Disabilities & compensatory policies

[DeCoach]

Have any of you had the experience of students with a disability whose compensatory help actually gave them an edge over the competition?

A few years ago, a student at a local school who was deaf and mute entered Original Oratory at local tournaments. The young lady brought with her an interpreter; the student would stand at the front of the room and "sign" her speech, and the interpreter would sit in the audience and translate. The problem came when it was discovered that the interpreter was a professional actress from the local commmunity, who had a beautiful speaking voice and delivery. Some opposing school coaches felt this gave the student an unfair advantage in the contest, as the judges could not really separate their reaction to the delivery from their reaction to the speech content. And since NFL rules for the event specify that it IS to be a contest in delivery, they really SHOULD not.

As it turned out, the school in question was not an NFL member and the student did not pursue the event very far into the season, but it does bring up an interesting possibility. Suppose a young debater came in and informed us that he/she was deaf and mute and would "sign" all of their speeches. Their interpreter was their close family friend, who just happened to have been last year's TOC top speaker (or whatever).....

How do we deal with such situations and still give students the opportunity to compete?

[tshuman]

Well, you can call me a contrarian if you like (I'm sure Marcus will!), but it would seem to me that contorting ourselves to allow a student who cannot speak to enter a speech competition is fetishizing "equal opportunity" to a fairly absurd degree...

[STUMPOFWAR]

I am a special education teacher and I would disagree with this. I feel that every possible accomodation should be made without actually altering the event.

You cannot take a man without legs and give him a motorcycle to comp in a marathon......but you should give the man with no legs a ramp to get into and out of a pool......

I think our supreme court has ruled similarily on this issue. A golfer with a heart problem sued because he wasn't allowed to use a golf cart on the tour (rules says must walk to all holes). The court sided with the golfer because riding/walking to the different holes was not an integral part of the competition provided he did the rest himself.....

[DeCoach]

Well, that's where I'm coming from as well. I don't havea special education background but I want the activity to be as inclusive as possible. If we accept that signing is a form of speech, then a mute student should be able to speak in their own way. And yet that opens the door to problems.

In the case of the golfer, I recall that the PGA argued that other golfers who walk the course get tired legs, which adversely affects their golf swing, so allowing one golfer to ride in a cart gives him an "edge" of sorts. In that case, the courts ruled that it was not enough of an edge to matter. But where do we draw the line? How do we measure/quantify such things?

In our state league, debaters with diagnosed disgraphia have been given waivers to the "no laptops" rule for flowing purposes, and that seems altogether apporpriate. They carry a notarized document giving them permission in case someone challenges them. But I actually had one parent of a child and their special ed teacher try to tell me that their child (who could not process speech as quickly as most children, and whose IEP specified that all material was to be presented in both written form AND oral, and that all oral directions/instructions were to be delivered very slowly) wanted to debate but that a tournament official must go into each round of debate the child would be in and announce that their opponent must be required to speak very slowly so that our student could follow their arguments AND that all of their arguments had to be written out as well. Their position was that since tournament competition is a requirement of the course, that her IEP should be followed in the tournament context as well.

Fortunately, we dodged that bullet (the parents finally listened to reason as to the impossibility of what they asked for), but we may not be so lucky next time. I'd appreciate hearing from someone who has special education experience as well as a forensic orientation.

[tpeters]

We've had at least three disabled students on our team. Two were hearing and speech impaired and one was blind. The blind girl was many years ago, and she had a "guide" who helped her find her room. I believe she then used a cane to get to the front of the room. She would orally identify where the judge was.

As for the hearing impaired students, both were legally deaf.

