Friends and colleagues, I have thoroughly enjoyed getting to know all of you this year, and especially during the State Championship. I’m overjoyed to find myself in a state with such a vibrant speech and debate culture. Your students are brilliant and hardworking. I look forward to seeing all the successes I’m certain your students will achieve at NSDA Nationals. However, I do think that there are a few rules in Wyoming debate that are creating roadblocks to the magnitude of success that Wyoming could enjoy. I've attached a file with the rules change proposals here.
The primary rules I’m describing are the tournament cap and current limitation on season length. I’ve proposed changes to those rules below, with specific rationales spelled out in detail, however I’d like to propose them from a broader point of view with three larger ideas in mind:
1) Changes in this area could bolster our student’s chances of success when they compete on a national scale. 2) We can make these changes without requiring coaches to do more if they don’t want to, while creating more opportunities for students. 3) The 2020-2021 season offers a unique opportunity for our students at virtually no cost, if these rule changes are embraced. I want to start with a simple thesis: every debater in Wyoming should be able to dream of being a national champion, and we should clear every roadblock we can standing in between them and making that dream a reality. Similarly, every student in Wyoming should have a shot at the highly competitive, full ride debate scholarships to schools like Emory University or Wake Forest, and we should promote a culture of excellence that gives them the best chance at earning those. This is not to say that Wyoming does not have amazing success stories now. However, I believe our students are succeeding in spite of these rules, not because of them. More opportunities for competition allow students to refine their skills and grow as competitors and intellectuals: practice makes perfect. This is especially true in a comparative light. If students from other states are allowed more opportunities to compete than Wyoming students, than the playing field is not level. I also believe these goals can be accomplished without changing the culture of local and regional debate. I would not ask anyone to vote for a rule that mandated that Wyoming coaches do more than they already are, merely one that enables opportunities for those interested in exploring them. Although my recent background is college debate, I grew up in a debate circuit indistinguishable from Wyoming. I have great respect for all the educators that taught me what debate was and set me on my path. But I also strived for years in high school to grasp at the dreams of national success that always seemed to just barely elude me. As I close in on my 20th year in debate, I now have a much better picture of the structural changes that would catapult students further along a trajectory of national success, without fundamentally changing local circuits like the one that I grew up in. I’ve coached multiple high school and college national champions, and I know that there are several key enabling factors that can supercharge success. I also believe these changes can make debate a more educational and productive experience, even for those whose aspirations don’t lie in national championships. This post also comes at a time of unprecedented opportunity for Wyoming students. More and more fall tournaments are announcing every day that their tournaments will be held online. While no one is happy about the temporary interruption of brick-and-mortar tournaments, the silver lining is that tournaments that were once economically exclusive because of travel costs like the Kentucky Season Opener, Grapevine, St. Marks, and many others are now much, much more accessible. At virtually no cost, Wyoming students could now compete at Yale or Harvard. It’s possible that as COVID-19 recedes, this silver lining of increased accessibility may stick around for the long haul in the form of hybrid tournaments that offer the benefits of brick and mortar tournaments to those who can attend, and the access of online to those who can’t. Before submitting these ideas for public review, I sought out conversations with those that I thought might disagree. As a result of these conversations, I’m also submitting a separate rule change to allow exceptions to the tournament cap and season schedule for only online tournaments. I believe this rule represents a middle ground between the concerns I’ve outlined and the equity concerns raised in conversations with those opposed to the rule changes. As online tournaments have virtually no costs, the equity concern with online tournaments would be negligible. Although not perfect, I believe this is a true middle ground: not merely a compromise for the sake of compromise, but a middle ground that allows both opportunity and equity to be advanced. I’m offering these rules changes up for discussion as early as possible because I certainly understand there may be those that disagree. I’ve also proposed changes in three other areas, although I believe those to be less controversial. I would love to dialogue with anyone in the community about any of these ideas, in the spirit of deliberation that our activities are so excellent at fostering. Best, Matt Liu University of Wyoming Director of Forensics
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
MissionWyoming Debate Roundup is dedicated to providing quality debate content to Wyoming and Rocky Mountain area high school debaters. We’re a resource for Wyoming debaters by Wyoming debate coaches. Categories
All
Archives
February 2024
|