Si se puede! (yes we can!): a critical ethnography of students' identities in an urban debate league

Policy debate is an educational practice that researchers have verified teaches students an important skill set that is highly valued in today's workforce and communities. The problem is that this interscholastic activity has traditionally excluded students from underrepresented populations and those who live in poverty. In the late 1990s, Urban Debate Leagues (UDLs) were created to rectify this problem. UDLs brought policy debate to large urban school districts. Quantitative research shows that UDL students improve their GPAs, test scores, graduation and college matriculation rates. However, there is little qualitative research to support these findings. In this dissertation, I argue that identity is what changes students. Students are influenced by many different identities that they are able to explore through the UDL program. The study asks two questions 1) what identities are offered by a UDL? and 2) what tensions exist between the identities experienced in the UDL and the students' social identities? Critical ethnography and portraiture were the two methodologies utilized. Analysis of the data showed that students explored three types of identities-debater, academic, and the Carlinville Urban Debate League. The findings also showed tensions between debater identities and student's social identities particularly race and class. It was determined that identity was the key to understanding the influence of UDLs on its participants.

SÍ SE PUEDE! (YES WE CAN!): A CRITICAL ETHNOGRAPHY OF STUDENTS' IDENTITIES IN AN URBAN DEBATE LEAGUE by Sara Marie Mathis A dissertation submitted to the faculty of The University of Utah in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Communication The University of Utah December 2015 Copyright © Sara Marie Mathis 2015 All Rights Reserved The University of Utah Graduate School STATEMENT OF DISSERTATION APPROVAL The dissertation of Sara Marie Mathis has been approved by the following supervisory committee members: Ann Darling , Chair 7/13/15 Date Approved Mary Strine , Member 5/13/15 Date Approved Danielle Endres , Member 5/13/15 Date Approved Michael Middleton , Member 5/13/15 Date Approved Audrey Thompson , Member 8/7/15 Date Approved and by Kent Ono , Chair/Dean of the Department/College/School of Communication and by David B. Kieda, Dean of The Graduate School. ABSTRACT Policy debate is an educational practice that researchers have verified teaches students an important skill set that is highly valued in today's workforce and communities. The problem is that this interscholastic activity has traditionally excluded students from underrepresented populations and those who live in poverty. In the late 1990s, Urban Debate Leagues (UDLs) were created to rectify this problem. UDLs brought policy debate to large urban school districts. Quantitative research shows that UDL students improve their GPAs, test scores, graduation and college matriculation rates. However, there is little qualitative research to support these findings. In this dissertation, I argue that identity is what changes students. Students are influenced by many different identities that they are able to explore through the UDL program. The study asks two questions 1) what identities are offered by a UDL? and 2) what tensions exist between the identities experienced in the UDL and the students' social identities? Critical ethnography and portraiture were the two methodologies utilized. Analysis of the data showed that students explored three types of identities-debater, academic, and the Carlinville Urban Debate League. The findings also showed tensions between debater identities and student's social identities particularly race and class. It was determined that identity was the key to understanding the influence of UDLs on its participants.TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. vi Chapters 1 CARLOS: "BEING IN THE WORLD" ........................................................................1 2 DEBATE AND URBAN DEBATE LEAGUES ...........................................................7 The Problem .................................................................................................................. 8 An Opportunity Arises .................................................................................................. 9 Identity Changes ......................................................................................................... 10 Rationale and Significance ......................................................................................... 11 Description of Chapters .............................................................................................. 12 3 JOSEPH: HIS GRANDFATHER'S SUIT...................................................................14 4 POLICY DEBATE AS AN EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE .......................................21 Overview of the Chapter ............................................................................................. 21 Debate as an Educational Practice .............................................................................. 21 An Overview of Policy Debate ................................................................................... 23 Complexities of Debate............................................................................................... 27 Urban Debate Leagues ................................................................................................ 30 Urban Debate League Research .................................................................................. 34 The Drawbacks of Urban Debate Leagues ................................................................. 37 Academic Identities .................................................................................................... 43 Chapter Summary ....................................................................................................... 46 5 XAVIER: SAPPY, SNARKY, AND SASSY .............................................................48 6 IDENTITY: A VERITABLE DISCURSIVE EXPLOSION .......................................53 Schools as Sites of Socialization and Identity Work .................................................. 54 Critical Cultural Studies and Theories of Identity ...................................................... 65 Communication Education and Identity Work ........................................................... 74v 7 CARMINDA: DEBATE, THE GREAT ESCAPE ......................................................79 8 THE WARP AND WEFT OF TWO METHODOLOGIES ........................................85 Critical Ethnography ................................................................................................... 85 Portraiture ................................................................................................................... 92 Similarities Between Critical Ethnography and Portraiture ........................................ 94 Site of Study ................................................................................................................ 95 My Involvement With CUDL ..................................................................................... 97 Participants .................................................................................................................. 98 Data Collection ......................................................................................................... 100 Data Analysis Procedures: Part One ......................................................................... 105 Data Analysis Procedures: Part Two ........................................................................ 112 9 WATCH ME GO CONFIDENTLY: IDENTITIES IN THEIR OWN WORDS ......113 Overview of the Chapter ........................................................................................... 114 Debater Identity ........................................................................................................ 115 Academic Identity ..................................................................................................... 138 CUDL Identity .......................................................................................................... 148 Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................... 155 10 #URBAN: DEBATE IN A RACIAL AND CLASS-CODED SCHOOL .................156 Overview of the Chapter ........................................................................................... 157 Rocking the John Dewey Boat .................................................................................. 158 Urban Schools versus Suburban/Private Schools ..................................................... 165 A Class Divided ........................................................................................................ 171 Sí Se Puede! Sí Se Puede! ........................................................................................ 175 Urban Debaters ......................................................................................................... 177 Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................... 185 11 IDENTITIES AND VOICES: COLLIDING, COLLABORATING, OR CO-OPTING ............................................................................................................. 186 Reflection .................................................................................................................. 186 Review ...................................................................................................................... 187 Preview ..................................................................................................................... 188 Research Question One ............................................................................................. 188 Research Question Two ............................................................................................ 191 Broad Conclusions .................................................................................................... 193 Acknowledging Limitations...................................................................................... 195 Lingering Questions and Future Directions .............................................................. 197 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................200 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS "You may not control all the events that happen to you, but you can decide not to be reduced by them." ~ Maya Angelou A common saying I have heard from many fellow academics is, "Life just got in the way" and this could not be any truer for my situation. I experienced many life-changing events throughout the dissertation process and at my lowest point, I thought finishing my dissertation was insurmountable. I did not listen to the voice inside myself that quietly whispered, "You can do this." Instead, for a time I listened to the voices of people who told me that I could not-that I was not good enough or smart enough. I let those voices reduce me. But, eventually, I grew stronger. I got rid of the negative voices and started listening to the positive voices that had been supporting me all along, even when I was unable to listen. Inch by inch, milestone by milestone, I regained my strength in myself and my research and writing abilities. I learned that no one could reduce me; only I could do that and I was no longer a willing participant. As a result, my dissertation began to materialize, and I was privileged to listen to new voices-those of the young men and women who participated in my dissertation to whom I owe a gift of great gratitude. I have many people to thank for their support in making my dreams of earning a doctorate come true. To begin, I need to acknowledge the two positive voices thatvii stayed with me through the journey of my entire dissertation. One of those positive voices was that of my committee chair, Dr. Ann Darling. Ann, I have so many things to thank you for. Thank you for believing in me when I did not. Thank you for your never-ending support and encouragement. Thank you for always reading my work and providing me with rich feedback. Thank you for knowing who I am as a person, a student, a researcher, and a writer. You are more than just a committee chair; you are a mentor, a role model, and a fellow kindred spirit. The other positive voice that has been with me all my life is that of my mother. My mother fought for me, pushed me, and even needled me to finish my dissertation. She always believed I could do it, even though I made her nervous sometimes. Thank you, Mom, for being my everything. This dissertation is a product of your help and support, and I dedicate it to you. I love you. I am also truly thankful for my committee. To Dr. Mary Strine, thank you for teaching me, challenging me, and making me a better scholar and writer. Thank you for teaching me not to put "the cart before the horse" as you would say to me when too many of my ideas would jumble together. To Dr. Danielle Endres, thank you for invigorating my thinking about ethnography, rhetoric, and performance. You taught me how to push at disciplinary boundaries and not accept the status quo. To Dr. Audrey Thompson, I thank you for setting me down the right path to choosing my dissertation. If I had not taken your class, I would not have known that I wanted to examine the influence of alternative programs on high school students. I also thank you for pushing me towards the "messiness" of this project. To Dr. Michael Middleton, you have been an invaluable resource to me. I thank you for always being willing to help me with all things forensic! viii You are a terrific role model. I would like to thank Dr. Avery, Dr. Marouf Hasian, and Dr. Karen Ashcraft as well as the rest of the faculty in the Communication Department for their teaching and support. Also, I am thankful to my cohort. While we are scattered far and wide, I thank you for challenging me to always do my best. I especially want to recognize Jim Bunker for his continued support throughout this journey. Who knew that we would become so close! Finally, I would like to recognize my dear friend Karmenly, who really encouraged me to push through the times I struggled and get this dissertation done!CHAPTER 1 CARLOS: "BEING IN THE WORLD" It's after school and Carlos and I are at CiCi's Pizza, an all you can eat pizza buffet. It is not the most intimate setting for interviews, but I like to feed some of my participants and this is their favorite place. Carlos is a 14-year-old Honduran freshman at John Dewey High School. He is tall and slender with black hair that is short and always gelled. He wears glasses, which actually have been broken for over a year now, until late in the school year when the school paid for him to get a new pair. Carlos is always friendly, polite, and helpful. When I think about Carlos, it is always on the tip of my tongue to describe him as the quintessential nice young man. However, in my head, my ethnographer voice says, "You cannot call someone nice-it's nondescript." But it's who Carlos is-he is nice, kind, thoughtful, and respectful to all. This is Carlos' 2nd year in debate; he debated as an eighth grader at Winston Middle School. Over the time I have grown to know Carlos, I have found that many things make him joyful. For instance, he describes his little sisters as "the joys of his life." Carlos is always positive and encourages others to be as well. For example, when his coach and other students in the debate class are being negative, he yells out to them, "There's a positive way to think about that!" In one of our earliest interviews, I asked Carlos what some of his favorite things to do were and he