Woke judges say there are topics high school kids CAN’T debate

My four years on a high school debate team in Broward County, Florida, taught me to challenge ideas, question assumptions and think outside the box.

It also helped me overcome a terrible childhood stutter.

And I wasn’t half-bad: I placed ninth my first time at the National Speech & Debate Association nationals, sixth at the Harvard national and was runner-up at the Emory national.

After college, between 2017 and 2019, I coached a debate team at an underprivileged high school in Miami.

There, I witnessed the pillars of high school debate start to crumble.

Since then, the decline has continued, from a competition that rewards evidence and reasoning to one that punishes students for what they say and how they say it.

First, some background.

Imagine a high school sophomore on the debate team.

She’s been given her topic about a month in advance, but she won’t know who her judge is until hours before her debate round.

During that time squeeze — perhaps she’ll pace the halls as I did at the 2012 national tournament in Indianapolis — she’ll scroll on her phone to look up her judge’s name on Tabroom, a public database maintained by the NSDA.

That’s where judges post “paradigms,” which explain what they look for during a debate.

If a judge prefers competitors not “spread” — speak a mile a minute — debaters will moderate their pace.

If a judge emphasizes “impacts” — the reasons why an argument matters — debaters adjust accordingly.

But let’s say when the high school sophomore clicks Tabroom, she sees that her judge is Lila Lavender, the 2019 national debate champion, whose paradigm reads, “Before anything else, including being a debate judge, I am a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist.  . . . I cannot check the revolutionary proletarian science at the door when I’m judging. . . . I will no longer evaluate and thus never vote for rightest capitalist-imperialist positions/arguments. . . . Examples of arguments of this nature are as follows: fascism good, capitalism good, imperialist war good, neoliberalism good, defenses of US or otherwise bourgeois nationalism, Zionism or normalizing Israel, colonialism good, US white fascist policing good, etc.”

How does that sophomore feel as she walks into her debate round?

How will knowing that information about the judge change the way she makes her case?

Traditionally, high school students would have encountered a judge like former West Point debater Henry Smith, whose paradigm asks students to “focus on clarity over speed” and reminds them that “every argument should explain exactly how [they] win the debate.”

In the past few years, however, judges with paradigms tainted by politics and ideology are becoming common.

Debate judge Shubham Gupta’s paradigm reads, “If you are discussing immigrants in a round and describe the person as ‘illegal,’ I will immediately stop the round, give you the loss with low speaks” — low speaker points — “give you a stern lecture, and then talk to your coach. . . . I will not have you making the debate space unsafe.”

Debate Judge Kriti Sharma concurs: under her list of “Things That Will Cause You To Automatically Lose,” number three is “Referring to immigrants as ‘illegal.’ ”

Should a high school student automatically lose and be publicly humiliated for using a term that’s not only ubiquitous in media and politics but accurate?

Once students have been exposed to enough of these partisan paradigms, they internalize that point of view and adjust their arguments going forward.

That’s why you rarely see students present arguments in favor of capitalism, defending Israel or challenging affirmative action.

Most students choose not to fight this coercion.

They see it as a necessary evil that’s required to win debates and secure accolades, scholarships and college acceptance letters.

On paper, the NSDA rejects what Lavender, Gupta and Sharma are doing.

Its rules state, “Judges should decide the round as it is debated, not based on their personal beliefs.”

Founded in 1925, the NSDA chooses the debate topics and facilitates hundreds of tournaments, including the annual national tournament, starting June 11 in Arizona, where six thousand students will compete.

(The NSDA did not respond to emails and phone calls asking for comment.)

A random scroll through Tabroom reveals there are still sane judges out there.

“I have been a trial lawyer for 25 years,” reads Amanda Marshall’s paradigm.

“I like clash, quality evidence from qualified sources, comparative analysis, and crystallization in last rebuttals. Don’t take anything for granted. You have to explain your arguments, why your evidence is compelling, and how the arguments weigh in the round. It’s your job to persuade me and communicate your positions in a way that is effective—that is how you will win my ballot.”

Unfortunately for students and their parents, there are countless judges at tournaments across the country whose biased paradigms disqualify them from being impartial adjudicators of debate.

From “I will drop America First framing in a heartbeat” to “I will listen to conservative-leaning arguments, but be careful,” judges are making it clear they are not only tilting the debate in a left-wing direction, they will also penalize students who don’t adhere to their ideology.

In the past year, Lindsey Shrodek has judged over 120 students at tournaments in Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey.

The NSDA has certified her with its “Cultural Competency” badge, which indicates she has completed a brief online training module in evaluating students with consideration for their identity and cultural background.

Until last month, Shrodek’s paradigm told debaters, “If you are white, don’t run arguments with impacts that primarily affect POC [people of color]. These arguments should belong to the communities they affect.”

