What do you think?
Rate this book
Cross-X: The Amazing True Story of How the Most Unlikely Team from the Most Unlikely of Places Overcame Staggering Obstacles at Home and at School to ... Community on Race, Power, and Education
In Cross-X , journalist Joe Miller follows the Kansas City Central High School’s debate squad through the 2002 season that ends with a top-ten finish at the national championships in Atlanta.
By almost all measures, Central is just another failing inner-city school. Ninety-nine percent of the students are minorities. Only one in three graduate. Test scores are so low that Missouri bureaucrats have declared the school “academically deficient.” But week after week, a crew of Central kids heads off to debate tournaments in suburbs across the Midwest and South, where they routinely beat teams from top-ranked schools. In a game of fast-talking, wit, and sheer brilliance, these students close the achievement gap between black and white students—an accomplishment that educators and policy makers across the country have been striving toward for years.
Here is the riveting and poignant story of four debaters and their coach as they battle formidable opponents from elite prep schools, bureaucrats who seem maddeningly determined to hold them back, friends and family who are mired in poverty and drug addiction, and—perhaps most daunting—their own self-destructive choices. In the end, Miller finds himself on a campaign to change debate itself, certain that these students from the Eastside of Kansas City may be the saviors of a game that is intrinsic to American democracy.
By almost all measures, Central is just another failing inner-city school. Ninety-nine percent of the students are minorities. Only one in three graduate. Test scores are so low that Missouri bureaucrats have declared the school “academically deficient.” But week after week, a crew of Central kids heads off to debate tournaments in suburbs across the Midwest and South, where they routinely beat teams from top-ranked schools. In a game of fast-talking, wit, and sheer brilliance, these students close the achievement gap between black and white students—an accomplishment that educators and policy makers across the country have been striving toward for years.
Here is the riveting and poignant story of four debaters and their coach as they battle formidable opponents from elite prep schools, bureaucrats who seem maddeningly determined to hold them back, friends and family who are mired in poverty and drug addiction, and—perhaps most daunting—their own self-destructive choices. In the end, Miller finds himself on a campaign to change debate itself, certain that these students from the Eastside of Kansas City may be the saviors of a game that is intrinsic to American democracy.
496 pages, Hardcover
First published October 3, 2006
7 people are currently reading
138 people want to read
About the author
Joe Miller
3 books13 followersI’m an assistant professor of writing at Columbus State University in Georgia, and I’ve written for Vibe, Salon and Popular Science. My first book, Cross-X, won a William Rockhill Nelson Award and a Harry Chapin Media Award and was named one of the best nonfiction books of 2006 by the Chicago Tribune, Kansas City Star and Publisher’s Weekly.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews
July 23, 2009
Sometimes I start to tell people about my experiences in high school and they look at me as though I'm from another planet. Every day for four years I would wake up at 5:30, deliver papers around my neighborhood, defrost my toes, and head to school by 6:30 for zero hour chamber choir rehearsals. I typically would not leave the building again until 8 or 9 in the evening, having eaten very little but sustained on a near constant drip of Mountain Dew and the occasional banana or apple. I had the security deactivation code for several teachers, keys to the teacher's lounge, complete unfettered access to the photocopier, could walk the halls with impunity during class time, and keys to more than a few classrooms.
"What sort of odd utopian high school did I go to?", you may wonder. Was I the child of some overworked teacher or administrator? Not at all. I was a member of the Debate Team. Every year, starting in July and continuing until the National Qualifying Tournament, we would research the assigned topic, write our cases, continue to research, cram ourselves and our tubs full of evidence onto buses that vented exhaust directly into the interior andflee travel from North Idaho over to whichever University or high school was hosting this particular weekend's tournament. Along the way we would miss a lot of class time, meet extremely interesting people from all over the nation, and get to argue about whether the United States Government's support of the International Space Station would trigger a nuclear conflict with Russia or whether the use of gender specific language in the debate round served to reentrench patriarchal systems of behavior.
Without putting too melodramatic of a point on it, debate saved my life. At a time when I had no interest in compulsory education, it provided an outlet for me to advance my own studies and, later, provided the means (a much coveted scholarship) by which I could flee Idaho. It was with great excitement then that I picked up Joe Miller's Cross-X, a recounting of the 2002-2003 debate season for Central Kansas City High School. An inner city school that has been the focus of national attention time and again for its academic defficiency and struggles with desegregation, Central doesn't really have a lot going for it other than its nationally-ranked debate team.
Miller follows two teams of debaters, a varsity team that ranked in the top 75 teams in the country and a novice team just getting their first taste of the weird and hyper-specialized world of cross-x, or policy-style, debate. This book could have easily become another example of the "struggling inner city youth makes good" cliche if Miller had maintained his journalistic integrity. Fortunately, as he gets to know these debaters, watch their rounds, fight against the recalcitrant Missouri HS activities association trying to bar them from national-level competitions, and confront the structural racism of both the education system as a whole and the debate community in particular, Miller himself gets drawn into the story. It's little things at first (writing letters to the school board to draw their attention to problems, convincing a debater that an upcoming tournament is more important than a computer game) but soon enough he is helping chaperone, cutting cards as a new Assistant Coach and, finally, setting up his own debate program at another urban Kansas City high school.
A lot of this read as old hat for a while, anyone who has been involved in the activity for long is well aware that there is a very serious dearth of female or minority debaters. It's also clear that, on the national level, it is dominated by just a few very well-funded public schools and private academies. The book really begins to take off when Miller's debaters begin to question these underlying truths of the debate world using Paulo Freire's seminal Pedagogy of the Oppressed and flip the traditional structure of the debate round on its head. It was incredibly nostalgic to hear about the case they write using UN peacekeepers in the Third World as a metaphor for the rich/poor (privileged/put down?) dichotomy that splits the Nationally-ranked elite from the struggling inner city teams.
