The
Davidsonian For a Better Davidson.
inside
davidsonian.news
Governor of California Gavin Newsom makes an appearance in Davidson.
Volume 123, Issue 6
October 23, 2024
3
Abby True ‘25 discusses how a flip phone has altered her day-to-day life.
4
Ben Peake ‘25 gives a sneak peak into basketball season.
5
The Yowl unpacks the Great Davidson Debate.
The Great Davidson Debate Makes Grand Return to Campus
HALLE CARNS ‘28 STAFF WRITER CLAIRE KELLY ‘25 (SHE/HER) CO-EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
O
n a crisp, autumnal evening, Davidson community members eagerly gathered between Eumenean and Philanthropic Halls for the renowned Great Davidson Debate. Students mingled amongst each other, consuming snacks and beverages provided by both the Davidson College Democrats and the Davidson College Republicans, before settling into their folded chairs and blankets alike. This historic event occurs once every four years during the United States presidential election season, but it was unable to occur in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This year, however, it was revived once again on Friday, October 18th. The Davidson College Democrats and the Davidson College Republicans debated on four topics: the economy, immigration, reproductive health, and Senate Bill 49 (better known as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill). Center for Political Engagement President Sophia Ludt ‘25 moderated the debate with a handheld microphone amidst the crowd. The debaters aimed to represent their party’s viewpoints and inform the community on their platforms. They also wanted to address the concerns of undecided individuals. “We’re at a point where, for the greater good of our society, we need to find the lesser evil. I wanted to help guide people who felt torn in the way I did towards making that decision [on who to vote for],” Judah Silverman ‘27, who spoke on behalf of the Democrats regarding immigration, said. Silverman explained after the debate that he was originally uncertain about both candidates, but felt he could show undecided voters that they are not alone in their apprehensiveness. “I hope that I reached the voters who were stuck in the middle, because that was me over the summer. I was deeply frustrated with the Biden administration and Donald Trump [...] so I looked really hard for another option, but I couldn’t really find one that felt viable. [...] So I [hope] I was able to reach people as somebody who [initially] came from a more independent [perspective].” Montgomery Krakovitz ‘25, who spoke on behalf of the Republicans regarding Senate Bill 49, wanted to ensure that a conservative voice was heard within the Davidson community. “My main goal was to show other conservative students or conservative-leaning students that they’re not the only ones on campus,” Krakovitz said.
The pressure to conform with the typically leftist political ideas that are common at a small liberal arts college like Davidson had adverse effects on the debate, and some, like Krakovitz, believe that conservative views are often underrepresented. “We [Republicans] knew that we were going into a hostile environment where the crowd was going to be against us,” Krakovitz said. Davidson College Republicans President Stephen Walker ‘26 echoed this statement. “You can disagree with these people, [...] even if they have a crowd there supporting them like it’s an away game. For us, even in that sort of environment, you can still stand up for what you believe in.” Political bias could be seen at various points throughout the debate, including when Brianna Pennington ‘27 took the stage to open for the Democrats on reproductive rights. After her main claim, she was received with a booming round of applause, whereas Alexa Cohen ‘27 received much less audible support for her portion on the Republican side. While the crowd possessed a left lean, audience members were still able to have productive and stimulating conversations. In between rebuttals, student facilitators from the Deliberate Citizenship Initiative (DCI) moderated mini-deliberations among the audience during the discussion periods. “The conversations that I heard around me were very insightful [and] encouraging, and it wasn’t just nitpicky, hateful commentary. People were actually trying to think through the arguments and think through what was going on,” Alana Atnip ‘27 said. Some students expressed displeasure with the break in the action that the mini-deliberations provided. “The breaks felt unnecessary and forced, which took time away from the speakers, the main draw of the debate. There was ample time after to discuss,” Paul Skok ‘25 said. “I wish they had used that time for extra topics.” The critiques didn’t end there. “I wish each question that was asked could [have been] answered by both sides,” Mike Hodgson ‘25 stated. Hodgson posed a question on immigration to Republican representative Ian Anderson ‘26, inquiring, “What do you say to me, an international student who loves this country, and has paid taxes on every job and internship I’ve had and wants to stay? How are Republicans encouraging and increasing legal immigration to benefit the United States?” Anderson responded with a personal anecdote about his time living in Dubai for three years, and even acknowledged that “Donald Trump admittedly might not be the answer to the [country’s] immigration problem.” After the debate, Anderson confessed that while he could have added a more substan-
8
It has been eight years since the Davidson community has gathered to watch the Great Davidson Debate. Photo by Clyde Dwyer’25.
