The topic to be debated by high schoolers competing in Public Forum debate during the month of January has inspired quite a backlash. Written and adopted by the National Forensics League, the resolution requires the affirmative team to defend the teaching of Intelligent Design (ID) in secondary school science curriculums. While the wording is rather jejune (“In the United States, public high school science curriculum should include the study of the Theory of Intelligent Design”), this topic provides students with an outstanding opportunity to debate a highly-controversial issue that directly impacts their academic experiences.

Unfortunately, some proponents of ID (which I have previously discussed) view the January resolution as undebatable and an abridgment of their freedom of religion. As a result, several states are considering adopting their own resolutions and North Dakota has already banned its use. In a conversation with the North Dakota High School Activities Association, Seth Halvorson learned that

the decision was made because ID was to be the state topic, and some school admin[i]strators, not coaches, balked at the idea of debating intelligent design. The person said evolution is not taught in some of the schools. He was really surprised, but in the end said that administrators have the final say, and it wouldn’t be fair to exclude some students from state competition on the grounds that their administrators would not allow them to debate. He said similar things were afoot in Kansas and elsewhere.

In other words, individuals charged with the responsibility to run the educational system feel that a discussion of the merits of teaching ID in science curricula is literally off-limits. Why debate about it, I guess the thinking goes, when we already know the Truth (after all, the Bible told us).

While it is to be expected that individuals will have an opinion on the merits of ID and its inclusion in science classes, it is preposterous to assert that partisans on both sides are so offended by their opponents’ claims that they are unable to play “devil’s advocate” and engage in switch-sides debate. This issue is incredibly timely — a Federal Judge in Pennsylvania recently ruled that intelligent design cannot be taught in a Dover school’s science classes — and debating it out equips students to better cope with the myriad of issues in which science, ethics, and faith intersect.

Switch-sides debating over issues of public importance is the raison d’etre for investing in high school forensics. It is demoralizing to witness those who are in the position to bolster our status as forensic educators abandon their commitment to deliberative democracy in favor of dogmatism and hyper-sensitivity. Those of us who believe in the value of forensics must do a better job of spreading our message.