|
Pamela L Stepp, Beth Gardner. Argumentation
and Advocacy. |
|
Subjects: |
||
|
Companies: |
Cross Examination Debate Association (NAICS: 813410 ) |
|
|
Author(s): |
||
|
Publication title: |
Argumentation
and Advocacy. |
|
|
Abstract (Document Summary) |
||
|
Traditionally there have been few women and minorities that have taken part
in intercollegiate debating activities in the |
||
|
Full Text (4791 words) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Copyright American Forensic Association Fall 2001 In the preface of Freeley and Steinberg's (2000) tenth edition of Argumentation and Debate they highlight text revisions about the influence of culture on perceptual reasoning and cultural restrictions on argument development (Freeley & Steinberg, 2000). Further Freely and Steinberg (2000) added two new values to the text's well-known list of values for participation in intercollegiate debate. Along with the traditional educational values of preparation for leadership, critical thinking, and purposeful inquiry, additions include computer competencies and the development of multicultural sensitivities by providing opportunities for participants to interact with a variety of people from diverse backgrounds (Freely & Steinberg, 2000). These changes in a well-known highly successful debate text emphasize that intercollegiate debate is no longer an exclusive white male activity or is it? Over twenty years ago Americans began to pay attention to diversity when
Workforce 2000 (Johnson & Packer, 1987) informed us that more women,
minorities, immigrants, and physically challenged individuals would be
entering the workforce. The American Council of Education (1988) projected
that by the year 2000 one third of school age children in the REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Is Intercollegiate Debate A White Male Activity? There has been concern about the demographic population in intercollegiate
debate. In the 1980's research by Logue (1986) and Friedley
and In the 1990's The 1992 Report on the 46th National Debate Tournament and the 1993 Report on the 47th National Debate Tournament indicated a continued low participation rate for women of less than 20%. Loge (1991) found less than 6% African American debaters debating in a study that included 64 schools. Loge (1991, p. 80) also noted at the NDT in 1992 only 2% of the debaters inchided African American men and no African American women debated at the NDT that year. The most comprehensive race and gender demographic study in
intercollegiate debate (Steep, 1997, p. 179) reported that during the
five-year period from 1991 to 1995, 55% of competitors were male and 45% were
female competitors at the CEDA national tournaments. Minority participation
averaged only 13%. These figures did not represent the female and minority
student populations at Poor Retention of Women and Minorities in Debate A serious problem that has plagued the debate community is retention of
women and minorities. Although research about beginning debaters is limited,
several individuals have addressed the issue of novice retention of women and
minorities. In a study of judging bias against women and minorities by the
dominant white male culture, the novice division of debate was reportedly
much more diverse than junior and varsity divisions ( Demographic data collected at one of the largest invitational tournaments in the country (Stepp, 1997) indicated that 55% of the competitors in the novice division were white females, and 11.2% were minorities. In the junior varsity division, the numbers began to drop and included only 40% white women and 5.6% minorities, further decreasing to only 22% white women in varsity. There was a higher percentage of minorities, 8.4% in the varsity round than the junior varsity round. Ninety-seven schools responded to a survey that explored why novices leave debate (Steep, 1994). The three most frequently cited reasons included other activities, too much research, and the rapid speaking delivery of junior and varsity debaters (Steep, 1994). Other significant reasons were emphasis on the game of debate, competitiveness, concerns about social life, excessive coaching time, a lack of fun or rewards from debate, and perception of racism. The results from the novice survey also indicated that schools lose approximately half their novices when it is time to move into the upper divisions of debate, and that male, female, and minority participation was fairly equal to the participation of white males in the novice divisions at schools. Teams became much less diverse in junior and varsity debate. Demographics collected at National CEDA Tournaments from 19911995 indicated that 55% of the competitors were male, 45% were female, and 13% were minorities (Steep, 1997). These percentages include novice debaters since every school is allowed to bring four teams to the national CEDA tournament without restrictions. If women and minority students join intercollegiate debate, they must value the educational principles of debate such as critical thinking, research and information management, and communication. Researchers have begun trying to discover what is it about the activity that turns women and minorities away. One of the most significant barriers for women and minorities is discrimination (Loge, 1991; Stepp, 1997). Under-represented debaters have to participate in a debate structure and culture formed by the dominant group of white coaches and debaters (Logue, 1993; Stepp, 1997). Discrimination occurs when women adopt male standards by behaving aggressively in