Patrick was the son of a former debater from our school. He did original oratory initially, and we had to work on which words he could use that would be understandable. I remember his first speech was about becing caught between the deaf and hearing worlds -- he spoke about the deaf Miss America and some of the flack she caught for speaking her acceptance speech instead of signing it. Patrick really wanted to debate. It was at this time I met with some folks from NFL to brainstorm what accommodations could be made (like a computer that would "flow" for him so he could listen to AND read what the other team had to say) and I got an earful about the above cited case. The issue was still very fresh and I heard some rather vitriolic responses. Anyway, Patrick competed for all 4 years. While he was/is legally deaf, he had/has limited hearing and his mother was especially intent on Patrick practicing his speaking skills (so was Patrick). By the time he graduated, he had won trophies in National Extemp, had been elected outstanding speaker a number of times in Congress, and had competed in Public Forum Debate; he ended up being an alternate to Nationals. (That's one of the benefits Public Forum has created -- it's a form of debate that doesn't require "speed-listening.") We never had to do any special accommodations -- Patrick learned how get along within a hearing system.

In terms of whether his disability gave him an edge, it might have -- a little bit. I hate to say it, but there may have been a "pity" factor. Judges would talk about how brave he was and how well he met the challenge of being deaf in a speaking event (he definitely had a speech pattern of a deaf person). However, I don't think that was a tremendous advantage -- no more than an attractive student has as one who "looks" like a champion.

Sarah was the other deaf student. She was totally deaf, but her mother wanted her to work on her speaking skills. She refused to wear her hearing aids, and she was very comfortable with being the "deaf girl." She did poetry. I figured she might be like Patrick -- it would take some work, but we'd find something for her to be successful at. However, she only stayed with it for one semester and then quit. She was more interested in other activities, plus she did not want to learn to speak better.

Ok -- now for the point of all this. We are a speech event. What ever accommodations we make for kids, this is still a speaking activity and kids need to stay within that basic spirit. A few years back, a leagally deaf girl was in finals of OO at Nationals and talked about the need to "listen." I have seen wheelchair students who were held to a different standard when it came to pacing, gestures, etc. Other than that modification, these kids can compete with the rest of them. It may take some extra time to figure out how to best convey their messages, but it can be done.

Overall, I agree with Shuman -- we are a speech honor society, so our kids must speak. The interpreter adding an extra element to the young lady's speech was out of bounds.

Tammie

[JustACoach]

Originally Posted by tshuman

Well, you can call me a contrarian if you like (I'm sure Marcus will!), but it would seem to me that contorting ourselves to allow a student who cannot speak to enter a speech competition is fetishizing "equal opportunity" to a fairly absurd degree...

Yes Shuman, you are being contrary. But then agaibn, so am I. ;-)

It's pretty simple: If the kid needs an interpreter, then it should be one paid by their school/ school district, but chosen by the tournament or league. None of this hiring an actress to work with the kid, that's going way too far. And yes, this is a speaking activity, but its an educational activity first.

As for the "pity" factor, it's no more or less prevalent than the "nice suit" factor or the "good looking young girl" factor.

[tpeters]

I only mentioned the "pity" factor as a way of being fair to the question presented. I agree it is not a big deal.

I just discovered that I will have a legally blind student next year -- I still don't know what event the young man is interested in -- it should be interesting.

[STADB9]

Kansas will, for the second year in a row, be sending a completely deaf student to NFL Nationals in Original Oration. The student signs his speech and his mother serves as his interpreter. The student went eight rounds at nationals last year and won the state championship this year in the largest school-size category. The interpreter was approved by NFL last year and has presumably been approved again this year, though I cannot speak from first-hand experience.

My opinion is that the student's interpreter does not provide him with an unfair advantage, though others have been known to disagree. The student also competes successfully in Policy Debate, Student Congress and--interestingly enough--Humorous Interp.

[time_stops]

I believe there was also a student that was deaf who competed in debate a year or so ago in kansas.

I guess my question is (Don't interprate this as a verbal assault on the disabled) but in an event that is meant for speaking, how is one to evaluate the "speech" when the student didn't actually say anything? How is a judge able to evaluate his "speech" against others? Is it fair to allow a professional to give the speech on behalf of the student (whereas speaker puts the emotion into the words, etc.)?

All-in-all we don't let a disabled student play football and tell all the other kids to not tackle him and we don't let him/her drive a car in a marathon instead of run it.

