Winning Has a Price Tag: the Inequities of Debate Camps

In 1985, when the University of Michigan’s collegiate policy debate team and coaches decided to set up a new learning experience for students, they envisioned something transcending the traditional model of debate as a pastime. Instead, they attempted to foster an environment in which the knowledge of both seasoned coaches and the biggest names in high school debate could be leveraged to refine skills without the financial barriers that existed with committing to a successful program. However, a new era of camp environment was quick to brew in the twenty-first century debate space.

What inequities exist?

In a debate space where structural violence, a condition that describes when institutions prevent one group from meeting their basic needs, is what can be considered “outweighing extinction” the cost of camps is extremely counterproductive. What is described as “cheap” for a camp can cost thousands of dollars, not to mention airfare for the small number of camps that are scattered around the country. For many families who live paycheck-to-paycheck with children interested in sharing their voice, these fees are simply unattainable, especially with the extremely selective financial aid that these institutions claim to offer for all who need it.

Additionally, the current landscape is one in which further inequities besides its cost have been constructed. One notable example of such is lab placement, in which the students who simply show up to the grandest national circuit (known as “nat-circ”) tournaments housed at these institutions get placed in top labs with more experienced lab leaders. Worse, they are placed in these desired labs solely for the high school they attend. That means students who can’t foot the bill of these costly tournaments and private schools, no matter how skilled or how much they’ll benefit, are forced to be placed in more novice-oriented labs, destroying the entire purpose of camp: to grow, to improve, and to learn.

I experienced this this summer during my time at debate camp, in which these inequities materialized in addition to the staggering two-week cost. Students from one prestigious private school were placed in the top lab with the most experienced instructors, while many others, particularly those from public schools or less affluent backgrounds, were assigned to lower labs with less access to expert guidance. It was extremely clear to me that those who hadn’t had the same advantages were left to navigate the camp with fewer opportunities for growth, revealing how the financial divide manifested by these camps created a divide in not only who could attend the camp, but also who could have a share of the experience, myself included.

How can we solve this?

Recognizing these inequities are key to addressing the growing divide in debate education that grows exclusively on financial lines. Without acknowledging what structural barriers exist, institutions can be incentivized to raise prices and exclusivity of their systems of teaching.

Thus, the solution to such inequities is to offer Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, and Policy Debate debate camps, run by students, particularly “first-year-outs” (incoming college freshmen) and current college debaters. The greed that pervades the system of the wealthy receiving the best debate education exists solely because of for-profit institutions who value money over debate; that being said, a summer learning experience will only thrive when it’s built around accessibility, mentorship, and the passion for debate rather than a hefty price tag. These student-run camps can offer drastically affordable or even free debate camps, where the source of profit, if any, can come not from the pockets of low-income students, but from community support or another alternative.

By adopting such a model, it would start a process of successfully breaking down the financial barriers that prevent low-income students from excelling in the activity that ought to emphasize accessibility over exclusivity, fostering an environment where the love of argumentation and critical thinking will no longer be a monetary predicament.