To the editor:

Your recent piece, “A Debatable Apology,” [Pipe Dream, March 5, 2013] glosses over several points that are significant. First, as a team, we consistently make clear the distinction between the national ranking system and having the top two-person unit because we consciously have to make choices on where to spend our money. Spending on one directly trades off with the other. We cannot afford to build a robust varsity program without cutting our novice program or having our funds increased. In light budgetary constraints, the team makes a conscious choice to serve a greater number of students versus a select few. As a side, Eric Larson’s comment that there is enough in our SA budget to attend the National Debate Tournament (NDT) does not take into consideration the fact that the money left in the account is owed to the assistant coaching staff who can’t get paid until the end of the semester.

Second, there is a difference between debate’s national ranking and the ranking of a high school soccer team. The difference is that the national ranking system ranks a program’s overall effectiveness across all three divisions. This is deliberately done in order to reward programs that care about spreading debate beyond those who have prior experience. While your piece claims that novice and JV competition is “less prestigious,” from the point of view of Binghamton debate this is where the greatest educational value for the dollar exists. Unlike a sports program, debate is educational as much as it is competitive. Success for students who have never debated is every bit as prestigious.

Third, we are one of the only programs in the nation that qualified people to the NDT who are in their second year of debate ever. While most students who attend the NDT have significantly more experience than the students on Binghamton’s team, Binghamton quickly trains its new members to move out of the novice and JV division to compete nationally. The fact that students qualify so quickly stands as testament to the success of the program beyond its national ranking or ability to qualify. It demonstrates that in a very short timeframe, and with only a fraction of the budget, Binghamton can roll with the “top dogs” even if they are not the “top dog.” Qualifying for the NDT is the equivalent of qualifying for basketball’s NCAA tournament and marks Binghamton’s debate program among division one competitors. The willingness of varsity members to take a backseat and forego national travel so more students can debate speaks volumes to the desire of all members to see as many students at Binghamton gain the benefits of debate. This year alone we didn’t attend national tournaments at Georgia State, Kentucky, the University of Nevada at Las Vegas and Harvard. Even with these sacrifices Binghamton is ranked among the top in the nation as a program while having a two-person varsity unit that is recognized as among the best in the country.

Ultimately, if we had a larger budget we would easily be ranked higher as a varsity program than we are. However, at this size, we are unwilling to make the trade-off with our novice and JV program since those debaters hold the future of the activity. As the director of Binghamton University’s Speech and Debate Team, I am proud to say that we prioritize the ranking of the overall success of the squad instead of a select few. After all, if it were not for Binghamton being open to new debaters I would have never gotten the chance to debate and grow into the director I have become.

Sincerely,

Joe Leeson-Schatz
Director of Speech & Debate at Binghamton University