replied, "Well, first of all I would say go to church because church is a2 joy in my life that I didn't have before. Ah, second, I would probably say reading. Third of all, I would say watching shows like Animal Planet like nonfiction TV shows." I commented on the diversity of his interests and then asked if debate made his list of favorite activities. Carlos was like, "Yes, yes, I just forgot!" Carlos is a very polished speaker for a novice; he frequently earns speaker awards at the Carlinville Urban Debate League tournaments. His level of politeness and his ability to summarize and clarify arguments make him a strong debater, and the judges appear to listen to him. However, Carlos has a penchant for coming up with analogies and sometimes he comes up with some whoppers! At the beginning of the school year, he particularly liked this analogy about ants and bread and honey and how if you provide the honey, that will be the glue that attracts the ants to the bread, but they will get stuck. His point, at that time, was that if we bring in all these special resources to Cuba, the Cuban people would flock towards those resources, but they would become stuck in the Americanization of Cuba. This analogy was really a stretch and made little sense, but he loved it. Every time he would use it and I was observing the round, Joseph (his partner) and I would glance at each other and shake our heads. We finally both told him that his analogy did not work, which made him a bit unhappy, but he quickly came up with a new one! It is important to my research to understand why students like debate and how this influences their identities. When I spoke with Carlos about what he likes about being a debater, he replied, What I like being about a debater, what I especially like, is being able to express yourself and you also get to learn new things and those things come in handy; like last year's topic about infrastructure and urbanization and industrialization, all those things came in handy this year because those things came like this to me (he 3 snaps). I learned things about the world. Before I was in debate, I was just in the world but I didn't know what was going on. You actually do research and you find out what's going on. I like this statement by Carlos because of how he states he "was just in the world" and did not engage his surroundings. But through debate, he felt it became possible to learn more about the world. This illustrates to me that debate opens the world for those who participate and exposes them to a world outside their bubble. It also demonstrates the building of a critical citizen. In one of our interviews we talked a lot about Carlos's experiences at school. A good student at Winston Middle School, Carlos works to earn good grades. Although at John Dewey, he has no pre-AP classes, he does not complain about his classes like other students do when they were not in pre-AP courses. Carlos described himself as a hardworking student who "does what needs to be done." At first, Carlos had difficulty adjusting to high school level work and didn't quite earn all A's his first semester; however, he explains he feels better now about his study habits and is earning good grades. I asked Carlos what his favorite class is and he gave me three. He explained, My favorite core class would be biology. I love biology and it's with animals. My favorite career class would have to be my engineering class because there we actually draw and learn to be freethinking engineers; I learn to think outside the box. Like don't just think in 2D; think in 3D to imagine the things. My favorite other class would be debate because I get to express myself in that class. That's the only place I can express myself and how I feel. Because of the tendency of students to drop out during their freshman year in Carlinville School District (CSD), I asked Carlos about the importance of school to him. He enthusiastically answered that school is very important to him. Carlos stated, Yes, [school is important] because my parents have it drilled into me that if you don't have school there's not much you can do in life because I mean if you don't go to school what are you going to do? You can't expect a job to land from the sky; you have to work hard to get what you want. 4 Carlos placed a high level of importance on school so that he could succeed in life. Carlos's answer demonstrates the influence of his parents and his knowledge of the reality that without an education and hard work a job would be impossible to obtain. Finally, I was curious to know what future career interests Carlos possesses so I asked him what he thought he would like to be when he grew up. He answered, That's a hard one. I have like two or three. The first one would probably be a lawyer because I love to express what I feel and help other people. I would probably be a doctor maybe because I like helping other people and I like microbiology. I would probably be a microbiologist to study them [humans] or a normal biologist to study animals. By no means are Carlos's goals modest, but what I was struck by is that he picked occupations in areas that he knew he had skills in like debate and biology. Most high school students pick lofty career goals, but do not have the know-how or skill to accomplish them. In Carlos's case, he picked advanced careers, but he is able to back them up with having had success in the types of classes that would support his future career(s). I asked him what his future plans are after high school and he stated, I would probably the year right after we get out of high school I would go to college. I don't know which I'm going to go to. I want to go to an out-of-state one; my parents don't want me to. I would consider going to a state college or a community college first and then move on. I just would have to consider it. All in all, I have a strong feeling that Carlos will accomplish his educational goals because he is so dedicated and never gives up. I do think Carlos will have some difficulty choosing how he will receive his education based on family needs and desires as well as how he will pay for school. In another one of our interviews, we ended up talking about race and discrimination. Carlos's Honduran ethnicity is very important to him. He related, "I mean I come from Honduras so I have Honduran pride. I'm not ashamed to be from 5 Honduras; it's a joy for me, pride." However, Carlos expressed that he receives flack for being Honduran. He stated, I'm not racist or anything, but because I'm Hispanic I would say I've been discriminated against. For me, well I've been made fun of because I'm Hispanic and even other Hispanics make fun of me because I'm from Honduras. To me what that does is that it shows me that when I meet someone from a different race I try to be equal to them because I don't want them to feel the way I felt, so I am nice to them and equal to them. Carlos's goals are to be equal to Whites and other Hispanics so that he does not feel inferior and to make sure other people do not feel as he does when he is considered unequal. I think the choice of the word equal is interesting because Carlos does not want to be the same as others because he has his own identity, but he wants equality of consideration and treatment. He wants to be assumed equal. Carlos's Honduran ethnicity is very much part of his identity, but when asked more about his identities, he answered, God is my main identity, my second would be a nice person who gets along with people and I am free to be who I want to be not be limited by anything; I just don't want to be oppressed; I want to be free to help others not be singled out because I'm weird or slightly different. Carlos reveals a lot of different identities in this statement and I think he makes them very visible. On the one hand, Carlos has a Godly identity which coincides with his wanting to be seen as a nice person who gets along with and helps others. In the same breath, he is very clear that he does not want to be oppressed or limited by anyone or anything. I almost feel like these are competing and confusing identities for Carlos at times. There is a need to be a good Christian and believe in God and be kind to others, yet there is a limit to this when he faces oppression from others and is made fun of for being different. When Carlos stated that he was labeled as "weird" or "slightly different," it made 6 me wonder out loud, "Do you feel you are slightly different than other people?" He replied, "Uhhh not now, but in elementary school to junior high to early high school, I was singled out because I was weird, I was different. But now I've found my group of people who I'm similar too and just blend in with them." Carlos's answer that he used to feel different from other kids prompted me to ask him what made him feel different, and he said teachers and students at school had discriminated against him. He could not give me an example of a teacher, but he explained how White people make him feel, saying, "I'm not trying to be rude, I've been discriminated against by White people because they consider me less so what happens to me is I just try to strive to prove them wrong that being Hispanic doesn't make you less." I immediately asked what he meant by being considered "less." Carlos said, "Because they always consider me stupid; I'm Hispanic so they consider me stupid automatically, that's how it works. So I strive harder because even though they're White it doesn't make them superior." Being considered less is similar to Carlos' statement of making sure he was equal to others. Carlos is experiencing the societal norms and stereotypes placed on Hispanics as being less capable than Whites, which forces him to work harder to prove he is equal so that his race does not make him any less than anyone else.CHAPTER 2 DEBATE AND URBAN DEBATE LEAGUES In an address at the Nelson Mandela Foundation in 2004, Desmond Tutu said, "Don't raise your voice, improve your argument." Tutu, a cleric and activist, received worldwide attention as an opponent of apartheid and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. While Tutu was not referring to a formal debate, his quote is important because it demonstrates that reasoned arguments are more effective than those reactions that lead to elevated conflict. In order to participate in social activism, such as the war against apartheid, it is better to utilize logical argumentation then shout from the streets. Many people in the United States think that a "debate" is where politicians utilize stump speeches and take verbal jabs at one another in order to win a political office like the presidency. However, today's public debates do not reflect the richness of interscholastic debate. Instead, in our colleges, universities, high schools and even middle schools, formal debate is introduced as an important educational practice. Examples of this educational practice include Lincoln Douglas, Parliamentary, and Policy or Cross Examination debate, all of which are built on reasoned argument. The origins of intercollegiate policy debate began with the Harvard/Yale debate in 1892, but according to Fine (2001), the first debate actually occurred between Northwestern and the old Chicago University. Intercollegiate debate spread across the country rapidly and in 1925 was extended to high schools and in 1995 to middle schools. Debate was popular8 because the skills debaters gain are highly regarded and include increased critical thinking skills, research and speaking abilities, and academic achievement. Debate has waxed and waned since the early 1900s as our society went through multiple wars and school reformations. Sometimes debate is exceedingly popular and at other times interest has fallen off. One of the key factors in the popularity of debate is money. Debate teams require a significant amount of funding to compete at the local, regional, and national level. Only some schools can afford this and those schools are typically Ivy League (or well-funded colleges and universities), suburban or private high schools and middle schools. Thus, there are gaps in which students who can benefit from an education in debate and those who cannot. The Problem This dissertation focuses on how high school students in an urban setting experience policy debate. The primary problem this study is rooted in is the relatively limited understanding of how high school students engage in this particular educational practice and how they are affected by their engagement. Furthermore, research on students who participate in policy debate is limited because most studies on debate typically focus on the study of intercollegiate debate; therefore, there is little research on high school students. Extant research is often quantitatively based so while we learn about characteristics of debaters, we do not hear about their experiences. Another part of the problem is research on policy debate privileges White, suburban and/or privately schooled students. There is little research on underrepresented populations of students in debate at the high school level. Finally, and most importantly, too few of studies utilize student voices and experiences in their research; thus they are typically missing from 9 current discourses. Too often student voices are left out because researchers, teachers, and administrators speak for students instead of allowing them to speak for themselves (Fielding, 2001; Mansfield, 2014). Historically marginalized students lack a voice because they are too often the subjects of policies rather than playing a part in developing them. An Opportunity Arises In the 1980s, Melissa Wade, Emory University's Debate Director, began an urban outreach program in Atlanta public schools to teach minority, inner-city students to debate. Wade (1998) argued that an intervention was needed because schools were still separate and unequal despite more than 30 years of civil rights legislation following Brown vs. Board of Education. Poor, non-White students comprised the majority of public school populations, and persistent inequality and inequity meant that these students lacked a range of crucial educational resources, including access to information, exposure to a rich variety of teaching styles, and, more generally, a sense of belonging in relation to their academic institutions. Over a 3-year pilot program, Wade and two coaches from the Atlanta public schools created the Atlanta Urban Debate League. From 1998-2002, 16 more urban debate leagues (UDLs) were started in cities across the country-including Baltimore, Los Angeles, and Chicago-using funding from George Soros' Open Society Institute (OSI). To start a UDL, the OSI required that school districts had student populations that were at minimum 87% minority and 78% low income. Today, 24 leagues in the nation's largest cities have been founded, over 500 schools have participated, and more than 40,000 urban public school students have competed (NAUDL, 2014). 