The Good Old Boys' Club

Credit for the title goes to Mr. Brendan Porter. Thanks for the inspiration and guidance.

I had originally intended to make this the topic of my Morning Hour Speech for the Tournament of Champions. I decided it would have a greater outreach and permanence on the Internet.

I'm a Congressional Debater. It's in my nature to "network"--to meet other people, introduce myself, leave an impression, and then not talk to them for several months at a time. I know I'm not alone. The sudden spring of Congressional Debate social networking sites has looked something like this blog's activity feed:

Last year at the 2013 Harvard Debate Tournament I was one of a few individuals who made a Facebook group chat for those that were in the same preliminary session. Not only that; I went so far as to actually create a Google Doc for our chamber to coordinate docket strategy on. While I'm pretty sure that's the only reason I walked away with a leadership bowl, I realize now that my actions then had serious consequences for those that didn't get my incessant Facebook messages or were opposed to the idea of planning a docket beforehand.  Mr. Adam Jacobi brought up this point before the Harvard final that year. Congressional Debate has become plagued with exclusiveness. Mr. Jacobi specifically directed his warranted outrage towards those that participated in group chat planning sessions on social media sites. I slunk down in my seat and grew red with embarrassment, as I could only imagine that quite a bit of that was directed towards me. After that lecture before the Harvard Final, I made a personal resolution against spearheading docket discussion.

But keeping that resolution was a harder task than anticipated. At the Tournament of Champions last year, chamber assignments were released at 10:00 the evening before competition began (I'm assuming this was in the hopes to mitigate pre-session planning), yet as I tried to sleep, it seemed as though my phone had swallowed a beehive: it wouldn't stop vibrating with the constant notifications from the Facebook group chat I was added to. I didn't say a word, especially because I was intimidated by the high-profile names I recognized, but I felt as though I needed to at least keep up in the group chat. If you're not in, then you're out. It's a major disadvantage to be the latter, so you'd better keep your phone on.

The disadvantage is far more crippling than you may imagine, though. Not only is one unaware of the predetermined docket order (while other people are aware and have been preparing on that order), but one is also almost incapable of expressing his/her opinion to change said docket order during normal caucusing sessions. It seems as though once a few select individuals from a few select schools have made up their minds, the entire chamber soon follows suit. This conglomeration of super schools (Nova, Cypress Bay, Ridge, Bronx Science, Hawken, and more recently, it seems, Desert Vista, Brophy, and others) has, from my perspective, a much more valuable vote in the caucus than others do. Even though I included my own school name in that brief list, I don't think this is fair.

I also think my perspective is an interesting one. My Congress career began as a freshman from Desert Vista, a high school in Arizona, which not until recently was a school very few national competitors had heard of. I heard whispers about the legendary Congress squads like Nova, Ridge, and Cypress Bay. I would quake in my shoes at the utterance of the name "Greg Bernstein" or "Jeremy Gutner".

But then, Desert Vista began to pick up speed, having three national finalists in 2013 and multiple out round breaks and finalists at national tournaments such as Glenbrooks and Harvard. I grew from a competitor that is told to watch the "big names" on the national circuit into one of the semi-recognized names on the national circuit--one invited to group chats rather than someone who starts them.

Yet it is still immensely difficult for me to be a West Coast competitor in an East Coast-dominated event. It is likely very few readers of this blog have heard of the Southwest Speech and Debate Institute TOC bid tournament, which had a whopping 21 competitors last year, or the Golden Desert TOC bid tournament which held 12 competitors in its last year of operation. Congressional Debaters have come to know and love Sunvite, Yale, Emory, Blue Key, Bronx, etc.--tournaments that not a single Desert Vista competitor and few West Coast competitors have ever been to.

The familiarity gleaned from attending those tournaments is a necessary component of being a successful Congressional Debater, it seems. If not necessary, then it at least provides a massive advantage. My coach Brendan Porter attended the George Mason University tournament his senior year a few years back for the primary purpose of getting his name out there and "networking" with East Coast competitors, because in his TOC rounds the year prior, nobody knew who he was, and so his recency was dead last (or close to it) each session. This example may be a bit dramatic, but I feel that the point still stands. If people know who you are--if you're a member of "The Good Old Boys' Club", you have a far better shot at succeeding at large, national tournaments simply because things are more likely to go your way. You have more of a say in caucusing matters. You have a better chance at having the Presiding Officer recognize you (whether that bias be intentional or not).

I think that should change.

Economically disenfranchised students that don't live in upscale areas of New Jersey, Illinois, Florida, and Arizona need to have an equal and fair say in discussions in Congressional Debate. The people that we've never met before--the scared freshmen that quake in fear at the Will Mascaros and the Bailey Rungs and seem reclusive when we're deciding the docket order--those are the people that we most need to pay attention to.

There are a few solutions I recommend for this problem:

Competitors,

Rather than monopolizing and dominating docket discussions, we should allow everyone in the chamber, especially those that we aren't familiar with, a chance to speak. We ought to value the opinions of everyone equally and not subconsciously give more weight to suggestions made by "big name" competitors from "big name" schools. This recommendation is nebulous in nature, and it has to be, as much of the problem is not intentionally manifested or easily resolved.
Social networking site administrators on websites like Pointoforder or Decorum Forum should remove threads about docket discussions to prevent competitors from masking themselves in anonymity and engaging in pre-tournament planning for exclusion purposes.

Tournament Directors,

The Glenbrooks tournament last year did something that worked great, at least in my opinion: They posted chamber assignments the morning of competition, leaving us competitors without a chance to dominate docket discussions and form political alliances. If chamber assignments could not be released until either the morning of (online) or not at all (making competitors wait to physically see the chamber posted on the door), that would eliminate the potential for harmful politicking.
I realize that this will be a logistical challenge for large tournaments with individual dockets for each chamber (such as Harvard). Another solution may be to email individual dockets to coaches of schools that have competitors registered. For instance, if I'm in Chamber C at Harvard, email my coach that registered me with my individual chamber's docket (without other competitors' names attached). This would be tedious and time-consuming, but it would solve the problem I outlined above.
Yet another potential solution (albeit more extreme) may be to allow competitors to file complaints with the tournament if other competitors have planned dockets in advance (and sufficient proof is presented) to allow for disqualifications or rank penalties. This is a severe solution, but I'm fairly certain it would work, at least.

Something to Take Away From This Wall of Text
"China called. They want their wall back."
This year, there are 67 people registered for the Tournament of Champions that have 2 bids or less, each. A lot of those bids were racked up at tournaments like James Logan, Apple Valley, the Bear Brawl, Grapevine, SWSDIT, Golden Desert, and other places. But those competitors deserve just as much respect and weight to their words as those that have won Harvard, Gelnbrooks, Yale, Berkeley, GMU, Sunvite, Blue Key, Bronx, etc. Those competitors deserve to be at the Tournament of Champions. Do not pay them disrespect by organizing dockets beforehand, by excluding them from caucusing, by making them feel compelled to join discussions out of fear of being left behind. I was there once. I'm pretty sure we all have been. It's not fun.

Let's disband the Good Old Boys' Club.