“Should biological men compete in women’s sports?” Thomas McKenna asked. Caroline Kurt | Collegian

“Do you believe that biological males should be allowed to compete in women’s sports?” Thomas McKenna asked. 

The large auditorium went silent. 

“Don’t answer that,” a student in the crowd said. 

It was Tuesday, April 15. The Red Cedar Law Review, an undergraduate journal of law and politics at Michigan State University, was moderating a debate between the College Democrats and College Republicans of the university. 

McKenna, a junior and the City News editor of The Collegian, was examining the two College Democratic debaters in the final segment of the night: whether the Trump administration’s efforts to combat certain diversity, equity, and inclusion practices have been a good thing. After 20 minutes of debate about affirmative-action issues, McKenna switched the focus to another facet of DEI. 

“Why are you asking this question?” Braxton Maduka, one Democrat debater, asked.

“Because it’s an equity issue that the Trump administration is dealing with,” McKenna said. “Should biological men be allowed to compete in women’s sports?”

“I think that this is not a very relevant issue,” Alana Mick, the other debater, said. “There’s very few, like, biological men—”

“I’m sorry, you’re not answering the question,” McKenna said. “Should biological men be allowed to compete in women’s sports?”

“I think trans women should be able to,” Mick said. 

The audience cheered and applauded. 

The debate, which drew upwards of 150 attendees from MSU and other local universities, covered four resolutions: DEI initiatives, a federal assault-weapons ban, rent control as an effective means to control urban housing costs, and additional enforcement to reduce illegal immigration. Alex Garcia, president of the Red Cedar Law Review, reached out to The Collegian when he was unable to source a conservative examiner for the Democrat debaters.

Garcia said he was happy with how the majority of the debate went. 

“We hope that having structured dialogue in public, where people are standing behind their opinions in an intelligent way, will improve the political climate on campus and will make this campus a more intellectually enriching place,” Garcia said. “For our first time organizing a debate, it wasn’t bad.” 

Sinan Lal, the liberal examiner of the Republican debaters and co-founder of the Red Cedar Law Review, said his love for political conversation was shaped by his background. A native of one of the most Republican counties in Michigan, St. Clair, Lal said he has had a lot of contact with conservatives. 

“I think the stigma around talking about politics is stupid. I think it’s terrible,” Lal said. “Politics is fundamentally how you view the world, and talking about that with each other is really progressive, really constructive.”

Leah Willingham, a student at MSU who attended the debate, said she was not sure what to expect. 

“I thought it might get a little uncivilized,” Willingham said. “A little bit snippy. And it definitely was at parts. There was definitely a lot of audience heckling that I wasn’t expecting.”

Willingham said while she generally agrees with liberals, neither side of the debate compelled her. 

“I’m going to be honest,” Willingham said. “I was a little disappointed with the Democrats’ performance.”

Willingham said she is on the MSU Moot Court Association and has experience in debate. 

“I don’t think the arguments that the Democrats chose were the strongest for appealing to, not just the Republican team that they’re against, but also the larger audience of people they wanted to persuade,” Willingham said. “They chose a lot of arguments that were targeted toward already progressive people and didn’t really meet halfway.”

Willingham likewise offered criticism of the Republicans’ debate strategy. 

“The Republican teams focused too much on national sovereignty and patriotism to matter to me,” Willingham said. “That doesn’t really appeal to my moral compass.”

Though Willingham said she would consider herself left-leaning, she sided with the Republicans on the rent control segment. 

“Rent control just isn’t a good idea economically,” Willingham said. “That was my thinking in terms of what I’ve learned in my macro- and microeconomics classes. Basic economics supports that rent control isn’t the best way to approach the issue.”

During the rent control segment, McKenna had pressed the Democrat debaters on the idea of universal price controls. 

“You’ve argued that the government should be able to fix rent prices at lower levels, and so to get to the heart of your economic thinking, I want to ask about price controls on other goods,” McKenna said. “The price of eggs right now is extraordinarily high. Do you think that the government should be fixing the prices of things so that people who might not be able to afford eggs at $5 a carton can afford them at $2 a carton?”

The two Democratic debaters turned and whispered to each other.

“They absolutely should,” said Kai Baltes, a Democratic debater. 

“What about cars?” McKenna said. “Should we put price controls on cars to make them cheaper?”

“Cars in general?” Baltes said. 

“Yeah, let’s say cars in general,” McKenna said. 

“Sure,” Baltes said. 

“OK, so which goods should the government not put price controls on?” McKenna said. 

“This gets into the debate of capitalism, and whether or not it’s very effective at determining what the price of the good really should be,” Baltes said. 

“So you would rather legislators in Lansing, for example, decide the price of eggs in Michigan, decide the rent that you pay, rather than you making a voluntary exchange with your landlord?” McKenna said.

Baltes replied that the government should only intervene when a substantial issue exists, and McKenna proceeded to question him on government zoning laws being the reason housing market issues exist.

In a heated moment of a later segment on illegal immigration, Democrat debater Rowan Vail Mauldin explained his theory of political affiliation. 

“What you’re seeing here is a lot of bullsh*t fear mongering,” Mauldin said. “But if I were interested in that, I wouldn’t be a Democrat.”