My senior year of high school, when the topic was increasing education, my partner and I ran a very similar case using Sr. Freire's powerful philosophy, eschewing the traditional format of writing a plan to do so and advocating the adoption of a critical consciousness in the debate community itself. It made people incredibly upset when they first heard it (just as the case Miller's debaters create offended) because it attacked the very foundations of the sport that we all very much loved, but as the year went on and opposing teams kept losing to it, it gained a grudging respect in the North-West. To read of another team attempting the same thing, and succeeding on a level that we could only dream of (there is only one possible tournament that teams from the NW can compete in to gain a TOC bid and that's all the way down in Berkeley. Kansas City may have been stuck because of bureaucratic waffling but we were stuck due to budget constraints- who can afford to go to Texas to compete?) was an utter delight.
While those outside the debate community may not find this book too interesting, it deserves to be read by anyone who has ever stacked their debate tubs atop one another, given a roadmap and then proceeded to speed-read several dozen pages of evidence in a five minute rebuttal. It's a niche market, to be sure, but an important one that Miller clearly loves yet remains unafraid of criticizing. It's definitely reawakened a side of myself I thought long dead and has me contemplating getting involved in the activity once more.
"What sort of odd utopian high school did I go to?", you may wonder. Was I the child of some overworked teacher or administrator? Not at all. I was a member of the Debate Team. Every year, starting in July and continuing until the National Qualifying Tournament, we would research the assigned topic, write our cases, continue to research, cram ourselves and our tubs full of evidence onto buses that vented exhaust directly into the interior and
Without putting too melodramatic of a point on it, debate saved my life. At a time when I had no interest in compulsory education, it provided an outlet for me to advance my own studies and, later, provided the means (a much coveted scholarship) by which I could flee Idaho. It was with great excitement then that I picked up Joe Miller's Cross-X, a recounting of the 2002-2003 debate season for Central Kansas City High School. An inner city school that has been the focus of national attention time and again for its academic defficiency and struggles with desegregation, Central doesn't really have a lot going for it other than its nationally-ranked debate team.
Miller follows two teams of debaters, a varsity team that ranked in the top 75 teams in the country and a novice team just getting their first taste of the weird and hyper-specialized world of cross-x, or policy-style, debate. This book could have easily become another example of the "struggling inner city youth makes good" cliche if Miller had maintained his journalistic integrity. Fortunately, as he gets to know these debaters, watch their rounds, fight against the recalcitrant Missouri HS activities association trying to bar them from national-level competitions, and confront the structural racism of both the education system as a whole and the debate community in particular, Miller himself gets drawn into the story. It's little things at first (writing letters to the school board to draw their attention to problems, convincing a debater that an upcoming tournament is more important than a computer game) but soon enough he is helping chaperone, cutting cards as a new Assistant Coach and, finally, setting up his own debate program at another urban Kansas City high school.
A lot of this read as old hat for a while, anyone who has been involved in the activity for long is well aware that there is a very serious dearth of female or minority debaters. It's also clear that, on the national level, it is dominated by just a few very well-funded public schools and private academies. The book really begins to take off when Miller's debaters begin to question these underlying truths of the debate world using Paulo Freire's seminal Pedagogy of the Oppressed and flip the traditional structure of the debate round on its head. It was incredibly nostalgic to hear about the case they write using UN peacekeepers in the Third World as a metaphor for the rich/poor (privileged/put down?) dichotomy that splits the Nationally-ranked elite from the struggling inner city teams.
My senior year of high school, when the topic was increasing education, my partner and I ran a very similar case using Sr. Freire's powerful philosophy, eschewing the traditional format of writing a plan to do so and advocating the adoption of a critical consciousness in the debate community itself. It made people incredibly upset when they first heard it (just as the case Miller's debaters create offended) because it attacked the very foundations of the sport that we all very much loved, but as the year went on and opposing teams kept losing to it, it gained a grudging respect in the North-West. To read of another team attempting the same thing, and succeeding on a level that we could only dream of (there is only one possible tournament that teams from the NW can compete in to gain a TOC bid and that's all the way down in Berkeley. Kansas City may have been stuck because of bureaucratic waffling but we were stuck due to budget constraints- who can afford to go to Texas to compete?) was an utter delight.
While those outside the debate community may not find this book too interesting, it deserves to be read by anyone who has ever stacked their debate tubs atop one another, given a roadmap and then proceeded to speed-read several dozen pages of evidence in a five minute rebuttal. It's a niche market, to be sure, but an important one that Miller clearly loves yet remains unafraid of criticizing. It's definitely reawakened a side of myself I thought long dead and has me contemplating getting involved in the activity once more.
October 16, 2007
Underdog stories are seductive, but I tend not to like them, especially when they involve Black youth. Intentionally or not, these stories tend to give the public permission to forego pushing for, or even paying attention to, the need for systemic change. So halfway through reading this book, I got annoyed since it seemed like the same GangstasParadiseFreedomWritersLeanonMe story that makes smart, Black children the exception and not the rule. ("If only you have the right educator who can really reach the kids...") Then I got over myself and finished reading the damn book.
And the book itself is well done. The story is not at all tidy which I appreciate. It essentially tracks the ups and downs of an excellent urban debate team at Central High School in Kansas City, Missouri. It walks you through the unknown, esoteric world of high school debate, which I had a very different conception of prior to reading this book. (For example, I didn't know that, at the national level, debaters argue at breakneck speed -- very counterintuitive.)
The most instructive section of the book is Part Four, which loosely focuses on how individuals and institutions can begin to change norms within incredibly privileged and exclusive spaces. A few elements needed for this type of change that the book brings forth: persistent, borderline zealots (the author Joe Miller is clearly one of these); public and authentic expressions of truth, both planned (Geoffrey's speech to Montgomery Bell Academy) and spontaneous (Shantel's speech at the Mid-America Cup) that shift momentum; partners on the side of privilege who are willing to communicate the message to communities that the zealots offend or simply cannot reach (MBA); and concrete ideas about what the practical result of inclusion looks like (MBA coach running Central's case at the Nat'l Foresics League final round).
