The Modest Novice

[The following was sent today throughout the region]

A couple of years ago we floated the proposal that became known as the Modest Novice. Although the language was marginally Swiftian, this was not a suggestion that we feed novices to the Irish (except in some very specific and especially warranted cases). The Modest Novice is a proposal for a regional, recurring LD topic for first-year students, as compared to adapting whatever topic is selected by the NFL. This year’s NFL topic, many have agreed, is difficult to impossible at the very least for recruiting and keeping new novices, has led to the revival of the proposal.

The benefits of the proposal are:

The topic is especially chosen for the purpose of introducing students to some standard, core ideas of LD.

The topic repeats annually, so coaches and teachers need not prepare new introductory materials every year.

Our judge-training materials could have specific topic guidelines for new parents we are bringing into the activity rather than just general hints.

The topic would be argued for half the season, allowing the novices to develop all the important skills of debating absent the need to write new cases on new topics before they’ve even figured out which way to look when they’re in cross-ex.

The benefits of this are pretty clear. We would use the Modest Novice topic in all novice divisions from September through December. Novices would then follow the normal course of new topics from January on.

The negatives of the proposal are entirely logistical:

Tab rooms would need to keep track of different pools of judges, and in some cases, judges might be listening to two topics in one day.

Teachers/coaches would need to teach one topic to one group and another topic to the rest of the team.

It doesn’t work unless the entire region commits to it; if only some schools participated, then those schools would either be cut off from much of the debate in the region, or would actually be adding more rather than fewer burdens to their novices, which is the diametric opposite of the intention of the proposal.

As to the first (and probably most meaningful of the negatives), this is less problematic than it looks. Most novice judging is done by parents and upperclassmen, and is already isolated from varsity judging. In fact, this would ultimately work positively, because once an upperclassman has come through the system and is now judging, that student is sitting with 4 months of their own background on this elemental topic, rather than whatever loosey-goosey personal interpretation they may have of the present topic (e.g., witness some of the theory arguments varsity students are running, and theoretically imposing on novices, in this year’s Sept-Oct). For that matter, most of these tab rooms (MHL, CFL, Bump, Ridge, Little Lex, Princeton) are run by the same people. Occasionally, yes, we might be forced to asked someone to switch in the same day, but we would minimize this, and limit it to the most capable.

Which leads to the second possible problem, of needing to teach two topics at once. In today’s debate world, most of us are already teaching two topics (one for LD and another—monthly!—for PF), and some are teaching three (if they also handle policy). This objection simply doesn’t stand.

As for the region committing to it, this is true. We must agree. Last time out, to be honest, my recollection is that one coach objected, and the proposal died. The idea is simply too good to allow that to happen again. We need to take a constitutional approach. Once we get a majority, we go for everyone.

The leagues, as I see them, are as follows: Massachusetts, New Jersey, MHL, CFL and MDL (Manhattan), plus what I’ll call Invitationals (Bump, Little Lex, Ridge, Princeton). Few if any people compete in these leagues/tournaments outside of the region, and few of us take novices outside this range. At this point, MHL will definitely vote in favor of the proposal, and I can assume that we have at least 3 out of 4 of the invitationals, which means we have that vote too. CFL would require voting among that membership, but that membership overlaps a lot with MHL, where we already have agreement. That leaves Manhattan, New Jersey and Massachusetts.

As for the topic to be used, three suggestions have been put forth, all of which are strong classics from the NFL:

Resolved: An oppressive government is more desirable than no government.

Resolved: Capital punishment is justified.

Resolved: Civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified.

I am sending this proposal to the regional universe at large through my own mailing lists. What I ask is that you discuss it among your own colleagues and come to your own conclusions. Toward the end of December the representatives of the 6 leagues will vote. If 4 of the 6 agree, all 6 will do it. (Well, granted, no one can really force anyone to do anything, but the momentum will be there, and it would be counterproductive to resist after the fact.) So if you’re adamantly against this, now is the time to bring up your objections.

Because selecting a topic may prove more complicated than agreeing which topic should be used, I am suggesting that we go with opp gov v no gov. This has proven out multiple times as an NFL topic, and I personally have always found it very solid. It gives us an opportunity to teach social contract in depth, with all the predictable readings, plus it allows for more ambitious students to delve into some more arcane texts on anarchy, not to mention the actual “benefits” of opp gov! If a league has a strong objection to this topic and wishes to propose one of the other two, that is fine. We’ll go with what the majority of the leagues choose.

So, please pass this proposal around to those who need to discuss it. By Christmas, we will reach a conclusion. To facilitate discussion, I will post this as an entry to my blog at http://coachean.blogspot.com/2008/11/modest-novice.html. We can conduct public, shared discussion there in the comments.

Thanks.