1996-1997 Rationale Document
Forensics Program
University of Northern Iowa

I. Forms of Debate at the College Level

There are two main forms of debate at the college level - team policy debate and parliamentary debate.

A) Team policy debate - a broad resolution is selected for each academic year. Students conduct research on arguments for and against the adoption of that resolution. At a typical tournament, each 2-person team debates in favor of the resolution 3-4 times and in opposition to the resolution 3-4 times, with the teams having the best records then advancing into a single-elimination bracket. Thus, at a typical tournament debaters present at least 12-16 speeches, and participate in 12-16 cross-examination periods (more speeches and cross-examination periods if they participate in elimination rounds). Students learn approximately _ hour before a debate which team they will be debating, and on what side. Debaters make arguments for or against the resolution, and all arguments are supported either by reasoning or by evidence they have researched prior to the debate. There is an emphasis on research conducted prior to attending the tournament, and advance preparation of materials that can be used in the actual debates. Debaters typically conduct research every week that is the equivalent of the research used in a major term paper. Students continue to research and refine arguments throughout the year. Judges typically decide policy debates based on which team made the more convincing case in favor of, or in opposition to, the resolution.

B) Parliamentary debate - parliamentary debate is broadly modeled after debate in the British parliament. A broad resolution is drafted for each round of competition at a particular tournament. Students learn the wording of the resolution, and their opponent, fifteen minutes prior to the start of the debate. 2-person teams then debate in favor of, and in opposition to, that resolution. As the resolution changes from round-to-round and tournament-to-tournament, there is little use of materials that were researched in the library (in fact, NPDA rules prevent the use of prepared materials in competition). Instead, debaters are encouraged to rely on common knowledge, humor, and invective in presenting their arguments for or against the resolution. As there is no use of research and other supporting materials, judges often decide parliamentary debates based on which team was more eloquent and/or entertaining.

II. Policy Debate Organizations

There are four primary policy debate organizations that exist at the college level. UNI is a member of three of those four organizations.

A) National Debate Tournament - the oldest of the four organizations. Primarily distinguished from the others in that teams must qualify to attend the National Debate Tournament. UNI is a member of the NDT.

B) Cross Examination Debate Association - the second oldest of the four organizations. Primarily distinguished from the NDT in that any subscribing school can attend the CEDA National Tournament. UNI is a member of CEDA.

C) American Debate Association - the third oldest of the four organizations. Almost all of the ADA tournaments are located in the mid-Atlantic states (PA, MD, VA, WV, NC, and Washington DC). Any subscribing school may attend the ADA National Tournament. Primarily distinguished from the others in that the ADA has rules governing the types of arguments that may be presented in a debate. UNI is a member of the ADA.

D) National Educational Debate Association - the newest of the four organizations. They also have rules governing the types of arguments that may be presented in a debate (like the ADA). Membership is by invitation-only, as a prospective member institution must be invited to join NEDA, must be sponsored by a present member, and must be approved for membership by the NEDA governing body. Further, only NEDA members may attend NEDA tournaments during the year. UNI is not a member of NEDA.

III. Parliamentary Debate Organizations

There are two primary parliamentary debate organizations that exist at the college level. UNI is not a member of either of these organizations.

A) American Parliamentary Debate Association - the oldest of the two organizations. Primarily composed of student-run programs in New England, NY and PA, and Eastern Canada. Most of these programs have no connection to academic departments in their institutions, do not have faculty coaches, and receive little university financial support. UNI is not a member of the APDA as it is not a viable organization for us to participate in given its geographic isolation.

B) National Parliamentary Debate Association - the newer of the two organizations. Primarily composed of schools in the Rocky Mountain and Pacific Coast regions. Little NPDA debate occurs in the Midwest. UNI is not a member of the NPDA as it is not a viable organization for us to participate in given its geographic isolation.

IV. Representative Policy Debate Schools by Organizational Emphasis:

The following are lists of some of the schools that belong to each of the four policy debate organizations. Note that this is only a representative sample and is not a complete list of participating institutions (further, like UNI, many of these institutions support more than one of the policy debate organizations).