crossexamination, speaking rapidly, and exhibiting other competitive behavior (Bjork, 1993; Crenshaw, 1992; Logue, 1993). Women also will participate at a lower level than men and drop out of debate to participate in other activities because they have to tolerate sexist behavior and language from opponents, fellow teammates, and judges (Thomas, 1991). While African-American debaters face discrimination in debates as well, Loge (1991) believes that the biggest reasons that they leave the activity after debating as a novice are lack of role models in teammates and coaches and uninteresting debate topics. Typical debate topics are uninteresting to women and minorities because they do not allow a diversity of students to make connections to their own personal lives (Bartanen, 1995). To find answers about why women and minority novice debaters do not move
up into the open division of the activity, Bjork and Trapp (1994) found that the formation of the NDT Women's Debate Forum and the CEDA Commission on Women and Minorities brought forth issues of perceived unequal treatment of women and men in debate, and motivated researchers to study sexual harassment in the debate community. The first sexual harassment studies in debate conducted by Szwapa (1994) and Stepp, Simerly, & Logue (1994) uncovered rampant perceived sexual harassment of women debaters. Continuing research about barriers faced by women in debate, Treadaway and Jones (2000) learned that women reported more sexual harassment than men and that overall lack of support lowered women debater's self-esteem. They concluded that sexual harassment, lowered selfesteem, and lack of social support might be driving women from the debate activity. In a large study of 611 competitors at NDT Debate Nationals, CEDA Debate Nationals, AFA-NIET Nationals and NFA Nationals, Stepp (2001) discovered sexual harassment is widespread in forensics, that women are harassed more than man, and that women in intercollegiate debate are harassed more than women in individual events. Wilkins and Research Questions The review of demographics in debate indicates that women and minorities are not represented well in the activity. There is published evidence that debate organizations are not inclusive, barriers continue, especially sexual harassment, women and minorities debate in novice divisions but they do not move up into the open division of debate, and that judges have an impact on such individuals. The purpose of this research is to trace the participation of women and
minority competitors at the national tournaments of one of the largest debate
organizations in the RQ1: What are the percentages of women and minority debaters participating in the National CEDA debate tournaments during the past decade? RQ2: What are the percentages of women and minority directors participating at CEDA Nationals during the past decade? RQ3: What are the percentages of coaches participating at CEDA Nationals during the past decade? RQ4: What is the proportion of women and minorities who advance into the elimination rounds at CEDA nationals during the past decade? RQ5: What is the proportion of women and minorities who place in the top twenty for speaker awards at CEDA nationals during the past decade? METHOD Beginning in 1991 a demographic questionnaire (see Appendix A) was developed to collect the gender and race of all directors, coaches, and competitors attending the CEDA national tournament. The demographic data has been collected at each CEDA national tournament for ten years. Participants in the elimination rounds and winners of the top twenty speaker awards have been collected from the computer listings at each tournament from 1991-2000 to trace success according to gender and ethnicity. Collected data was sorted by male, female, and minority and percentages of each category were calculated. Linear regression was used on the percentages to analyze the trends in each category for directors, coaches, and debaters. Regression analysis was also used to assess the relationship between the number of speaker awards given and the percent of competitors. To analyze the percent of women and minorities in elimination rounds, linear regression was employed on the percent of each group in the community and the percent in the triple octofinals (quadruple finals were used when appropriate). The triple octofinals were chosen because they give the best distribution of students in elimination rounds. RESULTS Directors Table 1 indicates that at the 2000 CEDA National Tournament, 79% of directors were male, 21% were female, and 11% were minorities. Ten years ago, 70% of directors were male, 30% were female, and only 1% were minorities (see Appendix B). The percent of males and females has not statistically changed over the ten years; however, the number of minority directors has significandy increased (p = .0072; see Figure 1). This increase is due almost entirely to the number of minority male directors increasing while minority female directors still varies between 0% and 2.4%. Coaches For the year 2000, male coaches made up 74% of the total coaching population. Women accounted for 26% of the total number of coaches, and 18% of all coaches were non-Caucasian (see Table 2). When this survey was conducted ten years ago at the 1990 National Tournament, 68% of coaches were male, 32% were female, and only 12% were minorities (see Appendix B). The trend we see between these two years is statistically significant as well. The number of female coaches has declined statistically in the past ten years (p = 0.0387). Thus, the number of male coaches