Persisting: A Reflection on Debate Camp Hiring Practices
By Samantha McLoughlin, HW ‘21
As a soon-to-be first year out, I’ve gone through the hiring process for debate camps for the first time. This article is a reflection on some positives and some areas of improvement that I’ve discerned throughout the process.
Full disclosure – I’m teaching at camps! I think debate camp is great, and I don’t think any of these problems are something that makes the experience worthless. I also don’t think it’s anyone’s obligation to boycott potentially valuable experiences, nor do I think that participating in a camp makes you automatically unethical in any way. Like most institutions, debate camps are multifaceted and complex, and the friendship, knowledge, and mentorship I’ve learned from camp means the world to me. But if you love something, you have to be open to criticizing it and recognizing its flaws and committing yourself towards its improvement.
Some things this article is not:
1] A specific call out of any camp – These are all structural issues that occur across a wide variety of institutions, and no for-profit camp that I know of is exempt. Every camp has an obligation to work towards becoming more ethical in its hiring process. Camps generally have done a lot of great work to try to be more transparent and equitable in their hiring processes, and the fact that there is work left to be done is not meant to undermine any of that progress.
2] A prescriptive set of demands – I’m a high schooler, and I’m sure there are many intricacies to running a camp that I don’t fully understand. I want this article to be a starting point for discussion around these concerns and contribute to a synthesis of a multiplicity of perspectives. I’m under no illusion that I have all the answers, because these are difficult issues to which no one has complete answers. Many camps also have already implemented some of the suggestions below, although most of these suggestions are far from universally implemented in the status quo.
3] A conclusive list – There are many deep-seated issues in debate camps (and debate writ large) beyond the hiring process. Even within the hiring process, there are undoubtedly many issues beyond the scope of this article. Many biases in hiring (racial, gendered, class, and more) are not unique to the hiring process at all – rather, they’re manifestations of structural biases that run deep throughout debate and society, and cannot be simplified into a single article or solution.
4] An invitation to plug your favorite camp.
That said, as a first year out who just went through the hiring process, here are some of my reflections.
1] Anti-Harassment Measures
Anti-harassment measures have largely improved over the years, and I’m glad that camp directors seem to be moving towards the collective norm that hiring those with sexual harassment allegations is unacceptable. But progress can still be made. Although it is difficult to completely weed out predators, there are incremental measures camps can take to hedge back against the possibility of hiring unsafe employees. Background checks should always take place before committing to hire someone. Additionally, a lack of communication between camps can be detrimental – if someone was fired from camp X for harassment, they shouldn’t just be able to find a new job at a different camp/institution where they’re unknown.
Anti-harassment training should be mandatory. The training should go beyond generic videos titled “What is harassment” – it’s especially important in the context of camp to isolate specific reporting channels. Instructors, especially first year outs and other younger staff members, may be uncomfortable or unsure of what to do if they become aware of an incident of sexual harassment. Therefore, it’s essential that anti-harassment training provides clear directions for reporting these incidents to a confidential administrative source. Additionally, camps should give talks that contextualize what appropriate boundaries look like in the context of debate camps. Especially for first year outs who may be teaching some of their friends, it’s important to remind them of those boundaries, and the fact that they have an added burden to act professionally towards their friends who are still in high school, given the unique power dynamic created between camp staff and camp students.
2] What makes a good lab leader?
Often, bid count and competitive success are associated with being a good hire – if you’re a good debater, it’s presumed you’ll teach debate well. Putting the question of whether bids accurately measure debate ability aside, a sole focus on competitive success and debate ability is misguided. It would be silly to say that competitive success shouldn’t matter at all in hiring decisions – it’s obviously a factor, especially for high level labs, and this article in no way advocates for competitive success to be removed from consideration entirely. But being a good lab leader often is less about your debate skill and more about teaching. Teaching, especially teaching novices, requires qualities like patience, maturity, compassion, kindness, and an ability to explain concepts to those not familiar with jargon. These qualities are not always rewarded with competitive success in debate and are therefore not captured by bid count. For upper labs, debate skill probably matters more – in these labs, the kids are already dedicated to debate, likely to be older, and are learning more complex and technical concepts. But especially for lower level and novice labs (which make up the majority of students at most camps), debate ability and competitive success are less relevant. For a novice learning the parts of a disad, whether their lab leader qualified to the TOC or not is less relevant than whether their lab leader is patient and kind. The difference between someone who breaks at tournaments but doesn’t bid and a TOC qualified debater is probably lost on a student if the lab leader is teaching basic concepts that both debaters would have a steady grasp of.
On the other hand, it is difficult to quantify “teaching personality.” Understandably, it’s difficult for hiring teams to determine who has these traits, especially for those they don’t know personally. Some might even worry that a focus on more holistic traits could give more room for camp hiring committee to insert their biases. However, such biases seem inevitable even when hiring by bids (especially considering the inequities that restrict competitive debate success), and a de-emphasis on competitive success would open the space for camps to hire a more equitable staff (in terms of race, class, and gender) without having to “sacrifice better staff members” (as the de-emphasis would recognize that the white cis men with more bids are not necessarily better staff members to begin with). Additionally, there are other quantifiable metrics that can be used to at least provide some insight into teaching and mentorship experience. Participation in mentorship programs, coaching novices, volunteering at UDLs, and other forms of community impact should also be valued as indicators of a valuable potential staff member. Additionally, requiring references from teammates, coaches, school employees, or even past lab leaders could provide another window into a debater’s identity beyond their bid count.
