The Impact of Pre-Set Recency on Congress

In terms of Congress, I speak for most when I say that inequality plays a role in every chamber. Look to Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, or any speech event. Unlike in these events, where time is allotted for people to speak, that’s not the case in Congress—the chamber runs the round. And that’s a large part of what appeals to thousands like me—the additional freedom you get as a Senator or Representative. But, like the real Senate and House of Representatives, those additional privileges you get as a member of Congress also come with checks and balances. Without it, the system wouldn’t be effective, and that rings true for Congressional Debate as well. Through this article, I'm bringing attention to something that needs to be kept in check: pre-set recency.

Pre-set recency is Congress’s way of dictating when students speak. But that can vary wildly depending on your round. Worse yet, the impact isn’t minor either—it wholly dictates the type of speech you can give. Rooted completely in chance, it provides an unjust advantage to those with great recency. For someone whose name is at the top of the chart, they can choose to speak whenever they want—early, mid-round, or late; it’s totally up to their discretion. But for someone whose name is at the bottom of the list, their flexibility drastically diminishes. Their position in the context of the round is completely determined by external factors. Ask anyone who’s competed in Congress, and they’ll tell you that giving a valuable speech as one of the last speakers in a round takes an adept debater. The likelihood of rehashing skyrockets, judge fatigue rises, and the speaker must give a great crystal or introduce (g)round-breaking evidence to do well. Most importantly, there’s a great chance that a person doesn’t even get to give a speech. Meanwhile, the sponsor can rely on giving a speech word-for-word, which is undoubtedly less difficult than the adaptation that’s necessary for a sound late-round speech. 

Now, that’s bad enough on its own, but it gets worse for an unlucky competitor—a string of unfortunate ranks among the recency charts can put someone at a serious disadvantage. That reality comes at a time when late-round speaking becomes increasingly phased out in high rankings. As a result, speech inequity through pre-set recency could be the reason why someone didn’t advance to the next round. Competitors that receive unfortunate positions among the recency charts at major tournaments such as Nationals can lose their opportunity to compete at the "pinnacle of public speaking" before the end of the round. Look to the NSDA, which tells us that two of its primary initiatives are equity and diversity. The issue at hand demands reform because it fails on both fronts. 

First, let’s address equity. Our current state of debate inhibits either equality or equity from taking place. Pre-set recency ensures opportunity through a predetermined list, and some get better resources than others. Those who simply don't get lucky are bound to have less of a fair shot at making it beyond whatever round that they're in. The entire function of speech and debate is to advocate for what we believe. When the voices of the very people who participate in this activity can’t be heard, we establish a deadly precedent. Change in Congress is necessary for the event to stay true to its roots. 

Second, I want to explain how our current system lowers diversity. In the 2022 Senate final round, Raghav Ramki voiced that because of the issues pre-set recency struggles with, that exclusivity begins to take flight. As a result of the lack of voices that are heard, people become disincentivized from continuing in the event. 

The truth is, debate isn’t spread evenly geographically. That means someone in a state in the middle of the western United States, like Idaho, has real opportunity for TOC bids in or adjacent to the state, serving as a testament to its students’ lack of debate opportunities. Take someone from a smaller school in that state, who had to travel to qualify for a tournament like the TOC. A drop on the recency chart could be the difference between a break and a waste of money in their eyes. The current status quo reduces consistency, meaning that those who only compete in one or two major national tournaments annually, they could lose out on their only chance for national success. Let’s delve into the impact of that: when more people, particularly in rural areas, stop competing, you lower geographic diversity. Enabling this precedent makes the education of rural citizens worse off than they already are. The Center for Global Development in 2023 tells us that rural students tend to score worse on tests. The result of less educational achievement is immeasurable: lower incomes and worse life outcomes. 

The Brookings Institution in 2023 explains how debate can be the solution. A study analyzed the role competitive Policy Debate had on improving one’s education. It found that that led to positive educational results, through the form of measurements like ELA scores, graduation, and college enrollment. While Congress and Policy Debate aren’t the same events, I think they are similar enough to be a large amount of overlap in education attainment as a result. Tying back to the lack of Congress in rural areas—worsening that issue furthers this divide. Making debate programs more robust is a crucial way we can achieve better educational results. 

The first step to doing so is a blanket mandate to reform pre-set recency. An equitable way to do so would be recency being guaranteed to reverse every round that you have an even number of sessions in. However, for any rounds with just an uneven number, I think speech caps should be implemented. That way, Congress doesn’t have to be drastically altered to make a drastic impact on the event we know and love. 

In an event that’s largely run by its competitors, it's easy to get bogged down in the results and accolades. But let's refocus the lens towards the purpose of speech and debate: giving everyone a space to advocate for what they believe in. Fostering a "platform for youth voices to be heard and celebrated" isn’t possible unless everyone gets a say. Change is necessary, and that starts with ensuring equity and diversity through changing our views on pre-set recency.