CU Dems, Republicans Debate Affirmative Action

The Columbia University College Democrats and Columbia University College Republicans riled up the audience in a debate Monday evening on the resolution “affirmative action is a policy at odds with equality and fairness.”

The two campus groups hosted the debate as part of an ongoing joint project to engage in more interparty dialogue. The debate was sponsored by the Roosevelt Institute and moderated by Caitlin Halpern, CC ’09 and president of the Columbia Political Union.

“Our goal is just to get some dialogue going, have some discussion on the issue in a more structured format than in a classroom,” said Lauren Salz, executive director of the College Republicans and CC ’11. “Last semester they were more educational debates in that both sides had to take their candidate’s position versus this semester the students are representing their personal views.”

William Prasifka, CC ’12, and Derek Turner, CC ’12 represented the College Republicans in the debate while Danielle Amerian, CC ’11, and Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein, CC ’12, represented the College Democrats.

After arriving at Lerner Cinema before the College Democrats, the College Republicans called and won the coin toss, electing to go first. Prasifka opened the debate and began his four-minute opening speech by stating the thesis of his and Turner’s argument—that “someone shouldn’t be judged by the color of their skin.” Spitzer-Rubenstein followed Prafiska’s opening statement for the College Democrats, asking, “Who should have the opportunity to succeed?” and stating that a system without affirmative action is not colorblind.

Avi Edelman, media director of the College Democrats and CC ’11, said that the debate was less about getting students to choose one political party over another than about spurring them to form their own opinions on affirmative action.
“We wanted to pick a topic that was more philosophical,” he said. “The goal isn’t to change anyone’s mind or have a winner. The goal is to put the ideas out there and to explore what the ideas are.”

According to Salz, another goal was to have the audience participate in the debate and ask questions. “The purpose of the debate is that people walk away thinking critically about the different sides of an issue,” Salz said. The audience engaged the debaters not only by asking questions but also by debating with the College Republican and College Democrat representatives. When the opposing sides got bogged down in abstract considerations, the president of the Roosevelt Institute asked the participants to make more direct arguments and to leave hypothetical propositions behind.

As the participants began to make more hard-hitting arguments, the audience grew more involved with many hands shooting up in response to each point. By the end, audience members were debating not just with the representatives but with each other.