The cursory focus on the deep-seated gender bias that existed at every level--how the students and coaches virtually ignored the development of girls who debated, how the larger debate community did the same--was disappointing. Miller ultimately pointed to inherent skill as the reason for the disparities, not acknowledging how the drastic differences in attention and support given to the boys played a role.
At several points, I thought Miller to be a little too involved in the lives of his subjects, but I admired his passion and believe that his conversion experience was real. He embodied, however imperfectly, one of my favorite passages from the book, a quote from philosophy professor Todd May, "Rather than standing above or outside their society, 'specific intellectuals' are immersed within it. They cite, analyze, and engage in struggles not in the name of the oppressed, but alongside them, in solidarity with them."
And the book itself is well done. The story is not at all tidy which I appreciate. It essentially tracks the ups and downs of an excellent urban debate team at Central High School in Kansas City, Missouri. It walks you through the unknown, esoteric world of high school debate, which I had a very different conception of prior to reading this book. (For example, I didn't know that, at the national level, debaters argue at breakneck speed -- very counterintuitive.)
The most instructive section of the book is Part Four, which loosely focuses on how individuals and institutions can begin to change norms within incredibly privileged and exclusive spaces. A few elements needed for this type of change that the book brings forth: persistent, borderline zealots (the author Joe Miller is clearly one of these); public and authentic expressions of truth, both planned (Geoffrey's speech to Montgomery Bell Academy) and spontaneous (Shantel's speech at the Mid-America Cup) that shift momentum; partners on the side of privilege who are willing to communicate the message to communities that the zealots offend or simply cannot reach (MBA); and concrete ideas about what the practical result of inclusion looks like (MBA coach running Central's case at the Nat'l Foresics League final round).
The cursory focus on the deep-seated gender bias that existed at every level--how the students and coaches virtually ignored the development of girls who debated, how the larger debate community did the same--was disappointing. Miller ultimately pointed to inherent skill as the reason for the disparities, not acknowledging how the drastic differences in attention and support given to the boys played a role.
At several points, I thought Miller to be a little too involved in the lives of his subjects, but I admired his passion and believe that his conversion experience was real. He embodied, however imperfectly, one of my favorite passages from the book, a quote from philosophy professor Todd May, "Rather than standing above or outside their society, 'specific intellectuals' are immersed within it. They cite, analyze, and engage in struggles not in the name of the oppressed, but alongside them, in solidarity with them."
January 7, 2009
I wrote this book.
November 16, 2007
A tremendously good book that not only addresses cross-x or policy-style debate, but also race, gender, and class in competitive academic arenas and in the larger world. I loved it as a former policy debater, but I also liked it as someone interested in race, gender, and class in the academic environment. Highly recommended.
February 5, 2008
I began Cross-X expecting that it would be a standard uplifting tale of how an unlikely group of teenagers became debate champions. It turned out to be all that I expected, plus a fascinating examination of race and socioeconomic status.
September 14, 2020
I was excited to read this book about an activity I love - policy debate, especially because it features debaters from a local Kansas City urban school famous for its debate program, but notorious for its low graduation rate and test scores - Central in the unaccredited KCMO school district. I was nervous that it might be one of those White Savior books - both the debate coach Jane Rinehart and the author Joe Miller, who becomes very involved in the students' lives, are White, while the debaters are Black. Or the classic here are some exceptional super students who overcome their horrible ghetto lives to rise above and Do Great Things stories. But I was pleasantly surprised. Not that it doesn't walk the tightrope; but to not recognize the incredible work Marcus and Brandon and Ebony and Antoine and countless other young debaters in Central's program have put in and the success they have earned would be horrible. And the critique of the debate community at large, and the recognition of institutional racism that has created not just the debate community, but the large educational system it is a part of, makes this much more than a simple White Savior narrative, or Super Black Child done good.
The Central debaters are incredibly bright, skilled, hardworking, talented debaters - but they are also human and sometimes get tired of debating, get frustrated and bored, and would rather play video games. I appreciated that Miller portrayed them as the in-depth characters they are - the incredible hardships they faced as children growing up in poverty, surrounded by drugs and violence, but also normal boys who love video games, the distraction of girls, and all the regular confidences and lack of confidences of teenage boys. And that he gave them agency - necessary to beat the White Savior narrative. Yes their coach Rinehart is incredible, and Miller definitely steps over the bounds of unbiased reporting and becomes involved in coaching and mentoring, but these young men are very active players in their own stories, making use of the resources (Rinehart, Miller, other coaches, books) that are available to them when they choose, on their terms. And their incredible brilliance and hard work take two different teams to great success on the national debate stage, competing against privileged white debaters from expensive private schools with entrenched reputations as stand out debate schools.
This is where the book is best - when Ebony begins reading Paulo Freire's classic "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" and begins applying what he reads to the debate world in general. Central has been visiting college teams like Louisville that have been (in 2002 and 2003) challenging traditional debate framework and after reading Freire, Ebony is ready to dive full force into the more performance style debate and flip the traditional structure of the debate round on its head. He sees clearly how traditional debate mirrors traditional education and society, privileging wealthy, white Americans who have benefited from elite power structures and access to expensive debate camps and prepared debate cases. They do also touch on the male focused world of debate, but not as much.
I loved this book - I loved the exposure of the prison to pipeline educational system that is so much of urban education. I loved the realistic spotlight on the debaters as real people- that they were bright young men but young men who needed to put in work, not magical prodigies or puppets of a White Savior. I loved the deep dive into the debate world. Yes I have spent many a weekend judging debate, but I really feel like Miller explains enough that even if this world is foreign to you, it would be not only understandable but fascinating. And I especially loved the critique and the Kritik; the deep critique of the debate world - is it preparing policy makers of the future? Is it real world policy debate? Is it game playing? Is it elitist? Or is the fact that it is elitist exactly what makes it representative of the real world? This certainly doesn't end with a Cinderella everyone lives happily ever after and everything is perfect and changed. But you will question and think, and hope. ANd that, to me, is the sign of a good book.
