As Malcolm X strolled onto Cornell campus 47 springs ago, you could just imagine the resolve in his eyes. He was here to debate James Farmer, head of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), on the topic “Separation vs. Integration.” The question was simple. Should blacks in America continue to push for equality in society or should they remove themselves from it completely? Farmer argued to keep up the fight, Malcolm argued against. For anyone sitting at the debate it must have been not only intense but eye opening. They were witnessing two major figures in our country debate an issue both salient and close to their hearts. The arguments were strong and not held back. It was an intellectual slugfest of the highest order. It was here.

That was 1962. This is 2009. Now, a different equation exists. Debate is dead. Speakers speak, audiences question, everyone goes home. When was the last time you saw two esteemed guests, or two University professors, actually debate out an issue in public? No matter the answer, which is likely zero in quantitative terms, debate here, and across the states in general, is happening all too infrequently.

Today’s world is one of paranoia. Everything is recorded, played back, dissected and scrutinized. In such an environment, public figures are often confined to a “message” which they give over and over in speeches and other appearances. They practice and perfect. They grow accustomed to the same questions and learn how to deflect challenges with skill. The result is intellectual laziness. Major figures will not go up against others in fear of leaving the comfort zone of their “message.” They fear having to defend their point of view from someone equally well versed but with a different take.

And so, we have lost a valuable aspect of learning. Complex information is presented to us in a watered down and consumable form. Challenges exist but they are generally weak. We no longer see the most qualified of men and women debate issues they clearly do not agree on. Imagine the value of seeing some of the world’s preeminent political scientist debate policy in public. Instead of being presented one side and having to trust, both sides of the coin could be presented with checks on those attempting to stretch or halve the truth.

Panel discussions are nice but they’re too friendly and generally skirt around differences. I’m talking about real debate: two sides, different opinions. And different opinions do exist here at Cornell. Talking to a professor this Monday, I was told that debate does occur but it’s behind the scenes. Let’s bring it out of its hiding spot so we can all learn from it.

I hate to center back on the dead horse of this newspaper, but the Gaza absurdity here on campus is a perfect example. The Gaza invasion was a serious issue. It involved some very controversial actions on a very controversial topic. The campus longed for more information and panel discussions were set up. The first was a circus. As you may have heard it featured a moderator reading from Wikipedia and a one-sided panel. The second was a bit better. It was set up by The Sun and featured three prominent professors from campus. One problem: they all agreed.

Instead of panel discussions, this campus could have benefited from a good ’ol fashioned one-on-one. To think that there aren’t two professors who fundamentally disagree on how the Gaza war was carried out is hard to imagine. We should have invited them onto the stage and seen those arguments fleshed out in public. Some would come just for the spectacle, sure, but a greater portion would learn more from that interaction than they possibly could have from any other form of instruction on campus. It’s a shame it never happened.

It’s a shame as well that religion never gets debated either. I don’t know whether it’s because it’s taboo or out of so called “respect,” but both parties could benefit from public argument. It’s about time they did. For atheists it would allow them to confront religion head on, something they always do in their writing, but rarely in person. For believers it would present a forum to explain why they believe in a place that is majority atheist. The debate could also help push away the negative stigma that people of faith are stupid or ignorant.

Well folks, take it or leave it. In a few weeks I’ll be leaving campus for good and I leave it in your hands. Let the era of paranoia end and the era of intellectual slugfest begin. We owe it to ourselves not to allow our leaders to incubate in intellectual cocoons; we must pry them out. It’s time for some butterflies.

“I’m the commander — see, I don’t need to explain — I do not need to explain why I say things. That’s the interesting thing about being president.”

— George W. Bush