Breaking Barriers: How Speech and Debate Can Uplift Autistic Voices

Picture this scenario: You’re a coach at a state tournament, a highly anticipated event for anyone involved in Speech and Debate. On the last night of your team’s overnight trip to one of these tournaments, an autistic competitor in Congress tells you that he is being "picked on" by his fellow teammates. When you probe him for details, he reveals that over the course of what was supposed to be a fun state tournament, his underwear (yes, his underwear) had been thrown in the toilet, he was forced to sleep on the floor, a senior ate all of his snacks, and, finally, all of his roommates were calling him the r-word. 

No, this isn’t a satire post from Reddit, but an excerpt from one of the few articles on the National Speech and Debate Association’s website that mentions autism. The section of the aforementioned article details how coaches should approach accommodations for competitors with disabilities. While good-natured, it’s more than disappointing that, for a community that prides itself on calling out oppressions within society and giving everyone a voice, this is one of only four articles by the NSDA that even mentions the word "autism." This isn’t to say that the discrimination autistic competitors may face should go unrecognized. However, underwear in the toilet? Really, NSDA? You couldn’t think of anything more realistic? 

If you couldn’t tell, I have autism. Autism is a neurological condition that can impair one’s social interactions, motor-related skills, and communication abilities, among other things. Despite these quirks, it might be surprising that I do Speech and Debate. In fact, I don’t just do Speech and Debate; I’ve been the captain of my school’s team for the last two years, and I’ve competed in several different events, ranging from Informative Speaking to Lincoln-Douglas Debate. I still struggle with public speaking, but Speech and Debate has improved my communication skills and given me a platform to discuss topics I care about. 

I’m sure you’re wondering what any of this has to do with what I said about the excerpt from the NSDA. And that’s just it—the excerpt itself is a major part of the issue. 

Discrimination, especially the kind directed toward those with disabilities like autism, is nothing new. For years, my community has struggled to be accepted; but, our challenges are more nuanced than being forced to sleep on the floor by our teammates. By no means am I trying to say that we should not talk about the harassment and discrimination directed toward autistic competitors, I’m sure scenarios similar to the one the NSDA mentioned have happened in the past. On the other hand, understanding the challenges autistic competitors face within forensics extends beyond prohibiting oppressive language, like the r-word, or blatant discrimination. If anything, the greatest challenges competitors like me face originate from our disorder itself. 

I can go on and on about my own experiences as an autistic competitor. My abnormally high levels of stress often caused me to talk at an absurdly fast pace, my lack of understanding social cues made it harder for me to tell when I should speak in a conversation, and I didn't even know if what I was saying was appropriate. I am not the only competitor facing these challenges. In Dirigo High School sophomore Will Hines’ NSDA-qualifying Original Oratory speech, "The Struggles of Autism", he addresses many of the challenges those with autism face. Hines states "Oftentimes, I have trouble understanding when people are being sarcastic." He later talks about how those with autism have an "inability to understand social cues," which is one of the most common symptoms of our disorder. 

These traits manifest in various ways within forensics. For me, my speaking patterns would get me ranked at the bottom of my speech rounds. Not understanding social cues or emotions can also mean misinterpreting what someone said in a speech or cross-examination. 

As autistic competitors, we face a tremendous number of challenges that often fly under the radar of the Speech and Debate community. Not only does our disorder make competing harder, but it can also cause competitors to mask their autistic traits and receive lower scores in rounds. The University of Dayton tells us that one nationally ranked forensic student, who struggled to make eye contact with judges due to their autism, received lower scores on ballots and received feedback on rubrics that ignored natural human habits. 

