If you combined two of Princeton’s three most popular A.B. majors — SPIA and Politics — you could nearly fill McCosh 50. With so many students taking courses about politics and policy, one might expect the American Whig-Cliosophic Society senate — the Society’s home of parliamentary-style debate — to be a vibrant center of debate on campus. Yet the benches of the senate chamber frequently lie empty.
It’s admirable to major in a political field and be a student who keeps up with the news or learns about current events in class. But debating is integral to learning how to not only defend your own positions but also learn from others and strengthen your own perspective. As the president of the Whig-Clio senate, I’ve seen how dialogue provides that opportunity — and Princetonians need to take advantage of it.
The senate exists to serve as a major hub of political, philosophical, and cultural discourse on campus. Our two versus two parliamentary debates are open to all students to volunteer as official debaters, and each debate contains an unmoderated discussion period and the opportunity for attendees to give speeches on their positions. All attendees also vote to determine the outcome of the debate.
I expect that I’d be hard-pressed to find people who disapprove of the senate’s mission of encouraging discourse. But we know that Princetonians are hard-pressed for time. In writing about his involvement with campus activism, my colleague Isaac Barsoum argued last semester that it is busyness rather than apathy that detracts from Princetonians’ political engagement.
Especially for the SPIA and Politics majors, debate and dialogue are worth a spot on that busy schedule.
The senate is a safe environment in which to test your thinking on political, philosophical, and cultural issues, take intellectual risks, and expand your perspective.
According to its constitution, the Senate seeks to create a forum for the free exchange of ideas through respectful and constructive dialogue. Through debate unshackled by the confines of one class’s focus and parameters, we learn to defend our strongest convictions and we become more comfortable with changing our minds. Indeed, the Senate’s lack of a pedagogical agenda allows participants greater freedom in the reasoning behind their argumentation and also substance of the argumentation itself.
Of course, there are other forums of valuable discourse and dialogue on campus. Activist groups, publications like the Princeton Political Review, and SPIA all stimulate intellectually dynamic political spaces.
The senate, however, is unique in its consistency, accessibility, and institutional neutrality. Debates are frequent and open to any Princetonian — not just official speakers — to make arguments or listen and learn from participants. Both the political left and right are represented, and issues range from public policy to cultural norms to philosophical ideals. And, perhaps most importantly, the senate is free from the influence of the University, the focus of individual courses, or political bias in general.
But it’s not just on students to engage with the senate; it’s a responsibility of the senate to operate a compelling program.
Last semester, the senate focused specifically on nonpartisan policy matters. While turning down the temperature on our polarized political environment can encourage civility and emphasize consensus, it is imperative that the senate embrace the tension of divisive issues and nonetheless remain committed to civil discourse. Encouraging Princetonians to defend their positions with ardor and simultaneously listen to opposition with respect builds skills in our nation’s burgeoning leaders.
Ameliorating the contempt that exists between left and right, however, remains a goal of the Whig-Clio senate. Along with traditional debates, we will also host negotiation summits this semester. These exercises will bring the Whig and Clio — the liberal and conservative caucuses — together around a table and dinner to build compromise and solutions to the issues that they have debated in the senate chamber.
The senate is also planning to focus on topics that are relevant to contemporary discourse and interesting to wider swaths of our campus community. We’ll engage more directly with campus activist groups to bring their unique perspectives into the senate chamber, and we’ll host policy experts to see professionals in action and learn about recent developments in their fields.
And such collaboration can extend outside of the politics of the senate. Last year, my colleague Raf Basas made a case for “organizing that’s fun,” in the vein of Zohran Mamdani’s electrified mayoral campaign. Herein, I make a case for dialoguing that’s fun.
Some of my closest relationships, both in high school and within my first months at Princeton, have arisen from intellectual debates. While spending time on reading and writing for classes, extracurricular activities, and personal enrichment is invaluable, engaging in live dialogue allows you to adjust your thinking real-time, recognize the common humanity and good will of your opposition, and even create lasting bonds across (or along!) ideological lines.
As a community, Princetonians — especially politically engaged Princetonians — must commit to defending our positions and challenging our ideologies through civil discourse. And the Whig-Clio senate is where that commitment can start. I hope I’ll see you at our first debate of the semester, where we’ll debate the abolition of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement in the United States, at 5 p.m. on Wednesday.
Ian Rosenzweig is a prospective SPIA major from Bryn Mawr, Pa. He is an assistant Opinion editor for the ‘Prince’ and the president of the senate at the American Whig-Cliosophic Society. This piece reflects his personal beliefs, not the positions of the Society. You can reach him at ir2411[at]princeton.edu.
Read More
Why the Honor Code doesn’t work
Shane McCauleyPrinceton should work toward implementing an honor code that is integral to student identity, not just a perfunctory pledge that we memorize and write on the first page of our exams.
Princeton should work toward implementing an honor code that is integral to student identity, not just a perfunctory pledge that we memorize and write on the first page of our exams.
By the way, on Feb. 9, you can ask President Eisgruber anything
Isaac BarsoumA question for Eisgruber about dining, divestment, international student protections, research funding, mental health, or any of the many other issues facing our community has the chance, however small, to prompt an actual change in the University’s course of action over the coming year.
A question for Eisgruber about dining, divestment, international student protections, research funding, mental health, or any of the many other issues facing our community has the chance, however small, to prompt an actual change in the University’s course of action over the coming year.
Federal agents killed two civilians. Princeton must speak up, not remain silent.
Raf BasasThe University must speak out against the threat of ICE: it poses a genuine risk to our community, and represents an unapologetic governmental disregard for free speech that directly violates the very principles on which Princeton stakes itself as a defender of discourse.
The University must speak out against the threat of ICE: it poses a genuine risk to our community, and represents an unapologetic governmental disregard for free speech that directly violates the very principles on which Princeton stakes itself as a defender of discourse.