Jan. 7

‘The Great Debaters’: A Challenge to Higher Education

Denzel Washington as Melvin B. Tolson

Over the holidays, many may have gone to the theater to see The Great Debaters, the major motion picture from Denzel Washington and Oprah Winfrey. The film tells the extraordinary tale of the 1935 Wiley College debate team, its legendary coach Melvin B. Tolson and his most famous student, Dr. James L. Farmer Jr. One of the “Big Four” leaders of the Civil Rights Movement, Farmer put his debate training to use as the architect of the movement’s strategy of non-violent protest and direct action.

Most of the attention lavished on the movie has focused on how it helps audiences reflect on the ways in which racism permeates society. But the film also creates an opportunity for – and poses a challenge to – colleges and universities to provide all students with the fundamental academic experience that is debate. In addition to offering audiences opportunities to reflect on the ways in which racism permeates human society, the film challenges colleges and universities to provide all students with the fundamental academic experience that is debate. At a time when higher education is simultaneously financially constrained and seemingly awash in projects to create centers of excellence (teaching, civic engagement, service learning, and deliberative democracy) The Great Debaters reminds us that academic debate is a proven investment in the core values of our institutional missions.

Washington, who both directs and stars in the film, has taken the lead by donating $1 million to reestablish the Wiley College team, which lapsed after Tolson’s departure from the school. Washington’s generosity is a testament to his belief in the power and virtue of a debate education and a wake-up call to institutions of higher education to make academic debate a part of any serious strategic plan.

We all value the skills of argument and critical thinking; intercollegiate debate teaches these – and much more. Indeed, there is no better vehicle for stimulating undergraduate research, fostering tolerance and open mindedness, instigating engagement with the issues of the day, promoting understanding of global connections and inculcating the method of interdisciplinarity. Debate constitutes a series of connected academic experiences and teaches students to ask questions and seek answers to serious academic questions. Participation in debate, at any level, is life altering and has real consequence for students and their institutions alike. The skills, knowledge and habits of mind nurtured through academic debate are on display every day in virtually every profession, not the least of which is higher education.

A few years ago, John E. Sexton, president of New York University, said that his four years in high school debate “were the educational foundation of everything I did.” “I’m saying the finest education I got from any of the institutions I attended, the foundation of my mind that I got during those four years of competitive policy debate; that is, 90 percent of the intellectual capacity that I operate with today — Fordham [University] for college, Fordham for the Ph.D., Harvard for law school — all of that is the other 10 percent.” But debate skills are not reserved only for exceptional students like Farmer and Sexton. All students should have the benefits of a debate education.

Because audiences around the globe will see The Great Debaters, it gives higher education a rare opportunity to promote this fundamental activity and garner support for it. How can we in higher education see this film, understand its message, and not return to our campuses to make those opportunities available to students? College administrators should be rushing to build strong debate programs in institutions where none presently exist. Meanwhile, universities that already have such programs should exercise a leadership role by committing to reinforce and showcase existing programs.

Compared to intercollegiate athletics and other costly endeavors, debate is, dollar for dollar, an efficient use of institutional resources. It requires no multimillion dollar complexes, playing fields, stadiums or expensive equipment. All that is necessary are classrooms, coaches, office supplies and support for travel and research. Debate is an inexpensive, educational and effective way to both promote schools and enhance the quality of the academic experience.

The movement to rediscover debate has already begun. Urban debate leagues at the middle and high school level are flourishing under the leadership of the National Association for Urban Debate Leagues and The Great Debaters will undoubtedly cause demand for debate to surge in the coming years. However, these leagues cannot shoulder the burden of a nationwide debate renaissance alone. They need colleges and universities to take a leadership role. Specifically, higher education must do three things.

First, we need to create viable opportunities for high school graduates who seek to continue their debate education after high school. Creating new programs and reinforcing existing programs is essential.