"Some rubrics, for example, state ‘sustained eye contact with entire audience’ and that eye contact is needed '90%; span the audience' and 'at least 70-80% of the time,' yet, in general, adults typically make eye contact 30-60% during a conversation," stated Dayton. The student in question further elaborated that speech taught them to mask their autism, and if they did not, then they were ranked lower at tournaments. This is not to say that ballots or judges themselves are harmful, as receiving feedback is an almost necessary part of competing in Speech and Debate. However, as a community, we need to unlearn obsessing over certain discriminatory criteria, such as eye contact. Dayton explains, that by doing this, we make an inherent assumption about what students can and cannot control, which inadvertently harms both autistic and non-autistic competitors as well. 

While understanding why competitors with autism may struggle within forensics is important, there’s also a brighter side to our story. By competing in speech and debate, autistic competitors are presented with a surplus of opportunities to speak uninterrupted. For example, events like Lincoln-Douglas Debate or Congress provide autistic competitors not only a space to engage in lively arguments with other debaters but also encourage discussion through cross-examination. Additionally, these types of events provide each competitor a specific space where they can speak—meaning, as long as you understand the rules of the event, there’s no worry for autistic competitors that we spoke for too long or that we spoke when we weren’t supposed to. Because these events are timed or usually only allow one competitor to ask questions at a time, each competitor has a clear, uninterrupted, and specific time allotted to speak. 

Speech events, such as Informative Speaking or Original Oratory, allow members of the autistic community to talk about the challenges we face in a unique way. For example, in their Informative Speaking performance, "Autism and Minecraft", 2022 National Finalist Kalen Sieja talks about how Minecraft provides people with autism ways to expand upon their social skills and problem-solving abilities in a fun, interactive way. Beyond the issues our community faces, speech events allow autistic competitors to talk about our special interests. Speaking from my experiences, I love Informative Speaking because it allows me to talk about niche parts of history while combining different means of rhetoric to engage an audience. In short, these types of public address events give the autistic community a space to talk about what really matters to us. 

Other public address events, like Extemporaneous Speaking or Impromptu, help autistic competitors improve their problem-solving skills in a short period of time. While the University of Dayton states that those with autism may struggle with Extemporaneous Speaking because it is harder to remember certain facts or quotes within a limited period, understand that through practice or the use of notecards, one can overcome these obstacles in time. 

Meanwhile, interpretation events allow autistic competitors to practice a wide range of emotions and play multiple characters. Where those with autism may struggle to process or display certain emotions, events like Humorous Interpretation specifically allow autistic competitors to practice these emotions through comedy and humor, which otherwise may have been difficult for that competitor to do. 

Looking at the broader forensics community, we need to recognize that although competitors with autism have largely struggled with disability-based discrimination, the challenges we face within Speech and Debate also result from our disorder itself—and this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Speech and Debate allows autistic competitors to talk not only about the issues our community faces but also about our special interests. Speech and Debate allows autistic competitors to improve upon their social cues, timed problem-solving abilities, and perception of emotions while receiving constructive criticism. These events offer something autistic competitors such as myself have longed for: a place to talk without fear of worrying about saying or doing something that violated some unknown social norm. 

Furthermore, Speech and Debate can be a lifesaver for the autistic community. For me, Speech and Debate helped me find my voice and gain confidence in my words. However, the forensics community at large cannot continue to leave the struggles of the autistic community unrecognized. If the leading authorities in speech and debate, such as the NSDA, pledge that they "connect, support, and inspire a diverse community committed to empowering students through speech and debate," and "envision a world in which every school provides speech and debate programs to foster each student’s communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and creative skills," then it is imperative that we also acknowledge the implications of forensics for the autistic community as well. 

To that end, I urge you, whether you’re autistic or not, to foster conversations within forensics about autism. Don’t hesitate to ask questions or to confront discrimination when you see it. Speech and Debate exists to inspire discussion, promote learning, and challenge the oppressions we witness in society. 

However, talking about preventing disability-related discrimination is not enough. We must address the specific challenges faced by the autistic community and actively work to amplify their voices. After all, if we fail to recognize the struggles and successes of the autistic community, can we truly claim to be empowering the voices of all?