An open letter to the [You Name It] Forensic League

I am, in my chief profession, a book editor. I read a lot of manuscripts submitted for publication and I edit the manuscripts that are selected. I write promotion copy, schmooze with authors and other publishing types, manage a couple of product lines and generally do what experienced editors tend to do. My job is in no way tech-oriented. I create no products, hard or soft, that in any way, shape or form can be considered computer- or web-oriented.

And I am on my computer virtually my entire working day.

For my work I use, and have at times created/designed apps/scripts/macros for, Word, Excel, and Lotus Notes (where my company has created numerous proprietary applications). I regularly work my way through PhotoShop, Quark, and an international online trafficking system call PlanControl. I keep both Firefox and Safari open at all times, each one plugged into different logins to various standard online apps, and I use Cyberduck for FTP issues when the occasion arises. I can research virtually anything at any time, in multiple venues, and often have great need to do so. There are other applications I use occasionally, but the ones mentioned here tend to be open either all the time or almost all the time, depending on what I happen to be doing on a given day.

And remember, my job is in no way tech-oriented.

I mention all of this because it seems to me that every forensics organization in the country is, to some extent or other, addressing the question of use of computers in forensics events. That there is any issue here at all astounds me. No matter how much we may all love to debate, I can’t imagine a question about which there are really not two sides. The idea that we could believe that it is beneficial not to use the lifeblood technology of the twenty-first century in developing the presumed leaders of the twenty-first century is absurd. It cannot stand on any level. Computing devices connected online at all times are the functional underpinning of modern life. Skill at managing these devices, therefore, is mastery of the functional underpinning of modern life.

In preparations for rounds, extempers can either have a limited amount of material they were able to put into a tub, or the total information available on the internet. In the world outside of rounds, and in their future lives, they will always have the latter. Since knowledge and information are progressively more useful as they are arithmetically (or geometrically!) increased, no benefit can be derived from limiting them. The greater the limits, the more useless the information. In fact, management of the vast amount of information available online is one of the greatest skills that a student can learn. Managing a tiny amount of information is a game played for its own sake.

In preparations for rounds, CXers inevitably use the internet. In rounds, they often cannot. The benefit here of limiting the information available to them eludes me. And for both extempers and CXers, even material collected on their computers without online access can quickly dwarf whatever it is they are capable of carrying in tubs. It is no contest. Similarly, PF teams can find uses for research during rounds. (So could judges, for that matter.) LD, concentrating more on philosophical underpinnings, might be able to demonstrate the least likely benefits from computers in a round, but they certainly would not be harmful.

Of course, the amount of time available to do in-round research is pretty limited. You’d have to be good at it to make it work for you. Which means that allowing it would force students to get good at fast, targeted, online research, a life skill if there ever was one.

Then again, many schools where tournaments are held have no wireless, and access to the internet would be limited. This will never change? Does anyone want to send their students to a school that isn’t not only wired but wireless-wired (if you know what I mean)? Non-wireless is a temporary state. I don’t predict its demise date, but I do predict its demise quickly. Given that it’s not even particular expensive, it would be hard to disagree with me.

By the way, I’m only addressing technologies that exist today. Can you imagine the means of access, and the material accessible, a decade from now? For comparison’s sake, look at the means of access, and the material accessible, a decade ago.

Two objections to computer use put forth by various forensics leagues have been, first, unfair distribution of access and, second, cheating.

To answer the first objection, a netbook computer costs $299. Cheaper ones are promised for this calendar year. Computerization of schools is a reality in this millennium. If anyone really believes that we would be disenfranchising certain schools by allowing computer use, I would suggest that those people, when they run a tournament, allow the schools (if any) that don’t have computers to register for free. They can use the money saved to buy the necessary technology. They will catch up in a couple of weeks. (Except, of course, the idea that this disparity exists really isn’t true in the first place. Still, even if I’m wrong, time will fix it pretty quickly.)

To answer the second objection, I would suggest that it is a chimera. Imagine that we were to allow cell phone calls during rounds to the God of All Debate. Our opponent is running, let’s say, a Foucault kritik. What exactly are we asking the God of All Debate to help us cheat with? Does the G of A D have a magic bullet answer for every question in every round, especially when the G of A D isn’t even watching the round? Is there such a magic bullet? More to the point, is this the best use of the debaters’ prep time? Wouldn’t they be better off finding their Foucault files and counterarguments and blocks? If they’ve never heard of Foucault, will the G of A D be any more helpful than a quick look at Wikipedia? I mean, if you’re totally lost, the solution is not to learn in two minutes everything about what you don’t know, but to elegantly weasel out of your lack of knowledge. I’ll tell you that now and save you the call to the G of A D. My point is that there is no way communicating with people outside the round will be helpful. Even if it were, it would be no differently helpful that a quick lookup of information. Debate rounds are not episodes of “Who Wants to be a Millionaire?” with lifelines with the (hopefully) right answers. That paradigm simply doesn’t apply. Those who maintain that it does have little or no understanding of how debate works.

So, dear friends at the [You Name It] Forensic League, please join us in the present day. Get over your reluctance to allow computers without limitations. The plugged-in world is the way of the present; a world where you don’t even need plugs is the way of the future. If you are seriously interested in preparing students to live in this present and that future, stop handicapping them. By doing so, you simply miss the point of their lives, and act like “the older generation” that “the younger generation” has, for so long, believed to be obstacles in their paths.

Presumably, by the way, you are reading this online. Ain’t that a kick!

↑ Grab this Headline Animator