Sophomore Andrew Davidson took first prize at the 21st annual Edward Everett Oratory Competition Tuesday.
The five finalists, juniors Jean-Luc and Mattis Belloncle, sophomores Andrew Davidson and Ethan Tong, and freshman Caleb Sampson responded to the competition prompt: “The proper role of government in a pandemic.” Sophomore Rachel Warren was chosen as an alternate and was recognized as a finalist during the competition.
The students addressed various aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the American government’s response to it as well as their idea of a conservative response to a pandemic.
The orators each presented 10-minute, memorized speeches in front of Hillsdale College President Larry Arnn, Professor of English David Whalen, and Paul Oehlke, a visiting judge from Saint Cloud State University.
The event is named after Edward Everett, an American statesman and orator best known for his two-hour speech at the Gettysburg National Cemetery. The first place prize was $3,000, second was $2,000, and third was $1,000.
Judges scored the finalists on several criteria: time management, clarity of ideas, adaptation to the audience, logical flow, presentation, appearance, and persuasive merit. At the awards ceremony, Arnn noted that competition was especially strong this year, as the top speakers’ scores were only separated by three points, with Davidson placing first, Tong second, and Sampson third.
“I think the Oratory competition’s best qualities perfectly reflect the larger mission of Hillsdale College itself: it’s open to anyone, and the most successful orators are the ones who put the most work into it,” Davidson said.
One of the factors that contributed to his success was his family’s presence during the finals.
“I was satisfied with my own performance, but my biggest comfort while waiting to hear back from the judges was my family’s presence in the room,” Davidson said. “More for them than for myself, I was overjoyed to win and give them something exciting to see.”
Davidson’s speech focused on the economic effects and regulatory overreach of America’s COVID-19 response. He addressed the unsound science behind a lockdown on a nationwide level and explored the larger philosophical issue of the government’s role in deciding the balance between liberty and safety.
“No one should live in a society where the government gives and the government takes away, blessed be the name of the government,” Davidson said, eliciting laughter from the audience.
Davidson went on to describe that it is a government’s responsibility to take an active role in a pandemic but that ultimately, “government should be people’s best and most honorable servant. Our leaders have no right to capitalize on our fear.”
He then proposed that the ideal governmental response to a pandemic would be to assess the threat, present findings on safety to the people, and allow the people to make their own decisions while employing regulatory power to protect the vulnerable. Davidson also suggested that the federal government should have used the funds from the second and third rounds of stimulus checks to advance vaccine research and protect those most at risk.
Tong’s speech took a different approach, citing theological and philosophical responses to a pandemic. He proposed the idea that statewide lockdowns are inefficient and unnecessary, and quoted scientists who feared that lockdowns were being used for social and political control, rather than for the safety of citizens.
Ultimately, Tong said the government’s response in a pandemic is to provide TLC: truth, liberty, and containment. He said the government “needs to bridge the gap between fear and coddling, and that’s truth.” Allowing citizens to know the facts, make a decision about their personal wellbeing, and appropriately using the power of consent to regulate the situation is what a good government should do.
Sampson’s speech focused on the concept of integrity and the government’s twofold purpose: to protect the citizens and ensure their happiness and flourishing. He cited research showing that citizens were unhappy with the pandemic guidelines and how politicians violated their own policies.
Mattis Belloncle’s speech addressed the negative mental, emotional, and economic side effects of government lockdowns. He asserted that the government should “inform, not enforce.”
“If we want to be a truly free nation with liberty and justice for all, that comes with a responsibility,” he said. “That means trusting people to be free.”
During a pandemic, Jean-Luc Belloncle argued, there is an inherent conflict between protecting life and preserving liberty. He contrasted liberty and license by using the analogy of the known risk associated with driving a car.
“There’s a difference between a risk you have accepted and a risk you haven’t accepted,” he said.
Kirstin Kiledal, professor of rhetoric and public address and the competition’s director, noted that the events of the past year impacted the tone of the contest.
“While the competition proceeded much as usual, there was a difference in the atmosphere,” Kiledal said. “The salience of the pandemic to each audience member deepened engagement with the speeches as well as the speakers themselves.”