the decision-making and thought
processes of debaters, giving them a uniquely valuable durability. To this end, SSD is essential.
The benefits of debating both sides have been noted by many authors over the past fifty years.
To name but a few, SSD has been lauded for fostering tolerance and undermining bigotry and
dogmatism (Muir, 1993), creating stronger and more knowledgeable advocates (Dybvig and Iversion, 2000),
and fortifying the social forces of democracy by guaranteeing the expression of minority
viewpoints (Day, 1966). Switching sides is a crucial element of debate’s pedagogical benefit; it forms
the gears that drive debate’s intellectual motor. Additionally, there are social benefits to the practice of requiring
students to debate both sides of controversial issues. Dating back to the Greek rhetorical tradition, great value has been placed on the benefit
of testing each argument relative to all others in the marketplace of ideas. Like those who argue on behalf of the efficiency-maximizing benefits
of free market competition, it is believed that arguments are most rigorously tested (and conceivably refined and improved) when compared to
all available alternatives. Even
for beliefs that have seemingly been ingrained in consensus opinion or in
cases where the public at-large is unlikely to accept a particular position, it has been argued
that they should remain open for public discussion and deliberation (Mill, 1975). Along these lines, the
greatest benefit of switching sides, which goes to the heart of contemporary debate, is its
inducement of critical thinking. Defined as “reasonable reflective thinking that is focused on
deciding what to believe or do” (Ennis, 1987, p. 10), critical thinking learned through debate teaches
students not just how advocate and argue, but how to decide as well. Each and every student,
whether in debate or (more likely) at some later point in life, will be placed in the position of the
decision-maker. Faced with competing options whose costs and benefits are initially unclear, critical thinking is necessary to assess all
the possible outcomes of each choice, compare their relative merits, and arrive at some final decision about which is preferable. In some
instances, such as choosing whether to eat Chinese or Indian food for dinner, the importance of making the correct decision is minor. For many
other decisions, however, the implications of choosing an imprudent course of action are potentially grave. As Robert Crawford notes, there are
“issues of unsurpassed importance in the daily lives of millions upon millions of people…being decided to a considerable extent by the power of
public speaking” (2003). Although the days of the Cold War are over, and the risk that “the next Pearl Harbor could be ‘compounded by
hydrogen’” (Ehninger and Brockriede, 1978, p. 3) is greatly reduced, the manipulation of public support before the invasion of Iraq in 2003
points to the continuing necessity of training a well-informed and critically-aware public (Zarefsky, 2007). In
the absence of debatetrained critical thinking, ignorant but ambitious politicians and persuasive but nefarious leaders
would be much more likely to draw the country, and possibly the world, into conflicts with
incalculable losses in terms of human well-being. Given the myriad threats of global proportions that will require
incisive solutions, including global warming, the spread of pandemic diseases, and the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, cultivating a robust and effective society of critical decisionmakers is essential. As Louis Rene Beres writes, “with such learning, we Americans could prepare…not as immobilized objects of false
contentment, but as authentic citizens of an endangered planet” (2003). Thus, it is not surprising that critical thinking has
been called “the highest educational goal of the activity” (Parcher, 1998). While arguing from conviction can foster
limited critical thinking skills, the element of switching sides is necessary to sharpen debate’s critical edge
and ensure that decisions are made in a reasoned manner instead of being driven by ideology.
Debaters trained in SSD are more likely to evaluate both sides of an argument before arriving at
a conclusion and are less likely to dismiss potential arguments based on his or her prior beliefs
(Muir 1993). In addition, debating both sides teaches “conceptual flexibility,” where decision-makers
are more likely to reflect upon the beliefs that are held before coming to a final opinion (Muir, 1993,
p. 290). Exposed to many arguments on each side of an issue, debaters learn that public policy is
characterized by extraordinary complexity that requires careful consideration before action.
Finally, these arguments are confirmed by the preponderance of empirical research
demonstrating a link between competitive SSD and critical thinking (Allen, Berkowitz, Hunt and Louden, 1999;
Colbert, 2002, p. 82). The theory and practice of SSD has value beyond the limited realm of competitive debate as well. For the practitioners
and students of rhetoric, understanding how individuals come to form opinions about subjects and then attempt to persuade others is of
utmost importance. Although the field of communication has established models that attempt to explain human decision-making, such as the
Rational Argumentation Theory and others (Cragen and Shields, 1998, p. 66), the
practice of SSD within competitive
debate rounds is a real-world laboratory where argumentative experiments are carried out
thousands of times over during the course of a single year-long season. The theory of SSD has
profound implications for those who study how individuals are persuaded, as well as how
advocates should go about the process of forming their own personal beliefs and attempting to
persuade others.
