gender non-conforming, and LGBT+ representatives in elimination rounds—not just final rounds—is desirable. Other ideas to proactively introduce more diverse voices to the Association’s activities included: • increasing diversity in all aspects of online educational offerings, especially video; • increasing diversity in tab rooms, as spaces of influence seen by students, and enabling that by offering tab solution training opportunities, if necessary; • being thoughtful about national award recipients, to ensure they don’t share messages antithetical to our inclusion goals; • inviting principals and superintendents from schools with high Latinx and Black populations to judge at tournaments; and • supporting webinars that highlight experienced coaches discussing issues addressed by the caucuses for student and coach audiences, especially regarding terminology used to describe those groups. One larger issue identified by the groups addressed leadership in the speech and debate community, especially on district committees as well as state boards and organizations. The caucuses recommended a thoughtful approach to encouraging more diversity in the election and appointment processes currently at work. Finally, the groups shared some standard-setting ideas related to creating and distributing policies.
The LGBT+ caucus recommended the creation of a “Commitment to Inclusion” as an attempt to recodify the NSDA’s commitment to creating an inclusive community. They also felt we should create avenues for communication between our membership and NSDA leaders involved in inclusion initiatives. Finally, they suggested we increase awareness of our Harassment and Discrimination Policy (see page 32), and encourage its adoption at local invitationals, as well.
BUILDING RESOURCES Many of the caucus suggestions included using our ability to create, share, and promote resources at a national level. First is the creation of templates for coaches. The LGBT+ and Womxn/Gender Non-Conforming caucuses both stressed that an NSDAauthored template for coaches, outlining a team dress code that is not gender binary but still stresses professionalism, would be welcome. Likewise, a best practice guide for tournaments concerning gender neutral restrooms was suggested. Second, and mentioned in the standards segment earlier in this article, is the concept of offering webinars that introduce the community to issues addressed by the caucus. These webinars could also expand on our prior efforts to share appropriate terminology and facilitate further conversation beyond the National Tournament. Third was a suggestion that the NSDA identify coaches across the country who are willing to volunteer their time to work at
short camps in another area with high need. The Latinx caucus, in particular, highlighted this as a strategy for preparing students in Latinx communities where speech and debate is almost exclusively an after-school activity, and therefore hard to balance with other obligations. Fourth, the caucuses felt this publication is a great avenue for change. More than once, the caucuses complimented the Rostrum series on women in debate from the 2016-2017 school year, and requested a similar series to focus on gender identity, the experience of Black students and coaches, and more. The remaining recommendations were less about the vehicle for change and more about topics our community need to address, primarily cultural competency, event literature, and student recruitment. Regarding cultural competency, the caucuses supported the idea of NSDA-collected best practices for mentoring youth facing different challenges, understanding cultural appropriation in literature and argumentation, running inclusive tournaments, creating safe spaces, using inclusive terminology, and being an Ally. These items could be tackled via judge training materials and videos, white papers, training modules, best practice guides, and interspersed among other competitive resources or certifications. Caucuses also expressed concerns about the current use of literature, both in that the list of acceptable literature should expand to be more inclusive, and that
ROSTRUM | SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2017 29