The Central debaters are incredibly bright, skilled, hardworking, talented debaters - but they are also human and sometimes get tired of debating, get frustrated and bored, and would rather play video games. I appreciated that Miller portrayed them as the in-depth characters they are - the incredible hardships they faced as children growing up in poverty, surrounded by drugs and violence, but also normal boys who love video games, the distraction of girls, and all the regular confidences and lack of confidences of teenage boys. And that he gave them agency - necessary to beat the White Savior narrative. Yes their coach Rinehart is incredible, and Miller definitely steps over the bounds of unbiased reporting and becomes involved in coaching and mentoring, but these young men are very active players in their own stories, making use of the resources (Rinehart, Miller, other coaches, books) that are available to them when they choose, on their terms. And their incredible brilliance and hard work take two different teams to great success on the national debate stage, competing against privileged white debaters from expensive private schools with entrenched reputations as stand out debate schools.
This is where the book is best - when Ebony begins reading Paulo Freire's classic "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" and begins applying what he reads to the debate world in general. Central has been visiting college teams like Louisville that have been (in 2002 and 2003) challenging traditional debate framework and after reading Freire, Ebony is ready to dive full force into the more performance style debate and flip the traditional structure of the debate round on its head. He sees clearly how traditional debate mirrors traditional education and society, privileging wealthy, white Americans who have benefited from elite power structures and access to expensive debate camps and prepared debate cases. They do also touch on the male focused world of debate, but not as much.
I loved this book - I loved the exposure of the prison to pipeline educational system that is so much of urban education. I loved the realistic spotlight on the debaters as real people- that they were bright young men but young men who needed to put in work, not magical prodigies or puppets of a White Savior. I loved the deep dive into the debate world. Yes I have spent many a weekend judging debate, but I really feel like Miller explains enough that even if this world is foreign to you, it would be not only understandable but fascinating. And I especially loved the critique and the Kritik; the deep critique of the debate world - is it preparing policy makers of the future? Is it real world policy debate? Is it game playing? Is it elitist? Or is the fact that it is elitist exactly what makes it representative of the real world? This certainly doesn't end with a Cinderella everyone lives happily ever after and everything is perfect and changed. But you will question and think, and hope. ANd that, to me, is the sign of a good book.
October 22, 2020
I'm not someone who gets daunted by long books... but this one could have been about 200 pages shorter. I just felt like the same points were being made over and over-- and not really in regards to anything new. Especially near the end, there were a few times where I stopped to wonder, Did I not read this exact passage about a hundred pages back? I'm kind of surprised that most of the critiques I've seen in other reviews primarily center on the author-- a journalist who followed Central's debate team for 5+ years and wrote this book about his experiences there-- getting too involved with his story. I know that's a big problem when it comes to journalism and objectivity, but it honestly didn't bother me that much. I thought Miller was pretty clear about which things were objective facts he observed and when the points he was making were his opinions. He seemed pretty aware of when his objectivity was in question.
Mostly, though, I think this story just wasn't for me. I've never liked debate. And so I really wanted to like this book, which made the story sound like it would be an empowering, underdog sports story. And it kind of WAS that... It just didn't endear me to the 'sport' in question at all. Debate has always seemed like a horribly ineffective means of communication to me. When framed in a debate setting, it becomes less about solving the problem in question and more about winning an argument. It was really disappointing to see some of the coaches arguing that debate was only ever supposed to be a hypothetical thing. That it didn't matter if they ever reached realistic solutions to the issues they were debating. And I lost all respect for it when it became pretty clear that most of the kids competing didn't even seem to understand the arguments they were using.
Mostly, though, I think this story just wasn't for me. I've never liked debate. And so I really wanted to like this book, which made the story sound like it would be an empowering, underdog sports story. And it kind of WAS that... It just didn't endear me to the 'sport' in question at all. Debate has always seemed like a horribly ineffective means of communication to me. When framed in a debate setting, it becomes less about solving the problem in question and more about winning an argument. It was really disappointing to see some of the coaches arguing that debate was only ever supposed to be a hypothetical thing. That it didn't matter if they ever reached realistic solutions to the issues they were debating. And I lost all respect for it when it became pretty clear that most of the kids competing didn't even seem to understand the arguments they were using.
September 29, 2019
I read this book quickly and with great interest. As a former high school debater, I've followed the activity for over 35 years. Debate has undergone dramatic changes the past three decades, where speed reading cards (called "spreading) and complex arguments on philosophical theory greatly changed the activity. The latest changes involved "performative: debate where students might rap lyrics and tell stories of their own personal stories as opposed to a standard debate of the resolution. This book tells the story of an intercity school in Kansas City, Missouri and their improbably, but inspiring rise into the upper echelon of high school debate. The writer Joe Miller was a journalist and I would say a gritty, determined reporter. This is an interesting story and slice of America struggling to reconcile racial and class differences.
July 18, 2017
OK, it took me 5 years to finally finish this book. It was recommended by my son who did debate in High school. I felt so hopeful for the students from Central High in Kansas City , MO to succeed. even after so much time had passed in my reading. They were up against New Trier and top school in the midwest. I really connected with the staff and the struggle of the students. What a challenge to move forward with so many strikes against them.
May 23, 2013
I feel lucky to have randomly discovered this book by Joe Miller. Not only is it set in my own city - Kansas City - it is also well-written in an enjoyable journalistic style. As a bonus, Cross-X piqued my interest in a subject which I am unlikely to have chosen, the regional and national high school debate scene.
Central High School in Kansas City, MO, is part of one of the worst performing school districts in the country; the district has even lost its accreditation since Miller published his book in 2006 (this loss became official in January 2012), though it admittedly had been heading in that direction for two or three decades. A few years ago, I regularly ran laps on Central's track with a couple of friends, and our time would often overlap with after school track workouts, with a few parents sprinkled throughout the bleachers, watching; this is one of the connections that made Miller's book particularly interesting to me when I came across it in the clearance racks.