Im all for giving people of lesser abilities opportunities, but i guess i also have to examine how fair it is to the other competitors also. Furthermore i think its fair that you have to evaluate the person on the activity. If its a speech event, and they don't give a speech, how can you actually evalute it as a "speech".

Once again im not trying to verbally attack people of disabilities. Maybe someone on here can offer me new insight into this issue?

[JustACoach]

Originally Posted by time_stops

I believe there was also a student that was deaf who competed in debate a year or so ago in kansas.

I guess my question is (Don't interprate this as a verbal assault on the disabled) but in an event that is meant for speaking, how is one to evaluate the "speech" when the student didn't actually say anything? How is a judge able to evaluate his "speech" against others? Is it fair to allow a professional to give the speech on behalf of the student (whereas speaker puts the emotion into the words, etc.)?

All-in-all we don't let a disabled student play football and tell all the other kids to not tackle him and we don't let him/her drive a car in a marathon instead of run it.

Im all for giving people of lesser abilities opportunities, but i guess i also have to examine how fair it is to the other competitors also. Furthermore i think its fair that you have to evaluate the person on the activity. If its a speech event, and they don't give a speech, how can you actually evalute it as a "speech".

Once again im not trying to verbally attack people of disabilities. Maybe someone on here can offer me new insight into this issue?

Disabled kids do play sports. They get tackled and hit and run over. So what's wrong with letting someone who is disabled make arguments or give a speech? Disabled kids play sports with prosthetics all the time, why can't the debate world live with a kid using an interpreter or, better yet, some sort of technology to provide a voice for them?

We are so caught up in our privelege that it's sickening. We are so worried about someone gaining an advantage that we lose sight of what's important. In the quest for the almighty win, we are willing to jettison whatever decency we have because something makes us uncomfortable. Trained actors should not voice someone's interp. But if a kid's mom wants to voice their child's speech, then why are your undergarmets in a twist about it?

[DeCoach]

I agree with the idea of inclusion to the greatest degree possible. But you know darn well that there need to be guidelines or someone will try to take advantage of them (like the young man whose parents sued NFL back in the days of Boys Extemp & Girls Extemp...he wanted to enter Girls Extemp on the grounds that NFL had no official definition of what a Girl was, and he perceived that he had a better chance of qualifying for Nationals in Girls division than in Boys). As JustACoach says, the student's mother can voice the speech but not a professional actress; so its OK so long as the person isn't very good? What if the student's mother IS a professional actress?

[JustACoach]

Originally Posted by DeCoach

I agree with the idea of inclusion to the greatest degree possible. But you know darn well that there need to be guidelines or someone will try to take advantage of them (like the young man whose parents sued NFL back in the days of Boys Extemp & Girls Extemp...he wanted to enter Girls Extemp on the grounds that NFL had no official definition of what a Girl was, and he perceived that he had a better chance of qualifying for Nationals in Girls division than in Boys). As JustACoach says, the student's mother can voice the speech but not a professional actress; so its OK so long as the person isn't very good? What if the student's mother IS a professional actress?

I knew that would be the response. If Shelley Long's kid was in that situation, I'd probably say go ahead. So be it. But then again, I'd say the same thing about the kid who wanted to join girls extemp... If you want to be known for winning girls extemp, go ahead. Then he'd probably sue so because the judges didn't vote for him, right? Because you have a few idiots out ther who want to game the system doesn't mean that you exclude everyone.

Anyway, as I said before it would be best if we used technology or else had the student's school (or parents or whomever is responsible--and no Shuman it wouldn't be the NFl or the host tournament) pay for a voice person that was hired by the tournament.

I have an idea: let's find ways in which it is OK for the disabled to compete or that home schooled kids can compete or that elite programs can nurture regional debate. Let's start finding ways to include and stop finding excuses to exclude!

[time_stops]

Originally Posted by JustACoach

Disabled kids do play sports. They get tackled and hit and run over. So what's wrong with letting someone who is disabled make arguments or give a speech? Disabled kids play sports with prosthetics all the time, why can't the debate world live with a kid using an interpreter or, better yet, some sort of technology to provide a voice for them?

