ICC Hosts Freedom of Speech Debate in Cayton Center
(From Left to Right) At Political Arena. Natalie Lim Inter-Club Counsel Chair hosts Vice President of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) Yusef Brooks (middle) and Ben Huttle (blurred on the right) from Santa Monica College’s debate team Thursday Nov. 14 th , 2019. 2 nd Floor of the Cayton Center, Santa Monica College, Santa Monica, Calif. (Randy Martinez / The Corsair)
The Inter-Club Council (ICC)-hosted Political Arena debate drew a large audience to the Santa Monica College (SMC) Cayton Center on Thursday, Nov. 14, with students filling almost every seat. At 11:15 a.m., all heads turned to ICC Chair Natalie Lim as she announced the debate topic over the loudspeaker: freedom of speech.
Two perspectives of the first amendment manifested in the form of left-leaning Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) member Yusef Brooks and right-leaning SMC Speech and Debate club member Ben Huttler.
Serving as the moderator, Lim described the guidelines for the rest of the debate after opening statements: each debater had two minutes to discuss the question presented by Lim, with two minutes to respond to any cross-examination questions from their opponent. A total of eight questions covered specific issues regarding the First Amendment, from the use of racial slurs in classrooms to the burning of the American flag.
Both Brooks and Huttler reached an overall middle ground on their respective opinions throughout the debate with little to no arguments against each other. The biggest difference in opinion appeared in Lim’s last question: “Do you think SMC provides a safe space for students to express their political views?”
“I’m going to be frank, I don’t have a lot of experience with any sort of problems with expressing my viewpoints here,” Huttler confessed. “The fact that I can even be up here, expressing viewpoints, that’s already a good sign.”
Brooks shared a starkly different experience compared to his opponent.
“Santa Monica College has been very limited in their manner of protecting students for their viewpoints. There have been multiple instances of blacklisting of Santa Monica students for their viewpoints, conflating, lying about students, and these things continuously have been occurring,” said Brooks. “I’m not sure if it does its best to protect its clubs and its students.”
With no cross-examination from either debater, Lim attempted to conclude the debate. She was interrupted by A.S. Director of Budget Management Skander Zmerli, who asked for an opportunity to question Brooks.
Lim agreed, explaining to the audience, “I did not plan for this at all, and I’m trying not to freak out.”
Zmerli asked Brooks, “Did you feel unsafe at some point while expressing yourself?” As Brooks nodded yes, Zmerli urged him to elaborate.
“There’s a lot that goes on here at Santa Monica College… Members [of SJP] have been harassed… including me,” said Brooks. “Some people’s viewpoints are so extreme that they cannot hear when someone counters them.”
The Political Arena followed last semester’s debate titled “Left, Right, and Center” hosted by 2018 ICC Chair Paniz Karimpour. With the Political Arena being Lim’s first hosted debate, she had a new vision for this semester’s event organization.
“I just wanted this to be kind of an educational experience for people,” said Lim. “Political debates are how a lot of people learn about politics… so to not continue that would be devastating.”
Lim intended for Political Arena to be much more controlled compared to Left, Right, and Center. With only one microphone, one topic, and a moderate choice of debaters, Political Arena encompassed a calmer atmosphere than that of the event’s predecessor.
“Compared to the last debate, this one we had a lot more in common than the previous and we seemed to reach more of an understanding,” reflected Brooks. “I expected to argue with someone who was right-wing or far-right, but was surprised to find that was not the case.”
For future debates, Brooks hopes for “more audience questions, and maybe just a more controversial topic”. Lim expresses similar goals moving forward.
“I think a debate about immigration is a possibility…I really think people really want to talk about [women’s rights], so I think a debate about reproductive rights is definitely in the future,” said Lim. “There might be a couple fiery more topics...because I feel like that’s what people want.”