This past Wednesday, students, professors, and faculty alike attended Middle Grounds’s “Faculty Debate: The State of Politics in America” with Professors Allan Stam and David Leblang, moderated by Professor Mary Kate Cary. Allan Stam is the University Professor of Public Policy and Politics at the Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy at UVA. He was the former communications specialist for the US Army Special Forces with expertise in war outcomes, durations, mediation, and alliance politics. David Leblang is the Ambassador Henry J. Taylor Endowed Professor of Politics and Professor of Public Policy. He is also the Miller Center’s Director of Policy Studies and specializes in global migration and the politics of financial markets. This debate covered a diverse range of topics related to the current political atmosphere in the United States, from the recent gubernatorial election to illegal immigration.
The debate began with an ice breaker question: “Who is your favorite founding mother?” Professor Stam replied with Abigail Adams, whom he argued was not only a “great mother [and] great spouse” but someone “whose contributions to the US Constitution are underappreciated.” Professor Leblang’s response was “the founding mother of the state of Israel, a role model for men and women…putting nation before her family and personal career.”
The following question was: “Where do you draw the line with Mamdani?”, alluding to Zohran Mamdani’s recent NYC mayoral victory. Professor Leblang argued that although he “doesn’t know what Mamdani’s policies are separate from his politics,” he has “really good educational policies.” Leblang also briefly mentioned that both “Democrats and Republicans have a lot to learn from Trump’s 2016 campaign,” which won him the Presidential election. Professor Stam explained how Mamdani’s political campaign worked; for example, “Mamdani carried whites, Asians, and young voters” on a significantly greater margin compared to other competing candidates. However, “the Constitution has requirements that Mamdani doesn’t meet.” Meanwhile, Stam also argued that Mamdani’s “policies or retributive promises are outrageous,” referring to the likelihood of successfully implementing free transportation and government-run grocery stores.
The preceding question was, “How do you see Trump’s tariff programs affecting the economy and political landscape?” Professor Stam took the pro-tariff approach, arguing that free trade is a great idea — but the problem is that “every trading country cheats in a major way, using China’s subsidization of labor as an example of a “national security issue.” Professor Leblang agreed with his statement to an extent, but argued that we “must protect industries that are strategically important,” as “there are only ‘winners’ and ‘losers.’” He added that “tariffs across the board are good,” but have “an overall negative effect on consumption and economic growth.”
The professors were asked, “Where do you draw the line on disqualifying for office?” Professor Leblang used the recent Jay Jones scandal, which included violent text messages expressing anti-conservative sentiments, to support his claim that whether or not Jay Jones’ actions were disqualifying is “irrelevant” and that he personally “doesn’t know” if it is. Professor Stam argued that Spanberger’s failure to condemn his behavior is “deplorable” after she said “there shouldn’t be a body that should restrict Jones from running.” He was “deeply saddened that voters didn’t hold him accountable” in condemnation of political violence.
Polarization in political violence was the next topic. Stam argued that polarization has been an issue for both parties, although it’s “safe for progressives” to freely attack conservatives with no consequence. Both Professors also agreed that social media has only added fuel to the fire, as an “accelerant to polarization,” according to Leblang.
The next topic in question was ICE and its detainees, on which Professor Leblang argued that “in many cases, ICE is violating Due Process by having no probable cause when targeting people who look like foreigners.” Leblang also mentioned that “we’ve never had uncontrolled borders,” and that “undocumented immigration benefits [him]” financially, since to quash illegal immigration would result in price surges, and he “doesn’t want to pay more” for cheap goods. Contrarily, Professor Stam says, “if you are here illegally, you are a criminal,” and “the biggest problem for the US is uncontrolled immigration.” He argues, “not one country tolerates uncontrolled immigration across borders”; therefore, why should the US tolerate it? He concludes by saying, “If you don’t like the law, then get it changed, because that’s democracy.”
“Is the labeling of any speech protesting Israel’s government as anti-semitic valid?” Professor Stam argued that it is inherently anti-semetic, however, “you have a right to say it” but “should have the temerity to stand by your claim”, which Professor Leblang agreed with. Leblang argued that the students who gathered for the River to the Sea protests “don’t know what they’re saying” because that idea is not “comprehended by the people protesting”. Additionally, he noted that “saying Israel has no right to exist is anti-semetic because that’s saying Israeli people shouldn’t exist”.
When asked about their thoughts on suppression of pro-Palestinian activists, Professor Leblang said he “takes great offense” to his colleagues using classrooms as “an opportunity to say anything they want in any class they’re teaching,” arguing that faculty should teach “what they signed up for.” Professor Stam argued, “the point of civil disobedience is to place yourself at risk of incarceration,” and “the ‘you can’t incarcerate me’ argument is ridiculous.” He also noted that, in legalistic terms, free speech is “subject to time, place, and manner restriction,” using the involvement of law enforcement officers in the pro-Palestinian protests that took place on Grounds as an example.
When asked about their opinions on transgender athletes in female sports, both Professors argued that “they shouldn’t be there,” as these athletes should “compete against men, not against women,” according to Leblang, with Stam adding that there should be “biological separation in sports.”
The topics discussed throughout this article are only some of the many civil discourses that took place throughout the debate, creating a safe and engaging atmosphere for students to share their questions, comments, and thoughts. Both professors engaged in lively and respectful conversations, sharing their opinions and elaborating on certain topics they have a passionate interest in while courageously placing themselves in the spotlight, showing a vulnerability in certain moments that reflected genuine honesty in their rhetoric.
Leave a Reply