We are so caught up in our privelege that it's sickening. We are so worried about someone gaining an advantage that we lose sight of what's important. In the quest for the almighty win, we are willing to jettison whatever decency we have because something makes us uncomfortable. Trained actors should not voice someone's interp. But if a kid's mom wants to voice their child's speech, then why are your undergarmets in a twist about it?

No offense but i think you missed my point.

You can't tell me that a football coach or a football league would be okay with letting a child who is in a wheel chair play football and tell all the other competitors to not tackle him. There are reasons, 2 of which are safety and fairness, that would keep these students from participating.

Its similar to the reasons why kids without a disability aren't allowed to participate in activities for kids with disabalities. You wouldn't allow for a perfectly healthy (i.e. no disabilities) to participate in the special olympics and you would allow a student who could see take part in a blind baseball league (which does exist).

Sure, kids do play sports with prosthetics. Kids with speech problems also partake in these activities. But what im saying is that when a disability doesn't permit them to participate in the fundamental aspects of what the competition is over (i.e. speech) then its impossible to evaluate them on the activity simply because they didn't do what it asks for.

For the same reason why we don't provide a student in a wheel chair the immunity from being tackled or a car in a marathon, we shouldn't allow external help (i.e. someone reading a speech) in an activity thats main competitive aspect is speaking.

Obviously someone who is good at reading the speech is going to be chosen to be the interprator. Whether professional or not, its still not the student giving a speech, its an aspect that they don't have to practice on that every other student does.

For the same reasons i can't (and should be able to) participate in the special olympics (i.e. it would give me an advantage competitively) are the same reasons that we shouldn't allow for external help (i.e. an advantage over competition via someone else reading the speech) in a speaking activity.

Once again, please don't take this as an attack upon the disabled. If anything i think that they should be given a fair shot at anything and everything. But i also have to take a look at how it affects others in the community who work hard to be able to compete and fulfill its requirments. I think JustACoach kinda took my last post as offensive and i apologize if he or anyone else did. But im just trying to view this issue from both perspectives. This is obviously a big issue that is worthy of debate (which is what this site is for) in order to find the best possible solution. So if there is something wrong with what im saying up here, make a constructive argument against it. But don't take it as an assault on people with disabilities and don't get all defensive about it. Just try and help myself (and others) to better understand the issues. Thanks.

[coyotedb8]

I had written a post making careful distinctions to justify my opinion on this issue. I read it over and then said --

Phooey. Let a thousand flowers bloom and let the disabled have whatever aids/interpreters they need. This issue strikes me the same way as the debate over the use of laptops in debate rounds. When the issue first surfaced several years ago, many predicted dire consequences if laptops were allowed (collusion with coaches outside the room, abuse of technological superiority, use of Internet researching in round, etc.etc.). Now that I've seen laptops actually used in our state this year, I'm convinced the naysayers were off base and that this has been a good thing.

When kids using interpreters win nationals, call me. I'm convinced there are enough roadblocks (judges?) in the way that it's unlikely to happen. Perhaps in some instances the disabled kid gets an "unfair advantage." I would posit that those with physical disabilities face so much prejudice and hindrance on a daily basis that affording "unfair advantage" in forensic competition is little solace.

I suggest our activity is in such precarious posture that we can ill afford public debate over inclusion of anyone. We're considered exclusive & elitist enough as it is that we can't have a debate over giving access to those with barriers to access.

[time_stops]

The, i believe, 3 year oration champion in Kansas was deaf and used an interprator. (someone correct me if im wrong on the number of years).

[JustACoach]

Originally Posted by time_stops

No offense but i think you missed my point.

You can't tell me that a football coach or a football league would be okay with letting a child who is in a wheel chair play football and tell all the other competitors to not tackle him. There are reasons, 2 of which are safety and fairness, that would keep these students from participating.

