A
Retrospective Prospective on the NDT: "Good Days" Ahead
By
Allan Louden, Wake Forest University
* What follows is a cautionary tale. It is not lengthy, nor is it particularly profound. This story is a glimpse at one aspect of the NDT's future through the lens of the community's not so distant past. The purpose of this narrative is to offer a friendly injunction for thinking about the soon to be improved days for the NDT.
I believe the immediate future for the NDT is heartening. We are all stimulated by the amended field at this year's tournament, welcoming the arrival of seasoned teams from traditionally CEDA programs. I share in that excitement, but also want to offer a word of caution about the community's understanding of this development. But I am getting ahead of my story...
The Historical Backdrop
Over sixteen years ago I wrote an article in a special issue of Speaker and Gavel devoted to conjecture on what debate and forensics would be like in the 1980s. /1/ Thankfully I, and others, noted the folly of divining the future. I understand this current look at the future of the NDT is subject to the same limitations. Nonetheless, there are some enduring problems that, when examined through a historic lens, provide insight into how we might conceive of a reinvigorated NDT.
In looking back at the yellowing copy of the special issue, I could not help noticing that I am the only one of sixteen authors/coaches still involved in debate. After recovering from the self doubt that realization engendered, I thought there was some wisdom reserved to longevity. The more charitable construction is that participating in history imparts a certain, albeit imperfect, authority.The articles in the 1980 Speaker and Gavel repeatedly warned that fragmentation in forensics was threatening the viability of team debate. The argument basically held that many debate groups speaking as the voice of excellence threatened to leave little more than impotent fiefdoms. Ignoring for the moment the very real virtues associated with diversity, there was some reality in those expressed concerns. As these articles are penned the fissure between CEDA and NDT was beginning to accelerate. The NDT was still the center of the debate universe, but the disenfranchised were leaving for a climate where competitive success seemed more feasible and philosophical beliefs seems more welcome. The world of team debate soon settled into rival camps each reinforced with the self assurance that they were finer, greater, larger, healthier, or at least somehow "better."
We are now witnessing the most significant transformation of the debate community in over a decade; a rare turn toward consolidation. Although the overlap among CEDA and NDT teams has been occasional this first year, revised travel plans, tournament accommodation, and competitive interests will accelerate the blending of communities. The response to the association of CEDA and NDT among competitors and coaches had been nearly a universal affirmation. Notwithstanding critics' predictions of cultural clashes, the actual practice of individuals, programs, and organizations has been admirable. Diversity, to the extent it was found, was a learning opportunity. What we discovered were rational travel choices, accompanied by rational and amicable competitors.
This seismic move, undoubtedly was hastened by the development of computer list severs and subsequent interaction, between previously non-talking communities. The emergence of CEDA and NDT cooperation, however, is at its heart a product of the competitive environment that bred the split in the first place.
Underlying Pressures
As noted above, a consistent refrain two decades ago (and I suspect throughout the history of debate) was that debate was threatened by shirking demographics. Fewer programs pursing debate, coupled with fragmentation among participating institutions threatened the viability of even the strongest programs.
I believe the pressures associated with a smaller community have contributed to the current redefinition of the debate world. Allow me to make some observations about NDT and CEDA that may be controversial to some.
NDT, over the last decade or so, had remained fairly stable in participation. This "stability" was achieved less by the introduction of new programs or retention of "marginal" programs, than the expansion of the number of teams from a shrinking pool of institutions. While major tournaments remained viable and perhaps even more competitive than in the "good old days," the community was feeling the pressures of becoming increasingly inbred. The celebration of depth (translation: "quality") over breadth (translation: "mediocrity") sufficed for rationalization in the short term, but the collective community was beginning to feel the pinch. The NDT community was ready to "welcome back" their CEDA friends.
CEDA, on the other hand, had basked in the self assurance of two decades of steady growth but was beginning to experience the same competitive dynamics that produced an elite core in NDT. Institutions that had conquered the competitive challenge found themselves increasingly estranged from many in the community.
Also, CEDA, faced with defections to Parliamentary and NEDA debate formats, and a travel schedule as insane as that practiced in NDT, was more in the mood for cooperation. Many in CEDA, especially the competitively strong, reasoned why not compete with those of like mind.
Some would find the above descriptions a caricature of their experience, but the portrayals do contain a seed of truth. Looking through this historical lens tells of pressures inherent in competitive forums, an emergence of competitive elite and the resultant shrinking pool of serious contenders. It is this view that sanctions the following suggestion.
The NDT Resurgence Is...
Other than participation levels, debate is healthier in some respects than it was in the "Good Old Days." The community is more open, more honest, and more accessible. One could hardly imagine a better climate for moving toward cooperation between CEDA and NDT. Indeed, this integration is long overdue and presents an unlimited number of opportunities. The move is not without concerns, however.
For example, in the tournaments in which significant overlap has occurred this year, a "disquieting" tendency has emerged. The late elimination rounds are disproportionately populated by teams from resource rich institutions, academically positioned to attract the "best and the brightest." Sometimes these are CEDA teams, but more often they represent traditional NDT schools. Such is the nature of competition. This disparity is not a sign of NDT's superiority, but rather a natural outgrowth of inherent institutional differences. Schools able to attract the best personnel and students, reinforced by deeper pockets, will win more often, and across time dominate the "prestige" competitions.
Successful programs should not be punished for their proficiency, as some detractors argue. But neither should that form of achievement be the only one thought important by our community. What happens when the best CEDA teams migrate to the NDT? Will other tournaments, including CEDA Nationals be seen as secondary competitions?
Sixteen years ago in the Speaker and Gavel article, I wrote (and still believe): "I am sure we all know programs that make substantive contributions but do not win every competition they enter. Those institutions which train the teachers, which give opportunities to the untrained and which provide a breadth of opportunities, deserve the general community's recognition." An addendum to this thought is that non-elite programs are a sign of the strength of the overall community. These programs provide texture, and are among the best examples of our collective philosophy that debate is an important educational avenue for many. There are no elite in the interactive learning process of debate.
So, herein lies the rub: how can we maintain the participation by the broader debate community, while remaining justifiably proud of the NDT's traditions, including serving as the model for "the best debate has to offer." Will the very competitive pressures that honor the "winners" lead to reintroduction of separation pressures, muting the advantages of the current cooperation?
My solution is a little more than adopting an attitude or point of view. Rather than viewing the NDT's new cadre of CEDA teams as an indication of the tournament's enhanced stature in the debate world, consider celebrating the NDT's resurgence as part of a constellation of meaningful post-season tournaments. Support and place value on national tournaments that serve various constituencies within debate, and even make an affirmative effort to support these various expressions.
Before we become too proud of a revitalized NDT let us remember that healthy, open, and respected alternative tournaments are positive for debate and therefore essential for the NDT itself.
- Louden, A. D. (1980). Debate in the Eighties: Charting a Course. Speaker and Gavel, 17, 100-102.