By Victor Mwimanzi
Author Violet Ketels once said, “It is possible to bring down dictatorial regimes through violence or a gradual transformation of the conscience.”
Though this quote may seem extreme for a college campus setting, it is the very basis of why some students should voice their concern with the University of Louisville debate team. It is undeniable that this prominent student organization is harvesting some serious issues.
Dr. Ede Warner, head of the U of L Debate Society, sought to challenge the formal structure of primarily white, institutionalized debate. Warner initiated what debaters around the country would call “The Louisville Project,” which was a movement to transform the hegemonic norms of debate that excluded cross-cultural participation.
Under Warner’s guidance, many doors were opened for different modes of political, argumentative expression. This form of debate inspired black debaters around the country to attend U of L just to participate in the project. Some of these students felt as if they were joining a sort of revolution that would change the face of formal debate. Warner and his wife, Tria Warner, who also assists in the functioning of the team, were like a mother and father that nurtured many students and this is why they should be respected.
The question is, what went wrong along the way? Former debaters would claim the program started to die when the Warners’ capitalistic campaign resulted in no less than a mass exploitation of students. In this campaign, the Warners managed to infuse revolutionary, socialistic politics with capitalistic, hegemonic world views. How you ask? Because “grades and competitive success” are what kept the debate team alive (along with having high diversity numbers). The organization secures funds totaling around $200,000 for scholarships and administrative expenses. The scholarships offered to debate students became dictated by conformity. Thus, students could get pulled from the team for minor things like laying their head on a desk. Intellectual disagreements with the coaching staff resulted in students being called “un-coachable” which also resulted in loss of scholarships.
Former debater Liz Jones said, “The problem is students don’t have enough input to the decisions made and the productivity of the team.” Over the last two years, this debate team has suffered a 95 percent decrease in its retention rate. Another debater, wishing to remain anonymous, expressed regret that anyone who is five minutes late for a practice would lose their scholarship.
Where does the university stand with these practices? If we are seriously interested in salvaging the program of debate team retention, perhaps the best answer is a public debate or a fair panel discussion between university officials and all the individuals affected by these nonsense issues.
Victor Mwimanzi is a junior philosophy major. E-mail him at opinion@louisvillecardinal.com