Its similar to the reasons why kids without a disability aren't allowed to participate in activities for kids with disabalities. You wouldn't allow for a perfectly healthy (i.e. no disabilities) to participate in the special olympics and you would allow a student who could see take part in a blind baseball league (which does exist).

Sure, kids do play sports with prosthetics. Kids with speech problems also partake in these activities. But what im saying is that when a disability doesn't permit them to participate in the fundamental aspects of what the competition is over (i.e. speech) then its impossible to evaluate them on the activity simply because they didn't do what it asks for.

For the same reason why we don't provide a student in a wheel chair the immunity from being tackled or a car in a marathon, we shouldn't allow external help (i.e. someone reading a speech) in an activity thats main competitive aspect is speaking.

Obviously someone who is good at reading the speech is going to be chosen to be the interprator. Whether professional or not, its still not the student giving a speech, its an aspect that they don't have to practice on that every other student does.

For the same reasons i can't (and should be able to) participate in the special olympics (i.e. it would give me an advantage competitively) are the same reasons that we shouldn't allow for external help (i.e. an advantage over competition via someone else reading the speech) in a speaking activity.

Once again, please don't take this as an attack upon the disabled. If anything i think that they should be given a fair shot at anything and everything. But i also have to take a look at how it affects others in the community who work hard to be able to compete and fulfill its requirments. I think JustACoach kinda took my last post as offensive and i apologize if he or anyone else did. But im just trying to view this issue from both perspectives. This is obviously a big issue that is worthy of debate (which is what this site is for) in order to find the best possible solution. So if there is something wrong with what im saying up here, make a constructive argument against it. But don't take it as an assault on people with disabilities and don't get all defensive about it. Just try and help myself (and others) to better understand the issues. Thanks.

I didn't take your last post as offensive. It's your opinion. I just get frustrated that we keep thinking can't instead of can. That's why I say that our privilege blinds us to the need for inclusion. I say again that while the kid in a wheelchair may not play tackle football, he does play if he has a prosthetic that allows him to play. If the technology lends a kid a "voice," then who are we to say that he/she has an unfair advantage? I for one wouldn't mind if the kid's mother was Shelley Long or her brother Gilbert Gottfried. We all know that this isn't a likely scenario, but we still find reasons to exclude people.

The same with home schooling. Let's not find ways to include these kids, let's come up with far out scenarios as reasons to exclude them. That's what gets me. I say bring EVERYONE to the table. Disabled, poor, rich, smart, dumb, ugly, fat, skinny, old, young, gay, straight, transgendered, confused, confident, uncofident, kleptomaniacs, honors kids, special ed kids, dope heads and religious fanatics, kids who have lawyers as parents, kids who have parents who are mass murderers.

Instead what I've been hearing is these kids are too much trouble. They'll sue. Or they won't play by the rules. Or they have an unfair advantage. You know who that sounds like? The mostly well-off kids who flock to this activity and are the ones who do cause most of the trouble. That's why I point to our privilege as a community. Not every kid in this activity goes to a great school or has rich parents, but plenty do. So I don't understand this fear of anything slightly out of the norm. Seriously, who are we protecting by not allowing some poor kid a "voice" in our activity?

I'm not offended, just bothered by this whole exclusion bit.

[tshuman]

Originally Posted by JustACoach

That's why I say that our privilege blinds us to the need for inclusion.

What "need" would that be, precisely?

[dziegler]

Originally Posted by JustACoach

I'm not offended, just bothered by this whole exclusion bit.

But look at the slippery-slope you're justifying! If we let handicapped kids get help to compete in the activity, what's next? Ultra-exclusive camps where debaters can refine their skills, giving them a significant overhead to other competitors? Kids with laptops that allows them a technological leap? Some schools having better coaches?!? Look at the outrage you're justifying!


I think, on a serious note this time, that some sorts of unequal exclusion happen to all competitors. It's not that much to allow a handicapped kid some help to join the activity, and a lot of what time-stops describes is basically that all debaters should be on an equal playing field 100%, and that if you're disabled, you're just SOL. However, I think this is more resentment towards the supposed "benefits" of being disabled in round vs. that person's ability to compete. The assumption is that leeway is always going to be given to the kid who has to go uphill in the round figuratively, and in many instances, this isn't the case.