As most of my favorite non-fiction does, Miller's book weaves several narrative strands together to tell a compelling story. He profiles several of the debaters on Central's teams from 2001 - 2004, and with a few of these we see his relationship grow considerably in depth over the course of his time at Central. The debate teacher, Jane Reinhart, is of course integral to the story, not least because her program is perhaps the only example of academic engagement and achievement to which Central can lay claim. Another of Miller's fascinating narratives is a historical survey of the school district's dysfunction, which is almost unbelievable. Scandal, mismanagement, stubborn-headedness, and apathy (just to name a few) all play parts in the KCMO school district's disastrous run. But debate remains a bright light, at least through the period of Miller's experience there. To keep this light glowing, however, requires a constant fight, which is yet another example of the unbelievable determination the district seems to have toward self-destruction.
Miller's narrative is a classic case of a journalist reaching a point in his documentation where he becomes ambivalent toward the ethics of his profession. There are lines that are not to be crossed; the subjects of the story must only be observed, never interfered with. But Miller becomes too involved, too invested both emotionally and intellectually to remain completely removed from events. And it is this evolution in his experience that leads to the book's climax and resolution. I can't speak for every potential reader, but not a single page of Miller's writing was a disappointment. I highly recommend his work, particularly to those who have an interest in political, economic, or educational equality, and especially as these issues relate to urban settings.
July 31, 2009
A journalist spends a year (and change) following a high school debate team from Kansas City Central. At first I was a little wary this was going to be one of those Stand and Deliver type stories, because Central is a predominately black, academically at risk, urban school. It didn't go down that path, fortunately. The book itself is structured a bit along the lines of a formal debate (not in a gimmicky, in your face way, thank goodness). The author provides in-depth profiles of several of the debate students, and the day to day, competition to competition stories are interesting and move along briskly. At the same time, Miller also raises more philosophical issues about debate, pedagogy, public policy, race and class. During his time with the debate team, his own ideas about these things change -- although I was a little disappointed with the way he wrote about his self-described epiphany. It's the kind of thing where it must have seemed so obvious to him, after a year covering debate, that he doesn't take a lot of trouble to articulate much to the reader, who presumably has only been reading his book for a few hours. I'm happy to take his word for his own experiences, but he didn't manage to convince me (following the debate structure of the narrative) to cast my ballot. It also left me wondering why he observed inconsistencies related to race and gender fairly early on, yet he became so much more invested in those surrounding race.
Grade: A-, although in parts it seemed a little like an intriguing magazine article that went on a bit.
Recommended: To people who were involved with any kind of competitive speaking in high school or college, and people interested in race and class as they play out in educational settings.
2008/20
Grade: A-, although in parts it seemed a little like an intriguing magazine article that went on a bit.
Recommended: To people who were involved with any kind of competitive speaking in high school or college, and people interested in race and class as they play out in educational settings.
2008/20
May 6, 2014
I thought this was great. It usually takes me weeks to finish nonfiction books. I knocked this one out in four days, and it's a tome at 500+ pages. This appealed to me on a few levels:
1. As a recovering policy debater: I competed in the 2002-2003 season at several of the tournaments these guys attended, so I remember that topic and the cases well (oh, Natives). As a girl, I remember how furious I felt all the time at the way I was treated by a lot of those all-white, all-male teams you'd hit on the circuit. I worked for Doug Springer at a debate program around the time this book was published, and I wish I'd read it back then, when debate was even fresher in my memory.
2. As an urban educator: I really do believe in debate, but to me, the best part of the book was in Part Two, where Marcus spends some time with the Louisville debate team and has to contend with their controversial tactics and the challenge they present to the kind of debate he excels at. This is a perennial problem for people who are interested in social justice: are you better off learning the game and getting better at it than anyone else, or rejecting it as the deeply flawed, racist institution that it is?
3. As a person who actually only enjoys memoirs: Joe Miller drops all pretense of journalistic objectivity really early on - by the end of the book, he's a debate coach. This is not at all a disinterested chronicle of a couple years spent with a famous debate squad. By the end, this book is more about Joe Miller than anyone else. As a person from a similar background, I found him a relatable guide to the world of Central High School. He's the better for his time there, and my bet is that most readers are better for reading about it.
1. As a recovering policy debater: I competed in the 2002-2003 season at several of the tournaments these guys attended, so I remember that topic and the cases well (oh, Natives). As a girl, I remember how furious I felt all the time at the way I was treated by a lot of those all-white, all-male teams you'd hit on the circuit. I worked for Doug Springer at a debate program around the time this book was published, and I wish I'd read it back then, when debate was even fresher in my memory.
2. As an urban educator: I really do believe in debate, but to me, the best part of the book was in Part Two, where Marcus spends some time with the Louisville debate team and has to contend with their controversial tactics and the challenge they present to the kind of debate he excels at. This is a perennial problem for people who are interested in social justice: are you better off learning the game and getting better at it than anyone else, or rejecting it as the deeply flawed, racist institution that it is?
3. As a person who actually only enjoys memoirs: Joe Miller drops all pretense of journalistic objectivity really early on - by the end of the book, he's a debate coach. This is not at all a disinterested chronicle of a couple years spent with a famous debate squad. By the end, this book is more about Joe Miller than anyone else. As a person from a similar background, I found him a relatable guide to the world of Central High School. He's the better for his time there, and my bet is that most readers are better for reading about it.
April 13, 2009
I marked this as both nonfiction and memoir because the first half (make that 3/4) is a standard journalistic account of a disadvantaged group of black teens who are on a high school debate team. This is interesting enough as it is, challenging our ideas about what education in America needs today in order to reach our youth. But it's pretty standard fare as far as this goes - it doesn't challenge you too much, especially if you're white and middle or upper class.
What was most fascinating was when Miller dropped this journalistic bent because he became too involved emotionally to keep it up. This is where the story really gets good, because he now has broken through something inside of himself that was keeping him from seeing a more truthful reality, and he is still able to share it with the reader. This part of the story (Part 4: The Post-Round Critique) only lasted about 50 pages, but it was, in my mind, the best part.
