The Great Debate is a series that began in 2007, pitting
historically black colleges against Ivy League schools in public debates on
socially relevant topics. It was
inspired by the movie, The Great Debaters, which recounts the story of a debate
during the Jim Crow 1930s between the historically black Wiley College and
Harvard (in reality it was against USC who, as the reigning champions of the
day, were beaten by Wiley in that encounter). Yesterday, one of these debates was held in Harlem between
Columbia University and Howard University.
The First Corinthian Baptist Church, an ornate and grand building which began its life as Regents Theater, a 1913 movie palace, stands in Harlem, at the intersection of Adam Clayton Powell Jr. Blvd. and 115th. Street. Wide pavements and elegant buildings blend together celebrating this city’s magnificence and offering a pointer to what this city must have looked like a hundred years ago. It was here that the debate was held, in front of a packed house, and for the first time outside of a college campus.
The First Corinthian Baptist Church, an ornate and grand building which began its life as Regents Theater, a 1913 movie palace, stands in Harlem, at the intersection of Adam Clayton Powell Jr. Blvd. and 115th. Street. Wide pavements and elegant buildings blend together celebrating this city’s magnificence and offering a pointer to what this city must have looked like a hundred years ago. It was here that the debate was held, in front of a packed house, and for the first time outside of a college campus.
Half an hour prior to the start, the theater was mostly
filled. Local political bosses and
community representatives milled around the auditorium front, trying to stay
out of the way of the sound and lights guys putting their final touches on the
arrangements. Mr. John Liu, the New York City Comptroller arrived with perfect
hair and a radiant smile, shaking hands, patting arms, exchanging small talk in
the way seasoned bureaucrats do.
The afternoon began on time, at 3:30, with rousing speeches by
the president of the NAACP and the church pastor. They were strong, fluid, emotional
messages that could get the hair on one’s skin to stand up. They extolled the importance of debate,
of intellectual argument, of education. The crowd responded with passion. It was a very different New York City,
one that I was much less familiar with, and a sharp departure from the dressed in
black “what’s-in-it-for-me” Manhattan, and the “where is my favorite barista”
Manhattan (barristers seeking baristas). Voter registration booths and college
information desks had been set up in the foyer outside. It was a Saturday afternoon, and over a
thousand people were here to listen to a debate between college students.
One of the privileges of being an immigrant is that even
after nearly thirty years in the country, you can still take an outsider’s far
field view. Today, this view
brought to focus the media’s indifference towards this community on subjects
that fall outside of stereotypes.
I scanned Google news the next morning and found not a single item in a
major city newspaper that described the event. In this city’s distorted social circus, a large and relevant
gathering of debate enthusiasts organized by the NAACP and attended by so many
from near and far, with some members of the audience bused in from as far as
Connecticut, takes a backseat to noting in print, inconsequential marriages
between the children of the city’s bankers and corporate captains.
Mr Liu got things rolling and gave an upbeat address: the
teams he said would debate important issues. His reliance on generic terms and autopilot speech led me to
wonder whether he actually knew what the topic of the debate was.
After his speech, Mr. Liu shook a few more hands and left
the building. The
debate started. There were two motions for the afternoon’s oratory—the
appropriateness of the stop and frisk practice; and whether hand gun control
was necessary. The stop and frisk law is in effect in New York City, where a
police officer can frisk someone based simply upon suspicion. Over 90% of those searched are Blacks
and Hispanics and a majority of them wind up being unnecessary. It is a tinderbox of a topic. The Columbia University team spoke
against the practice. Howard
University supported it. The situation here was a bit difficult. Columbia was
the “home school” with its Harlem location, yet it was part of a bevy of elite
ivy colleges where over 40% of admissions are from private schools. Them lecturing Howard on the perils of
stop and frisk could be interpreted as surrealistic, but the Howard speaker
reminded the audience in his opening speech that this was an intellectual
debate, the crowd was fair and focused, and the playing field for the opponents
remained level. The exchanges were
eloquent, the moderator was funny, and there were sharp parries and rebuttals
with, at times, interesting inversions.
Following a rhetoric filled Columbia salvo, an exasperated Howard
University debater noted that he did not need a lecture on racism.
Upon conclusion of the debate the stage turned into a melee
of photograph taking, and there was a warmth in the proceedings that is hard to
find. The large circle of photographers clicked away as middle school debaters
and members of the audience posed with the participants and the moderator. A
lone Bangladeshi reporter wandered around looking lost. He was an independent journalist and
was going to file a report.
A reception for the speakers was held before the debate
began. The president of the NAACP, the charismatic Mr. Benjamin Jealous was
there. He beckoned a Columbia
debater towards him. “I can’t let
you represent my alma mater wearing your tie like that”. And then proceeded to re-knot the young
man’s tie. It was a moment that the
young man will remember for many years to come.
