Results, UTNIF IE

NIETOC MASQ Congrats

The 2020 National Individual Events Tournament of Champions, or NIETOC, was one of the casualties of the Covid-19 pandemic. Under the umbrella of his The Perfect Performance, LLC, NIETOC founder Demond Wilson and tournament manager Matt Heimes deployed an online version of the contest called Making Art while Socially Quarantined, or MASQ.

Thanks to all of the people involved with NIETOC for making that happen.

And Texas Speech & the UTNIF wish to congratulate all of the students who participated in the contest, with special congrats to the following UTNIF alumni who received individual awards for semi-final and final round advancement at the contest.

  • Top Speaker – Perfect Performance Award, Jack Neel (‘19), Bethlehem HS, KY
  • Champion – Poetry Interp, Jack Neel (‘19), Bethlehem HS, KY
  • 4th place – Dramatic Interp, Faith Ann Zepeda (‘19), Harlingen HS, TX
  • 6th place – Dramatic Interp, Jack Neel (‘19), Bethlehem HS, KY
  • 7th place – Informative Speaking, Katherine Oung (‘19), Dreyfoos School of the Arts, FL
  • 8th place – Prose Interp, Kevin Ahern (‘19), Dreyfoos School of the Arts, FL
  • 8th place – Dramatic Interp, Kevin Ahern (‘19), Dreyfoos School of the Arts, FL
  • 9th place – Program Oral Interp, Katherine Oung (‘19), Dreyfoos School of the Arts, FL
  • 11th place – Informative Speaking, Braden Hopkins (‘19), Kingwood HS, TX

Congrats to these alumni and to all of the students receiving awards at the MASQ, and kudos to the NIETOC!

For more information on the UTNIF: www.utspeech.net

Share this:
Results, UTNIF IE

Kentucky TOC 2020 Congrats

A huge congrats From Texas Speech and the UTNIF to the following UTNIF Alumni on their performances in the speech categories at the 2020 edition of the Tournament of Champions, hosted by the University of Kentucky. All of these students made the shift to the digital sphere this year, and demonstrated the same excellence in that format as they have for so long in live competition formats.

Individual congrats to the following:

  • Champion, Extemporaneous Speaking – Katherine Rollins (‘16, ‘17), The Potomac School, VA
  • Champion, Oratory – Katherine Rollins (‘16, ‘17), The Potomac School, VA
  • 2nd place, Extemporaneous Speaking – Pranav Pattatathunadavil (‘18), Plano West HS, TX
  • 2nd place, Oral Interp – Jack Neel (‘19), Bethelehem HS, KY
  • 2nd place, Congress – Genevieve Cox (‘18), W. B. Ray HS, TX
  • 3rd place, Program Oral Interp – Jack Neel (‘19), Bethlehem HS, KY
  • 4th place, Extemporaneous Speaking – Angela Wang (‘18), Plano West HS, TX

Semi-Finalists:

  • Dramatic Interp – Jack Neel (‘19), Bethlehem HS, KY
  • Informative Speaking – Katherine Oung (‘19), Dreyfoos School of the Arts, FL
  • Oratory – Dev Wernik (‘19), Valley International Prep, CA

Congrats all! And a huge shoutout to the University of Kentucky in building their online format from the ground up and showcasing all of these amazing students.

For more information about the UTNIF: www.utspeech.net

Share this:
Feature, Results

Texas Speech places 3rd at 2019 AFA!

The University of Texas intercollegiate speech team, Texas Speech, travelled to Tuscaloosa, AL to compete at the 2019 American Forensic Association National individual Events Tournament, April 4-7. The team placed 3rd nationally at the contest, hosted by the University of Alabama. The team amassed 456.5 points at the contest, finishing ahead of the University of Alabama (398 points), George Mason University (259.5 points), and behind Western Kentucky University (495 points), and tournament champions Bradley University (506.5 points).