Recently, her paradigm was updated to eliminate that quote.

When I asked Shrodek why, she told me she didn’t “eliminate the idea itself” and that she “doesn’t know if it’s exactly my place to say what arguments will or won’t make marginalized communities feel unsafe in the debate space.”

I disagree. In debate, “unsafe” conversations should be encouraged, even celebrated.

How better for young people from all backgrounds to bridge the divides that tear us apart, and to discover what unites them?

The debate I knew taught me to think and learn and care about issues that affected people different from me.

We’ve come a long way from the 2004 Democratic National Convention, when an obscure state senator from Illinois named Barack Obama said, “If there’s a child on the south side of Chicago who can’t read, that matters to me, even if it’s not my child. . . . If there’s an Arab American family being rounded up without the benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It’s that fundamental belief — I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper — that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family.”

Twenty years ago, the NSDA I knew encouraged me to think and speak about how policies and issues impacted different communities.

Not anymore.

One judge gives people of color priority in her debates.

In general, students voluntarily, and mutually, disclose their evidence to their opponents before the debate round, as both teams benefit from spending more time with the other team’s evidence.

But X Braithwaite, who’s judged 169 debate rounds with 340 students, has her own disclosure policy in her paradigm, which uses a racial epithet: “1. Ns don’t have to disclose to you. 2. Disclose to ns.”

This is racial discrimination, of course: If you’re black, you get to keep your evidence to yourself and have a competitive advantage.

If you’re not black, you must disclose all of your evidence to your opponent and accept a competitive disadvantage.

Students who win under this rubric may view their victory as flawed, as if their win isn’t a reflection of their hard work.

Those who lose may view this as the singular reason for their loss, even if it wasn’t.

Students suffer and so do the sportsmanship and camaraderie that high school debate was once known for.

It’s not just that certain arguments are no longer welcome; it’s also the students who make those arguments.

At the 2018 NSDA National Tournament in Fort Lauderdale, a student was publicly ridiculed by peers for making conservative arguments.

She later posted an “Open Letter From A Deplorable Shitbag” on Reddit, which read, “To the judge(s) and student(s) wearing the “fuck trump” shirt(s), Tears stream down my face as I write this. I have never felt so hurt in my entire life. I really did not appreciate your words towards me after the round. I did not appreciate the spectators/competitors wearing shirts with matching sentiment with you following me to my next rounds. . . . I understand I speak fast sometimes, and that I often unknowingly use words that offend certain groups of people. . . . Also, I am sorry that my attire did not fit your standards. I know about the stain on my shirt, but it really is all I had.”

Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update.

As a coach, I saw many students lose interest and quit.

They’d had enough of being told what they could and couldn’t say.

A black student I coached was told by a judge that he would have won his round if he hadn’t condemned Black Lives Matter.

In 2019, I gave up on the NSDA and formed a new debate league, Incubate Debate.

To judge debates, we recruit elected officials, members of the armed forces, business executives, faith-based leaders and others.

At the 18 no-cost tournaments we’ve hosted this year, thousands of students have come together to debate, have fun and learn from each other.

Think back to that high school sophomore who’s nervously pacing before an NSDA debate.

Before she enters her round, she reads her judge’s paradigm and says to herself, “I’m going to lose.”

Her loss won’t be because her argument lacked evidence or support.

Her argument simply doesn’t conform to her judge’s ideology.

Imagine her disappointment and hopelessness, imagine her weeks of research and rehearsal.

She never had a shot.

Reprinted with permission from The Free Press.

Hot Topics: New Hong Kong teachers required to pass Basic Law test, with exemption for native-speaking English teachers

Hot Topics takes an issue that’s being discussed in the news and allows you to compare and analyse different news articles and viewpoints on the subject. Our questions encourage you to examine the topic in-depth and can be used on your own, or with a friend.

Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor announced in her annual policy speech last month that teachers who were fresh graduates or changing jobs would have to take an exam on the Basic Law. They will be required to do so before teaching at Hong Kong’s hundreds of government-subsidised schools in the next academic year.

The exam will be similar to one now taken by Civil Service Bureau employees and public school teachers, who are also considered civil servants.

Hong Kong’s government subsidised schools eligible for NSL education funding

The current test is a bilingual paper comprising 15 multiple-choice questions. It tests candidates’ knowledge of the Basic Law. Candidates must score a minimum of 53 out of 100 (or at least eight out of 15 questions correct) to pass. A pass result achieved in the exam is permanent and can be use to apply for all civil service jobs in Hong Kong.

The requirement for new hires is part of education authorities’ efforts to enforce stricter professional conduct for teachers. This comes after complaints were submitted against hundreds of teachers during and since the 2019 anti-government protests, including over their comments on social media.

