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

Re: your mail

I want to respond to Scott Elliot's posting since I think it expresses a
point of view prevalent among many debate coaches, and a point that is
held strongly.  I write this as someone who has seen the world of
forensics from both sides of the fence, as it were.  I debated four years
as an undergraduate, was a graduate assistant at Kansas for four years,
was director of forensics (with active NDT and IE programs) for fourteen
years at North Carolina, and am serving my sixth year as department chair. 

Scott's post seems to express concerns that I have heard for nearly 25
years:  pay incommensurate with effort; inability to gain tenure; lack of
appreciation for the DoF's efforts.  I do not doubt that these are
concerns, and that those concerns are appropriate.  But I would like to
argue that "it's more complicated than that."

I have not seen the CEDA document on promotion and tenure, but I am very
sympathetic with the "Quail Roost" Document that was approved by the AFA
Policy Debate Caucus.

The general thrust of that document is that debate, indeed any forensic
activity, at any institution must be consistent with the mission of that
college/university *and* the department.  As the Quail Roost document
noted, "The director of debate's role, and basis for evaluation, should be
grounded explicitly in the mission statements of the institution,
department, and debate program.  The debate program's mission statement
should be developed by the director and the appropriate departmental
administrative officer or committee, and should identify the ways in which
the debate program can complement and help accomplish the department's
mission."

At a research I institution such as North Carolina, for instance, the
director of debate in a tenure-track position *must* publish and integrate
research, teaching, and professional service into a coherent professional
life.  Thus, debate coaching--and all that goes with it--is *part* of the
professional life, not the entirety of it. At Carolina for instance,
debate coaching is seen as part of a faculty member's teaching
responsibilities, and there is a corresponding "reduction" in the courses
taught (in other words, coaching debate counts for one course per
semester).

To say that the demands of coaching debate are too great for publishing
does no good.  The tenure document here states that everyone, whether
engaged in creative activities like performance or film, is expected to
publish.  The amounts will vary, but all are expected to publish.  If a
debate coach is a contributor to her profession as a scholar, then she has
a responsibility to generate and share knowledge.  That can be about
forensic education, but it does involve publishing.  

Now, this will, of course vary depending on the institution's and
department's mission.  At a school where teaching is emphasized more than
research, the publication demand is reduced and, in some instance,
eliminated.  But I would suspect that almost nowhere, for a tenure-track
position, would it mean that the director of debate can do her own thing
without regard to wht the department and institution value.  

Pay commensurate to effort is also a non-starter, I think.  The key is
that pay for a director in a tenure-track position is equitable across
corresponding rank.  If the entry level salary for an assistant professor
who teaches interpersonal communication is $35,000 (for example), then
salary for an entry-level assistant professor as director of debate should
also be $35,000.  Does that compensate on an hourly basis for anything
reasonable?  Of course not; but neither does it for any other faculty
member.  Almost all faculty here, regardless of rank or regardless of
area, are working 50-60 hours on average per week.  Do debate coaches work
more hours.  Sometimes.  But so, too, does everyone else.  The hours spent
by faculty in media, performance, and other areas are also variable and at
times exceed this level.  Besides, it is part of the professional choice
that debate coaches make, knowing the demands of the profession.

I am very concerned that debate coaches think their efforts are not
appreciated by administrators.  I suspect that chairs and deans probably
do know how much effort and time are involved.  If they don't, that seems
to me to be the responsibility of the debate coach.  What may differ,
however, is whether the department (or school) believe that the efforts
expended on debate are appropriate given other demands and expectations
for the faculty member and the department's/institution's mission.

I am very concerned about the future of debate as an intellectual activity
within the main part of the college or university.  I believe that debate

coaches who spend all summers working at institutes and cutting cards for
debate to the detriment of other research interests and writing are making
choices that are tragic for themselves and the profession...assuming, of
course, that the department/college mission demands publication.  As more
debate coaches either say they can't get tenure or don't do the work to
justify tenure, departments will choose not to have tenure-track
positions.  That means two things, I think.  First, that the individual
program rests on individuals (whether administrators or directors) who
have a personal stake in the activity.  When they leave, the institutional
commitment may be lessened.  Second, that the kind of folks who are
attracted to debate are those not equally interested in the profession
more broadly conceived.  At a time when resource wars are constant in
higher education, it becomes increasingly difficult to justify
expenditures on debate as opposed to meeting other pedagogical demands.

As more debate coaches become contract hires (by that I mean in non-tenure
track positions), the interaction and involvement between the director and
other faculty is often reduced.  The net effect of that, I think, is again
reduced support for the activity when competing for resources.

So, I apologize for the length of this response, but it is something about
which I feel strongly.  No debate coach should be unaware of the demands
and expectations of her or his department and university relative to the
debate program.  It becomes her or his responsibility to meet those
expectations or to try and change them.  In either instance, she or he
must live with the consequences of choices made....perhaps even about
whether to be more competitive in the coming year by working on debate
over the summer or to be more competitive for tenure by reading and
writing in one's area of professional expertise.

For those who have not read the Quail Roost document, I would recommend
that you do so since it identifies possible responsibilities for both
directors and administrtors.  As I stated previously, I haven't seen the
CEDA document but would like to read it.

So, for what it's worth.

Bill Balthrop
Professor and Chair
Department of Communication Studies
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill


On Tue, 24 Jun 1997 mgremillion@selu.edu wrote:

> 24 Jun 1997 22:03:17 CDT@
> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 21:54:44 -0500 (CDT)
> Subject: Shortening the Travel Schedule
> To: CEDA-L@Cornell.edu
> Message-id: <01IKGSE83RP490O7LQ@selu.edu>
> Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University
> MIME-version: 1.0
> Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
> 
> In response to the arguments that debate coaches get burned out, I
> believe a lot of the burn out has to do with factors other than a long
> debate season. I believe that the lack of pay comensurate with the
> amount of effort expended and the inability of many coaches to gain
> tenure are far more detrimental to the activity than the schedule. 
> Not to be complaining to much, but when a young professor sees that
> his entire weekends are "wasted" on projects that go unrecognized by
> her administration, then the coaching profession becomes quite
> dissatisfying. Low pay--anywhere from 20,000 to (maybe) 50,000 dollars
> a year is not enough to justify the amount of time and effort coaches
> put into the activity. Until issues of pay and recognition are
> taken care of, there will always be a high turnover rate for college
> debate coaches.
> Scott Elliott
>
Follow-Ups: References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page