The top 10 also included the University of Nebraska at Omaha (6th), Northwestern University (7th), the University of Nebraska at Lincoln (8th), Hastings College of Nebraska (9th), and Illinois State University rounding out the top 10.

Senior Sarah Courville was recognized as the 2019 AFA National Champion in Dramatic Interpretation, and she was joined by teammates Juan Nunez, Kimberly Lee, and Danielle Castillo for a very rare close-out of the top 4 places in a single category.

Sophomore Nunez and early graduating Senior Dyana Martinez each twice finished as national runners up in their respective events, narrowly missing national titles in Dramatic Interpretation, Program Oral Interpretation, Extemporaneous Speaking, and Communication Analysis. Martinez also placed 5th in Persuasive Speaking. Senior Jordan Auzenne placed in the top 3 in two categories—Persuasive Speaking and Communication Analysis, and Seniors Rachel Evans & Seis Steves were also both recognized as national finalists, with Evans placing 3rd in After Dinner Speaking and Steves placing 6th in Prose Interpretation.

The team travels next to Santa Ana, California, for the National Forensic Association national tournament, followed by an appearance for Junior Sabrina Savoie at the Interstate Oratorical Association contest in Westchester, PA.

Congratulations to the following students on their individual awards:

National Quarter-Finalists (top 24 nationally)

  • Briana Mier & Carlos Diaz (Duo Interpretation)
  • Caleb Newton (Persuasive Speaking)
  • Danielle Castillo (Prose Interpretation)
  • Dyana Martinez (After Dinner Speaking)
  • Erin Swearingen (Persuasive Speaking)
  • Evan Ortiz (Persuasive Speaking)
  • Jordan Rojas (Communication Analysis, Extemporaneous Speaking & Impromptu Speaking)
  • Juan Nunez (Informative Speaking)
  • Katayoun Khalilian (Extemporaneous Speaking)
  • Kimberly Lee (Program Oral Interpretation)
  • Maxim Belov (Extemporaneous Speaking & Impromptu Speaking)
  • Nader Syed (Extemporaneous Speaking & Impromptu Speaking)
  • Rachel Evans (Communication Analysis)
  • Sarah Courville (Prose Interpretation)
  • Seis Steves (After Dinner Speaking, Informative Speaking, Dramatic Interpretation, Program Oral Interpretation)

National Semi-Finalists (top 12 nationally)

  • Briana Mier & Danielle Castillo (Duo Interpretation)
  • David Rodriguez (Poetry Interpretation)
  • Elizabeth Boone (After Dinner Speaking)
  • Jordan Auzenne (Extemporaneous Speaking)
  • Nader Syed (Persuasive Speaking)
  • Sarah Courville (After Dinner Speaking)

National Finalists (Top 6 nationally)

  • Sarah Courville – National Champion (Dramatic Interpretation)
  • Juan Nunez – 2nd place (Dramatic Interpretation & Program Oral Interpretation)
  • Dyana Martinez – 2nd place (Communication Analysis & Extemporaneous Speaking)
  • Kimberly Lee – 3rd place (Dramatic Interpretation)
  • Jordan Auzenne – 3rd place (Communication Analysis & Persuasive Speaking)
  • Rachel Evans – 3rd place (After Dinner Speaking)
  • Danielle Castillo – 4th place (Dramatic Interpretation)
  • Dyana Martinez – 5th place (Persuasive Speaking
  • Seis Steves – 6th place (Prose Interpretation)

Overall Speaker:

  • Dyana Martinez – 8th place Speaker
  • Seis Steves – 15th place Speaker
  • Juan Nunez – 17th place Speaker
  • Jordan Auzenne – 19th place Speaker
Share this:
Feature, Team

The Cold War, A Political Game

By: Maxim Belov


Despite being backed by most policymakers, the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was doomed to fail from the start. However, the Afghan quagmire did not result from military inferiority, rather from a strategic one. Our strategy was simple: win the war. Anything short of victory was a failure. On the other hand, the Taliban was fighting to survive; it could be killed but could not lose. While seemingly complex, most decisions during the war could be explained by Game Theory – an attempt at introducing mathematics into value-based decision making.

