Slashdot Mirror


Prison Debate Team Beats Harvard's National Title Winners

HughPickens.com writes: Lauren Gambino reports at The Guardian that months after winning this year's national debate championship, Harvard's debate team has fallen to a debate team of three inmates with violent criminal records. The showdown took place at the Eastern correctional facility in New York, a maximum-security prison where convicts can take courses taught by faculty from nearby Bard College, and where inmates have formed a popular debate club. The Bard prison initiative has expanded since 2001 to six New York correctional facilities, and aims to provide inmates with a liberal arts education so that when the students leave prison they are able to find meaningful work. A three-judge panel concluded that the Bard team had raised strong arguments that the Harvard team had failed to consider and declared the team of inmates victorious. "Debate helps students master arguments that they don't necessarily agree with," says Max Kenner. "It also pushes people to learn to be not just better litigators but to become more empathetic people, and that's what really speaks to us as an institution about the debate union."

The prison team has proven formidable in the past, beating teams from the US military academy at West Point and the University of Vermont. They lost a rematch against West Point in April, setting up a friendly rivalry between the teams. The competition against West Point has become an annual event, and the prison team is preparing for the next debate in spring. In the morning before the debate, team members talked of nerves and their hope that competing against Harvard—even if they lost—would inspire other inmates to pursue educations. "If we win, it's going to make a lot of people question what goes on in here," says Alex Hall, a 31-year-old from Manhattan convicted of manslaughter. "We might not be as naturally rhetorically gifted, but we work really hard."

8 of 191 comments (clear)

  1. Good for them by Jumunquo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the article:
    "Among formerly incarcerated Bard students who earned degrees while in custody, fewer than 2% have returned to prison within three years, a standard measurement period for assessing recidivism. This is exceptionally low, when contrasted with the statewide recidivism rate, which has hovered for decades at about 40%."

    Sounds like a wonderful program.

    1. Re:Good for them by jon3k · · Score: 5, Funny

      So what crime do I need to commit to get a free degree? Gotta make sure I stay in at least four years.

    2. Re:Good for them by Krishnoid · · Score: 5, Funny

      Get admitted to a university in Germany? So ... drive under 100kph on the Autobahn and be vegetarian and designated driver during Oktoberfest? I think those are crimes there.

    3. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The biggest part of recidivism is in the fact that too many inmates have literally nowhere to go and nothing to do once they leave prison, they literally end up sleeping on the streets on day one and quickly return to a life of crime for the goal getting incarcerated in order to get sent back to prison. Programs like this debate team and liberal arts education programs give prisoners a few extra tools and critical thinking skills that are sorely needed to survive out in the free world in order to find housing and subsequently get a job that they need to survive in a stable life. There are plenty of prisoners who have learned of the harshness of prison life and want to live a reformed and peaceful life after prison but there are normally no support programs to help prisoners integrate back into normal society.

    4. Re:Good for them by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      who cares about correlation vs. causation.

      I care. If it reduces recidivism from 40% to 2%, then enrolling more inmates could save billions in incarceration rates and reduced crime. If the class size was limited, an obvious comparison would be the recidivism rate of graduates vs. the rate for applicants that were turned away.

    5. Re:Good for them by KGIII · · Score: 5, Interesting

      For a while, I worked as a transport officer in a detention facility. This was a military prison and not a civilian prison. I did interview at a civilian facility at one point. I've also spent a few hours in jail waiting to be bailed out because I used to be a drunken moron at times. One mistake that people make is assuming that those who are incarcerated are automatically stupid. The reality couldn't be further from the truth. There are a higher percentage of smart people, from what I witnessed, than there are on the outside. However, those who are stupid really make up the difference.

      The smart people are brilliantly smart. They have all the time in the world to learn a skill. There are phenomenal musicians, artists, and chess players. They screwed up, often in horrific ways, but that doesn't mean that they're not smart. The ones who are dumb, however, seem to really be on the low end of the scale. I suspect those get more publicity than the smart ones.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  2. Re:sounds like the prison team by trout007 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I heard the women's prison has cunning linguists.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
  3. Re:Headlines in five years by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

    their respective gangs

    DuPont, Exxon, Pfizer, Wells Fargo...

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”