In a rare debate, Bruin Republicans and Bruin Democrats met
Wednesday evening to slug it out over war, admissions and Saddam
Hussein.
The debate was lead by a panel of three representatives from
each side. The audience, which consisted of about 20 people split
evenly along party lines, participated frequently throughout.
Although other issues ““ such as gun control and capital
punishment ““ were on the agenda, debate over war and
affirmative action proved so heated that the allotted hour and a
half did not leave time for anything else.
“Bush should not have the power to do preemptive strikes
without Congressional support or U.N. support. We should encourage
the U.N. to flex its might and do what it is supposed to do,”
said Kristina Meshelski, a fourth-year philosophy student and Bruin
Democrats president.
Bruin Republicans voiced strong support for the war, saying U.S.
intervention would greatly aid the Iraqi people.
“Their people are going to be a lot better off after a
U.S. incursion. Leaving Saddam in place is not going to help the
Iraqi people,” said David Hackett, a fourth-year political
science and French student.
“Is it worth millions of Iraqi lives to remove
Saddam?” an audience-member asked.
“Is it worth millions of Iraqi lives to leave Saddam in
place?” Hackett countered.
Bruin Republicans dismissed the significance of worldwide
protests, estimating that only about 5 percent of America’s
population have voiced their opposition to the war.
Audience reaction was mixed. Some students agreed Iraq was an
important issue but disapproved of the way Bush is approaching the
problem.
“It seems the Bush administration is going to go to war no
matter what Saddam does, and that is a problem,” said Sean
Kolodji, a second-year political science student.
Other students flat-out disagreed with war.
“It don’t think Saddam is the most important problem
in the world today. There are many other things killing more people
on a daily basis than Saddam Hussein,” said audience-member
Sarah Langer, a second-year political science student.
The debate over affirmative action was equally contentious.
Bruin Republicans argued affirmative action is “reverse
discrimination” and advocated a different means of judging
applications.
“Affirmative action is the epitome of over-simplification.
If there was a way to level the playing field, the best way should
be to look at their social-economic position,” said Jonathan
Cayton, a fourth-year history and geography student and vice
chairman of the Bruin Republicans.
However, Matthew Dababneh, a fourth-year political science and
public policy student and vice president of the Bruin Democrats,
called affirmative action a “necessary evil” in a
diverse, imperfect society.
“You have to have government programs that level the
playing field because our society is diverse. It’s an
argument about practicality, about how we can make our society the
best it can possibly be,” he said.
Although the debate carried passionate overtones at times, good
humor generally prevailed.
Andrew Jones, a political science student, chair of the Bruin
Republicans and former Daily Bruin columnist, said this was the
first time in his four years here he could remember the two sides
engaging in a debate.
“I think it was a real positive thing. We’re not
going in there tearing each other’s heads off, so I could see
us doing this again in the future,” he said.