Under game theory, there are two possible games: finite and infinite. (more…)

Share this:
Feature, Team

A Day Without Women

 

IWD_ENEWS

 

by: Rachel Evans

photos from: IWD; The Huffington Post

March 8, 2017 : International Women’s Day. A day thousands across the world will celebrate the social, economic, cultural, and political achievements of women.  But as individuals across the world gather to celebrate their accomplishments, they also are gearing up to protest for today’s Day Without Women. (more…)

Share this:
Feature, Team

Revisiting the “Black” Box

Jordan 1

 

By: Jordan Auzenne

Photos from: Getty Images / Kevork Djansezian; Solange Knowles; Chris Pizzello/Invision/AP

Oscar’s Sunday 2017 was a foggy morning, but the weather matched the date. While I waited in line at Starbucks, actor and producer Tracee Ellis Ross seemed to confirm the overcast on my timeline, as she donned a grey sweatshirt, hood on, with the name “TRAYVON” written big, black and capital. It was February 26th, the 5th anniversary of his death. Yet almost as soon as the photo was posted, several commented that it wasn’t the Hollywood elite’s job to call the rest of us out, to “fix her makeup and get ready to celebrate herself”. I grabbed my black coffee and got to work.

The role of Black people in the media has always been a complicated one. As the Pew Research Center explained in 2016, African Americans only make up 5.5% of those in newsrooms, sets, and stages across America. Yet as Black artists like Ellis Ross attempt to use their platform to progress the narrative of blackness, they are being shut down. It’s clear that as Black culture and aesthetics are being featured in media now more than ever, we want to enjoy Black work, so long as they stay quiet.

The timeliest example of this is Queen Bey. Black history month kicked off with a brilliant exhibition of Black strength, beauty and artistry as Beyoncé announced her pregnancy, in a photo that would later become the most liked on Instagram. Immediately, outlets like VOX, Elle and even Cosmopolitan were quick to admonish her. One writer even argued that “Beyoncé alienates other women who wish to be pregnant”, completely overlooking her (and Black women’s) history of miscarriage.

Jordan 3

 

What garnered the most backlash was her performance at the Grammy’s on Feb.12th, in which she donned a golden halo and bejeweled dress, giving off Virgin Mary vibes. As PBS speculated, her embodiment of Oshun, a Yoruba water goddess of “female sensuality, love and fertility,” was meant to pay respect to Black womanhood. But while columnists grappled with their conceptions of sacrilege, they missed an incredible point: that Beyoncé could be used as a performance, but not honored as an artist.

Beyoncé lost Album of the Year for the second time, to the fabulous and formidable Adele. As her younger sister, Solange, tweeted, “there have only been two black winners in the last 20 years for album of the year[.] there have been over 200 black artists who have performed”. She elucidates what several of us are realizing, that the music industry knows how powerful Beyoncé, and other artists like Kendrick, Kanye, and Nicki, have become. They recognize their influence in the community and their ability to innovate and redefine music, but only so far as to utilize their performance for viewership, then hand the award to someone else.

Jordan4

This cycle of exploitation occurs just as frequently in Hollywood, where certain movies can revolve around the concept of jazz without any recognition of the Black people who created it. Which is why the Academy Awards felt surreal this year. Even my RTF colleagues who adored La La Land admittedly agreed that a feel-good movie about Hollywood nostalgia shouldn’t be awarded over a film traversing the turmoil of intersectionality, of Black manhood and Black sexuality, a movie (FINALLY) where the characters weren’t either slaves or maids. What Moonlight accomplished was monumental. The low-budget indie film turned $1.5 million into $25, with an all-Black cast (including a fellow Longhorn), and little advertising. The anticipation going into Oscar’s Sunday was therefore unbearable.

