For those who may not know, Model United Nations (MUN) is an inter-scholastic gathering of students that aims to simulate U.N. proceedings. Representing countries in various committees like the U.N. Security Counsel or World Health Organization, students practice debating and writing resolutions on multilateral issues.
I started to consider the problem with Model U.N. in my junior year of high school at the National High School Model United Nations (NHSMUN) conference in New York. I was a part of the U.N. Habitat committee, where the topic of debate was electricity access in informal settlements. By the first day, the Japanese delegation – two L.A. prep school students – had already gained notoriety as experienced and serious MUNer’s (their school even had a Model U.N. class!). This made their borderline farcical proposition – that U.N. Habitat partner with the 5-Hour Energy corporation to establish a charity that ships electricity-producing exercise bikes to slum residents – all the more absurd. If this sounds like the dumbest idea you’ve ever heard, you’re not alone—but you would be if you were in that committee room.
My objections – namely, its comical impracticality and resemblance to a strange promotional campaign – fell on deaf ears. While most delegates acknowledged its impracticality, many did not consider practicality a primary motivator of the resolution drafting process. In other words, I realized many were apathetic to the efficacy of these policies in the real world. To Japan and many of my peers in the room, MUN did not represent an exercise in critically problem-solving multilateral issues. But their enthusiasm during debate suggested it was not just a resume-booster or trophy-hunt either (NHSMUN doesn’t even hand out individual awards). Their attitude shows there are problems with Model United Nations that go beyond awards. What are they, and how can we fix them?
Model U.N. advertises itself as an activity that champions multilateralism and cooperation among youth, raises awareness about global issues, and builds debating and public speaking skills. Indeed, my first experiences with MUN sparked my interest in sustainable development topics like urban planning and taught me the importance of being able to communicate my ideas concisely and persuasively. I don’t intend to argue that MUN is broken beyond repair, merely to reveal problematic aspects in its culture and suggest ways in which it could be restructured to better promote inclusivity and substance.
First, inclusivity: participants are disproportionately wealthy, private school students. The website “Best delegate” ranks Model U.N. teams based on the awards they win at “advanced” conferences—the largest, nicest, and most expensive conferences. At the high school level, half of the top 25 North American teams are from private schools while even the public-school teams tend to be from wealthy suburban districts. At the college level, 19 out of the top 25 teams are from private institutions. Fees for some high school conferences can exceed $100 per-student: NHSMUN charges $105 per student in addition for $95 for each school and $95 again for each country the school represents. Moreover, the cost of travel and hotels for any school participating from out of town can push the total cost-per-student to well over $500 for one conference, a figure outright prohibitive for many middle- and low-income students. While some progress is being made in lower fees and promoting accessibility, participation remains incredibly skewed. Encouraging more local, low-cost conferences and offering serious financial aid for larger conference is an essential first-step in addressing MUN culture.
High barriers of entry to MUN conferences not only deprive low-income students of opportunities, but also foster an atmosphere of elitism and self-importance among a demographically skewed population. In a way, self-importance is fundamental to any MUN simulation. When simulating international diplomacy, feeling as important as a real diplomat can help students enjoy acting out their role accurately and enthusiastically. But conferences often bring together privileged students who are used to feeling important in their day-to-day lives. For many participants, self-importance does not feel like part of the simulation—it feels real. This is exacerbated by the lofty rhetoric used at conference opening and closing ceremonies, which praises students as the next generation of leaders who will do good in the future, but who are also doing good now by attending a fancy MUN conference that advertises multilateralism. It becomes easy to take this narrative a bit too seriously, to almost forget that simulating the United Nations is not akin to actually solving global problems. This brings us to the second, and probably the easiest, change that the Model U.N. can make: stop exaggerating its own significance. Instead, conferences can exchange some of the “you are the future leaders of the world” rhetoric with language that emphasizes its experiential-learning aspects.
An elitist culture, however, doesn’t fully explain why bright would argue that the poor should get electricity by peddling 5-Hour Energy’s exercise bikes. Model U.N.’s debate structure usually fails to value ideas according to their quality. Rarely is there any sustained dialogue in which an idea is challenged and refined through the back and forth of well-informed parties. More common are proposals that are either vague and uncontroversial or so specific that the rest of the committee is unfamiliar with it. This is not helped by the broad and geopolitically nonpartisan topics conferences usually select. In that aforementioned committee, for instance, one delegation extensively researched off-the-grid solar while another researched utility company regulation, but neither knew enough about the other’s solution to engage in substantive criticism
Lacking substantive points of contention, students create contention around un-substantive points in an effort to feel important. Instead of challenging other delegates on their ideas, they resort to vague and unsubstantiated concerns about how those ideas will be funded and whether or not they might violate national sovereignty. Instead of trying to write clauses with better content, they try to write clauses with fancier formatting. At worst, debate can devolve into pure social posturing. In this environment, the most aggressive, confident, and physically attractive thrive, while the shyer and more introverted are discouraged from voicing their opinions. While the presence of awards exacerbates this unconstructive learning environment, a lack of substantive debate and a self-important culture are the more fundamental causes.
Much of this could be abated through a radical improvement of topics chosen, with an emphasis on encouraging productive debate. For instance, narrowing topical scopes to levels of specificity that allow students to generate overlapping areas of expertise upon which different arguments can be made. Another possibility includes running workshops parallel to the simulation in which delegates can discuss their topic with an expert who can speak to the feasibility of their ideas.
So why should anyone outside of the Model United Nations community care about any of these problems? For one, the same motivated, aggressive, and well-situated kids who thrive in MUN are likely to end up in positions of power later in life. Model U.N. may be successful at imbuing the values of multilateralism and compromise in these potential future leaders, but at its worst may negate the complexity and gravity of serious issues, reflecting an arrogance all too common among policy makers who assume they can superimpose their solutions onto complex human systems.
I still love Model U.N., because at the end of the day I see it as a space to have fun and learn about the UN and the issues it solves. It’s not the training ground of the future leaders of the world, it’s not high stakes, and it’s just not as important as it makes itself out to be. By eliminating awards, expanding accessibility to students of all income levels, choosing more specific topics, and finding creative ways to get students engaged the actual substance of debate, Model U.N. can become a more welcoming and constructive learning environment.