10 The goal of UDLs is to bring the advantages of participation in competitive policy debate to as many urban youth as possible. The skills associated with debate have been shown to directly and indirectly improve academic achievement (Anderson & Mezuk, 2012; Baker, 1998; Breger, 2000; Colbert & Biggers, 1985; Collier, 2004; Mezuk 2009; Mezuk, Bondarenko, Smith, & Tucker, 2011; Warner & Bruschke, 2001). For instance, it has been reported that participants of UDLs raise their literacy scores, and GPAs, graduate from high school at increased rates and matriculate to college more often (Collier, 2004). Other reports explain how participation in the league decreases the achievement gap, high risk or violent behaviors and truancy, and increases standardized test scores, attendance, critical thinking and the ability to research (Brand, 1997; Colbert & Biggers, 1985; Freeley, 1986). Adult participants, including coaches, judges, and other mentors, find that participation in UDLs is both transformative and empowering (Baker, 1998; Lee, 1998; Wade 1998, 2010; Warner & Bruschke, 2001). According to Reid-Brinkley (2012), UDLs are "tools of empowerment for educationally disenfranchised students providing them with the opportunity to develop communication and academic skills that increase the likelihood of their future success" (p. 80). Identity Changes Most of the literature on UDLs does not include student voices or descriptions of their experiences. While research on UDLs tells us the program is successful and has great impacts, there is little explanation of how and why the students who participate become so successful as result of their participation. Research on UDLs has failed to explain how participants in a UDL make these changes. By what mechanism do UDL debaters change? One way to explore why the program is successful is to examine the 11 identities offered to those students who participate because the performance of debate allows participants to take up different identities. Changes in identity could be the mechanism of change. Thus, the purpose of this study is to explore how participation in an UDL influences students' identities. My research questions are as follows: RQ1 What identities do students experience through participation in an Urban Debate League? RQ2 What tensions exist around the identities experienced through participation in an Urban Debate League and the social identities available in the broader culture of the school? Rationale and Significance A rationale for a research study justifies why it is important to undertake the research while the significance of the study expresses the benefits that may come from it. One of the rationales for this study is that the addition of qualitative research will enrich the quantitative research on UDLs by providing explanations from students about why debate is working in their lives. Also, this dissertation adds to theories of potential types of identities like an academic identity, which might demonstrate how debate influences student's views and schooling practices. However, the most important reason this study was undertaken is current research pays little attention to students' voices and ideas, and this study gives life to their experiences. The significance of this study is threefold. First, the findings suggest an expansion in theories of identity that deal with academics and school. Second, the study uses a method that highlights the relationship between the researcher and the participant 12 that produces results that are key to understanding the identity processes the students undergo. Third, this dissertation focuses attention on a particular type of debate program and in so doing foregrounds voices often left silent by research on debate as an educational practice. Description of Chapters This dissertation is divided into seven core chapters and four short excerpts of portraitures created from the data. I began with a portrait of Carlos, which describes how he loves debate and experiences racial discrimination. This portrait previewed this introductory chapter (Chapter 2) that includes a definition of the problem, an overview of the project, the rationale and significance of the study. The Introduction is followed by another portrait included as Chapter 3. In this portrait, I explore a nickname given to Joseph, how he struggles to obtain a good education and how he sees his racial identity. Next, Chapter 4 is the literature review where I examine research on debate and urban debate leagues as well as academic identities. Chapter 4 is followed by another portrait about a student named Xavier. Xavier's portrait highlights a campaign he wants to win, his academic identity, and his idea of the persona of a debater. Chapter 6 provides the theoretical frameworks of the study. I examine theories of identity and the works of Stuart Hall, especially his theorizing about the interpellation of identities. Following Chapter 6 is the last portrait, Carminda's story. Carminda's portrait examines her home, debate, and school life. Chapters 8, 9, and 10 involve the methodology and analysis. The methodology section explains portraiture and the critical ethnographic approach being used. It also details the participants, their school, how the research was conducted and collected, etc. 13 Chapters 9 and 10 use portraiture to analyze the two research questions. Chapter 9 examines what identities the urban debate league offers whereas Chapter 10 looks at how the students experience tensions amongst these identities. The final chapter, Chapter 11, explicates the conclusions drawn from the analysis chapters, broader conclusions, limitations and lingering questions.CHAPTER 3 JOSEPH: HIS GRANDFATHER'S SUIT Joseph is also a freshman at John Dewey High School. He is a 14-year-old White male with blonde, sometimes unruly hair, a pink complexion, and blue eyes. He stands about 5'9", and I find him endearing because he is in that awkward puberty stage where his face has not yet matured from middle school and his body has not leaned out quite yet. He is very bulky as he moves, kind of like a bull in a china shop. Joseph's personality is steady, even keeled, calm, and thoughtful. Joseph's likes are pretty simple; he likes reading, band, church, video games, Yu-Gi-Oh!, Pokemon, and of course, debate. Debate is Joseph's most favorite activity and he invests a lot of time into it-both in and out of class. He talks about debate nonstop especially with his partner Carlos; they are always trying out new strategies to trick their opponents. Their favorite strategy is to simulate cross-examinations where they try to outsmart each other. They get quite loud because they call each other "Sir" when they are trying to dupe the other one into saying something that conflicts with their side of the argument. They are so loud sometimes that their classmates make them go outside and practice, yet we always could still hear them. It makes me smile and laugh how seriously they would take cross-examination when a debate is typically won or lost in the rebuttals. I came to know Joseph through classroom observations, informal and formal interviews. Joseph drew my attention for a number of reasons. First, he was one of only15 a few freshmen in the debate class, and he already had debate experience from middle school! He debated 2 years at Winston Middle School, which meant that as a high school freshman, he already had a lot of experience. Joseph may be one of only a few of the 1,000 students CUDL reaches to have this much experience as an entering freshman. Second, Joseph was friendly and open to talking with me. This is important because I wanted to ensure that I never forced a student to participate and because Joseph was friendly, interested and approachable, this opened the door for me to develop a relationship with him. One of the first experiences I had with Joseph was his being teased by other students, even though no one knew him that well. He was teased for being a freshman. Being teased for being in your 1st year of high school seems commonplace, and I think most students would say it is a rite of passage. The John Dewey debaters called the new freshman debaters "Fish;" a derivative of freshman. I do not agree with this rite of passage, but as an observer the only action I could take was to provide Joseph and his partner, Carlos, an outlet for talking about it in our interviews. Joseph and Carlos did not like being called "Fish," but revealed in interviews that the way they handled it was to ignore it and also they knew that the next year they would get to call the incoming freshmen "Fish" like they were. As long as they got to do it to someone else, it did not bother them that much. However, Joseph was individually teased. Joseph wore shorts every day to school, but it was not until he wore shorts to the first debate tournament in which the team chose to dress up did he earn the nickname "Shorts." Dressing up to debate is not required by the Carlinville Urban Debate League or CUDL; their policy is come as you 16 are, but some teams dress up to try to improve their credibility with the judges. Although Joseph wore a button down shirt with his shorts to the tournament, his choice of wearing shorts went against the norm of John Dewey's debate team. Dressing up meant dress pants of some type, a button down shirt and either a tie or jacket. The problem, which no one knew, was that Joseph did not have any dress pants or pants that would have been acceptable. While Joseph liked wearing shorts, what was not well known is that Joseph's family did not have money to buy him the types of clothing John Dewey debaters normally wore. After the second tournament, Joseph began wearing a suit with a tie so that he fit in. I later found out that the suit he wore had been his grandfather's. I found this very touching. Joseph wore that same suit, shirt, tie and shoes to every tournament, even wearing it 2 days in a row for 2-day tournaments. About 4 months into the school semester, Joseph and I had our first interview at CiCi's Pizza. I gave Joseph several topics to talk about and he chose to talk about himself and his upbringing. Joseph was born in a large Southwestern Metropolis, but as a child he moved around to areas in Texas and Wisconsin for his father's job. His family moved back to the large Southwestern Metropolis before Joseph started middle school, which is when his father lost his job. Joseph's mom is the only one working in the family and he has two sisters so money is very tight. During the interview, he kept saying his childhood was "fine." "But, it's fine," he would say. When I asked him, "What he meant by "fine?" He answered, "The fact that I still could have a roof over my head and still eat three meals every day and still have the basic necessities like a regular person or a regular family and everything, it's made it a fine childhood." I do not know many 14-year-olds who can be so pragmatic and not indicate that they want something more or outside their 17 family's means. It is as if Joseph understood Maslow's hierarchy of needs and accepted that one needs shelter and food and that having that is good-it's acceptable-"it's fine." Given that there are great disparities of wealth on the John Dewey team, I know I would have found it hard to not envy the other students who had more. Besides his childhood, we also discussed how getting a good education is very important to Joseph. He states, . . . I've found it actually helps you in life because you do good in school the more colleges will notice you because you are being a good kid that has good grades. [This] will help me get a scholarship to wherever I need to go so it will pay for college and everything and it will hopefully get me a job that I actually like and do stuff that I like. Joseph's statement is quite telling of several beliefs he holds. First, it is clear to me that Joseph's parents are not happy with their level of education and job opportunities or lack thereof, and Joseph does not want to be stuck in the same situation. He wants a job that he likes and where he does things that he likes. Second, being good and earning good grades is the way to earn scholarships is how Joseph views the college process, which is a bit naïve. Full ride scholarships are very hard to come by, and it is a difficult process applying for scholarships and finding the right college for you. It is not an automatic process that good grades translate into scholarships. However, Joseph is only a freshman and without guidance from his parents or more exposure to high school, it is easy to see why he explains the process so simplistically. Debate is one of the most important parts of Joseph's life. He loves it! He got into debate because his middle school librarian recommended him for the team and as he says, "It turned out, I was really good at it." And, he was. Joseph and his partner Carlos steadily improved throughout the course of the debate season. At one tournament, Joseph earned a "Top Speaker Award." At the second to last tournament, Joseph and Carlos 18 won the entire novice tournament! It was amazing! I was very proud of them and they were so proud of themselves. I was curious what Joseph thought about debating for John Dewey High School so in another interview we spoke about debating for his school and team. I asked, "What does it mean to be a debater for John Dewey High School?" Joseph's answer surprised me a little. Joseph stated, So to be a debater for the actual school I guess it helps me get on my teachers' good sides [because they think] "you're actually really good at this," and so they sort of like respect me because I'm on the debate team, but it also means I'm defending my school and everything; I'm representing John Dewey as a whole. Umm it really helps the school's reputation. I was really surprised by part of his answer because it felt manipulative and calculating to me-two characteristics I would not associate with Joseph. Instead, Joseph's answer represented two sides of a coin with one side being about how he was seen as smart and debate helped him gain favor from his teachers, but on the other side of the coin, what it meant to be a John Dewey debater was about representing a positive reputation of John Dewey High School. I also asked Joseph, "What do you like about being a debater? Joseph answered: I think the thing I like the most about it because being in debate especially this year and I'm in world geography and so learning about Cuba and Mexico and how their status is and everything really helped me because we were actually studying it and so I knew everything that was going on. But it helps me keep up with current events more that way I have more new arguments in case something comes up. Again I was surprised. It's not that I had preformulated a correct answer, it's that my job with CUDL gives me access to survey data and when debaters are asked about what their favorite thing about debate is, "arguing, competing, and winning" are the most common answers. I really liked Joseph's answer because it stretched beyond the typical answers 19 to something more meaningful and academic. There is a pattern to Joseph's answers, which is he typically relates the question to academics and not the characteristics or components of debate. Finally, over the course of our interviews, Joseph made some revealing comments about his race and identity. When I asked about race and discrimination in school, Joseph stated, I mean I never really thought about it or anything. I usually just say, "Yeah, I'm White." I mean big deal. Umm but I don't know what it exactly means to me because I don't take it seriously as long as someone is not making fun of it. I don't really care if it means something or anything. In the same vein, I asked how does your race influence you? Joseph replied, I feel like sometimes at school people see me as a white kid who has everything and who like really doesn't have to do anything [and is] like super laidback and doesn't really care about anything. But I really see that as not true because I have had to work for what I want. I haven't really gotten anything just like on the spot. Other than that I don't think it really affects me. Other than the fact that people judge me on it. I also asked Joseph if he had experienced discrimination at school. I already knew from my observations and informal interviews that the other participants experienced discrimination. I was curious to see what Joseph would say because at John Dewey, Whites do not make up the largest percentage of the student body. Joseph explained that in middle school he was the only White person in one of his classes, and he was discriminated against because all the kids called him "White Boy." I expected that there would not be a great deal of racial awareness on Joseph's part because even though the schools he attended were primarily Hispanic, White students were still the dominant race and culture. The diverse student population did little to change White dominance. I also expected to hear some sort of interaction where Joseph felt discriminated against when he was in a minority position. 