The rest of the book is essential to understanding these last 50 pages, so I don't recommend skipping it. Miller is thorough and interesting, and does a good job of pointing out where he is in all this, delineating opinion from "fact" and showing us how a journalist does his job, if he's any good. Unfortunately the book seems to come to an end abruptly, just when it's getting good, as though he had a deadline to meet. Still, it's worth the read, though at nearly 500 pages, it's not quick.
What was most fascinating was when Miller dropped this journalistic bent because he became too involved emotionally to keep it up. This is where the story really gets good, because he now has broken through something inside of himself that was keeping him from seeing a more truthful reality, and he is still able to share it with the reader. This part of the story (Part 4: The Post-Round Critique) only lasted about 50 pages, but it was, in my mind, the best part.
The rest of the book is essential to understanding these last 50 pages, so I don't recommend skipping it. Miller is thorough and interesting, and does a good job of pointing out where he is in all this, delineating opinion from "fact" and showing us how a journalist does his job, if he's any good. Unfortunately the book seems to come to an end abruptly, just when it's getting good, as though he had a deadline to meet. Still, it's worth the read, though at nearly 500 pages, it's not quick.
February 26, 2013
This has been my between books book since November and I am not sure if reading all 512 pages was worth it.
Joe Miller, journalist, follows Central High's debate team at the beginning of this decade. I appreciated reading about Central High, an urban school in Kansas City.
But what I learned is that debate makes you crazy.
The teacher coach is a debate martyr. Every weekend she is driving her van of students to debate competition. She is fighting for her kids to be allowed to compete, writing their speeches and making sure they graduate on time. While her students adore her, her whole identity becomes debate. How she manages to maintain her grading, lesson planning, let alone her marriage and health had me puzzled throughout.
It's not just the teacher. Debate causes this reporter Joe Miller to lose any sense of objectivity. He takes the journalist creed of "Giving voice to the voiceless" a whole new level. He spends every waking moment with these students. Going to the movies, deciphering Freire, shepherding them to Los Angeles, DC, Iowa, watching them get stoned and drunk and winning tournament after tournament repeatedly. Every detail of every debate is chronicled to ennui here. By the end, Miller is running his own debate program.
While part of me gets sucked into underdogs, especially students, triumphing, this book had me really worried about the adults. And with my partner as a debate coach, that anxiety didn't bode too well.
Joe Miller, journalist, follows Central High's debate team at the beginning of this decade. I appreciated reading about Central High, an urban school in Kansas City.
But what I learned is that debate makes you crazy.
The teacher coach is a debate martyr. Every weekend she is driving her van of students to debate competition. She is fighting for her kids to be allowed to compete, writing their speeches and making sure they graduate on time. While her students adore her, her whole identity becomes debate. How she manages to maintain her grading, lesson planning, let alone her marriage and health had me puzzled throughout.
It's not just the teacher. Debate causes this reporter Joe Miller to lose any sense of objectivity. He takes the journalist creed of "Giving voice to the voiceless" a whole new level. He spends every waking moment with these students. Going to the movies, deciphering Freire, shepherding them to Los Angeles, DC, Iowa, watching them get stoned and drunk and winning tournament after tournament repeatedly. Every detail of every debate is chronicled to ennui here. By the end, Miller is running his own debate program.
While part of me gets sucked into underdogs, especially students, triumphing, this book had me really worried about the adults. And with my partner as a debate coach, that anxiety didn't bode too well.
December 6, 2007
So, I was pre-inclined to love this book because I've been debating my whole life, and I have always been a part of the world of "the game" that Miller describes. I particularly recommend this book for debaters, but I think it could be meaningful for anyone, as it is as much about an inner city debate program as it is about the horrifying state of public education for poor, black kids in this country and as it is about the desire, and means, of bringing real change to a community. Miller crosses all the lines he sets for the objective journalist he begins as, ending up as evangelical about changing the style of national high school policy debate as he is about coaching the team. But I think this made me like the book all the more - even if it did create some self-aggrandizing or biased moments in the narrative. Debate is just like that - it can become all encompassing - and the book depicts that incredibly well. Last, I think the book paints a realistic portrait of urban kids. These aren't perfect angels or drug dealers who transform through the power of education. They are high school debaters facing an uphill battle - often annoying and prone to acting out, but likely brilliant, with not enough people trying to help them use that brilliance to their advantage. I recommend this book.
June 25, 2007
Wow...what a book. Cross-X details the story of the debate team at Central High (a predominately African American high school in Kansas City labeled as academically deficient by the district) and the journey of the book's author from a detatched observer and journalist, to an emotionally committed and driven advocate, who steps over the boundary of journalistic integrity by becoming an active influence in the very story he is writing.
The story itself is unbelievable. You just get the feeling that Joe Miller could have written an entire 20-book series on several of the Central High seasons, the world of debate, the lives of the team members, and the downfall of the KC school district, in addition to his own journey. This results in a long book packed with sooo much story and info. I loved the thorough approach in some areas, but hated the lack of detail in others (especially the end). The parts committed mostly to the background of the Kansas City school district are very insightful and helpful, but seemed dense, rushed, and awkward in the midst of such an action-packed and emotion-filled narrative.
Cross-X is a story of hope and is so moving, that I finished the book thinking, "Wow, I can't believe this is a true story."
[http://www.crossxbyjoemiller.com/]
The story itself is unbelievable. You just get the feeling that Joe Miller could have written an entire 20-book series on several of the Central High seasons, the world of debate, the lives of the team members, and the downfall of the KC school district, in addition to his own journey. This results in a long book packed with sooo much story and info. I loved the thorough approach in some areas, but hated the lack of detail in others (especially the end). The parts committed mostly to the background of the Kansas City school district are very insightful and helpful, but seemed dense, rushed, and awkward in the midst of such an action-packed and emotion-filled narrative.
Cross-X is a story of hope and is so moving, that I finished the book thinking, "Wow, I can't believe this is a true story."
[http://www.crossxbyjoemiller.com/]
December 20, 2007
As a fairly recently graduated former debater (LD though, not CX) I was immediately intrigued by this book and beyond the way it touches on issues of racism and unequal access to education, I found it also appealed to the bit of nostalgia I continue to have for the activity.