The Academy Awards were in all sense of the phrase a “must see”. After 3 and a half hours, La La Land was initially announced as Best Picture, and as crew worked to fix the mistake, host Jimmy Kimmel “wanted to see [La La Land] win too”, arguing that “there are plenty of awards to go around.” It was producer Jordan Horowitz who mustered Adele-like grace, replying: “I’m going to be really proud to hand this to my friends at Moonlight.” But even in their accomplishment, they were overshadowed by whiteness.

moonlight

As Bustle articulated this morning, “This should have been a moment for people of color…for LGBTQ individuals, for people living in marginalized communities. This should have been a moment for their stories to be celebrated and seen, and instead it was a moment that turned into a punchline.” Moonlight had time to vouch for both of the films, forgive the Academy, and leave the stage. People will talk about how happy they are that they won. Or maybe how Lion or Manchester should have. They’ll talk about how wonderful Janelle Monáe looked. But we’ll never talk about the speech, because it didn’t happen. Bustle continues, “We shouldn’t have been laughing. We should have been applauding, and then holding the Academy to the responsibility of maintaining or exceeding this standard next year.”

Yet, it’s still peculiar. How in 90 years, the Oscar’s made this mistake. Still peculiar how Black artists are remembered for amazing performances, but never awards. In a time where media is being threatened more than ever before, where media is the foundation of understanding people who are far away and different from us, it’s peculiar how it keeps getting whiter.

 

Blay, Zeba. “Beyoncé Has Always Been Political — You Just Didn’t Notice.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 09 Feb. 2016. Web. 27 Feb. 2017.

Griffiths, Kadeen. “‘Moonlight’ May Have Won For Best Picture, But It Still Got Robbed.” Bustle. Bustle, 27 Feb. 2017. Web. 27 Feb. 2017.

Mettler, Katie. “The African, Hindu and Roman Goddesses Who Inspired Beyoncé’s Stunning Grammy Performance.” The Washington Post. WP Company, 13 Feb. 2017. Web. 27 Feb. 2017.

Midgette, Anne. “Beyoncé and the Apotheosis of the Pregnancy Announcement.” The Washington Post. WP Company, 02 Feb. 2017. Web. 27 Feb. 2017.

Moore, Suzanne. “The Oscars Mix-up Matters Because This Night Was Always about Racial Bias.” First Thoughts. Guardian News and Media, 27 Feb. 2017. Web. 27 Feb. 2017.

Vogt, Nancy. “African American News Media: Fact Sheet.” Pew Research Center’s Journalism Project. N.p., 15 June 2016. Web. 27 Feb. 2017.

 

The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Texas Speech team.

Share this:
Feature, Team

How to Testify

senate-chamber

by: Alex Meed

photos from: Alex Meed; Texas Senate video feed

A loud, insistent series of beeps jolts me awake. Its source is my phone, where the numbers “5:30” appear in the corner of the tiny screen. My hands and feet move faster than my brain as I wash my face, comb my hair, don my suit, and scarf down a hasty breakfast before bolting out the door.

But this isn’t a tournament weekend, it’s a Thursday. My speech teammates are fast asleep, my Persuasive Speaking handouts left behind in my room. And a bit under two hours after I awoke, I would step through the North Entrance of the Texas Capitol.

On February 2, 2017, alongside hundreds of my fellow Texans, I testified against SB 4, a bill to ban sanctuary cities and revoke their state grant funding. It was my first ever time testifying—and it was exciting, nerve-racking, and thrilling all at once. I wanted to talk about my experiences, in the hopes that more of you will seek to replicate them.

I first heard about SB 4 when it showed up on my Facebook feed. I’d been following the case of Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez, who’d been embroiled in a fierce debate over her own sanctuary city policies. But when I saw that SB 4 was scheduled for a hearing, and how many people were planning to testify, I figured I’d add my own voice.

I decided to testify a few days before the hearing. On Tuesday evening, I started piecing together my testimony. I finished it up on Wednesday, printed it out, practiced a couple of times, and then went to sleep.

