Alumnus responds debate program cut

Dear Professor Mifsud, Dean Newcomb, Provost Allred and President Ayers,

I recently became aware of the proposal by the rhetoric and communications studies department and the School of Arts and Sciences Dean's Advisory Council that the University of Richmond's varsity-level policy debate program be cut and replaced with a club level parliamentary debate program. I am writing to you to express my complete shock and disapproval of this proposal.

As a former Richmond debater, I cannot tell you how influential the program was on my undergraduate education and overall Richmond experience. The welcoming nature of Dr. Kuswa and the other debate team members provided an outlet for my extracurricular interests and an alternative to other activities such as Greek life. Intellectually, the debate team challenged me to expand my mind and question epistemology in all my academic subjects and even personal life. The introduction to critical theory that I received has been the single greatest aspect of my mental growth at Richmond.

Personally, I am certain that without debate, I would never have received my Fulbright Fellowship this year (the only research grant won by a Richmond graduate in my class and the first in two years). Secondly, I would not be planning to enroll in a Ph.D. literature program next year if I had not been prepared by my participation in critical debates.

When I was a student, I felt proud to attend a small liberal arts college that treated policy debate as a varsity sport, unlike my high school. This status and respect for the sport on campus let me know that Richmond was a school completely dedicated to the overall development of the student body and that put academics at the forefront of that mission.

I could have attended DIII schools with larger debate budgets and that do not even have football teams (such as Emory University), but Richmond's strong tradition and passion convinced me that I could succeed here even better, both in the classroom and the debate round. You are fooling yourselves if you think that Richmond competes primarily with the likes of Amherst College and Swarthmore University.

In reality, we are competing with Wake Forest University and Georgetown University, both of which have strong policy programs. Even with the new Carole Weinstein International Center, if I were a high school senior now, Richmond would be crossed off my list for lacking a policy debate team.

Do any of those schools on your list have leadership studies or a top-ranked undergraduate business school? If not, then by your logic, we must abolish them. Contrary to your reasoning, the policy debate team, like the Robins School and Jepson, is what makes Richmond fundamentally unique among other liberal arts colleges.

I guess my liberal arts education never included any lessons on conformity and the merits of comparing oneself to others to measure value and worth.

As you mentioned, the university did exceptionally well in weathering the financial downfall, particularly with the invested assets of the endowment. Like all things economic, the budget reductions are cyclical and thus cuts should be considered for increasing efficiency and finding temporary solutions to this short-term problem. A complete dismantling of the policy debate team does not achieve that.

There is no doubt that as the economy improves and Richmond's financial strength and stability rebounds in the markets, the full funding for the policy debate team will be able to remain available for future generations of Spiders. Many current policy debaters and RHCS majors rely on the debate team as an integral part of their graduate school applications; the experience and ability to coach is also key to receiving funding for many rhetoric and communication studies programs.

As you will see, policy debaters are among the most passionate students on campus. They contribute dynamically to class discussions by offering critical perspectives and being willing to speak when no one else wants to talk.

A recent cover article in the alumni magazine even highlighted the policy debate team as a primary aspect of Richmond's "Division 1 Academics." I find it hard to believe that Richmond will maintain such academic excellence without a varsity policy debate team.

I also find it hard to support an administration that makes such decisions (especially those made which fail to consult those most involved) and I will find it more difficult to recommend the university to the high school students I know and with whom I work, especially when they could easily choose Middlebury College or Davidson College if Richmond no longer has anything unique to offer them.

Sincerely,

Nathan Bullock

RC '10