I guess this book is consistent with any number of "poor, minority kids get inspired and find that they can succeed" stories you constantly see at the movies and does risk being a cliche. As someone who knows for a fact how "true" the story is, though, I never feel that way about this book. It talks about larger social issues while also conveying a good story, and altogether there's nothing to dislike. Cross-X does a very good job knitting together a story and putting a story about debate very well into a larger context.
Though my experience in the activity was very different, I found the book to be a very true to life account of the high school forensics community in general. Part of it is the gender bias aspect, and much as in real life, the debate community as Joe Miller experienced it is very a boy's world. It exposes many of the problems with the debate community that also exist in LD, as well as capturing the excitement that goes along with being a part of it.
I guess this book is consistent with any number of "poor, minority kids get inspired and find that they can succeed" stories you constantly see at the movies and does risk being a cliche. As someone who knows for a fact how "true" the story is, though, I never feel that way about this book. It talks about larger social issues while also conveying a good story, and altogether there's nothing to dislike. Cross-X does a very good job knitting together a story and putting a story about debate very well into a larger context.
Though my experience in the activity was very different, I found the book to be a very true to life account of the high school forensics community in general. Part of it is the gender bias aspect, and much as in real life, the debate community as Joe Miller experienced it is very a boy's world. It exposes many of the problems with the debate community that also exist in LD, as well as capturing the excitement that goes along with being a part of it.
January 17, 2010
I admit to a past life as a high school debater, and not casually, as in "I occasionally went to tournaments," or "I think I've heard of a kritik before" either. I admit to a past life as a high schooler whose time was consumed with debate. And as a reformed, no longer reads the New York Times with a Red Pen, debater I was excited to come across a book which depicted high school debate how it really is, as oppossed to say, Kirk Cameron. In the end though, the compelling part of Miller's book is not so much about debate as it is about race and school districts, about poverty and options for young urban kids with little to no resources backing their education or future. In short, no debate knowledge is required to read this journalist endeavor which ends up sounding a lot more like one of Kozol's education theory books cited by the debaters themselves. My favorite parts of the book were the historical summary of life after Brown v. Board of Education. My least favorite was one Miller himself crossed over the boundary from observer to participant, not, mind you, because I believe such walls should never be crossed in journalism, but because from that moment on, the book became more and more about him and less and less about anyone else.
July 27, 2010
The true story of of the Central High debate team from the east side of Kansas City. It was a tale of the "haves" and the "have nots". My favaorite parts were the commentaries on actual debate rounds and the explanations of the debate process. While my debaters do not have to contend with life in the ghetto and they do not face the uphill battles that come with attending a poorly achieving urban school, the angst and political issues they have faced in the past were similar.
"This coach and these kids are the real saviors, with thier own plan to save a game so intrinsic to democracy- a game that is, by all appearances, dying out in America."
"Impending doom is common in the debate world. Cases are all about impact. They're about saying cool things like 'total thermal nuclear meltdown' and 'utter annihilation'.
"I sat down near Marcus and watched him read through a stack of documents. After a few minutes he started tapping a frantic beat with his highlighter. Then he spun it on his fingers like a helicopter blade."
"I really find it philosophically unacceptable, that there are certain haves and have nots.. WHich is what made it all the more satisfying when her have-nots beat the snot out of the haves at debate tournaments."
"This coach and these kids are the real saviors, with thier own plan to save a game so intrinsic to democracy- a game that is, by all appearances, dying out in America."
"Impending doom is common in the debate world. Cases are all about impact. They're about saying cool things like 'total thermal nuclear meltdown' and 'utter annihilation'.
"I sat down near Marcus and watched him read through a stack of documents. After a few minutes he started tapping a frantic beat with his highlighter. Then he spun it on his fingers like a helicopter blade."
"I really find it philosophically unacceptable, that there are certain haves and have nots.. WHich is what made it all the more satisfying when her have-nots beat the snot out of the haves at debate tournaments."
January 22, 2013
I liked reading about something that happened in Missouri since I recently moved here. I feel like I witnessed a real-life application of Freire. The frequent mention of Dismantling Racism makes me want to read that, too, among other sources the debaters used. If only Foucault was as good as Miller at writing non-fiction page-turners, Eric Schlosser-style.
This is a story of how high school students transformed the debate circuit through the use of personal narrrative. It does follow the Hollywood trope of two white teachers' sheparding of poor, black students but there is a nice twist in that each teacher is also transformed. (Which then creates another trope where the marginalized character of color brings enlightment to the white main character.) But overall it works well because of how honest Miller is about what becomes a personal obsession/group mission. He details his own deficiencies - especially in the last chapter with his over the top reactions and mystical revelation - in a way that was so real that it was humorous.
I'd like for Miller to give more detail about how he transgresses journalistic boundaries, since so much time is spent on pushing the norms of the debate world.
This is a story of how high school students transformed the debate circuit through the use of personal narrrative. It does follow the Hollywood trope of two white teachers' sheparding of poor, black students but there is a nice twist in that each teacher is also transformed. (Which then creates another trope where the marginalized character of color brings enlightment to the white main character.) But overall it works well because of how honest Miller is about what becomes a personal obsession/group mission. He details his own deficiencies - especially in the last chapter with his over the top reactions and mystical revelation - in a way that was so real that it was humorous.
I'd like for Miller to give more detail about how he transgresses journalistic boundaries, since so much time is spent on pushing the norms of the debate world.
January 26, 2008
I would have loved this book even if the author wasn't a friend of mine. I was blown away by Joe's narrative and the breadth and depth of his reporting. He wrote so compellingly about the students that I found myself rooting for them in every debate round, as if I had actually been at all those schools during all those tournaments.
In that sense, Joe accomplished what Laura Hillenbrand did in the fantastic book "Seabiscuit," where it felt like the reader was actually in the saddle during the races.
"Cross-X" works so well because of the students Joe followed and how he got them to open up. I was especially moved by Joe's final few chapters, where he continues advocating for the Central kids and tries to change the rules of debate. It was a great way to end the book, having done a complete 180 from his starting point as a detached observer in the high school.
