A debate aborted

Though we may not have noticed due to the blinding anxiety of midterms and the irresistible appeal of Spring Break, a controversy cropped up two weeks ago when the administration canceled a debate between PETA vice president Bruce Friedrich and Columbia’s Parliamentary Debate team. Less than five hours before the event, the University told the organizers of the event—who were expecting to draw attendance in the hundreds—that the debate would not be allowed on campus. The ethics of meat-eating would have to be discussed elsewhere.

Amid the furor and confusion of this sudden and unwelcome development, the University released a statement explaining that Mr. Friedrich’s 2004 disruption of a commencement address had earned him the title of persona non grata and thus would not be welcome to come to campus at all. This revelation brought some sense into the conversation and silenced the critics arguing that Columbia simply didn’t want the debate to take place.

However, I question the administration’s decision to stop the event because of an issue with a participant. The cancelation of the event marks a loss much larger than just a debate—it represents the continued repression of certain topics in our community’s sphere of dialogue. More specifically, it exemplifies the reluctance of this campus to explore issues of ethics and morality in a public setting.

A glance at other events happening during the same week reveals the typical fare on campus: a presentation by the “Ground Zero Mosque Imam” and a debate with the College Republicans and College Democrats about gun control. While both events served the community well by starting or fuelling dialogue, they are representative of the sorts of programming that dominate campus events. Such events focus primarily on questions of society, politics, and issues external to the individual. The PETA debate, on the other hand, would have raised issues of personal morality and ethics.

Unlike arguments about politics and socio-cultural issues, debates concerning the development of an individual’s concept of morality have especially significant impact in undergraduate spheres. During our time as students, we often busy ourselves with personal development, aware that what we do here will impact the rest of our lives. Under the umbrella of “personal development,” ethics and morality stand at the center. One need not have read Aristotle’s works or Rousseau’s treatises to know that.

We, as people, are concerned with how to make decisions in a way that is as beneficial as possible. To whom the benefit goes may be up to debate, but morality cannot and should not be sidelined as an auxiliary interest. Our understanding of right and wrong is possibly the single most important aspect of that development. Nothing else will stay with us for so long or affect more of our life decisions.

And yet, even in light of the gravity of these topics, our investigation into personal morality is extraordinarily limited. The Core does a good job of exposing us to the greatest moral thinkers in history, but the classroom risks disconnection between readings and application. Kant’s categorical imperative rarely makes it off the page and into our serious consideration. St. Augustine’s pleas for a righteous life never escape the fifth century. Still, the Core deserves credit for making it further than the rest of campus life in addressing this critical part of life. There is precious little moral exploration in the space between CC classrooms and our own heads. Where is the public debate about these issues? Why does it disappear as soon as it isn’t required in our homework?

The PETA debate represented a unique opportunity for such critical exploration beyond the recesses of our minds or the echoing halls of Hamilton. From its description, the debate had the goal of coming to a conclusion about a very real ethical question that arises in our everyday lives. It could have been an event that, if we had engaged with it, might have made a real difference in the way we live our lives.

While the University is entirely within its rights to deny entrance to individuals who have a history of disrupting campus life, the administration should ask itself whether or not the individual in question has something important to offer the student body. In this instance, Friedrich’s appearance on campus was going to be one that promoted an ethical debate critical in the moral development of each one of us. Given that the academy puts a premium on the development of its members, it seems to me foolishness to prioritize one person’s negative status over the promotion of meaningful conversation in an area that has precious few venues.

Derek Turner is a Columbia College senior majoring in anthropology and political science. Opening Remarks runs alternate Mondays.