Debate Departs: School Cuts Policy Debate

In a turn of events, the School has announced its decision to discontinue teaching policy debate following this academic year, sending shockwaves through the student body. The decision, attributed to concerns over intensity, cost, and staffing requirements, has drawn mixed reactions from students and faculty alike.

John Hines, the School’s Policy Debate Coach with over 25 years of experience, expressed the intensity and depth of policy debate, stating, “The work is equivalent to a master’s student… 95% of undergrads don’t even approach it.” He highlighted the substantial research demands and labor-intensive characteristics of the activity, factors that ultimately influenced the choice to cease teaching new participants.

He continues, saying, “The decision was reached primarily because of the intensity… There is concern from our administrators that it’s too intense. It’s also very expensive and labor-intensive,” Hines elaborated, shedding light on the school’s rationale behind the move. He acknowledged the resource constraints and staffing requirements, advocating for a reallocation of resources to ensure broader access to debate activities.

While understanding the School’s reasoning, Hines admitted, “I think there is a logic behind it that makes sense, that if we don’t have the resources, then it wouldn’t make sense. But if I were in charge, I wouldn’t do that.” Despite understanding the difficulties posed by administrative challenges, Hines hints at his reluctance to see the program he has devoted years to cultivating discontinued.

Dhruva Sood, a current senior at the School, expressed, “This is frustrating because this is the most successful the team has been in over 30 years.” Sood emphasizes the program’s academic and personal benefits, noting its role in fostering critical skills such as research and communication.

Similarly, Wallace Arney, a current sophomore, lamented the loss of policy debate, stating, “All the formats are not as competitive and serious as policy debate, and I’m really sad that they are cutting it.”

David Gusman, a freshman who won’t have the chance to participate in policy debate at the school, echoed these sentiments, questioning the wisdom of substituting policy debate with less challenging options. “I don’t think they should’ve cut the policy debate program personally,” Gusman stated.

As our school community grapples with the fallout of this decision, debates are swirling about the future of intellectual discussions at Head Royce. While some argue its importance to change, others mourn the potential loss of a beloved tradition. Only time will reveal the true impact of this controversial move on our school’s academic landscape.