In Congress, POs are more often than not the debaters who have "earned" the gavel; they know parli procedure, control the room, and keep a round flowing quickly and fairly (if perhaps not always enjoyably). What this ignores, however, is that debaters cannot prove they are good POs without first being elected as such, and they often do not get that opportunity.

This creates a sort of pipeline: the students most likely to become POs are often those who have coaching, strong teams to learn from, already built reputations, and experience on competitive circuits. Students from smaller schools or less established programs may be just as capable POs, but may not get the same opportunities to be entrusted with the gavel, learn procedure, or build reputations. The same programs and competitors will continue to put forth select POs, not necessarily because they are objectively better, but because these students were given opportunities to learn and demonstrate that they are qualified when others weren't.

This is part of a broader issue in forensics, wherein reputation can often be self-fulfilling. In its last issue, EIF discussed how prestige and the differential distribution of resources can affect competition, particularly when it comes to presumptions about competitors' skill prior to hearing them speak. This can be especially relevant for Congress, wherein speaker points are one thing, but the opportunity to preside is entirely something else.

POing is also more valuable than we sometimes give it credit for. It is not just a résumé booster or an easy way to sit at the front of the room. The skills a good PO develops cannot be easily transferred to regular competition: negotiating disagreements, making decisions on the fly, interpreting procedures, being impartial, and leading a group of students with wildly varying levels of experience. They need to be strong enough to command a room, but not overbearing; organized, but not strict; and authoritative, but also fair.

POs also have the ability to set a tone for a round that can be either welcoming or alienating for competitors. They can determine if a novice feels included or, conversely, if they are going to have to know parli pro backwards and forwards before they can compete. A PO who is good enough to preside, but maybe a little shaky on the procedures, might lean too heavily on tradition or favor more experienced competitors who know what they are doing. A round run by the same people, year after year, is not going to foster the same spirit of inclusion and fair play that it should, if the goal is to widen Congress' base of competitors.

It is not enough to simply give untested students the gavel and tell them to do their best, however. Congress needs competent POs who know parli pro and can run a round. When they do not have the opportunity to test their skills before being put in this position, the fault for their struggles does not lie with them.

For one, tournaments should consider creating developmental PO opportunities. There are already local tournaments, novice divisions, and preliminary sessions for teams to learn competition procedures. Perhaps something similar could be done for POs. A developmental PO could work under the guidance of a more experienced parliamentarian or run a less competitive chamber with a more lenient standard for advancement. Developmental POs would have the ability to make mistakes and learn without the same pressure to perform, and a system which encourages them to gain experience and grow as leaders would be more inclusive of students without as much prior competition experience.

POs should also receive feedback on how well they did at competitions, so that they have a sense of what to work on for the next one. Competitors receive ballots after each round, but POs may get little more than a vague "good job" or no response at all. A brief PO ballot could discuss recognition, pacing, procedural accuracy, neutrality, and chamber management; all of these are useful skills for a PO to have, and reviewing them can help a new PO recognize their strengths and weaknesses. It is important that one round does not define a PO's ability entirely, but a session in which they struggled should still be a learning experience, rather than a reason to believe they are not "ready" for more responsibility. As EIF has noted, the judging paradigm in Congress can be nebulous, and it makes it harder for competitors to prepare. The same can be said for the responsibilities of procedural leadership.

As a model for representative government, Congressional Debate should engage in practices that reflect how government actually works. In Congress, the government is not elected based on how well a competitor can memorize and apply a set of procedures. If the same competitors keep getting the opportunity to preside because they have had more opportunities to practice than others, then Congressional Debate is not really reflective of how the government works–it is reflecting itself.

Good POs will always be good POs, no matter what changes are made. They will preside calmly and confidently and keep a chamber flowing smoothly. They will be able to interpret parli procedure accurately, remain impartial, and earn the respect of their peers. What this circuit does not need, however, is a culture that puts these leaders on a pedestal just because they know the book better than most. To truly reflect the ideals it claims to subscribe to–which is platforming those capable rather than more well-resourced and known–Congress needs to give students the tools to earn respect, responsibility, and reputation within the system–and stop asking students to have them before they can compete.