A) National Debate Tournament - Baylor, Boston College, Dartmouth, Emory, Georgetown, Georgia, Harvard, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisville, Michigan, Northwestern, North Carolina, Pittsburgh, Redlands, Southern California, Texas, Utah, Wake Forest.

B) Cross Examination Debate Association - Alabama, Berkeley, Central Oklahoma, Cornell, Emporia State, Gonzaga, Kansas State, Lewis & Clark, Marquette, Michigan State, Pace, Pacific Lutheran, San Diego State, South Carolina, Southern Illinois, Syracuse, UCLA, Vermont, Western Washington.

C) American Debate Association - Austin Peay, Bridgewater, Duquesne, Fairmont State, George Mason, George Washington, James Madison, KingÕs, Liberty, Mary Washington, Navy, Old Dominion, Randolph Macon, West Virginia.

D) National Educational Debate Association - Anderson, Baker, Dayton, DePauw, East Central, Ferris State, Missouri Southern, Northeastern State, South Dakota.

V. Summary

UNI has chosen to affiliate with the NDT, CEDA, and the ADA based on the form of debate those organizations sponsor.

Based on variables in a particular season (number of debaters, skill level of debaters, number of coaches, and so on), we attend a varying mix of policy debate tournaments. Those tournaments may be sponsored by institutions primarily affiliated with the NDT or CEDA or ADA, but the decision to attend certain tournaments rather than others is made based on an analysis by the coaching staff of which tournaments best meet the needs of the debaters on the squad at that time.

A decision by the Department to endorse parliamentary debate would not be financially viable without either a significant increase in financial resources allocated to forensics, or a substantial decrease in financial resources committed to individual events.

A decision by the Department to endorse either NDT or CEDA would have little meaning other than dictating to the Forensics Program which of the two national tournaments we would attend (which seems to be a decision best left to the coaching staff based on which tournament best meets the needs of the students on the squad at that time).

A decision by the Department to endorse ADA as the preferred debate organization would require the same resource trade-offs described above for parliamentary debate.

Note: Iowa, our sister institution in the Regents system, has also chosen to participate in NDT, CEDA, and ADA debate, while foregoing NEDA, APDA, and NPDA. Iowa's commitment to debate is evident in their placing second at the 1996 NDT, and by their having the top individual speaker at the 1997 NDT.

VI. Individual Events at the College Level

There are three main forms of Individual Events at the college level - interpretation, public address, and limited preparation.

A) Interpretation - students find examples of literature and then edit it for presentation in a specified time limit (typically ten minutes). In addition to editing the literature, students write introductions to the cuttings, write transitions between the cuttings, and write conclusions. The typical interp events are:

1. Prose - A selection of prose material, often drawn from more than one source. Usually plays and poetry are excluded from this category.

2. Drama - A selection which represents one or more characters from a play or plays, drawn from stage, screen or radio.

3. Poetry - A selection of poetry, often drawn from more than one source. Plays and prose works are usually excluded from this category.

4. Program Oral Interp - A program of thematically-linked selections, chosen from two or three recognized genres of interpretation (prose, poetry, drama).

5. Dramatic Duo - A selection from a play, humorous or serious, involving the portrayal of two or more characters presented by two or more individuals.

B) Public Address - students identify a topic, conduct research, and then write a complete speech related to that event category (again, typically ten minutes in length). The typical public address events are:

1. Informative Speaking - An original and factual speech on a realistic subject to fulfill the general aim of informing the audience.

2. Persuasive Speaking - An original speech designed to inspire, reinforce or change the beliefs, attitudes, values or actions of the audience.

3. After-Dinner Speaking - An original, humorous speech designed to exhibit sound speech composition, thematic coherence, direct communicative public speaking skills, and good taste. There typically should be a serious point, rather than having the speech resemble a night club act, an impersonation, or comic dialogue.