Second, and equally important, we must recruit, train and produce a new generation of professional debate educators. There are many middle and high schools around the country eager to offer debate opportunities to students, but they are unable to find qualified teachers with debate experience because the demand for quality coaches far outstrips the supply. To meet this shortfall, our institutions must generate capacity by fielding debate programs that give students opportunities to learn the coaching craft through rich individual learning experiences. In addition, thoughtful consideration should be given to the ways in which such a commitment spurs curricular innovation at both the undergraduate and graduate level as well as educational partnerships of local, regional and state constituencies. Finally, the creation of new opportunities to join the debate teaching fraternity must move in lockstep with efforts to retain, reward, and renew our best debate teachers.

Third, as the nation’s longstanding incubators of free expression, innovative thinking, democratic deliberation and social change, college and universities must do more to promote the role of debate as a necessary component of a well functioning society. Strong debate programs are essential because they showcase best practices. Debate programs are and should be key players in efforts to foster civic engagement and democratic responsibility.

The Great Debaters reminds us that the values of debate are the values of the academy itself. Even critics will admit that debate’s insufficiencies are due as much as anything to insufficient institutional commitment to a debate education. To be true to our core values, we need to promote the activities that create better students and better citizens. Debate does this. An America where academic debate becomes a prominent fixture on every campus would be a better America. Every college and university has many James Farmers strolling the hallways and quadrangles of its campuses; but we must lay the foundation for achievement. There will be no better opportunity to bring this to fruition than the one that now lies before us. The time for debate is now.

Timothy M. O’Donnell is chair of the National Debate Tournament Committee and director of debate at the University of Mary Washington, in Fredericksburg, Va.

Comments

Hear..., Hear!

My compliments to Timothy in challenging the “Let’s-all-get-along” American Society by laying out a rational argument for change. Argumentation and Debate on issues is a far better remedy for this country’s ills than the emotional responses that pervade America and the American media and fail to rise above the limbic center of the brain and allow the proper use of the decision-making power of the human pre-frontal cortex. Can we encourage people to simply “think” about what they do?..and the consequences of their action? Is there still hope?

Edward Winslow, A “tired” retired Business Professor, at 8:55 am EST on January 7, 2008

If only ...

I know that I gained much by my own experience in both high school and intercollegiate debate.

But my time as a debater and more recently as a coach and judge saw the activity change drastically, and what actually happens in intercollegiate debate today bears no resemblance to what one sees in “The Great Debaters.” Persuasive speech and eloquence are hardly to be found — debates are almost entirely determined now by tactics, many of which I find abhorrent. Debaters have been clocked speaking nearly 400 words per minute in their attempt to spit out more arguments than their opponents can answer. Teams seek out arcane, narrow cases for or against the question in an attempt to win by surprise rather than by presenting the best case that gets to the heart of the real issue.

What passes for argument is often nothing more than the statement of a claim followed by the almost unintelligible rapid reading of a quotation from some polemicist or off-beat social theorist, as if that were sufficient evidence.

Not that this is all bad: debaters today learn to think quickly and nimbly, and gain tremendous research skills. All debaters who pursue the activity seriously gain in intellectual depth and learn a great deal about matters of public policy. The trouble is they do so in an environment that is almost hermetically sealed from the way advocacy is carried on in any meaningful forum — the courthouse, the boardroom, the meeting hall, and the legislature.

I’d say that intercollegiate debate has for some time been stuck in a bad kind of medieval scholasticism (I don’t say this lightly, as I’m a medievalist myself) and is badly in need of a renaissance. Only when that happens will we reap the many benefits of debate that Prof. O’Donnell cites.

John Marlin, The College of St. Elizabeth, at 9:50 am EST on January 7, 2008

The problem with the Great Debaters and Tolson is that he wrote the debate material which the students then memorized and delivered. Certainly that training is better than nothing, but perhaps the program lapsed after him because there was no one available to write the material for the students after he left. I am unfamiliar with debate, but I cannot believe it is helpful to equate education with memorization. You can be concerned with winning or with teaching, but when you allow students to do their own work it will be less than the professor can do and jeopardize winning. I was disappointed to find that Tolson did not trust his students enough to let them present their own efforts. I do not believe that presents a model of teaching that is worth emulating. Tolson may have been a brilliant man, but I do not believe he was a brilliant educator, despite the cult of personality and admiration his students felt for him.

