[Election music]
Welcome to the first Northwestern College Democrats versus College Republicans debate.
Bridge USA, a multi-partisan organization on campus that aims to promote political dialogue, hosted the event. On Tuesday night, Weinberg senior Edward Dowd took the initiative of moderating the debate, which was a mix of Oxford style and Lincoln Douglas.
Edward Dowd: This is something I’ve always wanted to do at Northwestern. I think the problem though, was that the leadership from Republicans and Democrats at the time wasn’t ideal. I think we didn’t have the kinds of people that wanted to come together and do something like this because there was still a level of distrust. They just didn’t feel like it was worth it. You know, how are we going to come together and talk about issues and get too divisive?
Harris Hall filled with approximately 150 students all eager to listen. Three contentious topics were covered: immigration, gun control and abortion.
Caleb Nunes was a debater for the conservative side. He is one of the co-founders of NU’s Young Americans for Freedom chapter, and debated about the need for immigration reform.
Caleb Nunes: Once people are citizens, you can’t go back. And so a country is a very big thing to get wrong. And so I think that we haven’t had an honest debate about it. I think that there are a lot of taboos and lies that surround immigration. It’s an issue that I have spent probably two weeks of my life either reading about for like two weeks as in 24 hours for 14 days and listening to podcasts about trying to understand the issue, because it’s a very, very important issue. And I would say it’s not just white voters that care about this although they do it is a very multi ethnic coalition that is unsatisfied with the way immigration is affecting America.
Nunes said he thought the event was a success beyond the attendance, as the audience got to hear different, intelligent perspectives on issues.
Nunes: I do think that it was good to show that there’s a lot of intellectual force coming from the right. And I think it’s commonly believed that the right doesn’t have very strong convictions or that they’re just, you know, indoctrinated by their parents. But I think that, if anything, this debate was great evidence of the fact that you can have these divergent opinions and not feel stupid about it. That’s I think the biggest accomplishment of the debate is that there was a breath of fresh air that kind of came through the room from that event on campus because we were able to have very honest discussions about issues that typically, you’ll only hear talking points about.
As an openly conservative student on campus, Nunes shared that since coming to college, a lot of the ways he thinks about politics have been influenced by his experiences at Northwestern, a liberal institution.
Nunes: You actively have to reevaluate your views. You have to think, okay, was I wrong on this? Or was I wrong approaching this issue? And if I was wrong, why was I wrong? And so since whenever conservatives come to campus, they have to go through this process because the second you step on campus, there’s what I call the ‘brutal bargain.’ They have to actually evaluate their beliefs and how they they have to evaluate their belief structures and come to the conclusion other belief structures that they came into campus with are correct, or whether they’re wrong and reevaluate from there, which is something that I don’t think many progressives have to do when they come to campus because every single preconceived notion of the way the world works is confirmed the second step on campus and it’s reinforced from the very beginning.
[music]
On the blue side, the abortion debater was Weinberg sophomore Clark Mahoney. Representing the Northwestern College Democrats as their co-president, Mahoney shared the reason he debated about abortion on the pro-choice side.
Clark Mahoney: My mom’s a gynecologist. So like women’s health and reproductive health has always been super important for me. And I know just like part of my main pillars of morality, I guess, is how important access to reproductive health is.
According to Mahoney, one of their biggest concerns for the event was keeping it respectful for the debaters. But the debate proved to be a success without anyone being asked to leave.
Mahoney: I feel like people they disagreed with what Republicans had to say. And some people disagreed with what the Democrats had to say. But they were still willing to listen to what they had to say and be respectful in that manner. So that was just one fear that we had before the debate that was just completely squashed by how respectful everyone was acting.
Due to such positive feedback and engagement, it is likely another debate will take place again next year. As discourse about free speech on college campuses increases, Mahoney said having spaces where people can hear different opinions is valuable.
Mahoney: It’s so easy to just be in your own camp and to like only hear what you want to hear. So having a debate in this style. It’s both good for free speech. Because you can hear and speak about what you want to. But then also, I don’t know, it just promotes more free speech. When you have a debate, you’re going to promote more free discussion of ideas. And I think that’s a really good thing.
[music]
Looking ahead, Dowd said that BridgeUSA wants to keep the conversations going.
Dowd: We completely forget that ideas are not shaped overnight. And that people have different perspectives. They come from different backgrounds and they have different experiences that have shaped and informed their beliefs over the course of their life. And I think that’s what we’re trying to do is we’re trying to show that, you know, we should seek the best of intentions for people. Hopefully we can bring that but we definitely think we can hopefully move into more areas across campus and talk about more issues that people care about.
And on that closing statement, from WNUR News, I’m Erica Schmitt.