4. Communication Analysis - An original speech designed to offer an explanation and/or evaluation of a communication event such as a speech, speaker, movement, poem, poster, film, campaign, etc., through the use of rhetorical principles.

C) Limited Preparation Events - with only a limited amount of preparation, students write and deliver a speech (speeches are typically seven minutes in length). Usual limited prep events are:

1. Impromptu - Speakers have a total of seven minutes for both preparation and speaking. Speakers receive one or two topics, typically of a proverb nature, select one, and then deliver a serious speech on that topic.

2. Extemporaneous - Students receive three topics in the general area of current events, and select one that they will write a speech on. Students have thirty minutes of preparation time to prepare an original speech on the topic. Students typically conduct research in advance of the tournament and have files available that they can consult for supporting materials for the speech.

VII. Individual Events Organizations

There are three primary individual events organizations at the college level. UNI traditionally supports all three organizations.

A) National Forensic Association - the first national tournament focusing solely on individual events competition. Primarily distinguished from the AFA in tournament qualification procedures.

B) American Forensic Association - the second national tournament focusing solely on individual events competition. Primarily distinguished from NFA in tournament qualification procedures.

C) Interstate Oratorical Association - an association where the top two persuasive speakers from each state gather to showcase student oratorical skills.

VIII. Summary

UNI has chosen to affiliate with the NFA, AFA, and Interstate based on the form of individual events competition those organizations sponsor.

Based on the variables in a particular season (number of students, skill level, number of coaches, and so on), we attend a varying mix of individual events tournaments. Those tournaments may be sponsored by institutions primarily affiliated with the NFA or AFA, but the decision to attend certain tournaments rather than others is made based on an analysis by the coaching staff of which tournaments best meet the needs of the students on the squad at that time.

A decision by the Department to endorse either NFA or AFA would have little meaning other than dictating to the Forensics Program which of the two national tournaments we would attend (which seems to be a decision best left to the coaching staff based on which tournament best meets the needs of the students on the squad at that time).

The Interstate Oratorical Association is a capstone showcase for the best speakers in the nation. We attend Interstate when we have students qualify for the event (by placing first or second in the state), and believe the chance to participate in Interstate is an excellent motivating device for our student competitors.

IX. Models of Forensic Program Organization

There are three models of organizing a forensics program that we want to outline and discuss.

A. Tenure-track Director of Forensics (DOF), Tenure-track Debate Coach, Term appointment Individual Events Coach: This is the model traditionally in place at UNI. This model allows a number of benefits:

Anchors program academically within Department. DOF must have a Ph.D., must have a background in Communication Studies, must conduct research/creative activity, must engage in service activities, must teach in areas of specialization, etc.

Provides the link that would allow the Forensics Program to meet Department needs - offers central individual who is responsible for receiving Departmental input and acting in an appropriate manner.

Allows continuity across time - allows the Forensics Program to maintain stability without having to "reinvent the wheel" each year.

Increases accountability - a tenure-track DOF would be more accountable academically, fiscally, etc.

Provides a link to outside communities - stable leadership increases the interaction with the broader communities we deal with on a regular basis, such as high school and college forensics programs.

Provides staffing over the summer - while a tenure-track appointment isn't a 12-month appointment, it does provide a good guarantee that one will continue in the position the next academic year. This is important for forensics since our program doesn't shut down with the end of the Spring semester. Student acceptance and rejection of financial aid must be processed, tournament invitations must be drafted and mailed, accounting must reflect the end of the fiscal year, fundraising is an ongoing process, etc. And, since our students are expected to conduct research and work on debate and individual events over the summer, we need staff who can commit to the activity to the same degree.

Increases recruiting ability - consistent turnover in staff sends inappropriate signals to the high school community regarding the program. Further, over time a person develops an increasing number of contacts that can aid in recruiting.

Increases fundraising ability - similar to recruiting, turnover in staff impairs fundraising ability, while consistent staffing leads to increasing the number of productive fundraising contacts.