20 Joseph's voice is not very affective, and when I asked him questions about his race, the words he was saying did not come across the same way they do in print. For example, his downplaying of his race; his comment about not knowing what it means [to be White] because he does not take it seriously unless made fun of; and his declaration of not caring, for me, are so harsh and disappointing. When I transcribed these interactions, I was really shocked because I had forgotten the intensity of his words and his general affect. CHAPTER 4 POLICY DEBATE AS AN EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE Overview of the Chapter The purpose of this study is to expand the limited understanding of how high school students engage in the educational practice of debate and how they are affected by it. The study explores how participating in an UDL may influence student's identities. In support of the purpose and goal of the study at hand, this chapter presents arguments about the literatures that support the use of policy debate with all its complexities. Urban debate leagues, critiques of UDLs, and academic identity are also explored. Debate as an Educational Practice Debate is an educational practice and scholastic activity that has a demonstrated record of increasing academic achievement. For example, intercollegiate debate research touts the critical thinking skills debaters learn including: "research identification, collection, organization and assimilation, evidence evaluation, development of practical theoretical arguments and counter arguments, persuasive writing . . ." etc. (Rogers, 2005, p. 1). Also, public presentational skills and intelligent articulation are taught and debaters develop self-confidence, poise, and the ability to think quickly on one's feet (Rogers, 2002; 2005). Finally, students learn advocacy skills and social responsibility; these skills are developed through coming to understand sociopolitical issues and the ability to argue22 and see both sides of an argument, which creates acceptance for different viewpoints from other people. As Bartenan (1998) explains: "debate fosters leadership skills of reflection, connectedness and advocacy" (pp. 12-13). The largest area of research concerns what is arguably the most important skill set a debater develops: critical thinking skills. Similar to the description above, critical thinking skills consist of the ability to read, research, formulate arguments, write, and speak well (see Beckman, 1957; Brembeck, 1949; Colbert, 1987; Cross, 1961; Gruner, Husman, & Luck, 1971; Hill, 1993; Horn & Underberg, 1993; Howell, 1943; Jackson, 1961; Rowland, 1995; Ware & Gruner, 1972; Williams, 1951; Williams, McGee, & Worth, 2001). Other critical thinking abilities include comprehending abstract, large bodies of knowledge, synthesizing information, and scrutinizing the positions of your opponents (Patterson & Zarefsky, 1983; Sanders, 1983; Sheckels, 1984). Freeley (1986) describes the critical thinking process students experience as a debater in four steps: (1) to create an argument, a student is required to research issues (which requires knowledge of how to use libraries and data banks), organize data, analyze the data, synthesize different kinds of data, and evaluate information with respect to the quality of conclusions it may point to; (2) to form an argument after this process, a student must understand how to reason, must be able to recognize and critique different methods of reasoning, and must have an understanding of the logic of decision making; (3) the successful communication of arguments to audiences reflects another cognitive skill: the ability to communicate complex ideas clearly with words; (4) finally, the argumentative interaction of students in a debate reflects an even more complex cognitive ability-the ability to process the arguments of others quickly and to reformulate or adapt or defend previous positions. (pp. 27-28) To engage in critical thinking one must enact and perform these steps during the context of a debate. These steps reveal the complex actions and interactions that debate requires. In addition to critical thinking skills, research shows there are many other benefits of debate. The development of academic skills, mental and emotional maturity, and 23 academic and occupational achievement are also within the skill set debaters learn (Catterall, 2002). Debate teaches students how to think-for themselves and more importantly how others do (Infante & Wingly, 1986). Debaters become self-directed learners, which teaches them to take control of their own education and become lifelong learners. Additionally, students who debate perform better academically and end up working in positions that require high levels of reasoning and logic, as well as leadership (Colbert & Biggers, 1985). Furthermore, many debaters become politically active and engage in civic participation; this is particularly true for women and students of color because the skills learned in debate help them break through existing barriers to civic engagement (Bellon, 2000). In sum, it appears that all of the skills offered through debate could assist students with academic performance in school and develop important social and advocacy skills outside of the classroom. An Overview of Policy Debate At the high school level, three primary types of debate exist-parliamentary, Lincoln-Douglas, and Policy Debate. Parliamentary debate is modeled after the British Parliament style of debate where there are two teams-the government and the opposition-as well as the Speaker of the House who serves as the judge. Parliamentary debate focuses on quick thinking, logical argumentation, and knowledge of rhetoric over large research areas. The emphasis of this type of debate is persuasiveness, logic, and wit. Since the resolution the debaters use for each round are set 10 minutes prior to the round, no evidence is required. Lincoln-Douglas (or L-D) debate began as a reaction to the extremeness of team policy debate. Mirrored after Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas in the 1850s, L-D 24 is a one-on-one style of debating where students debate about competing ethical values. Some common resolutions are "The spirit of the law ought to take precedence over the letter of the law to enhance justice" or "Cooperation is superior to competition." L-D debaters are about values and the ability to persuade. Emphasis is placed on speaking clearly, logically, and fluidly. L-D debates are not necessarily research intensive. Policy or Cross Examination debate is known as a research based type of speech competition where two teams are allowed to ask questions of their opponents during a 3-minute period. This 3-minute period is why this form of debate is often referred to as Cross-X or CX debate. CX debate is very popular on the high school debate circuit while parliamentary and most specifically L-D are not being practiced as much. CX debate is the type of debate used solely by Urban Debate Leagues (UDLs). It is examined here in-depth in order to provide the reader with a context for understanding the rest of dissertation. First, in policy debate, there is the topic that all high school students debate from called the Resolution. The resolution is typically about the federal government and for the 2013-2014 debate season read as: "Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic engagement toward Cuba, Mexico, or Venezuela." This topic is then debated between two-person teams from different schools who meet at tournaments where they are assigned to be one of two sides-the affirmative or the negative. The affirmative side presents evidence that supports the resolution, which involves building a "case" based on evidence, and the negative argues against that case by presenting evidence that conflicts or claims that the status quo should be kept in 25 place. Each debate is called a round and for each round the teams are assigned to argue a different side, i.e, if a team is on the affirmative for one debate, they will be on the negative for the second. This is why CX debate is also called switch-side debating. The teams of students present their evidence in a series of timed speeches. There are two parts to the debate: the constructive and the rebuttal sections. In the constructive part, all the evidence is presented and arguments are made. This part of the debate includes four speeches and four cross-examinations. The second part is the rebuttals, which are used to explain how each of their arguments outweighs their opponents' and why their side should win the debate. There are four rebuttal speeches. Each debater delivers two speeches-a constructive and a rebuttal. Also, each speaker takes a turn asking their opponents CX questions and providing answers to the other side's CX questions. Table 4.1 on the following page is a list of the order of the speeches, which debater gives each speech, and the times for all the speeches. Policy debate, then, is highly structured; some would argue that it is too rigidly structured. There are a few other aspects of policy debate that are important to this project. First, the 1AC, or the first speaker on the affirmative side, delivers a "canned" or pre-written speech that articulates the affirmative's case; all other speeches are written during the round. Second, the 1AC delivers her speech as fast as she possibly can at a rate of 300-500 words per minute. This is called "spreading" the hyphenate of putting the two words speed-reading together. Spreading occurs throughout the round because debaters want to get in as much evidence as possible. Each side must respond to every argument the other makes so spreading is considered necessary by the debaters in order not to miss or "drop" an argument. Third, everyone in the round including the judge keeps what is 26 Table 4.1 Order of Speeches Speech Abbreviation of Speaker Position Time First Affirmative Constructive Speech 1AC 8 minutes Cross Examination by Second Negative Speaker 2NC 3 minutes First Negative Constructive Speech 1NC 8 minutes Cross Examination by First Affirmative Speaker 1AC 3 minutes Second Affirmative Constructive Speech 2AC 8 minutes Cross Examination by First Negative Speaker 1NC 3 minutes Second Negative Constructive Speech 2NC 8 minutes Cross Examination by Second Affirmative Speaker 2AC 3 minutes First Negative Rebuttal 1NR 5 minutes First Affirmative Rebuttal 1AR 5 minutes Second Affirmative Rebuttal 2NR 5 minutes Second Affirmative Rebuttal 2AR 5 minutes called a "flow." A flow or flowing is a highly stylistic, short-hand way to keep track of all the arguments and evidence argued in the round. Debaters use the flows to prepare their speeches and judges use theirs to assess the arguments being made. The flow is very important because it is the tool that the judge uses to make his decision on who rendered the better argument or case. A team that drops arguments usually loses because their failure to respond is interpreted as agreement with the opposing side. Finally, a logistical practice that is changing very quickly is the carrying of tubs or bins. In order to have access to all this evidence, debaters must have a place to store it so they carry around massive plastic tubs. Some even use dollies to roll their bins around. This practice has changed greatly with the approval of the use of laptops to debate. Most schools are completely digital and have all their evidence in electronic form on the debaters' laptops; thus, for the most part, intercollegiate debate and at private/suburban high schools no longer use tubs. 27 Complexities of Debate Policy debate has changed over its more than 100-year legacy and there have been many "debates about debate." Policy debaters have debated about what constitutes policy debate, the goals of policy debate, tournament practices, the order and length of each speech, how to choose a resolution, the introduction of the critique, and activism as well as variety of other aspects about what policy debate should or should not encompass. One debate, which has lasted since the 1950s, is whether debaters should engage in switch-side debating or SSD. In SSD, debate teams take turns arguing the affirmative and then the negative side of the resolution. This debate was sparked during the cold war specifically at the height of containing communism, when the following resolution was proposed to be the topic for that year's debate season: "Resolved: The United States should diplomatically recognize the People's Republic of China" (Greene & Hicks, 2005, p. 100). Many colleges and US military academies refused to approve the resolution because they were concerned that public speaking should be about "moral attributes of good citizenship" (Greene & Hicks, 2005, p. 100). Arguing for this resolution would not demonstrate good citizenship. This debate about debate was sparked by a series of charges made by Richard Murphy that would continue this debate for years to come. Murphy's (1957) position was that "debating both sides of the question was unethical because it divorced conviction from advocacy and that it was a dangerous practice because it threatened the integrity of public debate by divorcing it from a genuine search for truth" (as cited in Greene & Hicks, 2005, p. 103). Murphy's standpoint attacked both the ethical nature and the pedagogical worth of SSD as expanded on by Ehninger (1958). Murphy's 28 accusations were not taken lightly by the nation's leading debate coaches, who felt they were being condemned as ethically irresponsible educators. The coaches offered four responses: a) Murphy lacked an understanding of tournament debate; b) SSD was a reasonable educational procedure; c) college level debate should be held responsible to a different ethic; and d) SSD was needed in order to maintain tournament debate. After 10 years of debate and a quantitative study of coach's opinions, whether SSD was a good practice, the controversy was put to rest by the finding that it was ethically sound to debate both sides of the topic. As for whether SSD was a useful pedagogical tool, this debate continued on for 30 more years, with numerous arguments made about the vast educational benefits of debating both sides; however, its pedagogical worth was finally accepted. Besides debate about debate, two more relevant issues discussed in debate literature which include the lack of diversity in debate and the gender bias against female debaters. Stepp (1997) determined that in the 1980s and 1990s, debate teams were not reflective of the college populations from which they were drawn; therefore, debate teams were not composed of an almost equal number of men and women and underrepresented populations were rarely included. These conclusions were generated by examining the participants at the National Debate Tournaments and Cross Examination Debate Association tournaments and comparing them to the statistics of men and women and underrepresented populations enrolled in the general college populations. While there has been some increase in female and African American participants, most intercollegiate teams are far from diverse. Stepp (1997) argues that the reasons for the lack of growth are structural, cultural, 29 and behavioral barriers. Structural barriers include glass ceilings and the lack of power which when applied to debate showed that women and underrepresented populations faced a glass ceiling of participating beyond the junior varsity level because they rarely advanced to elimination rounds, which caused them to lose credibility that is typically