Forensics: A Fashion Show?

Whenever I enter a round, I find myself wondering if judges will pay more attention to my analysis or acne. I wonder if within the first ten seconds of me entering, my demeanor demands the respect of the judge, and over the past year I have found myself changing more about my appearance then my way of thinking, in order to prevent putting off the people who control my success in an activity where the only thing that is supposed to matter is the content of the round. Over and over again we tell the students that they must change and minimize themselves to fit into an archetype for the judge without recognizing the problem is not the student. It is the judge’s unconscious biases. Unfortunately, in the systems of conformity we have set up, I fear the promise of individual expression we give students is nonexistent.

Forensics exists to help students demonstrate their capability in argumentation to go out into the real world and express their views clearly and authentically. Can that happen when we push students to manufacture authenticity?

Every speaker at some point has considered their judge appeal. If you are unfamiliar with this concept, it involves changing speaking style, content, or appearance based on perceived characteristics of the judge. Essentially, one observes a trait in the judge and generalizes that, linking it to a bias the competitor may capitalize on to seem more informed. These changes, or judge adaptations, are encouraged by programs and coaches nationwide. I am not stating that judge adaptations are always bad. An adaptation can involve something as simple as adjusting speaking speed based on a judge’s ability to keep up. What I am stating is that the concept of judge adaptations continues to be abused to the point of being disingenuous to students’ identities. It is no longer about the judge's understanding, but the judge's liking.

Essentially, we’re telling students “Do you or do well.”

This mindset is generally troubling, especially considering teenagers are susceptible to low self-esteem and poor mental health today more than ever. The same appearance and personality changes encouraged by coaches were the subject of national health research in adolescents. Social conformity and personality trait shifts were both linked to social anxiety, stress, and even poor physical health.

This mindset the forensics community propels is disingenuous at best and damaging at worst.

But what happens when we cannot change parts of ourselves that make us “less credible” to the judge? Our dialects and ethnic appearances are central to our self-identity, but under the rhetoric of judge appeal, they evoke racial or ethnic stereotypes, damaging credibility. This is a large barrier for minority groups. The current mindset creates the shifted demographics that the NSDA database demonstrates, with a 47:7 ratio of white to black students represented in the 2022-2023 available data. A similar trend is demonstrated with other groups, perhaps because of inaccessibility and stereotypes. By encouraging the avoidance of ethnic stereotypes, coaches perpetuate that a student must look a certain way to win a round. Inclusion cannot be achieved through the creation of a standard for success. Reaching that “certain way” preaches conformity which is antithetical to the diversity and individualism forensics promises.

Food For Thought

Today, browsing through various coaches and services promising to increase my judge appeal, I find myself questioning whether it’s me that needs reshaping. Our systems designed for students have turned into a community hyper-focusing on looking rather than listening, turning an artistic and informative activity into one that is rooted in inauthenticity and discrimination. Coaches, do better.

I’d like to emphasis this by a story from a teammate. While talking about sexism in the speech and debate circuit, she talked about what she called the “pink suit phenomenon.” She described it as a pivotal moment in a speaker’s forensics career when they break out of the masculine standard for success, embracing a more feminine look. After further research, I realized this wasn’t just another phrase my teammate came up with, it was a common occurrence, with the search term “Pink Debate Tournament Outfits” having 13.5 million posts on the social media app TikTok. The pink suit phenomenon to me represents a larger change that needs to be made. We must break out of these standards and stereotypes and acknowledge to merits of individuality.

A Way Forward

We must recognize that the issue is not the speaker but the individual acting on biases and stereotypes. We do not become a better speaker by wearing shoulder pads, concealer, or heels to cover up who we authentically are. Forensics shouldn't be a fashion show, it should be a documentary. And you’re the star. As coaches, captains, mentors, and teammates there are a couple of ways we can shift the conversation and mindset around conformity and credibility. I have compiled a list of three major aspects of what this might look like.

First, as a society, we must abandon the idea of judging adaptations. The ethical and functional way to navigate stereotypes would be to push for expanded accountability and training programs for judges ahead of major tournaments. At an individual level, we can assess how our stereotypes pose barriers to others. Consider sharing competitor insight about how stereotypes impact success with lay judges from the school or organization you compete for. Change starts at a person-to-person level.

Second, we must redefine what it means to be a good speaker. When presenting role models to our students we must take diversity of race, gender, appearance, and more into account instead of telling the student to emulate or aspire to be one standard they are not. During drills, instead of encouraging a student to reach a certain type of expression, work on elevating their self-expression. Demonstrate how they can be their best self. In the end, you will not only be left with a better team member but a more headstrong, motivated member of society. And that’s what forensics is really about.

Third, as competitors, we must persist in the face of damaging stereotypes. As an extemper myself, I evaluated my ballots through this past semester and found my judges rank me better when I dress in more masculine attire, concealing my facial acne and wearing my tallest heels. Then, while exploring finals for individual events in 2023, I came across Myles Bell’s “Disrespectful,” which quite frankly changed my life. Breaking out of this cycle I realize that I aspire to reach a point where my speech transcends my attire and identity. By sharing my success as my authentic self, I can inspire my teammates, competitors, and you, the reader, to escape from the conformity-centric mindset into a world where success comes from, not in spite of, self.

I started this off by stating that what I wear should not matter at a tournament, but maybe it does, just in a different way. Whenever I see a young speaker in a pink suit I remember this and grin, because they give me hope for the future of our activity: a future where individuality is accepted and even celebrated, not punished.