Today was debate sections, so I was at school for 13 hours and thinking pretty hard the entire time. This will maybe be short because I’m at the end of my thinking day, but I am still tense from feeling uncomfortable with the Ol’ Boys Club and toxic masculine communication that pervades debate culture. Then, while scrolling through Facebook, I came across this fun article about toxic femininity in the workplace. It just made me think more about it more.

I have a TON to say about this, but it’s late and I need to sleep and I promise to write more about it another time. Tonight, I’m just going to list some of the things on my mind without too much censorship, then sleep on it.

1. The entire greeting table upon arrival at sections was populated by older white men.

2. The group of people officially in charge is always the same Ol’ boy’s club.

3. The patterns of communication in debate are exclusive and toxic.

4. People who are new are excluded, especially when they are not former debaters.

5. The exclusion is due (at least in part) to tacit knowledge and unwritten rules that aren’t shared. These unwritten rules are shared with the debaters, however, who then exclude others who don’t adhere to the unwritten rules.

6. The people in power benefit from the uneven access to information, and thus are uninterested in change. Programs that are established benefit from uneven access to information at the exclusion of new or unestablished programs.

7. Resource imbalance exacerbates the problems and decreases parity.

8. All of these things hurt equity and inclusivity.

I’ll have to save “how to solve these problems” for another time, but I have a few very quick ideas I want to get down:

• Established programs have to make a commitment to equity
• We need to invite new people into tab rooms and into positions of power
• Prioritize excluded voices: think about who is missing in the space where decisions are being made
• We need to examine our debate norms for exclusivity – how we run tournaments, when, how we aid new programs and coaches, and especially what we allow to happen at tournaments and within rounds.
• We need to examine our debate tacit knowledge and shared language for exclusivity. There is a difference between using precise language and using jargon that is unneeded (“squo” – pronounced “skwo” AND “ess-kwo” – is not a word).

I also really want to know why the debate community doesn’t prioritize clear, cogent communication. Why do we allow students to send “cards” via email during rounds specifically because they read them so poorly that no one in the room actually knows what was said, nor could they digest it in any useful way? Why is this a good practice? Do the benefits actually outweigh the harms of exclusivity that are perpetuated by such a norm?

I’ll go back tomorrow to judge more. If you read this and you coach a kid I might see, tell them that “Squo” isn’t a word. Also, tell them that even though they might not like that I don’t like “squo” as a word, I’m not an outsider to be looked down upon as somehow lesser than those who do use “squo” as a regular part of their everyday speech.

Squo is pretty fun to say though. SKWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.