[JustACoach]

Originally Posted by tshuman

What "need" would that be, precisely?

You are right Shuman. There is no need for us to be inclusive. We should reject all kids except for the ones acceptable to us.

[dziegler]

Originally Posted by JustACoach

You are right Shuman. There is no need for us to be inclusive. We should reject all kids except for the ones acceptable to us.

I think that aids for deaf/mute kids in things like policy debate rounds would be acceptable, because policy debate has become a more and more analytical event, rather than a persuasive one (I know I'm going to create a whole can of worms with that statement, but overall I believe it to be true).

While I agree that we shouldn't hire professional actors to interpret for deaf and mute kids, giving them an obvious overhead to other competitors, I don't think that we should exclude these kids entirely. All you need is checks on keeping professional people from helping them in the event. Some may say this is unfair towards the handicapped kid that can't get past not being able to speak in the most optimal way for the event, but it's something that the event can't really help. Most speech events are normalized around the notion of "speech" - therefore, anything giving that handicapped kid a step up in the "speech" category would be technically unfair. However, policies allowing them to be competitive isn't so bad. It's just an area that state, district, and national committees need to discuss in depth because there is an increase in the number of handicapped kids joining the event. I'd believe a more pluralistic event to be a good thing. But, to give one subsection a heads-up because of their status is seemingly unfair. It just seems that all the posts thus far talking about keeping these kids out all assume that the only way to accomodate them is to "give them the 1" for being handicapped, and this is far from the truth.

[tshuman]

Originally Posted by JustACoach

You are right Shuman. There is no need for us to be inclusive. We should reject all kids except for the ones acceptable to us.

I used the "" for a reason, Marcus. It is not my position that inclusiveness is on-face bad. My position is that it is far from self-evident that there is a "need" for inclusiveness to the extent that we should welcome students who cannot speak into a speaking competition. That sort of thing strikes me as elevating "inclusiveness" to the level of fetishism...

[JustACoach]

Originally Posted by tshuman

I used the "" for a reason, Marcus. It is not my position that inclusiveness is on-face bad. My position is that it is far from self-evident that there is a "need" for inclusiveness to the extent that we should welcome students who cannot speak into a speaking competition. That sort of thing strikes me as elevating "inclusiveness" to the level of fetishism...

Inclusiveness for anyone who might upset your apple cart is bad. At least that's what it seems like. I just don't understand the reluctance to allow these kids a chance to compete. One of the goals of educationg the disabled is mainstreaming. Why would our activity be one of the places where we would reject that notion?

No, I don't think that a disabled student should have professional actors speak for them, but what about technology? Can't we get look into that? Why do we have to automatically reject folks? That's what I get upset about. We should welcome students who can't speak. We just need to find ways to include them since you are so worried that they are going to cheat their way to a win. I'm more concerned about these snot nosed fully abled brats who are more than willing to cross-read cards or flat out lie to get a win.

[MyNameIsBobby]

I'm not really sure where I should start with this, but I will begin by saying, that I am a disabled student that competes in Policy debate, Extemp and I also competed in Dramatic Events for a year. I am confinded to a wheelchair and am diagnosed with what is called Muscular Dystrophy. The type that I have is one that causes your muscles to weaken over time (yet due to my involvement in many activities I have seem to have kept most of my muscle mass and am able to do many things that they have predicted that I wouldn't be able to).