granted to White male debaters. Another structural barrier identified was that the debate topics each year were unrelatable to women and minorities. Next, cultural barriers are present because debate culture is influenced most by White males, which "prohibits women and minorities from successful experiences and educational opportunities" (Stepp, 1997 p. 181). Cultural barriers are upheld by the way men and women are socialized into stereotypical gender roles. Finally, behavioral level barriers are based on the stereotypes, attitudes, and attributions allocated to women and members of nondominant cultures. Worthen and Pack (1993) reported that women debaters were caught in a double bind, because if they were passive then they were not good debaters, but if they were assertive, then they were considered "bitchy." When examined further, it was determined that judges voted female/female debate partners as the least successful when compared against male/male and male/female partnerships. Furthermore, women debaters experience sexist language and sexual harassment from their own teams and the multitude of other teams at debate tournaments (Women's Debate Institute, 2010). Issues of diversity and the gender bias continue to plague nondominant populations and women. Beyond debates about debating and issues of diversity and gender bias, other complexities at a more localized level regarding students and their debate practices are also important. For example, in Fine's (2001) ethnography of high school debate, he explores the intricacies of debate by focusing on how debaters talk, form a culture, and 30 live within an adolescent and adult world. Perhaps his strongest argument is how debaters oscillate between an adolescent and adult world, which influences students' development of self and public identities. Fine writes, Adolescents can draw upon the tools of both childhood and adulthood in establishing who they are and creating an indigenous, authentic culture. This helps to explain how teens can seem simultaneously and alternately very sophisticated and very childish. . . . Many adolescent activities have these features. It is not that adolescents have reached a plateau that is half way between childhood and adulthood, but rather they oscillate in their behavioral choices, while struggling to create a communal identity. Adolescents are both adults and children. (p. 163) High school debaters struggle with this type of dichotomy because on the one hand they are charged with discussing controversial topics, in reasoned ways and at the same time they are 14-18 years old and have a need to act their age. Fine's finding is important because it demonstrates through qualitative research how debaters create a debate world or culture and the behaviors that students use to create that identity. Debating about debate is one thing, but explaining the context of how debaters debate is equally important. Urban Debate Leagues As mentioned in the introduction, 24 urban debate leagues in the nation's largest cities have been founded, over 500 schools have participated, and more than 40,000 urban public school students have competed in an UDL. All UDLs are nonprofit organizations and are overseen by the National Association of Urban Debate Leagues (NAUDL), which was founded in 1997. NAUDL is responsible for building a network of UDLs across the United States with the goal of facilitating the participation of as many urban students as possible in policy debate. NAUDL hosts a yearly tournament for the top two teams from each league to compete. Attending the National Championships is 31 considered to be the highest honor participants in UDLs can achieve besides winning the tournament. For the purposes of this study, it is important to understand the typical practices of an UDL. NAUDL reports that participating in urban debate is of value to the individual students, the school system and to communities (NAUDL, 2014). First, the benefits to students include improving academic performance, refining of decision-making skills, bridging the high school to college gap, and preparing for future career paths. Second, urban debate influences schools systems through improved test scores, critical dialogues sparked by debaters in their classes, resolution of disagreements in a constructive manner, and the cost effectiveness of the program. Third, the value of urban debate to communities lies in the ability of debaters to contribute to the democratic process by making informed decisions and expressing themselves effectively as well as becoming leaders in their communities. Each UDL operates as a nonprofit that is overseen by NAUDL. UDLs are responsible for funding their organization and debaters. Typically, it costs less than $750.00 to fund each debater which when compared with the national average of $1,500.00 per debater is approximately half the cost. However, these amounts can be misleading depending upon how much assistance the local school districts allocate to UDLs compared to suburban/private schools where the $1,500.00 is more reflective of the student's out of pocket costs not what their schools contribute. Typically, UDLs receive little help from individual schools as most do not provide a debate budget for their team. Since urban debaters do not pay anything to debate, UDLS must raise enough money to support their program, which they do by applying for grants from various 32 institutions. Urban debaters receive all their supplies like pens, highlighters, notepads, file folders, etc. for free. A hefty part of the cost to support debaters is the provision of what are called "core files." Core files are packets of preresearched affirmative and negative evidence that novice and junior varsity students use to debate from.1 The core files contain everything the students need to debate. The main reason UDLs produce and require their debaters to debate from these files is to eliminate unequal access to resources or the lack of having any resources at all. The use of core files eliminates this inequity because everyone debates from the same evidence. There is one exception; debaters at the varsity level, those students with 2 years of experience, are required to build their own cases and find their own evidence; thus they must learn research skills and information literacy. Varsity level debaters typically develop their cases at a summer camp they attend. Many UDLs run a free summer camp for their debaters, which enhances their debating and researching skills. The use of core files is a bit controversial because the students do not research their own arguments and using the same files is considered repetitious and uncreative. Only novice and junior varsity debaters use the files, while varsity debaters do all of their own research and development of cases and evidence to refute an array of arguments. Setting aside the very important issues of equity and access, the core files are used at every debate tournament so the arguments from these topics grow old and do encourage mimicry. On the other hand, the novice and junior varsity levels often do not have the reading comprehension skills or vocabulary to adequately understand the complexity of 1 Novice debaters are 1st year debaters and junior varsity have debated for 1 year. 33 the files. It's not until typically the third tournament that the novice and junior varsity debaters truly understand what they are arguing for and against. The result of this is the debaters then get creative with the evidence to form new arguments. At the end of the first semester of school, both levels of debaters get a new case to argue from so the students start the process all over again. While the core files are "canned arguments and evidence" for the debaters, UDLs are made up of students who have never experienced such an activity or possess the skills they need to participate in debate. However, students in UDLs often experience huge jumps in their reading and comprehension levels as well as their vocabularies. If we return to issues of equity and access, then using the core files is less based on mimicry, but on sustained learning of the materials by the students. Having debated at the novice and junior varsity levels now gives the varsity debaters an advantage because they learn how to put together a case based on what they learned from using the core files. Additionally, UDLs solely use policy debate for several reasons. First, policy debate is the most rigorous type of debate because it requires students to develop extensive knowledge about social and economic policies and have the ability to write and defend a plan regarding the assigned policy topic. Second, according to NAUDL, "policy debate develops core academic skills: literacy, critical thinking, research, communication, organization, and supporting of arguments" (NAUDL, 2014). These skills improve academic achievement. Third, policy debate encourages students to speak out about policies that affect them; it provides them with a voice about political issues of today (NAUDL, 2014). 34 Urban Debate League Research Some research has been conducted on UDLs and their influence on urban debaters; the research has been exceedingly positive. Early research, for example, reports that students who become debaters in a UDL increase their literacy scores by 25%, improve grade point averages by approximately 10%, graduate from high school almost 100% of the time, and matriculate to college between 71-91% often with scholarships for debate (Collier, 2004). Early UDL research included publications of executive summaries, testimonial evidence, small quantitative studies, and a series of essays about the results of UDLs. For instance, UDLs distinctly separate UDL debate from traditional policy debate and its history because the traditional history of debate has been only for the historically privileged. Until UDLs were formed, debate existed solely in suburban and elite schools and at the intercollegiate level (Fine, 2001). According to Giroux (2006), UDLs are in the process of changing class dynamics through their intentions to include working-class youth, women, and students of color. Now, debate is used for the historically underprivileged. Current statistics on urban debaters reveals that 86% of participants are of color and 76% come from low-income families. The average GPA of an urban debater is 3.23, which is significantly above the college readiness benchmark, and each semester a student debates their grades improve. Urban debaters are more likely to be college ready, which is why 90% of urban debaters graduate on time from high school in 4 years and 86% enroll in college (NAUDL, 2014). These statistics reveal why debating is also viewed by many as transformative (Baker, 1998; Giroux, 2006; Lee, 1998; Warner & Bruschke, 2001). Warner and 35 Bruschke (2001) write, "There is faith in the ability of debate to fundamentally alter a person's orientation toward education" (p. 2). As a former UDL debater, Lee (1998) sees UDLs as pedagogical agents that spur students to question and challenge commonly held beliefs or accepted truths, to become self-directed learners, and most importantly to "take charge of their educational destiny and at once make it a sight of resistance" (p. 96). Furthermore, Lee asks us to imagine what graduations from high school might look like when each year millions of underprivileged young men and women walk across that stage with the abilities to express their own needs, the needs of others, and the capacity to create solutions for change. Research on UDLs is gaining momentum. In order to establish the validity of the organization, research on UDLs has become increasingly quantitative in nature. NAUDL needs to establish a causal link between urban debate and student academic achievement to prove its efficacy. Quantitative studies, particularly longitudinal studies, are effective because they help solidify the effectiveness of UDLs. In the past 4 years, there have been three longitudinal studies that have worked to establish a causal relationship between UDLs and academic achievement. All three articles describing these studies used data from the Chicago Urban Debate League from 1996-2007 and were spearheaded by Brianna Mezuk. In the first article, Mezuk (2009) wanted to understand how debaters who chose to participate in debate were different from nonparticipants and how debate influenced students GPAs, ACT scores, graduation rates, etc. Mezuk reported three findings. First, students with higher test scores and GPAs self-selected to join debate. This is a potentially problematic finding because UDLs target all inner-city urban youth not just those with already higher test scores or a propensity to debate. Second, Mezuk 36 determined that the intensity or the number of rounds a student debates positively increases test scores and benchmarks for readiness in English and Reading. Thus, the more the student debates the better he does academically. Third, regardless of self-selection and intensity, the author determined that 77.4% of debaters graduated compared to 55% of nondebaters; therefore nearly half of all nondebaters did not graduate. These findings are important overall because they demonstrate that participation in debate lowers the dropout rate and increased participation in debate raises test scores and graduation rates. In her second article, Mezuk, Bondarenko, Smith, and Tucker (2011) asked about the relationship between academic achievement and college readiness amongst high school students who participate in urban debate. The primary findings of Mezuk et al. after accounting for student self-selection were that Chicago Debate League debaters were more likely to graduate high school, perform better on the ACT, meet benchmarks in all subjects, and show higher increases in cumulative GPAs. The researchers concluded that debate is associated with college readiness and academic achievement. This article is important because it identifies debate as a means to defy all of the discourses underrepresented, urban, and poor students hear about themselves as failures and shows that through debate, academic achievement is possible. For her final article, Anderson and Mezuk (2012) examined the association between participation in a competitive policy debate program and the likelihood of graduating high school and college readiness. This study aimed to explicitly examine whether the association between debate participation and achievement varies for high-risk and low-risk students. At risk variables included students' eighth-grade 37 achievements, poverty status, and enrollment in special education. The authors hypothesized that a) at risk students who debate will have the highest debate participation and academic achievement for all at risk students and b) academic achievement will be influenced by debaters with the most participation and competitive success. While previous studies examined the average influence of debate, this study examined whether there would be a difference in achievement for "at risk" students. The findings determined that 1) for every risk factor (prior achievement, poverty, special education status) debaters were notably more likely to graduate than nondebaters suggesting debate as an effective tool for raising school engagement and lowering dropout rates; 2) debaters earned significantly higher scores on the English, Reading, and Science benchmarks for the ACT; thus, debate is associated with college readiness even amongst those students most at risk; and 3) the intensity of debate was also influenced by quantity and success which created higher academic achievement. In addition to these new findings, this study determined that a causational relationship exists between the likelihood of graduation and the amount of debate participation. All three of the Mezuk studies help build the case for the efficacy of UDLs. Efficacy is