New teachers at government-subsidised schools will need to pass an exam on the Basic Law. Photo: Winson Wong

According to figures released in September, the Education Bureau had investigated 269 complaints of teacher professional misconduct received between June 2019 and December last year. It found 167 of them valid and disciplined 178 teachers.

At least three educators have been stripped of their registration for life. One was accused by the bureau of “promoting” independence in class. Another was accused of giving students inaccurate information on the first opium war between Britain and China from 1839 to 1842.

Staff writers

Question prompts

Amnesty International pulls out of Hong Kong, citing NSL

Cartoon

What is this cartoon trying to say? Illustration: Henry Wong

Carrie Lam says the national security law has been good for press freedom

News: Native-speaking English teachers and substitute teachers exempted from first Basic Law exam

Hong Kong’s native-speaking English teachers will be among the very small number of new faculty hires not required to pass a mandatory test on the city’s mini-constitution before the new school year, education authorities have said.

The first Basic Law exam for new teachers and principals at the city’s more than 900 public and government-subsidised schools will be held on January 8, according to a circular issued by the Education Bureau on November 11.

A second round of testing will take place on a still-undetermined date next February.

A mandatory Basic Law test for teachers changing jobs may lead to some becoming more hesitant when applying for positions at other schools. Photo: Jonathan Wong

“Teachers should have a correct understanding of the Basic Law in order to enlighten students and help them correctly understand the constitutional status of Hong Kong and develop positive attitudes towards the Basic Law and ‘one country, two systems’,” the circular stated.

The bureau reiterated it was considering extending the requirement to other schools such as those covered by the city’s direct subsidy scheme and subsidised kindergartens.

Apart from native-speaking English teachers, those working as substitutes will be exempt from the exam.

New Territories School Heads Association vice-chairman Chu Wai-lam said getting eight questions correct should be easy for teachers and principals. He expressed hope the government would provide learning material and allow teachers who failed the test to retake it.

Fearing the national security law, schools remove books from their libraries

With the test extended to teachers changing jobs, Chu said some might become more hesitant when considering applying for positions at other schools.

Meanwhile, Secretary for Education Kevin Yeung Yun-hung told a radio programme last month that he hoped as many as 2,000 freshly graduated primary and secondary schoolteachers would pass the new Basic Law test ahead of the start of the academic year next September.

“We aim to [implement] the test across government-aided schools, because there are about 1,000 to 2,000 new teachers recruited there every year,” Yeung said, referring to institutions largely funded and run by charities.

“Then, we will continue to expand [the scope] to direct subsidy scheme [DSS] schools and kindergartens, and in the long run, teachers in other areas as well.”Staff writers

Mainland China has pushed for more patriotic education in Hong Kong since the 2019 pro-democracy protests. Photo: Winson Wong

Question prompts

Issue: Civil service to test applicants on security law

Applicants for civil service jobs will need to pass an updated test on Hong Kong’s mini-constitution and the national security law as part of the recruitment process, potentially starting from the middle of next year.

The new requirement sparked mixed reactions among civil service groups, with one saying it would make government job openings less attractive and another agreeing with the administration’s thinking.

During Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor’s policy address last month, she said the city had made progress in safeguarding national security but the to-do list on that front remained “substantial”.

Political activity banned from schools

She stressed the need to cover the security law, imposed by Beijing in June last year, in training for teachers, civil servants and other public officers, and to pass long-shelved local legislation on the issue under Article 23 of the Basic Law, the city’s mini-constitution.

In a supplement to the policy address, the Civil Service Bureau said it would review the content of the current Basic Law test for recruitment to the government. The bureau would include the security legislation in the scope of exam to ensure it was “better‑suited to the requirements of the relevant civil service posts”.

15,000 students left the local school system last year

The bureau also stated that the updated Basic Law and national security law test could be implemented in mid-2022.

Leung Chau-ting, chief executive of the Federation of Civil Service Unions, argued that the new requirements would make civil service jobs less attractive.

“Administrative officers should also be tested on the Basic Law and the security law because they are the policymakers,” he said, referring to the elite corps of civil servants. “But frontline and technical staff members will not apply the two laws in their daily work, so why do they need to be assessed on that?

The Hong Kong government has integrated the national security law into many aspects of everyday life, including school. Photo: May Tse

“The Civil Service College will be set up by the end of this year. The bureau should be offering more training to employees ... not testing applicants on such a new law.”

But Lee Fong-chung, chairman of the Hong Kong Senior Government Officers Association, said he agreed with the government’s thinking that all employees must have a basic understanding about the mini-constitution and the security law.

Staff writer

Question prompts

Cinemas deal with censorship under new mainland rules

Glossary

Basic Law: also known as Hong Kong’s mini-constitution. The 50-year agreement came into effect on July 1, 1997 when Britain returned the city to China. It says that Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech, of the press and of publication, and that the city shall have a high degree of autonomy.

