Critics say US school debate in peril as ‘woke’ judges only approve Left-wing views

US high-school debating is under threat because judges who will only approve Left-wing arguments have “created a culture that stifles free speech”, insiders have claimed.

Students and debating coaches told The Telegraph that school communities were seeing a “decline” in youth debating because tournament judges’ criteria have “become riddled with political and ideological” statements.

James Fishback, a former high-school debater and coach, said there were around 250,000 students nationally who participate in high-school debate, with many going on to compete in national tournaments.

Many of them are overseen by the National Speech and Debate Association (NSDA), which Mr Fishback claims has been “captured by the radical Left”.

Mr Fishback highlighted some judges’ records and “paradigms”, which outline what they look for during a debate, in a lengthy article for The Free Press.

‘Marxist-Leninist-Maoist’

One judge, who describes herself as a “Marxist-Leninist-Maoist”, has openly declared she “cannot check [her views] at the door when I’m judging” on the NSDA website.

The judge, Lila Lavender, a former debating champion herself, goes on to state: “I will no longer evaluate and thus ever vote for Rightist capitalist-imperialist positions/arguments.”

Mr Fishback said another judge, X Braithwaite, “gives people of colour priority” in debates.

He said that an accepted practice was for students from opposing teams to disclose their evidence before their round, “as both teams benefit from spending more time with the other team’s evidence”.

Judge Braithwaite’s paradigm says of disclosure policy: “Disclosure theory is fine EXCEPT when you are debating a black person or you are one.”

‘Judges are also coaches’

According to Mr Fishback, that particular judge has adjudicated 169 debate rounds with 340 students.

Meanwhile, he said Ms Lavender, in addition to judging tournaments, worked as a coach “at one of the most prestigious debate camps in the country”.

“So it’s so much bigger than just the [tournaments] because a lot of these judges are also coaches,” said Mr Fishback.

One former debater, who now coaches high-school and university debate teams, said that participation rates have “cratered” as a result.

“There’s fewer teams than ever,” he said. “Major tournaments like Harvard’s used to be prestigious. Now it’s regarded in the debating community as kind of just a tournament for mediocre teams.”

‘Racism’ accusations

The former debater, who wished to remain anonymous, said he had competed in one of the biggest high-school competitions, the Tournament of Champions.

But he had been turned off by accusations that he was “harbouring racism or homophobia” during rounds of debates.

He said in one debate, where he supported granting visas for overseas students to study in the US, he was told he was advocating “to essentially remove the indigenous population from America”.

Mr Fishback, who coached at a high school in a low-income, predominantly black community in Miami, said he had seen first-hand the impact this politically-charged environment was having on students.

He claimed one of his students, a young black man, had lost a debate because he “condemned” the Black Lives Matter organisation during an exchange.

‘That’s what lost you the round’

“The judge said afterwards: ‘That’s what lost you the round,’” Mr Fishback said.

He added that another student who lost his round was told by a judge on a feedback slip: “Better luck next time, Trumpy.”

“Students quickly realise if they say the wrong thing, they’ll lose. They’re coerced into conforming and you stifle free speech,” he said.

Steve DuBois, a debate coach at St Thomas Aquinas High School in Kansas City, said one of his students recently gave a speech arguing against impeaching the Democratic governor of Kansas.

The student was assigned the lowest-possible score, Mr DuBois said, by a judge who “made clear in his ballot comments that the competitor was being punished not for any element of her delivery or argumentation, but for ‘defending a fascist’.”

However, Mr DuBois said he disagreed with any framing of the situation as a “free-speech” issue. “At the end of the day, every debate judge is a critic of arguments and will prefer some of them to others,” he said.

A spokeswoman for the NSDA said: “Judging paradigms allow students to learn to adapt to a wide diversity of ideological views from thousands of volunteer judges across the world. “However, on each and every ballot we ask all judges to reflect and remove bias and unfair feedback. Speech and debate should be decided only on the content and quality of the presentation or speech made in the round.

“In order to combat bias and ensure the conditions of fairness in our organisation, we have a system for participants to report these violations through our Belonging and Inclusion Stations.

“Our 128 trained and certified advocates are available at NSDA-run competitions to address individual concerns as they occur.”