Miami University of Ohio to End Policy Debate Program, Switch to Parliamentary Debate

http://miamistudent.net/?p=111220

Debate team changes emphasize role of student dialogue
BY ARCHIVES
• MARCH 24, 2009

Jonathan Gair

As many of us were enjoying the warm weather and festivities associated with the week before spring break, the Miami University debate team was learning of the full extent of their bleak future. A long-term consequence of Forensics Director Ben Voth’s departure from Miami a year ago, the policy debate team’s survival had been put in increasing jeopardy due to head coaching changes (three different head coaches in three years), and, worst of all, a Communication department facing a tightening budget and an elimination of its graduate program. It is with special consideration that I mention the demise of the communications graduate program because this aspect is most damaging for the team since these grad students act as assistant coaches and aid in travel and tournament preparation.

Policy debate is an interesting beast. By its nature, it’s an activity that many don’t understand. Insular in nature, the most vocal criticisms come from those who feel that it’s an organization that absorbs a lot of university funding for a small number of students, and whose practices and norms seem foreign to outside observers. It’s an intellectual sport that features cross-examinations, thousands of pages of evidence and students speaking at a couple hundred words per minute. Yet even with these idiosyncrasies, Miami debate has remained nationally competitive for decades and brought recognition to the university not only through successful showings at numerous national competitions, but through the summer debate camp which was run for high school debaters – a program where emerging high school students would come to the campus for a couple weeks in order to help with their burgeoning debate careers, all the while getting what amounted to a full advertisement of how great living and learning at Miami can be.

Now, none of those things will happen as the policy debate team will become extinct at the end of this academic year – replaced by a parliamentary-style program that is viewed as a cheaper and “more accessible” alternative to a policy program. For a more in-depth explanation of debate’s benefits, I highly recommend reading former Miami debater Tim Glass’ letter to the editor from March 17 (“Policy debate team plays vital part in undergrad education”), which extols the type of scholarly, critical thinking skills that policy debate fosters in students. Of all the direct benefits to the university that the members of the policy debate team provide, it will be their contributions to the Audience Debate Forums (ADFs) that will be one the most missed aspect of their community involvement. While ADFs are put on by the Forensics team as a whole (that is, including both speech and debate teams), it has historically been the debate side of the house that drives the open forums, which are provided primarily as a required out-of-class experience for the legions of COM 135 students.

While ADFs are usually on contentious international or national news items, the last audience debate put up to a vote the question of how do we prioritize the Bicentennial Student Center. Covered in The Student on March 17 (“Forum debates pros, cons of Bicentennial Student Center), the article provides a basic review of the event as it occurred, however leaves out an important fact. Not only does an ADF consist of audience-to-audience (read as: student-to-student) debating after the Forensic members make initial comments, but every ADF ends with an audience vote. Despite the article’s claim that, “By the end it seemed clear no distinct leaning for or against the new building had emerge,” the audience of more than 100 students voted 60 percent to 40 percent against the current prioritization of the student center. Considering Barack Obama won the presidency with only 53 percent of the popular vote, I’d say that a 20 percent margin is fairly substantial and comes as a shock when we constantly hear how groups of student continue to support the project. Now this doesn’t mean we get ahead of ourselves and grab pitchforks against the BSC, but what it tells us is that after an hour-long, meaningful discussion about projects and goals at Miami, students at this event felt that the push for the student center was not currently in the university’s best interest. While strong initial support may have once existed, it is entirely plausible (and not wholly unexpected) that student priorities are now changing – the problem is that there are no barometers in place to measure the changing attitudes and beliefs of the student body. Associated Student Government (ASG) would be the most likely measure of student interest in one area or another, but it largely functions in a top-down manner that is no fault of its own – it’s simply not familiar with or structured for responses to major university changes when they’re coupled with quickly fluctuating student interests and concerns, which are catalyzed by the current economic context. It was, in this case, only because of the debate team’s proposal and hosting of the discussion that we start to learn more about the views of the student body – after all, there’s no one running university opinion polls.

Understanding this, on Tuesday, March 31 in room 128 Pearson The Miami Student will be hosting an open student-to-student forum as a reflection of Miami’s current priorities and future goals as seen from our – the students of Miami – point of view. The forum’s goal is not to promote one view over another, or to center around any particular issue, but to attract a broad swath of Miami students from every division, department and activity into an open forum that will allow students to talk frankly about where we see Miami headed. This type of open discussion on a student-to-student level is absolutely necessary at a time when programs or budgets are either disappearing or in threat of dramatic reductions – changes that will affect students for years to come. The largest problem facing the student body right now seems to be no one is fully aware of how changes in one area of the university will affect other areas. For example, the lack of Communication grad students not only affect the debate team, but the sections of COM 135 that can be taught, which then affects the course requirements for such things as the Farmer School of Business (which requires all of its students to take COM 135). Student participation in next week’s open forum is thus critically important so that we, as a student body, can take stock of the changes that are occurring and promote an open dialogue in which we are all able to get a better picture of Miami’s current and future situation. I encourage everyone to attend and discuss what issues matter most to them in light of the very serious changes occurring all around us.