When I walked into the Capitol and found the Senate Chamber, one thing struck me: the crowd was massive. At 7:30a, an hour before the hearing, the second floor rotunda was already packed with people. And, reassuringly enough, many were against the bill. Those who testified during the hearing represented a vast cross-section of Texas, from immigration attorneys to members of the clergy to people who were themselves undocumented. Eventually, at around 1:15p, after I had heard so many people telling their stories and making their arguments, it was my turn.

rotunda

I was a bit caught off guard when I was called. I didn’t have time to gather my notes before the committee chairman told me to begin. Fortunately, I already had a case planned out in my head, so I began along that course. My one-and-a-half minutes of testimony were short, and yet another drop in the bucket of testimony that would drench the committee. But even though I was trembling with nervousness—after all, I was seated before some of the most powerful people in Texas—I was glad to be making my case, and speaking on behalf of a cause I believed in.

testimony-still-crop1

cropped still frame from official hearing livestream, at timestamp 4:39:33

Despite our best efforts—and overwhelming opposition—SB 4 passed the committee later that evening on party lines, 7–2. That came as no surprise. Neither did its passage through the full Senate the following Wednesday. I’ve never subscribed to the delusion that stopping this bill would be easy, or that testifying would be sufficient. But I wanted to make sure that I helped amplify the voices of the most vulnerable of us all, of those whom SB 4 would marginalize. And even though the members of the committee in the end didn’t listen to our concerns, I wanted to make sure they heard us anyway.

A democracy requires that we, as citizens, speak up. There are many ways to do so, and testifying is only one of them. The resistance against a Trump and Abbott administration will force us to raise our voices and demand that those elected to represent us actually do so. Because even if they cover our ears and pretend to ignore us, they’re listening—and if they don’t listen to our words, they’ll listen to our votes.

Stay engaged. Stay informed. Texas Fight.

You can read my written testimony or watch my oral testimony (timestamp 4:38:30; Flash required). If you’re interested in testifying, I’ve published a comprehensive guide on how to do so.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Texas Speech team.

Share this:
Feature

Deregulating Democracy: Why Laissez Faire Capitalism and Stable Democracy Are Mutually Exclusive Ideologies

statue of liberty

by: Maxim Belov 

photos from: Getty Images 

Contrary to popular belief, the United States was not always a democracy. The American Gilded Age, lasting from 1870 to 1900, was dominated by robber barons like Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Rothschild. The nation was run by one unopposed political party and guided by the wealthiest twenty individuals. The problems began around 1870, when the United States ventured an attempt at capitalism but failed to stop wealth moguls from hijacking American politics then crushing democracy. It took half a century to liberate America’s democratic system through careful economic regulations. For American politics to remain democratic, the United States needs to maintain regulations over its economic institutions.

Capitalism, at its core, is a system which encourages actors to invest their assets and turn a profit. Early pioneers of political economy believed the best approach to capitalism is one without regulation. Understandably so, from the economist’s perspective, granting entrepreneurs the ability to respond freely as markets fluctuate is critical to rapid economic growth. However, in a free environment, entrepreneurs will hunt for every possible advantage, manipulate the system, liquidate competitors, and establish sole-propriety over entire industries if left unchecked. In short, the natural tendency of unregulated capitalists is to create monopolies.

Mythos surrounding capitalism and democracy often assumes both systems promote individualism, making them a good pair, but democracy does not get its strength from individualism, rather, in spite of it. The true value of democracy is its ability to unite people and achieve for the greater good what could not be done alone. Democracies thrive by keeping elected officials accountable to the people, forcing politicians to align their goals with the people’s collective desires. To continue functioning correctly, however, society relies on all politically motivated actors to protect the political system. To prevent oligarchs from usurping power, there must be a political precedent encouraging political discourse while keeping the electorate well informed. Failing these two requisites, the fine line between democracy and dictatorship is erased. When that line does disappear, power always goes to the wealthy; to those with the financial backing to subvert competition, to misinform, and to monetarily manipulate the regime. For a capitalist democracy to remain stable, the political system must keep watch over the economic system, to regulate it, and prevent monopolies from rising. When democracies fail to do so, the economic system supplants the political system.

