11/15/05
Concerning the New York State
Forensic League
I wish to preface these remarks
with the comment that I hold nothing against the individuals who direct the
NYSFL. I know most of these individuals personally, and they are hardworking,
dedicated people who put the interest of the students above all else.
Nevertheless, I feel that the league is in serious need of examination and
overhaul. The chief goal of the NYSFL is the running of an annual state
tournament. At the present time the tournament procedures, at least as far as
Lincoln-Douglas debate is concerned, are far from optimal. (I will speak primarily
to LD, although some of my issues apply as well to Policy.) This document will
outline my points of concern.
First, this tournament is meant to
measure the general success of students at the statewide level. This would mean
that the tournament needs to have a meaningful selection process that reflects
the quality of the region. As it stands now, the standard qualification process
bears little connection to the standard elimination tournament that is the norm
for LD. Students could reach elimination rounds at some of the most prestigious
tournaments in the country and never qualify for the New York State finals. At
the same time, we run a generous regional qualification program that grants
entry to students who may have never won any other recognition or awards
throughout the school year. We need to look at the selection process on all
levels to decide what would create the best pool commensurate with a state
final tournament, on the assumption that the final tournament is intended truly
as a measure of competitive excellence.
Secondly, the rules of the
tournament itself are such that the judging pool is not reflective of the
highest standards of judging skill, and certainly not the skills necessary to
judge a serious state finals competition. The rules of the tournament, if
enforced, would allow any adult who has judged only one tournament, once, to
decide the state championship. The judging rules need to be reevaluated,
including consideration of the use of upper-class students to judge
underclassmen, thus freeing up experienced, capable adult judges for the
varsity and elimination rounds.
Third, the tournament in 2006 is
tentatively scheduled, once again, to conflict with the Tournament of Champions
in Kentucky. For dedicated debaters, there is no meaningful choice between the
two tournaments, and NYSFL should not counterschedule its event against TOCs
any more than it would counterschedule against NFLs or CFLs. TOCs this year
will include Policy, LD, PF and Congress. By counterscheduling, NYSFL will
siphon off its strongest national-level competitors in 4 different divisions.
Additionally, not only will NYSFL lose competitors, it will lose the coaches of
those competitors. This is simply not the way to insure that the state final is
the highest caliber possible.
Fourth, the present number of
rounds in LD in the final tournament is not commensurate with normative
practices in the debate community. A minimum of five full rounds, and perhaps a
guarantee of all down-two competitors reaching eliminations, needs to be
considered, given the number of competitors. For that matter, even the simple
fact that competitors attend this tournament at great expense, including
lodging costs, would warrant providing those competitors the satisfaction of a
full tournament experience of at least five rounds.
Finally, the Directors of the
NYSFL operate in an oligarchic vacuum. There are no elections. Members are not
given input into the operation of the league. New directors are appointed by
the old directors, both at the regional and state level. In the decade I have
participated in debate in New York I cannot recall ever being offered any
opportunity to affect change in the organization. I certainly have never been
given an opportunity to vote for directors (unlike the CFL or NFL, by
comparison). Additionally, when I have expressed concerns to the NYSFL in the
past, my issues have been turned aside; in fact, I have been told that certain
members of the directorate would simply quit if my suggestions were enacted. In
other words, the opinions of the directors for whom no one in recent memory has
ever voted are somehow more important than the opinions of the members. I do
not mind disagreement (I am a debate coach, after all), but I do expect
meaningful discourse.
I recommend the following:
I am enclosing this letter with my
annual dues, and forwarding it to a handful of other concerned persons. I will
also post it as an open letter on my website (jimmenick.com).
Again, I hold no animus against
the present directors. But without the directorate maintaining its best attempt
to communicate with the league at large, they are not serving the state
forensics community as well as they could. My only goal in writing this
document is that the New York State Final Tournament reflect the best possible
state tournament that a forensic powerhouse like New York can and should
conduct.
Thank you.
Jim Menick
Debate Coach
Hendrick Hudson High School