Makes administrative sense - it makes administrative sense to have a tenure-track appointee supervise tenured and term faculty members.

B) Temporary Director of Forensics (9-month appointment), Tenure-track Debate Coach, Term appointment Individual Events Coach. This is the system used at UNI the past two years (1995-1996, 1996-1997). We believe this is an inferior model to the first for several reasons:

No guarantee of an academic anchor. A temporary appointment does not require a person with a Ph.D., nor does it require that a person's degree is in Communication Studies. Similarly, there is no requirement that the person conduct research/creative activity, nor is the person required to engage in service.

Does not guarantee a program that meets Departmental needs - as the appointment is short-term, for nine months at a time, the focus is on the present and the success of the program at that time, rather than on long-term goals.

Prevents continuity across time - just as one gets up to speed on the position, the appointment ends and the process starts again three months later.

No guarantee of accountability - the appointment ends on May 15, at the end of the teaching term, thus preventing long-term fiscal or academic accountability.

No link to outside communities - relevant individuals in the high school or college communities may not know who is in charge of the program. This impairs the ability to recruit, impairs fundraising abilities, and reduces the likely attendance at on-campus tournaments.

No staffing over the summer - the appointment is clearly a 9-month appointment which may or may not be renewed. The DOF position for 1995-1996 was formally accepted on July 18 of 1995. The DOF position for 1996-1997 was formally accepted on June 21 of 1996. In both cases there was a clear understanding that there was neither an expectation of, or compensation for, work for the program during the summer. Further, summer work related to forensics was difficult given the late date of the appointment in both years Ð alternative summer plans had already been formulated.

Impairs recruiting ability - consistent turnover sends a signal to the high school community that our program is not stable. Witness the example of the debate program between 1992-1993 and 1994-1995 Ð during that three year period UNI had four different debate coaches. That uncertainty significantly impairs our ability to recruit outstanding high school students, as evidenced by lower debate participation during and immediately following the above years.

Impairs fundraising ability - much of the fundraising activity must occur over the summer, due to the nature of fundraising options for Forensics. Without an individual on-staff in the summer, fundraising is difficult. Further, fundraising is impaired simply by the signal that the program is not stable, as noted above.

Makes little administrative sense - the present model has a 9-month temporary appointee overseeing and supervising a tenured Debate Coach, an Individual Events Coach on a 3-year term appointment, and graduate assistants who are typically on-campus for two years.

C) No Director of Forensics, Tenure-track Debate Coach, Term appointment Individual Events Coach. This model has not been used at UNI, and we think it is the least desirable for several reasons:

First, all of the criticisms of the temporary DOF listed above apply to this situation, although with even more force.

Further, this model prevents programmatic unity - rather than a "Forensics Program," this model would, by nature, create a "Debate Team" and an "Individual Events Team."

In addition, this would increase the workload for the Debate and Individual Events Coaches, in turn, requiring additional release time for those positions. The present 20-hour per week average devoted by the DOF to the Forensics Program would be passed on to the Debate and Individual Events Coaches (who already spent an average of 20 hours per week on Forensics).

Finally, this model would significantly impair decision making - what process would be used to decide the percentage of the budget allocated to Debate and Individual Events, or the amount of financial aid available to the two ÒteamsÓ? How would decisions on resources be made without a DOF looking out for the best interests of the program as a whole?

UNI has chosen to have a tenure-track Director of Forensics for good reasons. It makes sense administratively and academically, and it makes sense for the overall program.

As there is increasing uncertainty regarding leadership of the program, the program's ties to the Department and its needs will also decrease. Further, uncertainty about the leadership of the program impairs fundraising, recruiting, and other issues related to the day-to-day operation of the Forensics Program.

Note: Support for forensics at Iowa, our sister institution in the Regents system, has not decreased. In fact, Iowa recently moved to adoption of a similar model - while having a debate-only program, Iowa now has a program with a tenure-track Director housed in Communication Studies, an assistant under the Director who is also on staff, and then a number of graduate student assistant coaches.