The end goal of capitalism is to consolidate power into the hands of the few; the end goal of democracy is to disperse it among the many. For this reason, the two cannot be reconciled without economic regulation or the abandonment of democratic ideals.

Therefore, whenever any presidential administration promises deregulation will make America great or passes an executive order designed to halt creation of new regulations, they force the nation to choose between either laissez faire or democracy. If the people choose “economic freedom”, the only ones who benefit are CEO’s of Fortune 500 companies at the expense of the silenced majority.

  1. “Gilded Age (1878-1889).” America’s Story. America’s Library, n.d. Web. 02 Feb. 2017. <http://www.americaslibrary.gov/jb/gilded/jb_gilded_subj.html>
  2. “The Trust Buster.” Ushistory.org. Independence Hall Association, n.d. Web. 02 Feb. 2017. <http://www.ushistory.org/us/43b.asp>.
  3. The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. “Laissez-faire.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., 19 Oct. 2016. Web. 02 Feb. 2017.
  4. Friedman, Howard Steven. “When Capitalism Fails — The Ugly World of Monopolies.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 25 May 2011. Web. 02 Feb. 2017.
  5. Mesquita, Bruce Bueno de, and Alastair Smith. The dictator’s handbook: why bad behavior is almost always good politics. New York: PublicAffairs, 2011. Print.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Texas Speech team.

Share this:
Feature

Walk for Women

 

Women's March

by: Mary Claire Phillips

photos from: The Texas Democratic Party; Mary Claire Phillips

Big crowds are not my thing. I’ve been to enough Texas State Fairs and high school football games to know that when a large group comes together it usually culminates in discomfort, anxiety, and a level of familiarity with your neighbor’s moisture levels. But lately, I’ve changed my tune. It is no secret the Women’s March was big. An estimated 3.3 million people showed up in the United States, and six hundred cities held protests on all seven continents. But of those huge numbers, my mind lingers on 52,143 – the number of Texans who showed up to the State Capitol in Austin on January 21st. You know what they say- “Everything’s bigger in Texas”.

For perspective, I’m a lifelong Texan born and raised in a stereotypical Dallas suburb. In the 5th grade, my elementary school counselor told my class that being gay only meant you prefer the arts to the sports. It doesn’t take too many personal anecdotes to convey how my conservative upbringing lead to a bleak outlook on progressiveness in my home state. But twenty one years of feeling like the only liberal in a fifty mile radius melted away when I stood alongside 52,143 other angry Texans ready to fight through the Trump years. When I walked up to the Capitol grounds and sawquite literallya sea of people, the first thing I did was cry. Because this is the kind of community I was told in my youth only happened in liberal states, never Texas. The kind of community that dared to call out the sugar-coated bigotry that so often goes ignored. The kind of community that loves me no matter whom I love. But most importantly, it was a community dedicated to fighting for the rights of Trans, Black, Latinx, Muslim, Immigrant, and Women’s rights. The sort of community that made Conservative lawmakers shake in their boots as they watched us march right outside their office windows.

mary claire

 

It didn’t take me long to find a post on my Facebook feed declaring our little jaunt around the Capitol as a fart in the wind (to use the scientific term). The upcoming Texas Legislative Session will be a battle; there will be many losses and some prized wins. There aren’t enough synonyms for scary to describe the next four years in the Oval Office. By many metrics, there won’t be a lot of wins for progressive politics. But I’m a firm believer all politics are local. The Women’s March was not just a statement to the powers that be – it is a message to my neighbors and loved ones in my conservative hometown of Coppell, Texas. When you vote for a president who vows to strip away LGBT rights, I want you to know you’re not voting against a faceless other – you’re voting against me. Arguably, I’m not all that important. But I attended school with the most fantastic Muslim, Latinx, Black, and Immigrant friends – all of whom are bearing the burden of a presidency that threatens their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I understand there are overarching reasons for a Trump vote that do not directly involve hatred for any of these groups. But many people are scared, and you do not get to delegitimize those feelings with a call for fiscal conservatism.

