By Sophie Albertie
‘Prove me wrong. ’
A phrase that has become increasingly popular over the last five years dawns brighter with every passing news cycle.
In the world of academia, divisive political speakers come to college campuses to debate with students. The ethicality of this in itself is debatable, as these conversations are usually posted on the internet to “grift” or appeal broadly to both sides. The controversies they generate are what make for more clicks and views. How are the intentions behind this emphatic campaign for ‘open discussion’ viewed by college students?
SUNY Plattsburgh first year Faith Jalbert says she doesn’t think that the practice of political speakers coming to campus is ethical.
“Most people are at college to be learning about the world and might not necessarily be educated on the subjects discussed,” Jalbert said. “This feels like someone trying to recruit young people to pick a side. It feels like propaganda.”
Charlie Kirk, conservative podcaster and founder of Turning Point USA, was a prominent figure in the world of campus debaters. Before his assassination, Kirk visited and debated with students at approximately 25 universities. Most of those who supported him prefaced their questions with I love you before getting up to the microphone, cementing Kirk as not only a polarizing figure but an influential one. Those who liked his views adored him to the point of worship, but those who hated everything he stood for also vehemently showed their disdain.
It felt inevitable for Kirk to gain the platform that he had based on this factor of black and white thinking alone.
In the wake of his death, some might argue that students are reaching newfound revelations when it comes to the concept of debaters on campus. Junior Rebekah Abdul-Wahhab argues that people will continue to weaponize political violence to push certain agendas.
“I think political rhetoric is often detached from social reality. These issues people think they can debate concern actual lives. There’s no longer a debate if you argue that a certain group of people shouldn’t have rights, that’s not a debatable topic,” Abdul-Wahhab said. “Debating right now is popular, but very flawed. There isn’t enough due diligence when it comes to looking at the track record of a certain speaker. The way it’s being done isn’t something I would want to see on my campus.”
I couldn’t help thinking about students from different universities who may have felt the same, especially after witnessing how ugly the visitations could get. It is unarguable that being educated on certain topics is essential before trying a hand in political discussion, but what impact could seeing a clip of oneself on a Twitch stream or Instagram reel have on developing young minds? Was the intention ever to encourage open dialogue, or was it simply to exhaust the opposing side?
College students should be encouraged to get involved politically in any way they can through the resources on campus, and these resources should not include political influencers who are looking to persuade rather than inform.
