SJDI Interview Series #4: Laura Hosman
Our fourth part of our interview series features instructor Laura Hosman. Laura is the Director of Debate at Denver East High School and is a PhD student in the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver, where she specializes in International Relations and Comparative Politics. Hear what she has to say below!
You’re currently a PhD student in the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver. Can you tell us a little bit about what you’re studying?
My two subfields in International Studies are International Relations and Comparative Politics. I’m primarily a comparativist, with my research generally focusing on domestic effects of international human rights law and the role of judicial actors during processes of democratization, in (1) transitional justice and democratization, (2) rebel group compliance to international law, (3) use of international law by local communities in response to human rights violations, and (4) judicial defection from oppressive regimes under non-democracies.
Why did you choose to go into this field? What most interests you about it?
I chose to go into International Studies because I’ve always found international law much more interesting than other areas. The law is socially constructed, and nowhere is this more evident than in international law. Overwhelmingly, I find everything and anything that has to do with the law and courts absolutely fascinating. However, research in comparative legal studies has historically been highly descriptive, leading to only surface level understandings of how things operate, or highly normative, leading to advocacy absent an empirical grounding. But notably, research suggests that trials, including human rights prosecutions, actually increase the likelihood of future human rights violations, and that circuit court rulings categorizing tasers as excessive use of force actually increase gun violence by police officers. The law and legal actors are not inherently good, even if well intentioned, and we need to engage this conversation more productively from a research perspective. My research hopes to engage such empiricism and provide better understandings of the impact of international law and courts.
As an expert in international relations and human rights law, and as a coach who has seen 10 years’ worth of debates, what do you think students misunderstand most about these topics? How do you think students can improve their debating of international law, human rights, and international relations more generally?
I think debaters tend to misunderstand or fail to recognize the degree to which economic arguments about the law actually speak to race, gender, and class based impacts. There is a much more nuanced relationship between economics and the law, with areas of the law simultaneously reflecting class power structures, such as property law emerging out of feudalism, while also preventing the law from becoming sources of oppression, such as your constitutional right to a speedy trial. This nuanced relationship, in terms of both time and cost, is particularly important considering communities of color come into contact with the law much more frequently – justice delayed is justice denied. Ultimately, on plea bargaining, 1AC impact turns and 1NC link turns against neolib Ks could have been significantly better if this more nuanced relationship had been fleshed out.
In terms of debating these issues better, I’ll focus on IR. A lot of cards are pulled from realist scholars, yet there is a lot of empirical evidence grounded in constructivist theoretical understandings that refute their logic. I think this makes for better argumentation and link turns than framework oriented debates about structural violence versus util. For instance, Tannenwald (1999) substantiates the idea that nuclear war is unlikely to happen due to shifts in the normative appropriateness surrounding the use of nuclear weapons. I think debaters need to more substantively engage these issues and not simply default to framework to restructure what I weigh most heavily in round.
Tell us about your thoughts on the current LD topic. What have been your favorite arguments to watch and coach?
In light of my research interests, I did find the international modeling arguments fun (although I did not see them argued well). I also thoroughly enjoyed reading Alexander’s The New Jim Crow when it came out in 2010, so it was fun to see debaters hash that out – although she didn’t make for the best solvency advocate and I was glad to see kids move away from that.
What are you most excited to teach this summer?
I’m most excited to teach technical argumentation and policy arguments. I think this has been one of single best improvements in LD over the past 10 to 15 years since I was competing in the early 2000s. Kids are producing better, more nuanced, and well-developed arguments these days, which makes me very excited. However, I think a lot of debate camps unfortunately still default to teaching argumentation by teaching the debate round itself. No matter how many practice rounds you have, if you don’t have a good foundation in argumentation you won’t get better. Understanding the logic of different types of arguments and how they interact with one another is key.
Check out our full staff list here. Make sure to sign up for SJDI soon to work with our highly qualified instructors this summer – space is rapidly filling up!