Perry, at 11:05 am EST on January 7, 2008

rebuttal

Mr. O’Donnell, a debate coach, writes like a debater, not a truth-seeker—one-sided, argumentative, simplistic. This is a problem with debate (I was a four-year debater in high school), and extends beyond what Mr. Marlin aptly describes as the disintegratiion of current debate into tactics. It was always tactics (at least as far back as the 1950’s when I was passionattely involved), but not as absurdly so as it is now.

Debate is to exploration as being a lawyer is to being a philosopher; like the sophists, debaters often try to make the worse cause seem the better. The goal is to win, to defeat.

It has its uses. I got much confidence, glibness, and pleasure from debating. But I now forbid my students to write argumentative, theses-driven papers with positions and conclusions (they have plenty of practice doing so in their other courses). I ask them to explore subjects diversely, complexly, often with contradictions and ambivalences, as we do in class.Some have trouble doing so at first, being afraid of suspending what they have been taught to do. But they adjust, loosen up, take risks, and find writing to exciting—not just a requirement. Most importantly, of course, the papers are fun to read, and, as a retired teacher who couldn’t stay away from teaching, I have the luxury of being in it for the intellectual fun.

David, Professor emeritus of English at USC, at 2:55 pm EST on January 7, 2008

Tolson’s Teaching Methods

Every debate educator runs into the question Perry mentioned, but after 17 years of coaching I know that students who do not research their arguments cannot excel. The strongest programs in the modern day have both coaches and students involved in argument brainstorming. Educators who attempt to stay involved in the conversation through collaborative research have much more to offer their students than those who pay little attention to the topic.

Even in the movie, the students’ success in the final debate (with a new topic, and no Tolson) is testament that learning by doing was far more productive than merely being told. As a PhD student, I learned far more doing collaborative academic research with my professors than listening to a lecture on how to do it. Debate is time-intensive for coaches because it relies on a collaborative model instead of a more detached classroom model.

The sad thing is that Tolson had to turn away 90% of the students that wanted to debate, presumably because he lacked staff or travel support to handle any more of them. One wonders how many more lives could have been invigorated by the experience if there had been resource support for a larger team.

Eric Morris, Director of Forensics at Missouri State University, at 3:00 pm EST on January 7, 2008

Debate as an educational tool

One of the most powerful educational aspects of debate as I have observed it is in the opportunity for the participant to select the subject matter to be shared. People tend to learn best when they are most involved in the subject matter, and in this traditional lectures often fail to elicit the best work of the student. When a student is allowed to do his or her own research on a topic of interest to that individual, there is much more learning taking place on all levels, and the experience is much more memorable, win or lose. Montessori would also teach one that deeper learning is accomplished when what is learned is shared with others, as in debate.

Kit Potter, at 7:15 pm EST on January 7, 2008

Constructive Conflict

John Marlin writes that in formal win/lose debates, “Persuasive speech and eloquence are hardly to be found. . .” David writes, “like the sophists, debaters often try to make the worse cause seem the better.” It’s interesting to find two debate coaches corroborate psychologist Alfie Kohn’s assessment: “The point is not to arrive at a fuller understanding of the question at hand or to form genuine convictions” (57).

I enjoyed _The Great Debaters_, and I applaud its appeal to intellectualism. I also understand the appeal in the storyline’s transition from a physical fight in the beginning to debate as “blood sport.” But Alfie Kohn points out that competition is far less productive and far more destructive than we might think.

What if O’Donnel’s plan were realized as intercollegiate, cooperative problem-solving rather than “blood sport"? “In a debate (as opposed to a discussion or dialogue,” Kohn argues [argument as distinct from debate], the point is to win rather than to reach the best solution or arrive at a compromise with which everyone can be satisfied” (156). Are we afraid of the solutions that college students might propose as a result of their research and their mutual explorations in rhetoric? (I’m talking non-adversarial rhetoric.)