Civil servant: someone who works in a government department. The term typically refers to employees who are not appointed or elected, but are selected based on their capabilities.

Government-subsidised schools: (also aided schools) schools funded by the government but mostly run by religious, charitable or clan organisations. There are more than 900 of these schools as of 2021.

Article 23 of the Basic Law: states that Hong Kong shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition and subversion against the mainland Chinese government. The law shall also prohibit the theft of state secrets.

Direct subsidy scheme (DSS) schools: semi-private schools that receive government subsidies. DSS schools are allowed to charge tuition fees and have more flexibility in designing curriculum. As of 2021, there are more than 70 DSS schools in Hong Kong.

National security law: passed on June 30, 2020. It outlaws acts of secession, subversion, terrorism and interference by foreign forces in the city’s affairs.

Norfolk schools’ proposed new sex-ed program receives national attention, topics to include gender identity

The Norfolk School Board is set to vote today on a new sex-education curriculum that would expand its instruction to cover topics such as gender identity and sexuality.

The program, called Get Real: Comprehensive Sex Education That Works, is intended for grades six through 10. Lessons would be expanded to include terminology such as “homosexuality,” lesbianism,” “abortion” and “masturbation. Additionally, concepts such as gender and sexual identity, sexual risks and low-risk intimacy and more would be included depending on grade level, according to presentations to the School Board on April 5 and May 3.

Topics already taught in Norfolk under its current curriculum include abstinence, puberty, anatomy and reproduction, sexually transmitted infections, healthy and unhealthy relationships, and more. There would also be a demonstration on proper condom use, Chief Academic Officer James Pohl told the board.

Some board members said they appreciated how comprehensive the curriculum would be.

“By being comprehensive, we have the (Standards of Learning) but then we are including additional information and depth to the topic and concepts,” board member Tanya Bhasin said during the last board meeting.

The division gained access to the curriculum though a partnership with Eastern Virginia Medical School Teen Health 360 Program, which adopted the Get Real curriculum. During remote learning during the pandemic, the Virginia Department of Education advised school divisions to not teach family life education. However, Teen Health 360 piloted the new curriculum at that time and middle and high school students were offered the optional course.

Get Real received largely positive responses from the School Board and the survey respondents, though some expressed concerns.

Pohl presented survey results during the April meeting with nearly 100 respondents reported. However, this survey period was extended, and by the end of the month, the number of respondents increased to more than 200. These included parents of Norfolk Public School students, employees, community members and students. The curriculum was available for review online and at various Norfolk libraries.

According to the survey results presented in the May 3 meeting, the majority of respondents found the Get Real content to be “excellent” when considering the age appropriateness of the topics and its ability to address both physical and social and emotion needs.

Approximately 120 of the respondents reportedly supported teaching all of the topics included on the survey, such as human sexuality, media literacy and sexuality, anatomy and reproduction, relationships and boundaries, gender identity, abstinence, and more.

However, the curriculum was also criticized by several respondents for including topics they considered not age-appropriate, and some opposed teaching gender identity, a new topic for the division’s family life education curriculum.

One respondent identified as a parent of a high school student wrote, “I don’t want or need my child being taught about gender or LGBTQ or any other political agenda.”

The upcoming vote has gotten national attention. Fox News initially reported on this matter May 1, before the latest presentation, characterizing the curriculum as “explicit.”

The article quotes Erika Sanzi, director of the parental rights group Outreach for Parents Defending Education, describing the middle school curriculum as “steeped in critical gender theory.”

Community input forums were also hosted earlier in the spring. Some of the concerns reported from those meetings included the condom demonstration, teaching about gender identity and the connection to Planned Parenthood.

The curriculum was published by Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts in collaboration with the Educational Development Center and the nonprofit ETR (Education, Training and Research), according to the Get Real website.

Pohl reported that more than 400 students participated in the voluntary course over the two academic years school divisions were not required to teach family life education. The majority of students and families who participated also had positive responses to the curriculum and recommended it for other families.

Pohl also said EVMS reported that data collected during the voluntary sessions indicated students showed “significant increases in knowledge from pre-assessment to post-assessment.”

Board member Rodney Jordan said he was “squeamish” about the opt-out process. As a parent who had opted his children out of family life education in school, he said, he wanted to ensure other families had the same opportunity.

“More than just talking about sex, it was talking about what our family morals may have been, what our religious beliefs were,” Jordan said.

Currently, the process is an opt-out, though Pohl said the division had plans to ensure proper communication with parents.

Pohl told the board during the May meeting that the division would have letters “sent home each day, for each lesson” to allow parents to opt their children out of either specific lessons or all of the lessons entirely.

“You can’t choose for other people’s children, but you can choose for your child because we respect the fact that you are the parent,” board member Lauren Campsen said.

Kelsey Kendall, kelsey.kendall@virginiamedia.com