This problem extends beyond just camp directors – it’s a cultural problem too within the community, where competitive success is equated with being a good teacher, and more broadly, a good person. For a younger debater choosing a camp, the focus is often unfortunately purely the competitive success of their instructors. This feedback loops incentivizes camp hiring committees to place a greater emphasis on bid count (to try to attract more students). Similarly, when bid count is used as the primary determinant of hire desirability, it reinforces the community “worship culture” surrounding bids. But the cycle must stop somewhere, and as adults in the community, camps are uniquely positioned to be able to lead the charge.
3] Interviews
Anyone who’s applied to any non-debate job knows that interviews are almost always part of the process. Conducting an interview before hiring would be a simple way to add in professionalism to the process. Additionally, interviews allow directors to gauge whether someone knows the answer to basic teaching questions and determine how a potential hire is likely to approach their role as a mentor/instructor. Questions could try to get at the traits discussed in the above paragraphs, such as “What do you do if a student doesn’t listen to you in lab?”, “How would you react if someone in your lab said something racist or sexist?”, etc. Although an interview is nowhere near a perfect representation of how someone would actually respond to these situations, asking these questions would force potential employees (especially first- and second-year outs) to consider these questions before they’re given the responsibility of teaching. As discussed above, holistic measures like interviews are in no way immune to biases (i.e., racial and gender biases might tint the way that certain interviewees are perceived). Unfortunately, these biases are largely inevitable (i.e., if a hiring staff has a bias against a certain group, they’re likely to under-hire from that group to begin with). This also extends to biases against small schools and smaller programs – favoritism based off program size and debate “clout” is also inevitable with or without interviews. However, the more holistic and professional process encouraged by interviews could push directors to take a more well-rounded approach to their hiring. Interviews are not going to solve all biases in debate, but they do have little risk of worsening them, while also providing the notable benefit of increased professionalism and emphasis of the “teaching” aspect of the job.
4] Pay transparency
Although it is far from a universal norm, for some camps, pay can be negotiated “behind closed doors.” Potential employees are sometimes expected to negotiate over their pay, and then expected to keep their pay confidential (an expectation enforced both by contract and by social norms). This process generates inequity for a few reasons. First off, forcing high schoolers to negotiate for their pay benefits those with more confidence, who are more likely to be white, male, privileged, etc. Because women are socially conditioned to have less confidence in themselves, they’re more likely to accept lower pay as what they “deserve” or be uncomfortable demanding more. Additionally, because pay is secret not transparent, those “out of the loop” have no basis upon which to negotiate. Unless a potential hire has friends in the activity to tell them what is and isn’t reasonable pay, there’s no way that they could know what pay to demand. The result is those who are “in the loop” being paid more, whereas those who don’t know better are paid less. Those not “in the know” are most likely to be financially disadvantaged or a gender/racial minority, as these groups are the most likely to be excluded from the inner circles of debate. An approach that some have taken that intuitively makes sense to me is standardized pay grades by experience (i.e., X amount for all first-year outs). But even if camps do want to distinguish pay using metrics other than experience, those metrics should still be transparent – if a camp can’t justify its pay scheme publicly, they should reconsider why they feel the need to hide their pay scheme in the first place.
5] Gender inequity in staff lists
Lack of gender representation at camps is a vicious cycle. Non cis men are structurally under-represented on staff lists. The reason? Non cis men are structurally under-represented in competitive debate success. The two inequities feed each other: non cis men are more likely to drop out due to lack of representation and support. When a non cis male student attends camp and their role models are predominantly cis men, that lack of representation matters: it reinforces a sense of isolation, makes approaching instructors for help more intimidating, and solidifies a more unwelcoming environment. Seeing themselves reflected in their lab leaders, their role models, and their teachers is so meaningful for so many novices. The low retention rates of non cis men in debate are largely responsible for gender disparities in competitive success rates – and thus the cycle continues. Given the argument laid out above (i.e., that bids are a poor predictor of teaching capacity), there’s a strong case for proactively hiring more non cis men even if they don’t meet traditional standards of competitive success. No, this doesn’t mean hire a woman who never broke just because they’re a woman. It means recognizing that gender equity is something as valuable if not more to a camp then ensuring every single staff member has at least three bids – especially considering that there are plenty of valuable roles for less competitively success instructors to play, especially in novice labs where support and patience are more valuable than high level debate skill. While opponents of this approach may call it tokenism, such an argument relies on an assumption that value can only be measured through competitive success, and therefore non cis men do not contribute value to the camp experience at the same rate. Women in the debate community are also often stereotyped and forced into roles that are undervalued, for example as mentors and teachers for younger kids. Beginning to recognize the value of these contributions to the community, instead of a pure competitive focus, is a first step towards breaking the cycle of gender inequity in debate. A similar argument could also potentially be applied to other underrepresented groups within the community.
As a student, I obviously don’t have the ability to make prescriptions. I recognize running a camp is complex, and I have no doubt that the vast majority of camp directors have nothing but good intentions and are trying their best. This article was also a mix of solutions and problems, a reflection as my views continue to evolve (and I’m open for them to continue this process of evolving with the understanding of more and more perspectives). The goal of this article is not to put down the efforts of existing camps. Debate camp is an invaluable experience (one that I’m so excited to be a part of this summer and so lucky to have been a part of in past years), and the effort that so many passionate people put into making it happen is amazing. The goal, instead, is more to highlight areas that have struck me as inequitable and reflect on potential improvements.
I’d like to end the article by commending all that camps are currently doing to remedy issues of inequity and unsafety and recognize that everyone’s goal here is the same – a safe, educational and ethical camp experience. In the past few years, reforms in the areas of equitable hiring and anti-harassment measures have accelerated, but for the good of the camp experiences that are so central to the activity we all love, it’s vital to keep our foot on the pedal when it comes to ethics and equity in camp hiring practices.