Prioritizing grammar ignores meaningful argumentation and reinforces groupthink

Another possible explanation might be found in the works of Cheris Kramarae (1981). Muted Group Theory maintains that language is literally a man-made construction that reflects male dominance and discounts female participation. When women try to overcome this inequality, the masculine control of communication – in this case, the debate round – places them at a tremendous disadvantage. Women are thus a muted group. Female debaters complain that they are treated as overly emotional, apologetic, wish-washy and/or “talked down to” by male competitors during the round, and male judges after the round or on the ballot. When they object to this treatment, they are told to “lighten up,” or “not to be so bitchy.” African Americans are often told not to be so “preachy,” or to tell quite so many stories, or to work on their diction and grammar. While articulate speech and “good” grammar are certainly excellent communication goals, can we really justify a ballot on these grounds while ignoring a core of the argumentation offered within the round? “In effect,” one discouraged minority competitor confided to the author, “we are being told to debate like white people do. Sometimes, there is a lot wrong with the way I talk, but there is nothing wrong with my brain.” According to Kramerae (1981), this type of male dominance is just one of the many ways that women and minorities are rendered inarticulate in our society. In these examples, the dominant cultural group within CEDA may serve as gatekeepers of the communication act redefining its intent, purpose and the rules for success; and thus, reinforce the concepts of Janis’ groupthink process. In effect, the majority of the coaching/judging pool attempt to reinforce the dominant male model of debate by attending to and treating as significant only what fellow members of the dominant cultural group say or do.