Georgetown University’s Philonomosian Debate Society announced the week’s topic: “Resolved, the state of immigration in the United States warrants the severity of ICE’s response,” Jan. 12.  Importantly, resolved does not indicate the position of the Philonomosian Society, but is instead the conventional way to publish a debate resolution title. This debate was planned in response to both the general severity of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) actions since President Donald Trump’s inauguration last January, as well as the reignited debate after Renee Good, a U.S. citizen, was shot and killed by an ICE agent in Minneapolis on Jan. 7. 

Almost immediately after the topic was announced, Fizz, an anonymous social media platform used by Georgetown students, erupted. Anonymous posts from students called the debate topic “really insensitive” and “cruel,” arguing that the debate would give a pedestal to people who believe ICE’s response is justified. When others countered that university students should debate current events, users responded that these debates legitimize pro-ICE arguments and that Georgetown should move beyond “inflammatory conversation.” 

These concerns are understandable. The murders of Renee Good and, more recently, Alex Pretti are a disturbing turning point in our country’s history; both ICE’s killings and the federal government’s response to them signal a descent into fascism. At the very least, they show ICE’s willingness to kill protesters and the federal government’s scramble to lie about it. Even beyond these deaths, the violence of ICE’s mass deportation scheme reveals the alarming reality that our country’s administration would rather spend time causing reckless harm than on effective immigration reform. It can be difficult to spend hours in a room being reminded that half of the country voted for this.

But that is precisely why we need debate. Georgetown students should seek out forums that allow us to stand up to opposing viewpoints, regardless of the discomfort that comes with ill-informed or insensitive rhetoric.

There are people across the country who wrongfully, but sincerely, believe that Good was a domestic terrorist and that Pretti was planning to massacre law enforcement. I’ve heard arguments from Georgetown students, in both debate and non-debate forums, who believe the same. I understand the hesitancy to platform extreme opinions, but believing ICE was justified is not a fringe opinion. Thirty-six percent of Americans approve of the severity of ICE’s operations as of Jan. 22, and over half support President Donald Trump’s mass deportations. These beliefs will not disappear, especially if we refuse to confront them.

Liberal students are no longer in the privileged position of ignoring views we do not want to hear. The liberal sentiment that we can merely cancel and ignore opposing views is fundamentally incompatible with constructive political resistance. Both within and beyond our campus, we cannot afford to cover our ears and turn a blind eye while the federal government encroaches on basic civil liberties. 

This is especially urgent because conservative groups do reach out to college students. Turning Point USA (TPUSA), a conservative youth organization, for example, has built its model around campus engagement, and its membership has continued to surge despite — or perhaps because of — the Trump administration’s controversies. TPUSA may not be interested in constructive dialogue, yet its influence is effective, especially when no one is debating them back. Young voters, especially white men that groups like TPUSA cater to, shifted right in the 2024 election. Without a liberal counterpart, conservative groups are free to misrepresent current events, convincing other students of a distorted reality that justifies ICE’s actions.

By not engaging in debate, liberals put themselves on the defensive. If liberal students don’t debate back, we are both conceding the fight and leaving the people in the middle with no alternative to hearing only conservative perspectives.

Good deserves to be defended. Pretti deserves to be defended. Our country deserves people directly fighting back against the bad-faith arguments that are destroying the United States from the inside. It is our job to educate others and debate with people who hold opposing political views. College campus debates may seem futile, but universities are the hub of intellectual diversity and free discourse. From UC Berkeley’s Free Speech movement and 1960s student-led Civil Rights demonstrations to present-day climate divestment campaigns and Israel-Palestine protests, college campuses have consistently demonstrated how integral students are in shaping political movements. Georgetown’s proximity to the federal government makes our debates and dialogue all the more necessary and influential.  

I am confident that the state of immigration in the United States does not warrant the severity of ICE’s response. I know this not just because of Good and Pretti, but because of the immigrants who have been intimidated and harassed, the families who have been torn apart, the law that has been disregarded and the country that Trump’s reckless mass deportations have eroded. That is why I attended the Philonomosian Debate and challenged the arguments that desperately tried to justify state violence and the killing of Americans. I encourage anyone else who wants to change minds to do the same.

Zadie Weaver is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Sciences. This is her first installment of the column “Institutions and Their Ills.”