By Matthew Adkins
The discussion over the role of race in Hurricane Katrina relief resurfaced as the University of Louisville Debate Society held its second public debate of the year. While both debaters found the event a success, some in the audience felt that a reorganization of the debate could benefit the effectiveness of future events.
The Debate Society posed the question of whether race and class affected the federal government’s response in aiding citizens involved in the Katrina disaster. Dr. Ben Foster, an Accounting professor at U of L, and Phillip Bailey, a senior and chair of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, represented the two sides. Foster claimed that race had no role in the relief effort, while Bailey argued that race was a leading factor in the slow response time.
Freshman Rosie Washington appreciated the renewed interest in the subject.
“The attention was good,” she said, referring to the topic of debate.
She thought both sides presented their arguments well. While she agreed with Bailey, she also felt the debate seemed one-sided and a little biased in his favor partially because most in the audience agreed with his point of view.
Foster said the debate went well. “I believe the debate was very professionally managed and successful,” he said. “The debate part of the event was very objective and fair, with both sides having ample opportunity to express their views and make their case.”
Some audience members felt the debate got sidetracked at times with discussing other issues. Topics discussed during the event included poverty and minimum wage. “Many of the participants called for government intervention, government-led solutions to social and economic problems aside from Katrina,” said Dr. Alexei I. Izyumov, an Economics professor. He wanted the debaters to consider other possibilities.
“They didn’t talk enough, I think, about the local and state government responsibility. Whether race was a factor in local and state government responsibility,” he said.
Both sides did a great job supporting their views of each subject that had been brought up by the audience, said Tasha Harris, the debate team public relations representative. She felt that the questions were well-rounded and that both sides effectively answered them.
According to Washington, the organizers should have approached the debate differently. She felt that because of the one-on-one format of the debate, nothing had really been accomplished. Foster agreed that more debaters would have helped. “I would have preferred that the format would have been more like a panel with at least one more person on each side of the issue included to present more diversity of viewpoints,” he said.
Bailey disagreed. He thought the audience participation went well and the debate was a success.
“It’s one of the best debates this campus has ever seen,” he said.
Although Foster and Bailey have argued in the past through editorials and discussions, Bailey said his interest was in the concerns of the audience, not beating Foster. He added that if the debate seemed one-sided it was only because participants weren’t prepared to answer the questions that came up during the discussion.