also has increased statistically (p = 0.0387) (see Figure 2). Most of this decline can be seen in the last 4 years where the number of female coaches reached a low of 22%. Additionally, the percent of minority coaches has statistically increased over the last ten years (p = .0176; see Figure 3). Debaters At the 2000 National Tournament, 64% of the competitors were males, 36% were females, and 15% were minorities. This group shows more diversity than either the coaches or directors (see Table 3). The National Tournament 10 years ago showed 71% of competitors were males, 29% were females, and 11% were minorities (see Appendix B). The percent of male competitors has statistically decreased over this 10-year period (p = .045); consequently, the percent of female debaters has statistically increased over the last 10 years (P = .045). (Note: The 1991 tournament had an unusually high percent of male competitors, which is why the change is significant. If we omit the data point for 1991, the percent of male debaters does not significantly decrease. Consequently, if we omit the data point of 1991, the percent of female debaters does not significantly increase). The percentage of minority debaters since 1991 have statistically increased (p = .014).
At only 36% participation by females, the debate community is still not representative of the collegiate body in which women comprise 55.8% of students. Also, minorities now make up 26.2% of the student body at universities, but only 15% of the debate community. Thus, while the percent of females and minorities has increased in the debate community, the level of participation has not reached that of the whole collegiate distribution. Success Though female and minority participation is increasing, there does not seem to be a proportional increase in their winnings. There was no correlation found between the percent of women winning and the percent of speaker awards given to women. Thus, as the percent of women participating increases, there has not been an increase in the percent of speaker awards given to women. The same is true for minority competitors.
In elimination rounds, the percent of women debating is correlated with the percent advancing to elimination rounds (p = .0057). Thus as more women participate, more women advance to the elimination rounds; however, this relationship is not one to one. On average, women make up 35.9% of the total participants, but only 26.2% of the participants in the elimination rounds participants (see Table 4). There is no correlation between the percent of minority participation and the percent advancing to elimination rounds. Additionally, the average percent of minority participation is 14.7% and the average percent of minorities in elimination rounds is 10.4%. Ibus, the percent of minorities advancing to elimination rounds is not representative of the overall participation. Discussion Overall, the demographics in CEDA debate are becoming more representative
of the educated population in the Problems for women also are apparent in the 8% drop in female coaches and increase in male and minority male coaches during the past decade. Most of the decline began in 1997 when the CEDA debate organization began sharing their debate resolution with the NDT and American Debate Association (ADA). The impact on women coaches in the three different debate organizations when they all started sharing the same policy topic and participating at each other's tournaments should be investigated. It appears that we should be more optimistic about the numbers of women and minorities debating; however, the unusually high numbers of male competitors in 1991 serve as a cautious reminder about the significance of the numbers. Unfortunately, higher numbers of female and minority participation have not brought proportional success. Lack of success may stem from less experience in debate, or females and minorities may not have broken the barriers to achieve success on a level equal to that of the male competitors. Unfortunately, lower numbers of women debaters, directors, and coaches perpetuates harassment of underrepresented groups. Organizational structure theory (Tangri, Burt & Johnson, 1982) suggests that gender and sexual harassment occurs when the sex ratio is skewed, when women are viewed as outsiders in a male-dominated environment, and when there is a large power differential. Gender harassment, seductive behavior, and sexual imposition of women were frequently reported by female debaters in Stepp (2001). When men make sexist remarks about the presence of women in debate, and make unwanted attempts to touch and fondle, this may remind women that they are expected to be sexually attractive, noncompetitive, and less powerful. In a study that explored sexual harassment in the CEDA debate community six years after implementation of a sexual harassment policy, findings were disheartening (Stepp & Gardner, 2001). The overall prevalence of sexual harassment experiences significantly increased. Female coaches perceived the most harassment. Female coaches were found to perceive significantly more gender harassment than males by being treated differently due to gender and from sexist remarks; more seductive behavior by being exposed to discussion of personal or sexual matters, and unwanted seductive behavior; more sexual bribery by being bribed with some rewards, and unwanted sexual behavior due to rewards; and more sexual imposition than men by forceful attempts to touch, kiss, or grab the subject, and unwanted attempt to touch or fondle the subject (Steep and Gardner, 2001).