See Alfie Kohn, _No Contest: The Case against Competition_—Why We Lose in Our Race to Win_. See also Deborah Tannen, “The Roots of Debate in Education and the Hope of Dialogue.” See how these two authors might respond to Edward Winslow’s concern about the “Let’s-all-get-along American society.” There can and should be conflict. Knowledge, as Bruce Ballenger argues, is advanced in being contested. What if the most rigorous use of the cerebral cortex, though, is in participating skillfully in constructive, “cooperative conflict"? (Kohn 156-57).

Randall Spinks, at 9:05 pm EST on January 7, 2008

“REBUTTAL” (self-parody?)

Nice argument. Hopefully the students you are shielding from advocacy won’t see it.

Steve, at 2:40 pm EST on January 8, 2008

Today’s Great Debaters: A Model for Change

I consider myself a colleague and a friend of both Tim O’Donnell and Eric Morris. And I agree whole-heartedly with criticisms offered by John and David. I also support the work of Kohn and Tannen offered by Randall Sparks. As such, I think a middle ground exists to make policy debate a true tool of educational empowerment and policy leadership. Doing so is critical to the future of American and world leadership.

Since fall 2000, the University of Louisville has attempted to recreate the style and method of debates found in “the Great Debaters". As the only African American PhD director, with the only nationally competitive predominately African American team, we have attempted to utilize a persuasive style of debate in an effort to examine the racial dimensions of the nationally selected topic with varying degrees of success. Over seven years, we have broadened our squad mission: to increase effective decision making in a multi-cultural society.

Towards such ends, we offer a simple solution to the current excessiveness of competition within intercollegiate policy debate: a non-competitive purpose that guides competitive decision making. If debate squads had a non-competitive purpose which drove strategic competitive decisions, every student and coach would have superimposed an educational foundation to check the excesses of pure competition. This idea is grounded in the experiences and debates of the Louisville team over the last seven years.

This can create the constructive conflict idea suggested in Randall’s post and I believe is consistent with Tannen’s goal of searching for truth through a dialogic form of debate, as opposed to the oppositional competition concerns shared by David.

In this model, policy debate can begin to embrace the diversity of its participants and protect the educational value of both debate and true policy making, which includes real training in persuasion, something the traditional education system sorely lacks, as does contemporary policy debate.

Louisville offered to make our competitive debate a pilot series this spring to all the members of CEDA and the NDT if squads would take on a mission statement for their debates against Louisville. They all rejected. So our students will have competitive debates about debate this semester, defending a model of competitive debates supporting a squad non-competitive purpose, as superior to those willing to defend the current model of intercollegiate policy debate.

I agree with Tim and Eric, everyone should have the opportunity to debate, and the value of debate can change the world. The debaters of the 1930 debates over segregation became the lawyers, judges, and activists of the sixties. But colleges and universities also have the responsibility to create a form and style of debate that holds the activity accountable to the larger institutions to achieve the goals of said organizations. We hope people continue to think about debate, critically that is.

Ed Warner, Jr., Director of Debate/Assoc Prof Communication at University of Louisville, at 2:40 pm EST on January 8, 2008

Critics use red herrings

Most, if not all, of the criticisms of debate are not new, nor are they particularly compelling. At the end of the day, even if the critics are correct, one must ask the question, “is providing the opportunity for our students to learn the skills of debate better or worse?” In other words, does learning debate actually worsen our educational system?

I hardly think so. Plus, critics (and others) should bear in mind that there are different types of debates — different styles, formats, experiences, etc. I personally find the policy forms of debate to be the most educational, but all forms of debate are helpful to all students. Nothing is perfect — and the English professor at USC’s approach to education certainly lacks perfection — but that doesn’t mean debate, or the “complex” and “non-thesis/argument” based English class doesn’t offer more positive educational benefits than not.

Joseph Zompetti, Dr. at Illinois State University, at 6:25 pm EST on January 8, 2008

Win/Lose

Professor Zompetti,Where do you stand on official win/lose structures?

Randall Spinks, at 3:15 pm EST on January 9, 2008

Jobs Related to ‘The Great Debaters’: A Challenge to Higher Education

or search for jobs directly.