needed in order to justify the implementation of UDLs across the country because they prove they can assist urban students with higher academic achievement and high school graduation. However, Mezuk's research does not complete the picture of UDLs. UDLs need to know how and why UDLs are successful and to answer those types of questions, qualitative research is needed. The Drawbacks of Urban Debate Leagues Not all research supports UDLs; in fact, the history of debate as an all-White male activity troubles the foundations of UDLs and media representations of urban debaters 38 that discursively script Black bodies and tokenizes them. According to Wise (2011), "debate literally exudes whiteness, and privileges of White participants" (p. 68). Student populations, like society, do not reflect equal representation of Latina/os, Blacks, American Indians, etc. and this holds true for debate. Wise identifies key issues that prevent participation in debate including money and several aspects of competitive debate itself. First, debate is very expensive. To be competitive on national circuits, debate costs a lot of money because it is necessary to fly to many tournaments, hire experienced coaches, and have access to technology and research. Also, those students who really want to succeed pay to go to summer debate camps where they receive a jump on the competition because they learn that year's debate topic before the start of the school year. Second, besides the money, Wise (2011) also questions several key practices of debate. First, he criticizes "spreading" where students rattle off approximately 500 words a minute because this negates the idea of debate as a political discussion that anyone can understand. Debate becomes about reading so fast that your opponents cannot keep up with you and therefore they "drop" arguments that the other team will then argue to the judge are important points their opponents missed and they should win the debate because their opponents failed to address these very important arguments. While Wise thinks there is something to be learned in the research process of debate, another problematic practice involves the types of arguments competitive debaters make. Wise states: The fact remains that superficiality, speed and mass extinction scenarios typically take the place of nuanced policy analysis, such that one has to wonder how much the debaters really come to know about the issues they debate at the end of the day. Learning is always secondary to winning, and for the sake of winning, 39 debaters will say virtually anything. (pp. 70-71) Students make sure that their arguments for or against a certain policy either end in nuclear war or ecological cataclysm. No matter how unlikely this is to happen, debaters find ways that may be completely absurd to link all policies to support these two scenarios. Moreover, debaters find themselves arguing for ridiculous scenarios that support the status quo. Wise recalls one particular debate where he had to argue that poverty should be allowed to continue. Wise explains that these types of arguments are inherently White because Whites (especially affluent ones) are much more so than students of color to have the "luxury of looking at life or death issues of war, peace, famine, unemployment, or criminal justice as a game, a mere exercise in intellectual and rhetorical banter" (pp. 71-72). Many of the topics competitive policy debaters make presuppose that the arguments do not affect them because they are White. For instance, arguing that unemployment is good surmises that the debater most likely has working parents or that racial profiling is necessary when one has never been racially profiled. Asking disadvantaged youth to take up these positions is ludicrous in light of the fact that if these types of positions are enacted, it could destroy their communities. This is why Wise argues, "debate reinforces whiteness and affluence" (p. 72). However, he does describe Urban Debate Leagues as sites of change as they engage different styles of argumentation and evidentiary standards. Reid-Brinkley (2012) also critiques UDLs because of how they allow the media to cast certain debaters as representatives of UDLs. In an article entitled, "Ghetto Kids Gone Good: Race, Representation and Authority in the Scripting of Inner-City Youths in the Urban Debate League," Reid-Brinkley explores how the media represent UDL urban 40 students of color, particularly Black students using transformative discourses that tokenize these students and place them against a frame of the "ghetto" at risk youth narrative. For her project, Reid-Brinkley examined news articles and video segments about UDL students and found that Black UDL participants were scripted by the media in three ways including through poverty, familial dysfunctionality, and criminal offspring. According to Reid Brinkley, "This essay attempts to theorize about the strategies of media framing and the manner in which Black bodies are scripted according to framing practices" (p. 85). The first frame, poverty, is set up by the media when they open their articles or segments by identifying UDL students from lower-income households who often qualify for reduced or free lunches. Students are made out to be destitute in the poverty frame. Schools are portrayed as dilapidated or "warehouse institutions where underachieving students are stored" (p. 89). Then the descriptions turn to touting the rates of educational failure in these poor minority communities. Emphasis is placed on the students who attend these failing schools because students are framed as graduating less, earning low test scores, and having few students matriculate to college. Schools must be painted this way so that UDL debaters can be framed as being transformed by the program. The frame of poverty turns into racialized poverty once the media starts making comparisons to suburban schools and their debate programs. In one particular news segment, UDL students were shown in front of a beautiful suburban school with well-dressed debaters in sharp contrast to the UDL students who were dressed in t-shirts and jeans. This shot of the suburban and UDL students was meant to depict UDL students as being out of place because of incomplete scripting where the UDL students who had 41 transformed because of debate may be the exception, but the shot shows they will never fit in. The second frame, dysfunctional families, and third frame, criminal offspring, portray UDL students coming from severely maladjusted homes including homes where parents make bad decisions like using the stove to heat the home or where parents are considered drug abusers and criminals. Either way, parents are considered incapable of meeting the basic needs of their children and without those needs being met all children are destined to be failures and even criminals. To be successful, the media has to recast the UDL debaters as "black youths as victors able to transcend poverty and familial/cultural dysfunction" (p. 93). This transformation must be scripted by the "recirculation of race, class, and gender norms in order to make the transformative tale intelligible." Students must transform from point A to point B. The transformative tale requires an explanation of the student's before status as contrasted with the after story of how the UDL transformed the student. The media wants the audience to see at-risk students who are likely to fail in their poor, urban school and instead succeed as a result of debate participation. In the end of her article, Reid-Brinkley questions why we have to frame UDL students, particularly those with Black bodies in such ways to be media worthy. She ponders why students cannot be cast as smart or why not frame students through "the drama of competition, the highs and lows of winning and losing" etc. (p. 95). She concludes that it is unnecessary to demonize Black youths, families and culture despite mentioning the hardships or economic advantages some student's lack. Not all UDL debaters come from the backgrounds portrayed by the media, but it is obvious to see how 42 the media uses these deterministic frames to portray UDL youth, especially Black youths. The criticisms Reid-Brinkley and Wise set forth are legitimate claims. News portrayals of urban debate league participants do often script Black and Hispanic bodies I would add, into poster children of UDLs by emphasizing their "impoverished and unhealthy backgrounds" as something they have overcome by participating in debate. While not directly asserted by Reid-Brinkley, it is important to understand that the author's talk of the script of poverty being shown through the media is actually a material reality for most UDL participants. Most students are poor. While the media scripts this as part of their stories about successful UDL debaters this does not change the actual reality of living in poverty. Living in poverty is demoralizing, taxing, and frightening, etc. It is not necessary for this to be scripted for others to understand. Additionally, as part of her conclusion, Reid-Brinkley suggests one of many angles that the media could take was exploring competition, and winning and losing. Winning and losing are very important to debaters but they sometimes fall into the trap of "winning at all costs." The problem with "winning at all costs" is it prevents nuanced and contextualized understandings of debaters because all they convey to others is that they must win despite any harms to others or themselves. There is a distinct difference from having an identity as a winner to winning at all costs. If the media were to consider this angle, it could potentially be problematic for representations of UDL debaters too. In sum, Wise finds the history and practice of debate itself to be problematic. His critiques about debate are difficult to argue against because the history and practice of debate privileges elite, White males and some of the current practices of debate treat it as a game where the policies being argued about often affect underrepresented populations 43 differentially. Reid-Brinkley creates awareness of how UDL students are unfairly scripted by the media as being poor, from dysfunctional homes, and having criminal off-spring. My question becomes, how do you then argue for UDLs use of debate to improve academic achievement when the disenfranchised populations they serve are expected to participate in their own hegemony? While not easily answered, Giroux (2006) argues that the promise of UDLs is that they: reinforce substantive democratic education and tradition by fostering rigorous and passionate discussions about social change and how it is to be achieved. The Urban Debate League approaches matters of school equity, reform, and agency through the use of academic debate as a way to help urban public school students learn the skills, disciplines, knowledge, and values that enable them to become critically literate and effectively engaged citizens. (pp. 229) Debate is then viewed as a critical literacy that empowers its participants to learn not only the skills it takes to debate but also to become critical change agents that are able to promote democracy. Giroux argues that "to be voiceless is to be powerless" and UDLs foster students voices to be heard in the public sphere and help create a future that does not imitate the past. Academic Identities UDLs are the means by which students from underserved populations can foster an array of skills and develop a multitude of proficiencies consistent with increased academic achievement and high school graduation. In looking back over the research, one thing is clear-participation in UDLs changes students. It is through the enactment of debate skills that students truly engage in change because debate is a lived, embodied performance where students continuously develop and extend their identities. Every team "develops a culture that comes to symbolize the group to its 44 members" (Fine, 2001, p. 149). Fine (2001) calls the local sets of meaning debate teams create an "ideoculture," which is a system of knowledge, beliefs, behaviors, and customs, shared by members of an interacting group (p. 149). For example, teams might have a series of rituals they perform before or after debating. Team life, time commitments, group relations all work to develop a group culture from which a powerful identity emerges. The identities that emerge are both group and individually based. Being a debater on a certain team serves as an identity marker to other teams while individual identity is established through different types of talk. Fine (2001) writes, "Talk is not merely talk; but a mark of self" (p. 244). Debaters establish a self-identity, an identity within their team, and through debate overall. Amongst those identities offered, as defined by the students, may be an academic identity. Academic identity is "an individual's sense of affiliation with practices of schooling" (Nasir & Saxe, 2003, p. 17). Academic identity is not a term that has made its way into communication literatures, but is gaining momentum in psychology and sociology. Some examples of how academic identity has been studied include creating good or bad academic identities through the discipline of the academy (Grant, 1997); rating the importance of how well a student does in school (Walton & Cohen, 2007); coordinating academic behavior with career choices or expectations (Oyserman & Destin, 2010); defining a sense of belonging within school settings (Goodenow, 1993); and investigating students' studying behaviors and style of writing (Hyland, 2011). In another study, Walker and Syed (2013) operationalize academic identity as the subjective connection to the one's academic major. The literature on academic identities is problematic and disparate because neither 45 the term academic nor the term identity is operationalized in similar ways, using similar theories. Academic might refer to a specific aspect of a student's schooling or a general definition that lumps aspects of schooling into one term. Defining identity theory is even worse because authors use Ericksonian theory to social identity theory to Foucaultian theory. It's difficult to compare studies or find commonalities because the few studies that do exist all define academic and identity in different ways. A more recent trend in the literature is to explore how academic identities coincide with students' ethnic identities. Nasir and Saxe (2003) argue that minority students, specifically African Americans, are sometimes forced to choose between having both a strong ethnic and academic identity. Research has shown that African Americans have often been forced to choose between academic and ethnic identities through accusations of "acting White" or being "raceless" to do well academically (Davidson, 1996; Ferguson, 2000; Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu, 1987). Still other students disengage with school activities because of their ethnic selves (Davidson, 1996). All students bring their ethnic selves into the classroom, but typically only White ethnicity is accepted because it is the norm. Nasir (2012) argues "our society organizes for the success of some and the failure of others" (p. 8). The author examines the consequences for the learner and racial identities of African Americans. African Americans and their academic and racial identities are treated as a series of co-existing opportunities and strengths within different learning contexts. Taking the idea that identities are fostered through the opportunities offered or denied, such as support, feedback and access to knowledge, Nasir concludes with tentative normative suggestions. She reflects upon three educational case studies 46 where positive African American identities have been fostered. Although there is recognition that the allocation of material resources across the education