Although there has been progress for women and minorities during the past decade the loss of female coaches and directors and unequal success for women and minorities should guide future research. Fairness and opportunity for underrepresented groups must be provided in the valuable debate activity. It is especially important to track the success of women and minorities in the elimination rounds and the overall speaker awards. Research about barriers and the impact of the culture of policy debate on women and minorities still is needed. Sexual harassment research indicates that it is a continued problem for women in our community. Stepp and Gardner (2001) emphasize that policies don't eliminate problems. As students come and go policies must be advertised and explained. Research is needed to understand why female coaches are harassed more than anyone else. In an attempt to uncover gender barriers and improve the environment in debate for women, Greenstreet, Joeckel, Martin, & Piercy (1998) created a taxonomy to classify women's gender based experiences. The sample of mostly female directors and coaches provided critical incidents of positive and negative experiences in debate. The study found that positive gender experiences included expressions of gratitude or recognition, mentoring, consciousness-raising, and nurturing. The negative gender-based experiences included sexual harassment, sexism, and discrimination in employment, aggression and conflict. Greenstreet et al. (1998) provides some positive guidelines such as mentoring, recognition, and nurturing as methods to keep women in the activity. The negative experiences excluded women and treated them as other while the positive experiences created an inclusive environment for women. Creating an inclusive environment for women and minorities is a difficult task. Weaver (2001) suggests organizations may value diversity yet women and minorities continue to leave. She suggests that business leaders examine what the "Best in Class" business organizations do to create inclusiveness. These ideas might provide viable solutions and research direction for the debate community. (1) It is important to use diversity assessments to find out what women and minorities want from the debate activity, what are their goals, and what are their preferences. (2) Debate coaches need to create an inclusive culture with a day-to-day plan for valuing diversity. This is done by supporting and publicizing leaders in the organization who are inclusive, providing information for beginning debaters about diversity competencies and convincing all of our leaders to champion diversity. (3) Find coaches and directors who have diverse teams, learn their approaches, and recognize them as role models. (4) Establish mentoring, buddy and sponsorship programs. (5) Make sure that women and minority debaters are being stretched and challenged. In other words, ask the question are they being sent to the best tournaments for developmental opportunity? (6) Invite top coaches with diverse squads to present their strategy at conferences and tournaments. (7) Have honest conversations with students about their potential, and don't let perceptions and stereotypes limit underrepresented members of a squad. Retention of women and minorities increases capabilities to recruit more diverse populations of students. Research has emphasized that women and ethnic minorities need role models (Gibson & Cordova, 1999). When we lose women directors and coaches there will be no role models for junior women. If we can assure educational benefits including competitive success for a diversity of student's policy debate will continue and be respected as an educational program. During the next decade we have the opportunity to include a diverse group of students in our university and college policy debating programs. Opportunities for high school students who have traditionally been deprived of the privilege of participating in debate are being provided through the Urban Debate Leagues sponsored by the Open Society Institute founded by George Soros. So far groups of young people from diverse backgrounds and poorly funded and neglected inner-city schools are learning policy debate in Atlanta, Birmingham, Chicago, Detroit, Kansas City, Louisville, and Tuscaloosa (Gordon, 1998). If we do not have inclusive collegiate policy debate organizations these talented young people will turn elsewhere. The demographics reported in this study give us some reason for celebration as well as serving as a reminder that there is much work to be done.
|
