• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Photo

Panelist Kyle Kleckner of the Bruin Democrats speaks during a debate Wednesday between the Bruin

Though topics at the quarterly debate between the Bruin Republicans and Bruin Democrats Wednesday ranged from nuclear proliferation to poverty, what students seemed to care most about is something that hits closer to home – professors.

In the debate in the De Neve Auditorium, which lasted close to two hours, panelists representing majors from economics to engineering focused on current issues, discussing Iran, K-12 education, poverty and academic freedom.

“People are misinformed about what conservatives are doing and what their goals are,” said Faith Christiansen, chairwoman of the Bruin Republicans, explaining why she thinks this type of debate is so important on campus.

Bringing up the recent controversy over UCLA alumnus Andrew Jones’ Web site revealing the “Dirty 30” – his picks of the 30 most radical professors at UCLA – panelists presented a discussion that proved to be a fierce topic.

Student panelists speaking for both Bruin Democrats and Republicans agreed that professors’ opinions that are irrelevant to their classes shouldn’t be expounded, and when hiring a professor his or her political viewpoint should not be taken into account.

But the two sides differed in how to deal with the problem of professor bias in classrooms, saying there are already sufficient oversights in place to keep professors in check.

Kyle Kleckner, who spoke for the Bruin Democrats, added that even these radical professors are few and far between.

But before addressing this familiar issue, which drew the most interest from students, panelists discussed more global issues.

“It is good to see students argue about topics ... that are important outside UCLA,” said Marwa Kaisey, a third-year neuroscience student who attended the debate.

Though the Bruin Democrats and Bruin Republicans are staunchly opposed on how to best handle these political issues, they found some common ground during the debate. Both groups discussed decreasing poverty, rehabilitating an underperforming school system, upholding professor and student freedoms, and ways to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

With regard to Iran, the panelists representing Bruin Republicans promoted diplomacy to deal with the regime, such as commitment to the replacement of current leadership, rather than war.

But Greg Wannier, a fourth-year political science student and panelist for the Bruin Democrats, presented a very different solution. Economic sanctions, on the part of all countries trading with Iran, is the best way to approach the issue, he said.

And if the situation did come down to war – which panelists from both Bruin Republicans and Bruin Democrats conceded was possible – Wannier said it must be a “multilateral, internationally manned war.”

In response to the proposition that the United States should initiate regime change in Iran, Wannier said this was not a viable solution because regimes are so difficult to hold in place.

“Regime change (in Iran) is deja vu,” said Kaisey, who was born in Iraq, referring to comparisons to the political situation facing Iraq.

The two groups of students also offered their opposing solutions to how to ease the pain of poverty in much of the world.

Rajan Trehan, a panelist for the Bruin Republicans, stressed the importance of work and independence. “It is insulting to tell impoverished people that they need the government to live,” he said.

But the Bruin Democrats responded by emphasizing the importance of welfare programs and how these can help aid people in need.