Wednesday night's debate between conservative pundit Anne Coulter and liberal editor Peter Beinart has no doubt stirred debate on campus, as was most likely its intent. Under the skillful moderation of Political Science professor Deborah Schildkraut, Coulter and Beinart attacked each other's platforms and beliefs on issues ranging from taxes to terrorism and No Child Left Behind to the national debt.
Certainly, it is hard to come up with an ultimate conclusion as to who won Wednesday's debate, and in the spirit of the Lecture Series, I will leave it to the reader to decide. However, it is important to recognize the role of the single most important entity in any debate or forensic event: the audience.
Prior to the debate, I was fearful that the exchange would break down as the frustration many liberals on campus have towards Coulter's views boiled over. We had already seen this occur at another Boston College, where Coulter spoke only a few months earlier. As at any university, people at Tufts have opinions. They care. So what would stop someone from standing up against that which they believe to be wrong? What a true champion against conservative/liberal ideology that person would have been.
Certainly, the University and TUPD (whose presence at the debate was, to say the least, noticeable) realized this potential as well. While at the start of the debate Peter Beinart walked in unescorted, Anne Coulter was accompanied by two body guards, and the police were ready to go. The moderator reiterated the need for free exchange of ideas and opinions in a healthy democratic society prior to the debate. Senior Eitan Hersh called for both debaters to refrain from attacks on parties specifically and focus on the issues.
But hardly a boo or impolite remark was to be heard. While the overall paradigm of the audience was clear, outright rudeness at no point took over. In fact, sharp remarks originated almost exclusively from the opponents (Audience member: I'm getting married, what advice do you have as to how I should relate to my wife; Beinart: You're asking marriage advice from Anne Coulter). It was truly impressive to see the civility with which Tufts students approached the debate, especially considering that practically all of them disagreed with one or maybe both of the speakers at points in the debate.
As any student of Introduction to American Politics can tell you, tolerance is not necessarily allowing for many ideas. Rather, it is the willingness of a society to tolerate members whose views significantly differ from those of the majority. The marketplace of ideas is absolutely essential to providing the necessary discourse to progress in a society. But the United States in general is a very intolerant country.
As Moderator Schildkraut teaches in her own American Politics class, just after Sept. 11, 31 percent of Americans polled favored the internment of American Arab citizens, similar to Japanese internment. 32 percent polled supported surveillance of Arabs after the attack. Clearly, as any member of the Academic Freedom Project will tell you, people are tolerant - of positions with which they agree.
The true measure of a democratic society, ultimately, must be its citizens' ability to trust that, regardless of how radical the position, one idea alone cannot destroy a country. They must understand that an idea (and ideas in general) serves, contrarily, to strengthen a democracy, and that stifling such ideas is counterproductive to democracy's very nature.
We cannot simply stifle the ideas of those with whom we disagree, and the students of Tufts University showed their comprehension of this vital concept to an extent which is, considering the circumstances, extremely impressive.
In the coming days, discussions and written expressions on this debate will be issued and may break down into diatribes or rants. In an environment of free speech, this is almost inevitable. However, I point toward the civility and respect of the students of Tufts as evidence that the University is in good hands. Wednesday's debate was not just an attack on the beliefs of the audience in Cabot Auditorium, it was a challenge of the principles which mold student behavior and belief to its core.
Regardless of whether or not people think Coulter or Beinart won the exchange, the ultimate winner in this debate was the audience. They allowed challenges to their beliefs to be considered and debated internally. They did not get defensive, and instead got analytical.
More importantly though, while so hard to cultivate in many environments, civil discourse ultimately won out in this debate, and credit ought to be given to those who allowed for it, and free exchange, to occur.
Scott Weiner is a freshman who has not yet declared a major.