For the liberal readers, it is not enough to sit and nod in agreement. If you have not marched, block walked, phone banked, voted, testified at a committee hearing, lobbied, volunteered, donated, or made any attempt to do any of the above – you have homework. Action is the only thing that makes true equality a reality, and public opinion polls don’t make history. Don’t know how to get involved? Here is a good place to start! Pick your passions, find your organization, and contribute in whatever way you can. Marches are important, but they are not the end goal. It may not be immediate, it may not be easy, but it is absolutely necessary.

The Women’s March in Austin gave me a second wind, causes to lift up, and a whole lot of hope. Some say progressives in Texas have a snowball’s chance in hell, to those critics I say – you can all go to hell, I’m going to Texas.

 flag protest

Texas fight.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Texas Speech team.

Share this:
Feature, Results

Texas Speech wins another 8 national championships at NFA 2016!

Fresh off of their national team championship from the American Forensic Association, the University of Texas Speech Team traveled to Muncie, Indiana, from April 14-18, to attend the National Forensic Association collegiate national contest. Texas Speech again set a national record, winning 7 of the 10 event categories while at the same time winning the top overall individual speaking title and the Founder’s Award, a special cumulative team national title.

IMG_9173The team placed second to Western Kentucky University in the open sweepstakes category, based on the total number of entries advanced to elimination rounds and their eventual placement, but one of the biggest stories of the tournament was the display of excellence by UT students in the individual categories.

For the third time, team captain Farrah Bara was recognized as the top overall speaker at a national contest, winning the Pentathlon national championship. Bara also was recognized with national championships in Persuasive Speaking and Extemporaneous Speaking, was the national runner-up in Rhetorical Criticism, and placed 5th in Impromptu Speaking.

Senior Kevin King received his fourth consecutive national championship in Informative Speaking, finished 4th nationally in Persuasive Speaking, and 5th in Rhetorical Criticism. King also received 7th place in the overall standings.

Seniors Lizzette Marrero and Alexa Thomas won the national championship in Duo Interpretation, with Thomas also placing 5th in Prose Interpretation.

Sophomore Abigail Onwunali was recognized with three national championships, in Prose Interpretation, Dramatic Interpretation, and Poetry Interpretation. She became the first student ever to win national titles in three different performance categories in the same year at the NFA tournament. Onwunali also placed 6th in Duo Interpretation with her partner Xavier Clark, and Clark placed 6th nationally in Dramatic Interpretation. Sophomore Arel Rende was also recognized as a national finalist, placing 5th in Extemporaneous Speaking.

The previous record for national titles in a single contest (five plus the top speaker) had been set by Miami University of Ohio in 2002. That record was matched by Bradley University in 2013.

The Founder’s Award is a team national title based on a cumulative system acquired over years. According to team director Randy Cox, the award is special because it recognizes excellence over multiple years rather than a single instance.

Texas Speech finishes the year having been awarded 15 combined national champi0nships from the American Forensic Association and National Forensic Association (including the AFA national team title), the NFA Founder’s team title, and along with Texas Debate, the American Forensic Association Joint NDT-NIET Award.