Anyways, I will now get onto the point of my post. So far most of the debate here has been where it is far or not to allow disabled people help (I can't seem to find a better word for this right now) or not? This is one thing that I have spent most of my life facing. The question of wether or not I need help to complete most activities that people find normal? Honestly, I try to avoid all assistance as much as I possible can, because I dont want to have the help, I try to stay as independe as possible. Now with my disable I do need some help at times, such as lifting my box's and things like that, but I do not need help with holding a pen, flowing debate rounds (speed or lay oriented), picking up evidence, or anything like that. When I first joined debate, my coach, Chris Adams, worried that I would not be able to compete in debate because of the writing that was involved, but she supported me all the way and was willing to help me with anything that should could. Here I am now, 4 years later and I am getting ready to start college debate, and I am able to flow fast rounds, and I have no problems or issues with any of the things that they once thought that I would. That is my first word of advice, if you do have a disabled student in your class or if they want to join your activity, ask them if they do need help, but do not assume that they can not do anything on their own. I admire Ms. Adams for doing this for me, she would always just consider me to be someone that didn't have a disablity, but she did acknowledge that I do have some issue (such as getting on stage so we had to find alternate routes and ask the people who were running the tournament about the accessablity of their stage). It is Ok to assume something, but always consult the person before making these assumptions.

The next issue that comes about is the inclusion/exclusion of certain people. Now I have grown up most of my life hearing thing about how I won't be able to take part in certain events, but I have never let that keep my back. I grew up most of my life loving to play sports and I would play them anyway possible. Wether it was apart of my 8th grade football team where they would allow me to take part in the practices or if it was with my friends going out and play football. When we did play football we would usually play tackle football and I would participate with them and they would treat me like a normal person. Yeah it would hurt sometimes when I got tackled but never the less they would just set my wheelchair back up and the game would continue. Now the point of that story is that they would always include me, and they wouldn't let me wheelchair hold me back. This is one thing that I have always admired about kids, is that they will treat you for who you are. While most adults say that they do, we need to be honest, they really don't, instead of looking for what that person can do, they instead look for what they can't do. This is my second piece of advise, don't always try to find the things that someone can't do, instead look for what they can do and adapt from that.

Now I might have missed the point here, but I just felt like I should tell all of you my story, so that way you can have the preception of someone who is disabled and competes in debate. If any of you have questions, feel free to post them on here and I will try to respond to them, but if you would like to, you can also, feel free to e-mail me at bobby.french@gmail.com. I hope that I have kind of cleared up some of your thoughts on this issue, while I am not learning or hearing impaired, I am physically impaired so I kind of understand the situation you are in.

Bobby French

[JustACoach]

Thanks for your story Bobby. I hope it helps us focus this debate in a more positive direction.

[tpeters]

Thank you, Bobby, for your story. I really appreciate your viewpoint.

It seems to me that this discussion is really about ONE particular disability: lack of speech. So far, no one has mentioned any concerns about individuals in wheelchairs having different expectations about pacing in Extemp or OO, or blind students having a different standard regarding eye contact. Thus, the general statements about inclusion don't really apply with the core concern "voiced" by several coaches: what should we do for/about/with students who want to compete in a speech event who cannot speak?

By the way, this question is not directed generally at deaf students -- most deaf people CAN speak, though there may be some varying expectations regarding clarity and/or intonation. At least one legally deaf student made it to finals in OO at Nationals. Miss America was deaf but gave a speech. So let's narrow this conversation down to the one particular disability of concern: a speechless student in a speech event.

I have a problem with such a student using another human being as his/her "voice" since so much of what we do (especially in interpretation and oratory) depends on intonation, emphasis, enunciation, etc. I have no difficulty with a student who can use technology to help "voice" his or her speech, such as the computer Steven Hawking uses. I've tried to think of a good analogy; I'm not sure if any are especially accurate. For example, should a voice-impaired student compete in a singing contest by signing to another individual who does the actual singing? In an athletic analogy, should a quadrapalegic "compete" in tennis by shouting directions to another person who actually hits the ball?

We are a speech activity. I agree that we should include as many kids as possible in our activity, but I can't see altering the very basis of our activity in the name of inclusion. To extend the idea of inclusion even more, there are many scripts that involve (or could involve) a signing character discussing with a voicing character (material for a duo scene). While that doesn't involve "speech," it does mean the competitor is communicating for himself/herself. I have difficulty with the idea of having another person act as a "surrogate" competitor.