WesDems and WesRepubs spar over political issues.
Jeremy Auerbach, Staff Photographer
Students and faculty convened in the Memorial Chapel on Thursday, April 23 to watch an hour-long political debate sponsored by the Wesleyan College Democrats, the Wesleyan College Republicans, and the Government Majors Committee. Moderated by Professor of Economics Richard Adelstein, participants discussed issues ranging from government spending to gay rights. Nat Warner ’17 and Alec Shea ’18 represented the Democratic Party, while Emmakristina Sveen ’17 and Joseph Nucci ’16 represented the Republican Party.
Kevin Winnie ’16, co-chair of the Government Majors Committee, expressed excitement about hosting the debate, since there has been no similar event in recent years.
“Wesleyan students are typically Democrats so there has not been a Republican student group for quite some time,” Winnie wrote in an email to The Argus. “I can only assume that there once was a debate between…Wesleyan Democrat and Republican student group[s], but it would also be really gratifying to say we helped organize the first debate between the Wesleyan Democrats and Republicans.”
The debaters began by defending their beliefs regarding the role of government in American civil society. As the debate gained momentum, the issues grew more contentious. One of the most controversial topics of the afternoon was the gender wage gap; Sveen claimed that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is discriminatory toward women, spurring a rapid back-and-forth dialogue between the two parties.
“What I think is the most discriminatory [thing about] the entire wage gap argument to begin with is that…the legislature is attempting to legislate under the perception that there is a 23-cent wage gap, which is really not accurate,” Sveen said. “They did a study in 2012 with first-year college students, and they tested many women…[and] the real pay gap is six cents.”
Sveen went on to explain some studies she had read, arguing that because female librarians were often compared to male professional athletes (two relatively different professions), the subsequent claim that the average woman makes 77 cents to the man’s dollar is incorrect.
“Personally, as a Democrat and a huge proponent of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, it was hard for me to see [Sveen] oppose the Fair Pay Act, even calling it discriminatory,” said Aimee Jones Wilkerson ’17, an event attendee and the Wesleyan Democrats Communications Coordinator.
Shea disagreed with Sveen’s statement, arguing that the only thing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act intended to do was say that people have a longer period in which they are allowed to sue companies that engage in discriminatory pay practices, and that no civil law was altered in the process.
Another controversial segment of the debate covered the topic of welfare benefits, specifically rising health care costs.
“Pharmaceutical companies have too much liberty and discretion over the prices that they charge,” Warner said. “I think that the easy solution would be to pass a law that says they can’t charge exorbitant prices for simple medical procedures, and I think you’d probably want to do that through, say, the government.”
The discourse then shifted toward the topic of welfare benefits with respect to their accessibility to low-income American citizens.
“The problem with poor people is not…that they are lazy, or of a certain race or education level,” Nucci said. “It’s that they don’t have the money to get the things that we deem acceptable from society. What I don’t understand is…why we can’t just give people more money to go buy [these things]? My question is why do we need the government to regulate this?”
The participants concluded the debate by answering questions from the audience on subjects ranging from the upcoming presidential election to foreign policy. David Lieber ’17 shared his reasoning for attending the event.
“I haven’t been involved in many political activities, and I thought that going to a debate which shows different political facets of the campus engaging in dialogue would be a good start,” Lieber said.
Winnie expressed his enthusiasm for the event organizing process, saying that it was exciting to hear the talk around campus leading up to the debate.
“As I was discussing the implications of this debate with [the candidates], we all knew this event was going to be conspicuous,” Winnie wrote. “Being the chief organizer behind this event, I was excited to see how the Wesleyan community would react.”
Overall, Winnie added that he was pleased with the outcome of the debate.
“I loved hearing the back and forth between the two groups,” he wrote. “Each topic was well contested and I believe the entire debate was fun to watch. If we could change one aspect of the event, I believe that we should have allocated more time as one hour was not enough to get through all our topics.”
Wilkerson was also happy with the way the event turned out.
“I would love to attend another event like this in the future,” Wilkerson said. “I think Wesleyan students tend to think that most students at Wes are staunchly Democrat, but there is an ideological spectrum represented here on campus. We need to do more as a student body to create a comfortable climate for our politically diverse discussions.”
1 Comment
MaleMatters
Re: “They did a study in 2012 with first-year college students, and they tested many women…[and] the real pay gap is six cents.”
That six cents is explained by dynamics that include:
-Because of socialization, men and women generally develop a different psychology regarding money-making. The main difference is that far more women than men can detach earning an income from their self-worth. In marriage, men are expected far more often than women to be either the sole or primary provider. Hence men are far more often burdened with the expectation of attaining success. They know this and deeply internalize it. Far more often than women, men link net-worth to self-worth.
-Far more women than men seek spouses with a high net-worth (hypergamy)
-Far more single women than single men ask prospective dates, “What do you do?” — and then listen more closely to the answer.
-Far more women than men look at a prospective spouse as an “employer” who will pay them to stay at home when they choose to do so.
-“Most women believe what makes a Quality Man is his ability to swoop her off her feet, wine and dine her at the best restaurants around town, and give her presents and a very wealthy lifestyle.” Only a well-off man can do all that. While many women say men pressure them to be sex objects, looking for a “Quality Man” is how a woman can make a man feel pressured to be a success object who earns more than she does and who thus helps perpetuate the gender wage gap that enrages politicized feminists. -Quote is from Huffington Post, January 9, 2015
From:
“Salary Secrecy — Discrimination Against Women?” http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2014/10/27/salary-secrecy-discrimination-against-women/