system remains deeply inequitable, the focus is on developing personal relationships between students and staff, encouraging students in terms of their intellectual ability and positively framing the heritage and contemporary positions of African Americans. Academic identities are relevant to this project because there is a connection between debate and academic achievement from urban school populations as demonstrated by the literature on UDLs. Developing a relationship with a schooling practice is important for students to create a bond with their school, which can be accomplished through debate. As academic identities are under theorized, this study may be able to expand or clarify this theory in ways that explain the connections the debaters make to debate as seen through the lens of their ethnic identities. Chapter Summary This chapter presented several key literatures that influence UDLs and their participants. First, debate is an educational practice that assists students in gaining valuable academic skills that are relevant to the debaters now and beyond high school. These critical thinking and presentational speaking skills are developed through the practice of policy debate, which was explained and also theorized as being technical and rigidly structured. Second, as with any educational practice, there are always discussions and criticisms to help ensure that the practice is educationally sound. The "debate about debate" critiques while troublesome benefited policy debate because ethical and pedagogical criticisms were resolved, which benefited debaters, coaches, and the practice of policy debate. More critiques need to be held about the diversity of debaters and the 47 gender bias that exists. Third, it is important to understand how UDLs operate and what they do to benefit their debaters. The use of core files is an area that needs further investigation because the novice and junior varsity's use of them may be a form of mimicry, which may limit the skills of the debaters. Fourth, UDL research is particularly promising for gains in academic achievement, graduation rates, and matriculation to college, but criticisms of UDLs are also important to explore in order for this educational practice to be an ethically and pedagogically sound activity. One of the most important critiques of UDLs, which is particularly relevant to this study, are the poverty scripts Reid-Brinkley argues the media assigns to urban debaters. The media may represent UDL debaters in this manner, but they are forgetting that poverty is a material reality for most UDL participants. Finally, the concept of academic identities is also presented as an argument for the potential of describing students' sense of connection to their schools through their ethnicity. The hope is to flesh this theory out and make it relevant to communication studies. Upcoming chapters include Chapter 5, which is another portraiture of one of the participants in this study. Chapter 6 presents the theoretical framework for the study-identity. This discussion provides support for what identities the students may possibly experience in an UDL. Chapter 7 offers insight into Carminda's experiences and Chapter 8 details the methodology. The remaining chapters analyze the data collected and a conclusion is provided.CHAPTER 5 XAVIER: SAPPY, SNARKY, AND SASSY "Sí Se Puede! Sí Se Puede! Sí Se Puede!" "Don't you want to be represented?" "Don't you want some brown on our Executive Board? Don't you want some color? Then vote for me, Xavier!" "Sí Se Puede! Sí Se Puede! Sí Se Puede!" This was Xavier's battle cry as he marched through the lunchroom and hallways trying to gain votes from Hispanic students so that he could to be on the Executive Board at John Dewey High School. Sí Se Puede means "Yes it is possible" or "Yes we can" and it is a historical rallying cry that was invented by the United Farm Workers in 1972 and was most recently used as the Spanish translation of President Obama's "Yes we can" slogan. Xavier campaigned directly to the Hispanic students to vote for him because mainly only White students ran for Executive Board and voted. In the end, he did not win, but he received enough votes that they created a position for him as Executive Board at Large. He was so happy and I was too! Xavier is a 16-year-old junior and this is his 1st year on the debate team. Xavier is Hispanic, about 5'6" and slender with floppy black hair, big black glasses, and sometimes a mustache. He is wicked smart and well read. His backpack is always filled with books he is reading for pleasure including psychology textbooks. Xavier is absolutely hilarious and animated when he is allowed to be. He was sometimes difficult to interview because he always had me laughing. However, Xavier's hilarity only grew49 as I got to know him better, and he revealed more of himself throughout the course of the debate season. For example, when I asked him what it meant for him to be a debater, he told me it means he is an "intellectual badass!" At the beginning of the semester, after I was introduced by Mrs. Taylor to the class, and I explained why I was there and asked for participants, Xavier was one of the first to come and speak with me. He was very curious about my research, what a dissertation was, and why had I chosen his class. He immediately agreed to participate. From then on, Xavier always greeted me when he entered the class and always said good-bye. Xavier was part of the pull I felt when I chose which side of the room to sit on. I actually ended sitting right next to him. He would always peek at my computer to see what I was writing and when someone would say something rude or inappropriate, he would say, "Ooooh she is writing that down!" This always made me blush because of course that was exactly what I was doing! In order to better get to know Xavier, I asked him how would you describe yourself to someone that does not know you? He answered, I would call myself a passionate person and I would say uhh how do I phrase this...I'm emotional in the things I care about but logical in making decisions towards stuff. Like for instance I'm very passionate about the environment, but I wouldn't go live in a tree. I want to make logical decisions that best protect the environment and stuff like that. I would also say I'm smart that I'm very intuitive-it's probably one of my top three strongest qualities, my intuition, in the sense that I'm like even though I don't know things I still feel things and Oh I have a bad feeling about this person or I have a good feeling about this person and I'm usually right about that. 96% accurate I took the test! Several actually. I would say I'm caring to an extent. Xavier also referred to himself as both pragmatic, sappy, snarky, and sassy. He says, I can be considerate. I know I can be insensitive but part of the reason I'm insensitive is that I'm snarky, I'm very snarky and I'm very sassy, but part of why I'm sassy is because I'm argumentative, opinionated and passionate about what I argue about and arguing itself. "Being sassy" or having sass is a way to say someone is quick-witted, bold in the way 50 they speak, opinionated as well as being contradictory on purpose. Sassiness is spoken in a way that is typically disrespectful, but because it is spoken in such a way, it is funny. As part of being sassy, Xavier mentioned one time that fashion sense was an aspect of what he liked about debate, which is humorous because Xavier did not have great fashion sense and he knew it. He once talked about how he loved wearing these knock off brand shoes to debate in because they squeaked when he walked, which he loved because it drew attention to him. Speaking of sassy, I asked Xavier what it meant to be a debater and as mentioned previously he said it meant to be an intellectual badass; however a bit later, I did get a more serious answer out of him. He related, What does it mean to be a debater, I think it means well first it means being a team you know as a whole group, the entire class of debaters so you have loyalty to them and then . . . and it is having a loyalty to your partner and then having the loyalty to yourself to strive up and be able to be given something and create this entirely new thing so in a way you are creators because you're creating a story to argue a point. Describing debate as a something you create and as a story you create to argue a certain point, is not only eloquent, but speaks to the creativity Xavier found in being a debater. Even though debates are very rigid and so is the evidence novices were allowed to read, Xavier saw debate as a way to craft a story, but instead of using just your imagination, he used the evidence he had been provided. Xavier did this in his everyday school life because he is a writer for the school paper and a member of the literary club for which he had several stories published. I purchased the literary magazine just so I could preserve his essays. Like his fellow debaters, Xavier used his debate skills in his other classes, but Xavier took the use of his skills to a whole new level. He intimates, 51 It's really helped me in English like I had to write an essay and I was like--the essay was what important issues should be considered when discussing space travel and like I was thinking impact calculus in my head. And on my essay, I got almost a 100. It was an AP essay so I got like a high 8 or a low 9 and my argument was it will cause global disaster and its expiration will crumble diplomacy and cause psychological trauma. I started laughing as soon as Xavier said he used "impact calculus" to write his essay. Impact calculus is a concept debaters use to describe the probability an event will happen, the magnitude of the event, and the timeframe it will happen in. This is actually a creative way to write an essay. I nearly started crying with laughter when he said global disaster would occur, diplomacy would crumble, and psychological trauma would ensue. This is of course a bunch of debate jargon and not particularly funny to people outside of the debate world or you as the reader. So here is why this is funny. The most popular way the negative side of a debate tries to win is to claim that everything the affirmative's plan does will cause nuclear war, everyone will die and the world will end. In a debate, it is all prevented very logically, but to write like this in an English class where a student is comparing space travel to the death and destruction of a nuclear war is very dramatic and unusual. When I was listening to Xavier describe what he was writing, I was imagining his poor English teacher reading this dark and dismal, "the world is going to end" essay where the other students were probably benignly supporting space travel! Xavier definitely exploited his debate knowledge in a creative way that is in keeping with his extreme intelligence and his sassiness. Xavier and his partner Juan were fairly successful as novices at the tournaments. They won more rounds than they lost and picked up an occasional speaker award or team award. I always liked to observe Xavier and his partner debate because they loved to use post it notes to communicate with each other. Xavier would quickly write one up and 52 slam it down on Juan's desk. Juan would quickly reply and slam it back down on Xavier's desk. Since the post-it's were different colors and they wrote so many of them, their desks would be littered with different colored post it notes, which at the end of the debate Xavier would collect and save to laugh at later. I got to see some of the notes he collected and some of them were about the debate, some were about what they should do, others expressed confusion, and still others were filled with curse words! As Xavier gained experience and confidence as a debater, he grew stylistically as a speaker. Sometimes in a debate round, debaters will emphasize certain words by reading them louder than other pieces of evidence. Xavier started to do this, but of course, with his own sense of drama and flair adding hand gestures and different body stances. Once, Xavier drew a judge that sat down and as the debate round went on, the judge took no notes. This is very rare and problematic for a host of reasons, but debaters are expected to adapt to their judges and the fact that the judge took no notes in this case indicated he knew little about debate. Xavier immediately understood that this debate would be won or lost not by what he said, but how he said something; therefore, Xavier boldly read all of his evidence, emphasized key phrases and evidence, and explained why the judge should vote for him. In my estimation, Xavier and Juan should have lost that debate, but because of Xavier's dramatic speaking, they won! And, Xavier earned almost perfect speaker points. CHAPTER 6 IDENTITY: A VERITABLE DISCURSIVE EXPLOSION This dissertation examines how urban students explore different identities while they are participating in an Urban Debate League. The purpose of the study was to examine UDLs as an educational practice where students articulate the influence participating in policy debate has on their identities. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a theoretical framework for this study. Identity has been chosen as the theoretical construct because schools are where identities are explored, engaged, negotiated, or even rejected. Both research questions for this study ask about identities offered by and explored within the context of a particular UDL. Identity functions as a lens with which to see the project because to some theorists and practitioners, schools exist to help students create a variety of individual and collective identities (Dewey, 1916). However, critics of the socialization process argue that students are merely used as cogs in the wheel of production and reproduction (Giroux, 1983). Talking with students who are participating in a particular UDL affords the opportunity to see how interventions can disrupt the assumption of assimilated identities and offer alternative identities to students. This chapter examines three primary areas: schools as sites of socialization and identity work, the works of Stuart Hall on explicating a theory of identity, and 54 Communication Education and identity work. The goal is to lay out for the reader the overwhelming influence of education and schools in our lives and how this lays a foundation for certain types of student identities, particularly for students of color. The process used to construct an identity is detailed through Stuart Hall's conceptions of what identity actually is (or is not) and what the process is to establish one. Thus, through the works of Hall, we conceptualize what identity is and how it functions. Finally, the field of Communication Education is explored for conceptions of identity because Communication Education is rooted in education, teaching, and learning all of which are important to establishing aspects of student identities. Schools as Sites of Socialization and Identity Work There are many ways to view the function of education and schools in our society; however, most viewpoints agree to the centrality of education in shaping many aspects of people and their function in society. Besides family life and religion, schooling is seen as central to building a person's identity. Early researchers began to examine the influence of schools after the industrialization movement when almost all children began attending school and schooling became universal. From a functionalist perspective, researchers in this area such as Durkheim (1961) and Parsons (1959) examine a) how schools contribute to societal values like value consensus and social solidarity and b) how the identification of the functional relationships between education and parts of the social system lead to an examination of the relationship between education and the economic system. There are five key concepts of the functionalist perspective. First, education passes on society's culture, which means through education children learn central norms, values and aspects of culture that bond them together, or what is called value consensus. 