Though topics at the quarterly debate between the Bruin
Republicans and Bruin Democrats Wednesday ranged from nuclear
proliferation to poverty, what students seemed to care most about
is something that hits closer to home ““ professors.
In the debate in the De Neve Auditorium, which lasted close to
two hours, panelists representing majors from economics to
engineering focused on current issues, discussing Iran, K-12
education, poverty and academic freedom.
“People are misinformed about what conservatives are doing
and what their goals are,” said Faith Christiansen,
chairwoman of the Bruin Republicans, explaining why she thinks this
type of debate is so important on campus.
Bringing up the recent controversy over UCLA alumnus Andrew
Jones’ Web site revealing the “Dirty 30″ ““
his picks of the 30 most radical professors at UCLA ““
panelists presented a discussion that proved to be a fierce
topic.
Student panelists speaking for both Bruin Democrats and
Republicans agreed that professors’ opinions that are
irrelevant to their classes shouldn’t be expounded, and when
hiring a professor his or her political viewpoint should not be
taken into account.
But the two sides differed in how to deal with the problem of
professor bias in classrooms, saying there are already sufficient
oversights in place to keep professors in check.
Kyle Kleckner, who spoke for the Bruin Democrats, added that
even these radical professors are few and far between.
But before addressing this familiar issue, which drew the most
interest from students, panelists discussed more global issues.
“It is good to see students argue about topics … that
are important outside UCLA,” said Marwa Kaisey, a third-year
neuroscience student who attended the debate.
Though the Bruin Democrats and Bruin Republicans are staunchly
opposed on how to best handle these political issues, they found
some common ground during the debate. Both groups discussed
decreasing poverty, rehabilitating an underperforming school
system, upholding professor and student freedoms, and ways to
prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
With regard to Iran, the panelists representing Bruin
Republicans promoted diplomacy to deal with the regime, such as
commitment to the replacement of current leadership, rather than
war.
But Greg Wannier, a fourth-year political science student and
panelist for the Bruin Democrats, presented a very different
solution. Economic sanctions, on the part of all countries trading
with Iran, is the best way to approach the issue, he said.
And if the situation did come down to war ““ which
panelists from both Bruin Republicans and Bruin Democrats conceded
was possible ““ Wannier said it must be a “multilateral,
internationally manned war.”
In response to the proposition that the United States should
initiate regime change in Iran, Wannier said this was not a viable
solution because regimes are so difficult to hold in place.
“Regime change (in Iran) is deja vu,” said Kaisey,
who was born in Iraq, referring to comparisons to the political
situation facing Iraq.
The two groups of students also offered their opposing solutions
to how to ease the pain of poverty in much of the world.
Rajan Trehan, a panelist for the Bruin Republicans, stressed the
importance of work and independence. “It is insulting to tell
impoverished people that they need the government to live,”
he said.
But the Bruin Democrats responded by emphasizing the importance
of welfare programs and how these can help aid people in need.