tive response, such as Donald Trump’s plan to give green cards to all international students, he wanted to empathize with members of the audience to transcend the question. “I wanted to provide a unique perspective [that] a lot of people that go to this college as Americans have not had,” he stated. “A lot of people have not had the opportunity to live in another country, and it’s allowed me to realize things that many people have not appreciated or discovered about their identity and about the country.” Aidan Dimitriou ‘25 posed a question to Silverman, also on immigration, inquiring as to “what Kamala Harris would do about illegal immigration rather than legal immigration.” Silverman, who responded by setting the scene of a migrant escaping danger in their home country to listeners, concluded that “the problem is that we need to make legal immigration accessible, rather than make it all illegal [and] make America inaccessible,” he stated. In a two hour debate, not all topics that are often covered during this election cycle were touched on. Walker gave some insight as to how the groups chose what to debate on. “It’s hard to get to the bottom of so many topics in so little time and there were a ton of [topics] like foreign policy that [...] people really want to hear about,” he admitted. “But we just had to settle on some things [...] because the real goal of this was getting people to engage politically, and having the DCI there to get people to really reflect that back and forth with each other [...] was an important way to do that.” In the following days, the organizers of the event felt satisfied with the results overall. “I
think something that really struck me is [that] people were really receptive to a lot of the information that we were giving,” Davidson College Democrats President Kailliou Macon-Goudeau ‘25 added afterwards. Walker too echoed this statement. “Obviously, a lot of work went into preparing, and I think you just saw a lot of really hard-working people getting to engage with each other. And although it was brief, I hope people enjoyed that,” he stated. Debaters on the Republican side, such as Krakovitz, are also optimistic for the political participation of those in attendance. “It’s good that there will hopefully be some students who heard what we had to say from the conservative perspective who now feel less isolated in their views than they did before,” Krakovitz said. This debate signified not only a historical moment in time for the country as a whole, but also a unification among a close-knit campus in a contentious time. “This is definitely good for our campus culture [...] I feel like as Davidson students, we can all look past [different opinions] and [accept] that we all have differing views,” Student Government Association Senator Chidindu Ohaegbulam ‘28 said. Despite the judgment that can come with expressing opinions, they contribute toward the continued growth of the Davidson College community. “Be willing to let yourself be uncomfortable. [Search] for that discomfort, because you will grow more than ever,” Silverman asserted.
Conversation with President Hicks Highlights Administrative Priorities, Student Concerns
O
LUNA NOGUCHI ‘25 (SHE/HER) STAFF WRITER
n Monday, October 14th, the Student Government Association (SGA) held a conversation with President Doug Hicks ‘90 in the Lilly Family Gallery. The discussion gave students the opportunity to share their thoughts with President Hicks about various topics, including upcoming library renovations and community-based inconsistencies. SGA Senator and Chair of the Food & Housing Committee Abigail Przynosch ‘27 reflected on her expectations for the event. “I was really hoping for students to come in and feel comfortable to ask any questions they might have for the administration, and allow for increased transparency between the administration and President Hicks and the student body.” SGA President Connor Hines ‘26 and Vice President Maya Rajeh ‘27 facilitated the discussion. They began with pre-
prepared questions, followed by an open floor discussion among students in attendance. “As your Student Government Association, our role is to represent the voices of students, and we also want to provide these forums for direct feedback,” Hines said as an introduction to the event. Hines gathered topics and interests from SGA senators to prepare a set of ten questions before the event. Before answering these, President Hicks reflected on his love for his alma mater and reiterated his commitment to having studentoriented conversations. “It’s an honor and a privilege for me to be president of my own alma mater, and I remember sitting where you’re sitting talking to President [John] Kuykendall in this room [...] I’m so energized and happy to be here,” President Hicks said. The first question challenged President Hicks on initiatives to protect the integrity of the Honor Code—an issue at the forefront of students’ minds given the recent influx of
violations on campus. “How has the honor system changed since your time at Davidson, and how can we play a more active role in promoting academic integrity?” Hines asked. President Hicks acknowledged the broad social challenge of upholding an honor code in recent years. To this point, he called on students to reflect on their own relationship to the Honor Code. Students, President Hicks suggested, could not have a functioning honor code if they themselves didn’t believe in it. “For an honor code to work, you need responsibility and trust across the entire campus,” President Hicks stated. As the event progressed, President Hicks was pressed on topics ranging from Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives to ways to combat economic disparity within the college community. On supporting first-generation college students, Hicks reiterated the salience of programs giving
CONTINUED ON PAGE 2