Hillsdale College enjoyed a special opportunity last week to think through one of the most disputed subjects of our time: Gay marriage. Because the event, sponsored by The Lyceum, the Symposium, and Young Americans for Freedom, was a debate rather than a lecture, it challenged students’ beliefs and put their classroom instruction to practical use.
In a packed room at the Dow Center, the college hosted John Corvino, Wayne State University Philosophy Professor, and Sherif Girgis, Ph.D. candidate in Philosophy at Princeton University and J.D. candidate at Yale University, to debate the meaning of marriage and whether its definition should include non-traditional unions such as gay marriage. Corvino, a supporter of gay marriage, challenged Girgis, who opposes it.
The debate sparked conversation among the student body. Students opined in the cafeteria, in the Collegian, and on Yik Yak. Objections emerged about both speakers and their beliefs, and students discussed accordingly.
Although the debate may have changed a few minds, that was not its point. Instead, in arranging the debate, the college sought the truth in how it teaches students to search. Rather than pretending to have the answer, the debate between Corvino and Girgis was an exercise in humble exploration.
We need more of it.
Too often, our comforting academic bubble can blind us to practical application of our learning. While lengthy discussion about the ideas of various philosophers or the meaning of “the good” can both edify and enlighten, we must also remember to apply these lessons to the real situations we will face upon graduation.
Most topics we debate in the “real world” will not involve whether Plato or Aristotle offers the best understanding of existence. Instead, they will concern gay marriage, feminism, abortion, the environment, foreign affairs, and the federal deficit. College is a place of preparation for mind, body, and spirit — and, one hopes, for interacting with others on issues like these respectfully.
The debate between Corvino and Girgis helped to prepare students for just that. Rather than treating the question of non-traditional marriage as obviously answered, the debate allowed the speakers to communicate their beliefs to teach people how to defend theirs, helping students better know the topic, decide where they stand, or logically reinforce their viewpoints.
They succeeded. The debate encouraged participation and challenged students to put what they know to the test and to examine it critically and honestly. The exchange between freshman JoAnna Kroeker and junior Emma Vinton on the Opinions page last week exemplified such sincere interaction with real issues. The discussion was so thoughtful that The Washington Post website quoted from and linked to both pieces earlier this week.
Rarely in Hillsdale do we experience much push-back against our fundamental beliefs; seldom are we thrust beyond our comfort zone. Hillsdale including debates in forums like the CCAs, at least when the topic lends itself to the format, might challenge us more. There have been several opportunities for this. At the World War I CCA, for instance, a debate about whether the war was worth fighting would have enlightened. A debate at the energy CCA about whether global warming threatens our future could have raised awareness. A debate on liberal media bias at the American Journalism CCA would have been relevant.
By hosting more debates, Hillsdale can encourage us to be critical as we are taught every day to be. By supporting the discussion of other controversial topics in a civil environment, the college can inspire us to be the “truth seekers” it prides itself on producing. By inviting conversation about the disconnects students may feel on campus, we can broaden our worldviews by putting our knowledge to intelligent and well-argued use and continuing to interact with opposing thoughts and ideas in a respectful way.
The only thing not up for debate at this point is whether we should have more of them: The answer is yes, and we can’t get started soon enough.