Individual Honors are as follows:

Farrah Bara (Lib Arts – Middle Eastern Studies Senior)

  • National Champion, Pentathlon (Overall Speaker)
  • National Champion, Extemporaneous Speaking
  • National Champion, Persuasive Speaking
  • National Runner-Up, Rhetorical Criticism
  • 5th place, Impromptu Speaking
  • National Semi-Finalist (Top 12) – After-Dinner Speaking
  • National Semi-Finalist (Top 12) – Informative Speaking

Kevin King (Lib Arts – Government Senior)

  • National Champion, Informative Speaking
  • 4th place, Persuasive Speaking
  • 5th place, Rhetorical Criticism
  • 7th place, Pentathlon (Overall Speaker)

Alexa Thomas (Comm – Public Relations Senior)

  • National Champion, Duo Interpretation (with Lizzette Marrero)
  • 5th place, Prose Interpretation

Lizzette Marrero (Lib Arts – Government & Global Studies Senior)

  • National Champion, Duo Interpretation (with Alexa Thomas)
  • National Semi-finalist (top 12), Poetry Interpretation
  • National Quarter-Finalist (top 24), Duo Interpretation (with Julio Gonzalez)

Abigail Onwunali (Nat Sciences – Human Development & Family Sciences)

  • National Champion, Dramatic Interpretation
  • National Champion, Poetry Interpretation
  • National Champion, Prose Interpretation
  • 6th place, Duo Interpretation (with Xavier Clark)

Xavier Clark (Comm – Political Communication Senior)

  • 6th place, Dramatic Interpretation
  • 6th place, Duo Interpretation (with Abigail Onwunali)
  • National Semi-Finalist (top 12), Poetry Interpretation

Arel Rende (Business Sophomore)

  • 4th place, Extemporaneous Speaking
  • National Semi-Finalist (top 12), Impromptu Speaking

Ali Shan Ali Bhai (Lib Arts – Plan II Junior)

  • National Semi-finalist (top 12), Rhetorical Criticism
  • National Semi-finalist (top 12), Persuasive Speaking
  • National Quarter-Finalist (top 24), Extemporaneous Speaking

Alex Bergeron (Comm – Corp Com Senior)

  • National Quarter-Finalist (top 24), Prose Interpretation

Cole Hanzlicek (Lib Arts – Government Junior)

  • National Quarter-Finalist (top 24), Informative Speaking

Rachel Evans (Nat Sci – Biology Freshman)

  • National Quarter-Finalist (top 24), Informative Speaking

Jordan Auzenne (Comm/Political Comm Freshman)

  • National Semi-Finalist (top 12), Impromptu Speaking

Derrek Chung (Lib Arts – Government Junior)

  • National Semi-Finalist (top 12), Informative Speaking
  • National Quarter-Finalist (top 24), Impromptu Speaking
  • National Quarter-finalist (top 24), Rhetorical Criticism

Steven Villescas (Comm – Human Relations Senior)

  • National Semi-Finalist (top 12), Persuasive Speaking

Marianna Garcia (Comm – Political Communication Sophomore)

  • National Semi-Finalist (top 12), Poetry Interpretation

Julio Gonzalez (Comm – Public Relations & Lib Arts – Plan II Junior)

  • National Semi-Finalist (Top 12), After Dinner Speaking
  • National Semi-Finalist (top 12), Persuasive Speaking
  • National Quarter-finalists (top 24), Duo Interpretation with Lizzette Marrero

Terran Duhon (Lib Arts – Rhetoric & Writing Senior)

  • National Quarter-Finalist (top 24), Poetry Interpretation
  • National Quarter-Finalist (top 24), After Dinner Speaking

Blake Bergeron (Bus – Finance Sophomore)

  • National Quarter-Finalist (top 24), Persuasive Speaking

 

Additional Team Members not receiving separate individual awards:

Cimmiaron Alvarez, Govinda Dass, Mary Claire Phillips, Bianca Montgomery, Seis Steves, Angelo Gaunichaux, Collin Hopkins, Sana Moti, Andrew Rodriguez, Jordan Rojas, Cameron Smith, Macy Bayern, Suchinder Kalyan, Alex Meed

 

Complete results for the national contest are available at: http://www.speechwire.com/nfa16.pdf

For more information about the National Forensic Association, see their website at: http://www.nationalforensics.org

For more information about Texas Speech, contact Director Randy Cox, Moody College of Communication, at mrcox@austin.utexas.edu

Share this: