Do We Really Understand the Plight of the Rural Debater?

When we look at America’s best speakers and debaters, we see a series of key characteristics: championing national tournaments, racking up TOC bids like it is nothing, and devoting all of their time to their events. But the harsh reality is that few of us will get there — especially when we don’t have the resources for to do so. 

The plight of the rural debater is one that we all sympathize with, but that’s as far as we ever go: sympathy. Despite how much my fellow competitors listen to the woes of a rural competitor, they won’t ever consider someone from rural Minnesota to become the next TOC gold. Interestingly enough, this problem arises in even the most reputable of states. My home state of Texas is considered one of the best for both speech and debate events, but every metro area is consistently dominated by the same few schools, leaving rural programs like mine to be buried. Rural schools make up a large portion of Texan high schools, but most of them probably value their failing football team more than a potentially successful speech and debate program. Unfortunately, our capabilities as rural debaters are only measured on a large scale, meaning the affordable local tournaments we attend are quickly brushed aside.

As competitors, we have to be the first to understand that blanket statements and perceptions can be harmful. The perception of states like Texas as competitive can impede our ability to be heard. In the grand scheme of tournaments like TFA State or NatCirc tournaments across the country, viewing every debater from Texas through the lens of a hyper-competitive archetype can make it harder for people from rural schools to have networking opportunities, especially with programs that help rural schools. We need to remember that rural is a region, not a state, and competitive states are not equivalent to access to resources. When we generalize entire circuits solely by their victors, we erase the struggles and stories of rural competitors, invalidating their investments and leaving them out to dry. 

The biggest thing that your rural friends in your round need is not sympathy, but understanding. 

Advocacy is central to many debaters' winning strategies. Rounds are used as a way to spread a message of change for the disadvantaged. Progressive debaters across the country are well acquainted with kritik cases on structural violence, feminism, and capitalism. They spread at 500 words a minute about making debate equitable and accessible, trying to get the judge to cast the ballot in their favor. Speakers are not immune to this either, and interp events are used to cast attention to mental health issues, violence, and anything worth acting out. But what good is advocacy if you leave it at the door of your room? All of the advocacy that competitors push for in a round seems to magically dissipate once the ballot comes out in their favor. But for students in rural areas, advocacy for our ability to access necessities is something that we strive for every single day. But the fight for equality in opportunities is something that we all need to share, and it’s going to take a lot more than a dress theory case to solve it. 

An important asset that competitors in rural areas have is networking. Things like stealing cases may be seen as uncouth by competitors from big schools, but for those who can’t afford briefs, stealing cases are lifelines to gain access to new cards, arguments, and a fighting chance at a win. Fostering closer relationships with schools can be central to helping rural programs grow, especially since they don't have the money for briefs and private coaching. The playing field isn't the same for everyone, but having connections with your fellow competitors can make all the difference. Even though programs like EIF contribute to making debate more accessible, don't let a Discord server do the work for you. Having networks and people to give you advice in your area (especially in states with different levels of competition) will always be infinitely more valuable than a case on Reddit. At the end of the day, people like me can find any old resource online, but others like you can bridge the gap that the internet is not capable of doing.

But the burden of money is something that can not be bridged with networks. If we want rural students to succeed, we need to give them greater access to higher level tournaments. While teams like mine can sweep locals, large-scale tournaments are something we can only dream of succeeding in. Most of the time, the environment of large tournaments like these can impede your results, and rural programs are disproportionately disadvantaged by a lack of funds for larger competitions. When it comes to large national tournaments in places like Berkeley, Yale, or UT, giving better entry rates to schools that are designated as rural or Title 1 can bridge the gap for many programs. When we make the entry of any tournament more accessible, we can ensure that the only defining factor to your ballot is not, funding but skill. 

To begin speech and debate, all you need is a voice (literally), but unfortunately, some voices are more amplified in our community. When we acknowledge that people across the country can be disadvantaged regardless of where they are, we create a more equitable environment. If we want to emphasize speech and debate as a space for people from all backgrounds, we need to make efforts for ACTUAL change. Our push for equality shouldn’t just revolve around conversations in rural inequalities but actually include rural communities in the conversation. As public schools across the country continue to buckle down on their budgets, schools in rural areas will be the first and the hardest hit, which is why they need to be at the forefront of our fight for equality in debate opportunities. Take your debate cases and interp books aside, and connect with students from poorer schools in your area, because changes like these can’t occur overnight without cooperation from every direction. Let’s stop treating rural students like charity cases and instead start making real initiatives to turn speech and debate into a more equitable and accessible environment.