I think this book resonated so well with me because I always wished I could have been involved with debate, but my high school was so small that we didn't have a team.
I hope Jane Rinehart will continue the good fight at Central. And kudos to Joe for documenting it all.
In that sense, Joe accomplished what Laura Hillenbrand did in the fantastic book "Seabiscuit," where it felt like the reader was actually in the saddle during the races.
"Cross-X" works so well because of the students Joe followed and how he got them to open up. I was especially moved by Joe's final few chapters, where he continues advocating for the Central kids and tries to change the rules of debate. It was a great way to end the book, having done a complete 180 from his starting point as a detached observer in the high school.
I think this book resonated so well with me because I always wished I could have been involved with debate, but my high school was so small that we didn't have a team.
I hope Jane Rinehart will continue the good fight at Central. And kudos to Joe for documenting it all.
January 13, 2008
Finished Miller's "Cross-X"-- and as i neared the end, i started getting tingles. the author does a fantastic job, writing honestly about becoming emotionally attached to the young high-schoolers he follows (eventually getting so drawn into his own story that he starts his own debate team in another inner-city school). what gave me shivers is watching him come to similar conclusions as i had (he from his personal experiences, me primarily from reading jonathan kozol)-- the glaring inequalities of access to public education (and how those inequities are unevenly shouldered by af-am communities), and how frustrating are the obstacles/attitudes that perpetuate the cycle. by not becoming outraged at the inequalities ourselves (especially us, born into all the privileges of this rigged US education system), we become complicit, perpetuating the status quo. but what's really fascinating is the ambiguity of advocating for a community of which he is not a part-- the fine line of patronizing them with the role of "savior"-- and how our own interests sometime obscure those of the folks we intended to "help" in the first place (even with the best intentions).
November 13, 2015
Read this a long time ago and found it to be a very accurate and very interesting portrayal of high school debate at the turn of the century (20th to 21st). The author really takes you inside team meetings, inside tournaments, and inside the process of preparing and working with students for high school debate competition at the highest levels. I think the most valuable aspect of this book is how new coaches forget they are teachers, and how easy it is for those first enamored with debating to become rhetorically fascist about their case, their arguments, and the truth of what they have found in their research. The author is very honest about his obsession over the case that he and his students put together and how angry he gets when audiences are not convinced by it. I have seen this many times in my career, and it's a big danger when those interested in debating begin to have a desire to teach. I suggest everyone read this book if you are passionate about high school students, interesting ideas, argument, and the practice of being a teacher and getting very close to the students, both intellectually and personally, which is what happens when you teach debate.
Read
February 5, 2009Journalist Joe Miller's first book is highly political, and very important. Not only does it point fingers at the deficiencies of the Kansas City School Board, but it also reveals how race, class, and poverty affect education in America. While Miller's analysis of these issues may seem old hat, his in-depth portrayal of the debaters' complicated, troubled family lives elevates his narrative's significance. (One student comes from a family of sharecroppers; another lives in homeless shelters.) Miller also provides an interesting history of debate in America__from the Lincoln-Douglas debates through today's speed-reading tactics. If the book loses some focus or seems overly long when Miller details his own role as coach, it nonetheless should serve as a wake-up call
This is an excerpt from a review published in Bookmarks magazine.
December 25, 2015
Journalist Joe Miller follows the ups and down of an UDL (Urban Debate League) from Kansas City. At first, observer only, by the end of his story, he becomes involved in the lives of the students (coach). The travails of the team goes beyond getting students involved: racism, lack of awareness of white privilege, institutional racism (at the school system level, the debate leagues' organizational level, etc), even down to the form of debate that favors the wealthy white schools (and all schools are wealthy when you compare them to Central High). Miller also gives us a history of KC's school system and the history of segregation/integration/ desegregation in KC. Paulo Freire's book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, becomes the basis for a personal transformation in Miller as well as a new way to approach debate.
August 26, 2014
I was challenged to read this years ago by one of my students when I was still an active high school debate coach. While I think the account is a great underdog story, it tends to fall into a paternalistic trap. The notion that minority students cannot compete fairly against white "privileged" programs without shifting the debate to a kritik of debate is insulting and borders on racist. At best, this suggestion is paternalistic. Unfortunately this style of debate has taken over urban debate leagues and college policy debate. No one actually debates the underlying topic or resolution anymore. I think this has not only done a disservice to the activity, but it also fails to adequately prepare young people for the real world.
December 2, 2007
This book was like reliving my senior year of debate through the eyes of a poor African-American student. An in-depth look at the debate system from someone who experienced the circuit with a group of kids who had experiences that were both similar and light-years away from what I experienced. Being back in the world of cross-x and counter plans and squirrely cases was so much fun, I have to admit. The fact that the story is placed in the same year and using cases/characters that I recognized made it that much more fun. The perspective through the black students' eyes, though, was quite awakening for me.
December 4, 2007
A LONG, yet fascinating look at how institutional racism effects the tragic U.S. education system. The writer is a journalist, who sets off to document how the debate team of a "poor" inner city school overcomes the obstacles of racism by using the tools learned in their award winning debate team. The teens in the book are wonderful, and Miller does an excellent job of telling their varied and often sad life stories without exploiting or using them. I would recommend this to any one who works with teens or in the education system.
February 19, 2013
I read this book in the fall as I took on coaching the Debate team at my school. A great page turning read. The book is about poor kids of color getting a chance to use debate to take on issues of race, class and power in the elite privileged circles of policy debate. However, having taught for years I saw clearly how the book is also a story about the relationship between teacher and students, mentor and youth. There is trouble in this book that the author doesn't know, or more generously, is saving for a later book.
December 20, 2007
oh man this book is hardcore debate. i picked it up when my dad checked it out of the library, and i only read a few chapters. the book is about the tough world of debate and how some minority students rose above their situations through it. i like the subject matter, though in my experience debate has way more rules than are presented in the book. i just didn't like the way it was written (through the eyes of their coach) so i didn't finish it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews