[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

MPJ and Accountability

LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY NOW:
Currently, there is no way to have the judges take responsibility for their
actions.  If a judge makes a "questionable" decision, there is very little
that can be done except for striking them.  And that can't occur until the
next tournament, and not at all if tournaments don't allow strikes.

QUESTIONABLE DECISIONS:
I feel it's important to clarify this.  I don't personally think that there
is the level of rampant "favoritism", "list voting", or "clique" behavior
that has been referred to in this discussion.  It may occur.  If so, that
is one class of questionable decision.  There are many other levels of the
questionable decision.  Judges who lack the capacity for understanding the
complexity of the debate they are presented, judges who don't have
familiarity with the topic, those without familiarity of theory and
practice in use, all would render what could be termed a questionable
decision.  For me personally, that class of questionability would extend to
critics who are overly concerned with style and presentation versus
substance, and those who would enforce personal views of the activity on
its participants.  I think that I fall into the category of critic who
renders a questionable decision for my own reasons, I don't mind tag team
cross-x, I look at my flow and don't make eye contact during the debate,
and my deviance well outside the norm on topicality.  I KNOW that for some
debaters and coaches my decisions are questionable.

WHY JUDGE ACCOUNTABILITY:
I think it is only fair to the participants.  I think the activity depends
on a quality experience for the debaters.  Try to justify your budget
without having any undergraduates that are willing to participate.  Try to
justify your job!  I also think that there is a reciprocal burden for the
critics to prepare and put effort into competition just as we ask our
students.  Our program will not travel debaters who have not prepared in
advance.  We expect them to work on briefs, file the evidence they get from
their peers and have practice rounds.  Why then should critics be exempt
from this.  We are educators, we prepare for the classroom experience why
should we not expect to prepare for the tournament experience?  I think it
is unfair for varsity debaters who have worked 20-40 hours a week on debate
in preparation for an important tournament to be subjected to a critic
whose evaluation of the round is more dependent on the enforcement of a
dress code than an examination of the arguments (insert horror story here
of how one of my teams lost a debate because the judge indicated on the
ballot they were not wearing socks).  I think it is equally unfair for them
to have a critic whose lack of knowledge and preparation on the topic means
that issues of depth cannot be addressed.  I don't think our judges are
evil, but there is a segment who are academically lazy, not concerned with
the "state of the art" or evolution of the activity, and generally
unconcerned with the active education of the students.  We grade our
students, why should we fear being graded ourselves?  In the classroom we
as educators handout A's, B's and C's.  In the debate round we pick a
winner and loser and handout "quality" points which create a hierarchy of
achievement.  Why should we be immune from such a system?  Is it an
automatic assumption that if you are a coach you are automatically an "A"
critic?  If this is true then THERE SHOULD BE NO STRIKES!  If you agree
with strikes, then you are de facto accepting of a system of preference.
We as critics are not magically enshrined with omnipotence and all knowing
power because we are given a ballot.  Some are better at it than others.
Some work harder at it than others (kudos specifically to the graduate
students out there).  Judge ability is not homogenous.  Why should we
continue to act as though it were when we are perfectly willing to
acknowledge that not all debaters abilities are equal.

ACCOUNTABILITY V. ELITISM
Yes we need new coaches and programs in our activity.  But, their
integration into our community does not mean that they must be treated as
though they have been a part of it for decades.  I think that new coaches
should be worked with in some sort of apprenticeship at their first few
tournaments, wherein their judging obligations are waived and they can
observe rounds to gain experience and knowledge and members of the
community familiarize and introduce themselves to them.  I also think that
inexperienced judges should start out with inexperienced teams such as
novice and JV.  This will give debaters a chance to get familiar with them
while they are both learning.  The key factor in how a judge is rated is
familiarity.  The more you know the judging "style" of a critic, the more
comfortable you are with them and rank them accordingly, strikes become B's
and A's.  Also, the ratings of ABC are less relevant to my younger
debaters.  They get many more A's and fewer strikes on their sheets than I
recommend to my varsity debaters.  A lot of critics that I feel are C's for
varsity are A's for novice and JV, and I rank them as such.

ACCOUNTABILITY AND THE REAL WORLD
Even supervisors get performance evaluations at corporations.  Judges are
subject to recall votes in the judiciary.  When you are knowledgeable in a
subject you take advanced courses, you should be able to select advanced
critics to further your education.  But I also want to point out that
debate is a SPECIALIZED communication activity.  we mimic elements of the
"real" world but are inherently separated from it.

ACCOUNTABILITY IS JUSTIFIED
Students get to evaluate their professors in the classroom, and these
evaluations impact promotion and tenure.  Lazy and incompetent professors
are weeded out.  Just because someone is involved with a debate program
does not make them an academic saint.  We all can insert the story of a
coach who we feel should not be dealing with young people for a variety of
reasons from morals to intellect.  Debaters have to compete for their
status and have the results issued publicly in the schematic sheets where
everyone can see that 0-8 record and the round where they got 12 points.
Why do judges fear their public grading?  Debate will not maximize its
educational capacity till the critics are as active at their self
improvement as the debaters are at theirs.  Knowing that I will be judged
keeps me more active as a critic, I work harder in debates knowing that my
performance is being evaluated as well.  Driving the van is not enough.
Some advanced debaters need advanced critics or there is no incentive to
debate beyond two years if the activity is happy with "average" or "good
enough" so we can feel inclusive.  Education is hierarchical in terms of it
requiring academic credentials for its educators.  There are barriers in
the "real world" on participation in seminars and conferences and other
pursuits.  Paying your CEDA dues should not be the minimum requirement to
hear potentially ANY debate and hand out CEDA points and consider yourself
an educator.  We who judge should be judged as well.  If nothing else maybe
it will resensitize ourselves to the student experience in being judged and
curb our egos.  The activity exists for the education of our students, not
our own career advancement and security.

Well, I'm going to wind down this extensive diatribe, I realize that I may
have stirred more issues than I have settled, but just allow me to say
thanks in advance for the opportunity to contribute my feelings on the
subject

Steve Woods
Univ. Of Vermont
sxwoods@moose.uvm.edu
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page