The Harvard College Debating Union wanted a rematch. The team had suffered a hard loss in 2015 to a group of talented debaters, drawing international intention. So, the Harvard team this year sent an email requesting another shot. It turned out their opponents, too, were seeking another contest after hearing stories about the legendary debate when their predecessors beat the mighty Ivy.
The first match was a rout. Harvard, with their $50 bi-zillion endowment, was beaten on the central question. Harvard, with their miniscule acceptance rate and average SAT score of 1530 was beaten by a team that never should have come close. Harvard, whose attendees boast owning 5% of the world’s entire wealth, was beaten by a team who collectively earn $3.50 per hour.
Harvard’s opponent that fateful day was a team from Bard College. Are you familiar with Bard College? My magic mirror shows me that most of you have never heard of Bard College. Well, this group is a special adjunct from Bard College. They do all their studying inside….inside the walls of the Eastern Correctional Facility, a maximum security prison in upstate New York.
Harvard took on and lost a debate to a team of violent felons and they now want a rematch.
Welcome to Swimming in the Flood; a podcast where we develop the resilient leader’s mindset by navigating difficult currents in business. My name is Trent Theroux.
One of the preeminent debaters in history is Abraham Lincoln. In school, we learned of the famous Lincoln versus Douglas debates in the 1858 Illinois senatorial election. Lincoln and Douglas faced off a total of seven times, mostly to debate the issue of slavery extension into the territories.
Lincoln’s victories in these debates came because of his general philosophy that he should spend two-thirds of his time considering what Douglas would say and the remaining time on his responses. Here is the outline of one of Lincoln’s arguments.
“If A can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B, why may not B snatch the same argument and prove equally that he may enslave A?”
“You say A is white, and B is black. It is color then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet with a fairer skin than your own.”
“You do not mean color exactly? You mean the white are intellectually the superior of the blacks; and therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be a slave to the first man you meet with an intellect superior to your own.
Is it me or is this the most brilliantly simple, yet completely effective position you have ever heard?
I am now going to give you my unscientific, non-peer reviewed, resilient leader theory on debating. Are you ready? Got your pencils out? Here’s it is. Prepare Your Argument. You heard it. Prepare Your Argument.
Bard College coach, David Register, chalked up the team’s 12-4 record to obsessive preparation, teamwork, and more life experience than most of their opponents. The proposition the prisoners would consider was, “Does the corporatization of higher education do more harm than good.” Sounds like a thrilling subject for a bunch of Harvard eager beavers and a few men who never went to college.
At the beginning of the semester, Mr. Register handed his debaters – who don’t have online access – a couple of books and 400 pages printed off the internet. The debaters also asked their friends and family to print out articles and recount YouTube videos they watched on the topic. During weekly sessions, they rehearsed arguments and discussed strategy. Outside of class, fellow inmates quizzed the debaters to help them prepare. According to the Wall Street Journal, one debater said, “Guys were constantly stopping me, saying ‘Yo! Why is corporatization good for this?”
The cellmates of the debaters helped prepare the argument. Listening to alternative voices and opinions help shape and refine one’s argument. Creating arguments in a vacuum often leads to a black hole of ideas. Research, exhausting each line of reasoning, those are the hallmarks of preparing to win an argument – whether that argument is about halting the advancement of slavery, putting Harvard overachievers in their place, or arguing your first case in front of a judge like I did in 1986.
On a Monday in January during my freshman year in college, I parked on a side street adjacent to Taylor Natatorium, where we had swim practice and a lifting session for the day. The workout was exhausting, and a couple of teammates agreed to head to Subway after practice.
Returning to my car, I found a parking ticket on my windshield. The fine on the ticket was $25 for illegal parking on school days. I looked at the sign above my car and sure enough, it read “No Parking On School Days 8:00am-5:00pm.” The ticket was signed by Officer McGowen, or something like that. The officer has abysmal penmanship.
My body was starving. I wanted to eat six foot-long subs just to recapture the calories from the 10,000 meters and hour lifting session we endured. Coach O’Neill figured that the entire team could stay longer today because there were no classes. Wait!! There were no classes today. Today, we were celebrating Martin Luther King’s birthday for the first time. No classes should mean no ticket.
I quickly turned the ticket over to the back and read, “if you choose to appeal…” Hell, yeah, I wanted to appeal. My permanent record has been besmirched by Officer McGoAway who did not appreciate that today was a newly minted federal holiday. The next morning, I checked the appeal box, affixed my stamp, and mailed my appeal to the City of Providence court system.
Three weeks later, I was summoned to traffic court to appeal being violated by this violation. I went to the library to look up information about how to make arguments in traffic court. I discussed the merits of the case with two friends where were pre-law majors. My philosophy teacher gave me a great tip about how to structure reasoning like Socrates. I reread Twelve Angry Men just in case in needed to persuade a jury. I prepared my argument.
The morning of the case, my synapses were firing on all cylinders. I walked into the courtroom feeling like Clarence Darrow from Inherit the Wind. This would be my Scopes trial!
The Providence Traffic Court was not the same court set up as in Matlock or Perry Mason. The judge would call someone to the microphone, read the charge and ask how they pled. Most of the people pled not guilty and offered a lame excuse about speeding because they were late for work. Or the policeman got the wrong car on that dark road after midnight. Or I didn’t know there was a yield sign next to the elementary school. The judge wasn’t buying it and he dispatched them all.
“Trent Theroux, please rise and come to the microphone.” I anxiously stepped to the microphone. “The charge is parking in a no parking zone.” “Your honor, the sign clearly states that the street has no parking on school days. However, the ticket was written on Martin Luther King Day and there is no school on that day. The federal government states…” “Case dismissed. Pay $15 in court fees. Next case.” There was a man next to the microphone that ushered me briskly into a backroom where a clerk was waiting for me. “$15 please.” “For what?” “Court fees.” “But I think I just won my case.” “Yes, the judge dismissed the ticket. Everyone pays $15 in court fees.”
On my ride home, I did the math. The ticket was $25. I saved $10 by studying, researching, questioning people, traveling to court, and spending half a day in the waiting room. Forty hours to save $10. Not a lucrative start to a law career. Wait. I forgot that I spent $0.25 on a stamp. I’m only $9.75 ahead, but I prepared my argument.
The Bard College team was prepared for their corporatization question. The debate took place inside the prison with fellow prisoners, sporting drab green prison garb, applauding and cheering for their home team. They lost that day by a ruling of 2-1. One of the judges commented that it was close and added that the prisoners had been required to argue what seemed the tougher position.
I have the distinct feeling that the Bard College team has been arguing the tougher position for many years already. But now have the skills to help them win more in the days and years to come.
Folks, thank you for listening to Swimming in the Flood. Resilient leaders face challenging currents, and it is tough navigating, but with one tack or another we can get there together.