55 Second, education leads to socialization of children by a) schools that are considered a miniature society that reflects back the broader society and b) schools that take over primary socialization from the role of the parents by providing a link between family values and universal values like meritocracy. Third, schools equip students with the trainings and qualifications to do the jobs that society needs. Only the best end up in the most qualified jobs while those who are not considered the best end up in less favorable jobs, which creates a division of labor. From a functionalist position, everyone is given an equal chance but some people work harder, and have better innate abilities, than others leading to inequalities in society, which are seen as fair and just. Finally, society is seen as a meritocracy and the educational system supports this by acting as a mechanism to select the right people for the right jobs based on their hard work and efforts or lack thereof. Furthermore, in order to maintain society schools should strictly enforce school rules through a reward and punishment system so that students accept the "correct way of living." In sum, schools act as a microcosm of society providing what it needs and responding to changes in culture and economy. In the functionalist approach, students' identities are still largely shaped by their families, but school requires that students accept universal standards and values. As mentioned, this is called value consensus, which forms the basic integrating principles shared by society. If students, parents, and society share these values like democracy and economic status then they have similar identities, which avoids societal conflicts. The problem with the functionalist approach is that some benefit from it while many others do not. It leads to inequality in schools and society as schools are what prepare students to exist in society. 56 A critical or conflict approach to the function of schools starts in a much different place and argues that we will never achieve equality in a capitalist society so when functionalists argue that there is equality of opportunity and jobs are based on merit, critical theorists argue that is not equality. Instead, class issues determine who become skilled professionals and who become laborers. Critical theorists trace their roots back to Marxism where the owners of capital or the ruling class exploit the working classes. This separation is insidious because no physical force is used. Instead, the ruling class ideology, which is hidden from the consciousness of the working class or "false consciousness" makes it seem normal that schools teach meritocracy through the use of reward and punishment behaviors so that members of the working class learn to be rewarded for being told what to do. Louis Althusser (1971) determined that in a capitalist society, education is used to reproduce an efficient and obedient working class and the way that happens is through what he calls an Ideological State Apparatus, which, in this case is school. Althusser argued that school taught students the ideology of capitalism by encouraging competition between fellow students and educated students to be compliant and submissive to authority just as a student is taught to accept the authority of his or her teacher. Again this process is masked through ideology and false consciousness. In this case, student identities are shaped by their membership in the ruling or working class and for the working class acquiescence to authority and a zest for competition are what is created through a capitalistic society. Bowles and Gintis' book (1976) Schooling in Capitalist America reinforced Althusser's position and also argued that schools a) reflect the hierarchical structures of society through the hidden curriculum, b) justify the use of meritocracy even though it is 57 a myth, and c) reward on the basis of social background. The so-called "democratic mission" of education has failed because schools reproduce social and economic inequalities. The hidden curriculum is the elements of socialization that occur in schools that are not contained in the general curriculum. Giroux (1983) defines the hidden curriculum as those unstated norms, values, and beliefs embedded in and transmitted to students, the underlying rules that structure the routine and social relationships in school and the classroom. Examples of the hidden curriculum are the rules teachers use and disciplinary measures, the teacher's use of language and selection of curriculum tools, the use of time tables, and tracking systems. Variations in these examples cause disparities and inequalities that correspond to class and social statuses. Schools are a site and teacher of politics. The end result of the hidden curriculum is the production and reproduction of social relations in society and more importantly it produces an identity of conformity particularly in students. An identity of conformity involves the "routinization of every aspect of the students life, as well as the imposition of rules and regulations that became the operating norm of the institution" (Saldana, 2013, p. 229). Students become automatons in the system and lack individual identifying factors that separate them from one another or what is acceptable by society. I notice this a lot in the students I have taught. Many cannot describe their personality or strengths that they hold. They are too worried about conforming to what society wants them to be and forget the agency they have in becoming what they want to be. Not all students conform, but for those who do not the stakes are very high and typically detrimental. In Making and Molding Identity in Schools, Davidson (1996) investigates student 58 identities through an ethnographic project at urban schools where specific students shared their concepts of their identities at the local school level. Like Giroux (1983) and Saldana (2013), Davidson orients her research from a poststructural position because of her emphases on "disciplinary technology…and serious speech acts" (p. 5). According to Davidson: Disciplinary technology and serious speech acts both contribute to the definition of what is "normal" in advance and, therefore, can be viewed as practices that teach or "discipline" participants to the meaning of institutional (and social) categories for example, prisoner, soldier, teacher, student. In schools, for example, the taken-for-granted, "objective" divisions of student's into academic tracks can be viewed as a disciplinary technology. (p. 5) Disciplinary technology and serious speech acts add to the concept of false consciousness where divisions in labor and in this case labels create an imaginary separation between people. Davidson provides the example of academic tracking as a way of disciplining students, yet academic tracking is a very common practice in education so much so that those who do not use it make up a small minority. Rooted in poststructuralism and Foucault's (1983) concept of power as "action upon action" where power is not used to distinguish others, but instead structures all that is possible in a field of actions, meaning that power circulates through all the possible ranges of behavior (p. 221). This structuring is where Davidson (1996) locates her definition of identity. She claims, identity can be conceptualized as a process that develops in a matrix of structuring social and institutional relationships and practices. Presentations of self, ranging from resistance to assimilation, are linked not only to minority status and perceptions of labor market opportunities but also to disciplinary technologies, serious speech acts, and other factors at the institutional level. Because schools participate in negotiating the meanings students attach to identity, the ways in which teachers and schools handle power and convey ethnically and racially relevant meanings become relevant to the conceptualization of students' behavior. (p. 6) 59 Here, Davidson argues how identity is conceptualized through an Ideological State apparatus, i.e., school, and the disciplinary technologies used demonstrate how schools use power to present what they deem as possible and acceptable conceptualizations of student identity. Thus, particularly for the working class, their identities have already been conceived for them and will be reinforced by their schooling; this also includes young people's racial and ethnic identities. The ideology of schools as sites of production and reproduction are very deterministic, but they are also sites of resistance. Youth's racial and ethnic identities are incredibly salient, but because of disciplinary technologies and strong speech acts there is still the assumption that immigrants and their children will acculturate to a traditional model that "assumes that manifestations of ethnicity will gradually be replaced by Anglo traits and a main stream [emphasis mine] sense of identity" (Davidson, 1996, p. 19). Oppositional identities are formed in reaction to this main stream identity and students resist both overtly and covertly. One form of overt resistance is through the complete rejection of school by dropping out (Fine, 1991), whereas covert strategies often involve microbehaviors designed to resist authority, like speaking in one's first language when English is the required language. Davidson (1996), summarizing John Ogbu (1987) writes, cultural differences become markers of identity to be maintained in opposition to the dominant culture; furthermore, groups may develop secondary cultural differences, claiming and exaggerating certain forms of behavior, symbols, events and meanings as appropriate because they are not characteristic of members of another population. (p. 25) These oppositional behaviors stem from historical, economic, and political realities, but also from day-to-day behaviors at the overall school and also the classroom level. Oppositional behaviors are both negatively and positively incorporated into the process 60 of schooling. The relationship between behaviors at the societal level and those at the local suggest that there is a relationship between the practices of identity, such as oppositional behaviors, and the politics of educational settings. While Davidson (1996) recognizes how institutions, education, represent the socialization of schools and how they further or restructure identity, the author's main goal is to recognize how classroom practices influence students' identities. She argues that always looking at the societal factors masks how those societal structures are built and maintained through local school and classroom contextual factors. If one is concerned with social change, then researchers must examine the processes of production and reproduction from varied contextual perspectives. This means that Davidson focuses on localized practices to establish a relationship between classroom practices and indications of identity. Davidson (1996) presents six case studies in her book. Each case study is analyzed for factors of alienation and oppositional behaviors students used to cope. The five factors of alienation are tracking, negative expectations, differential treatment because of race, bureaucratized relationships and practices and barriers to information. Of the five factors, tracking caused the most problems including social isolation and cultural estrangement. From the students' perspectives, they feel isolated because they have been placed in classes with all White students so they are separated from other Latinos, African Americans, or Vietnamese students. Davidson (1996) writes, "youths' sense of social isolation is enhanced as individuals from different groups have little opportunity to interact with peers" (pp. 38-39). Students also reported feelings of cultural estrangement including feeling like strangers or guests in the realm of school and 61 academics. The second and third factors go hand in hand. Students experience negative expectations and differential treatment because of their race. Davidson describes European American teachers as ascribing achievement-oriented behavior as well as effort and motivation to European American students. As for students of color the teachers attribute their behaviors to factors out of their control. The European American teachers held higher expectations of the White students (Bacon, Tom, & Cooper, 1985). The level of expectation also falls along racial lines. A large percentage of the students in Davidson's (1996) study perceived differences in how they were treated versus how White students were treated. Through speech acts such as communicating with students in classroom conversations, lecturing, the rules and regulations in a classroom, and even nonverbal looks and glances all express how teachers share their different expectations and treat students differently based on their race. The fourth and fifth factors share a similarity as well-one acts as a gatekeeper to the other. The fourth factor is bureaucratized relationships which are interactions between students and administration and other academic staff including teachers who make and enforce the rules. The students in Davidson's study (1996) determined that these rules and regulations are more strictly enforced for students of color. Since bureaucratized relations are controlled by adults, they then have control over the fifth factor which is barriers to information. The primary information held back from students was college and career information and opportunities. Students wanted to go to college, but the information on how exactly to do that was not shared with them, mainly because of the tracked classes they were divided into. School counselors did not share that type 62 of information with students in lower tracked classes. These five factors greatly influenced how the students in this study thought about themselves and behaved. The students reported that these types of feelings resulted in factors affecting their academic engagement and expressions of identity. These three factors are limiting participation in class, silencing themselves in classrooms where they are the minority, and masking their expressions of their racial backgrounds. In addition, students reported feeling a lack of self-efficacy and motivation. The factors the students reported affect expressions of student identity by limiting how the students can define themselves and allow those definitions to shift. First, limiting participation in classes at school prevents students from identifying a particular academic subject as something they may be good at. It takes away the students' ability to really live in knowledge and try out the identities this type of knowledge brings. Second, silencing oneself in classrooms where one is the minority influences one's identities by basically taking away the collective identities she belongs to and hiding them. This teaches students that there is something wrong with who they are. It affects one's identity because the student actively holds him- or herself back. Silencing oneself is also a protective measure of one's identity because by holding back the student does not risk ridicule or rejection. Third, masking expressions of racial backgrounds teaches students to internalize their cultural identities and hide them from the schooling process. There is such pressure to conform to the Anglo way of schooling. Masking one's racial background affects a student's identity because it forces students to deny their race. A student cannot bring their whole being to school and their learning is neither personalized nor accepting of the identities