Switch side debate allow debaters to see the alternate side of an argument that they would
not see without advocating the other side. Any alternative will be worse for education
Harrigan ‘8 [May 2008, Casey Harrigan, the Director at the University of Georgia, Masters
Degree of Communications, Professor at the University of Georgia, Blind Peer Reviewed
Academic Journal. Currently, he is the director of debate at Michigan State University, “A
Defense of Switch Side Debate,” pg. 14-17,
http://wakespace.lib.wfu.edu/bitstream/`handle/10339/14746/harrigancd_05_2008.pdf]
Chapter Three is comprised of the bulk of my argumentative defense of SSD, building the case for its continued relevance by responding to the
criticisms identified in Chapter Two. Although this chapter has many diverse arguments defending the practice of SSD, I argue that it is
primarily beneficial for three reasons. First, the
benefits of SSD for critical thinking are extremely large and
justify it even in the light of some drawbacks. Second, many criticisms of SSD presume that
certain arguments are “true” and that some positions are indefensible; positions that the very
foundation of SSD call into question. As part of this argument, I analyze the meaning of “conviction” and argue that those
who defend arguing from such a position misconstrue its meaning. Third, even if some of the criticisms are true, the
pluralistic and tolerant values taught by debating both sides of controversial issues make any
alternative (debating from personal conviction, etc.) undoubtedly worse for the goals that critics aspire to.
Chapter Four is the conclusion. It will include a synthesis of the many arguments made about SSD and provide the strongest possible defense of
the practice in light of recent developments in contemporary academic debate. Finally, it includes a recommendation for the potential topics
and method of future research on this issue.
Stasis point
A stasis point clash between topics. Without a stasis, opponents can argue without
disagreeing with one another leading to no truths being generated
Harrigan ‘8 [May 2008, Casey Harrigan, the Director at the University of Georgia, Masters
Degree of Communications, Professor at the University of Georgia, Blind Peer Reviewed
Academic Journal. Currently, he is the director of debate at Michigan State University, “A
Defense of Switch Side Debate,” pg. 52-53
http://wakespace.lib.wfu.edu/bitstream/`handle/10339/14746/harrigancd_05_2008.pdf]
second exception to the rule of free expression must be made to limit irrelevant discussion
and establish a common starting point for debate. In the rhetorical tradition, the belief in the
necessity of a mutual topic of disagreement, known as stasis (meaning “standing” and derived from a Greek word
meaning “to stand still”), has a long history dating back to Aristotle (although greatly expounded by Hermagoras). Through
several modes of proceeding, the topic of controversy between interlocutors is established and
an implicit contract—that here is the point where we agree to disagree—is created. Without
stasis, opponents may argue back in forth, without really disagreeing with each other because
they are not truly speaking about the same subject. For example, when one debater argues that the United States
A
should refuse to negotiate with North Korea to avoid legitimating its harmful human rights policies and the opponent responds that President
Clinton’s accommodation of North Korea in the 1990s was the source of its current human rights dilemma, there is no true disagreement. Each
position can be entirely true without undermining the other. In this instance, the truthgenerating function of deliberation is short-circuited. To eliminate errors, fallacies must
gradually be replaced by truths, correct positions must win out over incorrect ones, and strong
arguments must gain more acceptance than weak ideas. This process requires conflict; it
necessitates rejection. To determine that something is “true” requires that its converse is “false.” The statement that “snow is cold”
requires the dismissal of its contrary. Such choices can only be made when there is a point of disagreement
for debate to revolve around. Without stasis, the productive potential of deliberation is
profoundly undermined. To avoid this scenario of “two ships passing in the night,” argumentation scholars have
recognized the importance of a mutual agreement to disagree and have attempted to create
guidelines to facilitate productive discussion. “Some agreed upon end or goal must be present to define and delimit the
evaluative ground within which the interchange is to proceed,” writes Douglas Ehninger, professor of Speech at the University of Iowa, “When
such ground is lacking, argument itself … becomes impossible” (1958, p. 108). Shively concurs, stating that, “we must agree about what it is that
is being debated before we can debate it” (2000, p. 181). In
the academic context, policy debates create stasis by
utilizing a year-long resolution that sets the topic for discussion. Affirmative teams must
present a topical advocacy (one that fits within the bounds of the resolution) or they are procedurally
disqualified. In public fora, the task falls upon moderators and discussion facilitators to set clear lines of relevance. Advocates,
who frequently have strategic political incentives to avoid direct disagreement, need to be
institutionally constrained by the framework for discussion.