Yeshiva University Impeaches the President
I tried to restrain myself from blogging about Yeshiva University twice in a row. This post is proof that the duct tape and bondage were unsuccessful. Tonight six students argued in front of the university (or those in the university who chose to attend) for or against the impeachment of George W. Bush. The first-place prize was around 700 dollars. The title was the Langfan Constitutional Oratory Competition.
What’s news is that this bastion and stronghold of right-wing ideology had a 50% division between students arguing for and against the impeachment. This was not a calculated sample, but a representation of the students who chose to participate. That means that 3 of the 6 speakers argued that our adorable president’s offenses (or president’s adorable offenses?) were worse than those of Nixon and Clinton. Those arguing for the impeachment cited the FISA wiretapping scandal, the lies regarding WMD’s in Iraq, and the unlawful use of torture. The ones arguing against tending to try to rally the judges around the flag.
The winner of the competition, which may be even more important to contextualize the possible shift of religious Jewish politics, was a student arguing for the impeachment of the President. Unfortunately, the speeches were poorly attended, leading me to conclude that more than radical right-wing politics, apathy is the bane at Yeshiva University.
Such careless generalizations about YU from supposedly forward-thinking progressives.
Is not attending a rally about such an absurd topic as impeachment really a show of apathy?
crap! so sorry i missed it!!!
(BTW i am anything but apathetic, I am actually pathetic that i care about what goes on at YU. my availability to even attend such events at this point is a geographical hazard due to cheap rent).
I would have ;oved to give that student a standing ovation.
Its good to know there are some intelligent free thinking jewish kids at my alma mater.
I don’t know how debates work elsewhere, but the way they worked in the public speaking class that was a requirement when I went to YU was that you had to prepare to argue both sides of a question (two sets of index cards), and only at the debate would you find out which side you were on. Now it wouldn’t surprise me if the next generation of the people who used complain about having to look at crosses and breasts in the required course in art are now moaning about how the debate forces students to consider that there are two sides to each issue. But debates probably still work this way, so this doesn’t even show that there are three students who actually support impeachment, only that there are six (plus the audience) who don’t consider holding an academic debate of the subject treason.
I don’t even know if the students picked the topic themselves.
Maybe the next debate could be “Are people who hold left-of-center views traitors”? Now personally, I do not believe that such people are necessarily traitors, but hey, there are two sides to every issue.
Yes, just like with John Kerry and the Swift Boat thing. Two sides. Totally worth debating.
Next up, does Hillary Clinton eat babies? We’ll debate both sides of this important question.
Can you prove that she doesn’t eat babies? 🙂
Warren, the students – who I asked after – were able to choose their own topics. I spoke to the moderator, and he said that the percentages were totally a surprise, and were not planned whatsoever.
Mordy, are you saying that the debaters subscribed to the positions they held during the debate? Those for impeachment actually were in favor of it (and could therefore argue for it convincingly) and the same for those against?
yeah i agree with the dude who said the fact that this was poorly attended doesn’t indicate apathy. It just means that maybe people were doing more important or maybe more fun stuff. I don’t usually go to such debates at my school, mostly cause everyone gets all militant and stuff. Doesn’t mean I’m apathetic, just means I’d rather be studying Torah or playing my guitar or chillin with my homies.
Cipher; yes. As far as I could tell, and as far as the partcipants were willing to tell me. Of course, there is the other significant fact that the first-place winner (ie: the person YU chose as having presented the best argument) was pro-impeachment.