Vol. 115, Iss. 12 | Wednesday, November 5
The Flat Hat The Weekly Student Newspaper
of The College of William and Mary
flathatnews.com | @theflathat
REBECCA FUCHS / THE FLAT HAT
Professors defend their disciplines in fight for survival during Raft Debate Goldwater emerges victorious as Devil's Advocate against humanities, social, natural sciences SACHI PALLEM // FLAT HAT NEWS ASSOC.
Tuesday, Oct. 28, the College of William and Mary held the annual Raft Debate in the Sadler Center’s Commonwealth Auditorium, with a concurrent livestream that audiences could watch from Tidewater A. The event consists of a simulation in which three disciplines — the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities — are shipwrecked on an island, with each discipline represented by a faculty member of the College. Only one of these representatives can escape on a small raft, so they must argue their case to an audience. The simulation also includes a Devil’s Advocate who makes the case that no one should escape the island. The Devil’s Advocate can also be voted as a winner. Additionally, a judge presides over the affairs. At this Raft Debate, the supporters for each academic area made as much noise as possible and had their applause measured by a dosimeter — whoever’s supporters made the most noise would win. Class of 1952 Distinguished Associate Professor of Anthropology and Asian and Middle Eastern Studies Andrea Wright argued for the social sciences; Walter G. Mason Associate Professor of Religious Studies Andrew Tobolowsky spoke on behalf of the humanities; Assistant Professor of Chemistry Isabelle Taylor debated for the natural sciences; Assistant Teaching Professor of Philosophy Jonah Goldwater served as Devil’s Advocate and Assistant Dean for Graduate Studies, School of Computing, Data Sciences and Physics Trey Mayo Ed.D. ’22 served as the judge and emcee. Another notable participant was Amy the Squid, a woman dressed in a squid costume who received laughter and cheers
upon her arrival. Flower wreaths were available at a table outside the auditorium, and the stage was decorated to resemble an island, including inflatable palm trees, beach chairs and more. Mayo’s introduction for the Raft Debate praised the event and referred to the Better Arguments project. “What you will see tonight will also tie in with the principles of the Better Arguments project, by learning how to express our viewpoints, engage in constructive counterarguments and make room to transform — and, perhaps, have a little fun along the way,” Mayo said. After explaining the debate’s structure, Mayo then introduced the debaters. The event began in earnest with up to seven minute arguments from each debater. Taylor went first. She began by citing products of science, such as the internet. She used scientists’ ability to conduct experiments for evidence as a point in their favor, and portrayed her opponents as lax on proof. “In literature, if your novel fails, you just call it postmodern and say nobody understands you,” Taylor said. Taylor also argued for scientists’ humility, saying that they acknowledge uncertainty and improve from failure. Then, to make a point about scientific curiosity, Taylor held up a sign with “FAFO” written on it and related the story of Hennig Brand, an alchemist who discovered phosphorus while trying to create gold by boiling urine. Taylor furthered her case by equating scientists with
superheroes, referencing Marie Curie and many Marvel characters. “I'd say if you want to bring back a discipline that's gonna save humanity, let it be the discipline that is run by superheroes,” Taylor said. “Look at Marie Curie. She was the mother of radioactivity. She discovered two elements and a little bit of a more sound method than Henning Brand. And she did it all while glowing in the dark. And look at the Marvel Cinematic Universe, right? It's full of scientists, superheroes. I mean, Tony Stark: engineer, Iron Man, Bruce Banner: scientist and the Hulk.” Taylor concluded by again emphasizing curiosity and humanity’s betterment through science. “So in conclusion, I’m going to tell you that humans need to keep doing science, not just for the sake of innovation and survival, but for meeting that human need to ask questions about the universe,” Taylor said. Soon after, she ended by throwing candy to the audience after announcing high-fructose corn syrup as a product of her discipline. Wright spoke next, and included both praise for and digs at the natural sciences and humanities, including references to musical artists and astronomy. She then pivoted to explaining why the social sciences mattered most. “But the thing is, social sciences are the linchpin. It is the thing that makes what we do at universities make sense,” Wright said. See CAMPUS page 3
POLITICS
Student political organizations debate over political violence in U.S.
Groups discuss Charlie Kirk's assassination, origins of rising occurrence of violent acts CLARE GIFFORD FLAT HAT NEWS ASSOC.
Monday, Oct. 27, three political organizations at the College of William and Mary went headto-head in a mock debate about public violence in the United States. The College Republicans and Young Independents hosted the event at 6:30 p.m. in James Blair Hall for their semesterly debate. This semester, they also invited the Liberal Student League and the Young Democrats, although the Young Democrats declined to participate. The debate was organized into four initial rounds of speeches, with one speaker from each organization per round. Each speaker got three minutes to make their argument, then they could answer up to three questions from the audience. Traditionally, a fifth round comprised of resolutions, or finishing statements, from each
INDEX Profile News Crossword Data Basketball Variety Graphics Opinions Sports
organization closes the debate; however, a room occupancy time constraint cut the debate short at 8 p.m. No official resolutions came from the night. A coin toss determined that an LSL member would speak first. He, like several others, first tried to define public violence within the context of American society. Throughout the night, public violence was used interchangeably with political violence. Unfortunately, incidents of recent public violence were not difficult to find. Speakers frequently referenced the shooting of Charlie Kirk, nationwide United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids, the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, the Charlottesville white supremacist riots and the 2021 Black Lives Matter protests in their arguments. Attendees generally agreed on three principal factors contributing to the cause and rise
Inside Sports
2 3 4 5 6-7 8-9 10 11-12 13-14
Cassidy Geddes is not satisfied with just one conference title Junior guard wants William and Mary to be known as “basketball school.” page 7
of public violence: mixed reactions to violence from the current presidential administration, the influence of the Internet and the role of foreign actors in encouraging polarization. Another LSL speaker criticized inconsistent responses to political violence from the White House and the way in which President Donald Trump seems to play to his own agenda. “For example, President Trump blamed the dangerous rhetoric of the radical left for the death of Charlie Kirk, but we also saw him pardon the January 6th rioters, which establishes a precedent that violence is only worth condemning if it goes against one’s own agenda,” YI member Vanessa Walrath ’27 said. Abigail Bennett ’27 instead argued that violence in America transcends politics altogether and is rather a cultural issue. “So, ultimately, my argument tonight is that violence in the
United States is not a policy issue, and, more importantly, not a partisan issue,” Bennett said. “This is built into the very fabric of American culture.” Bennett framed the United States as a world outlier for its high public violence rate relative to its national income classification. She explained that, compared to other high-income countries, the United States has a grossly high incident rate and has made minimal progress over the decades. She attributed this stagnation to the country’s foundational values. “I propose that we abandon the foundation,” Bennett said. “If the foundation is individualism and personal liberties over the prioritization of people, then I think it's worth abandoning.” Regardless of political affiliation, almost every participant at the debate expressed grave disdain for the vast majority of public violence acts. One speaker advocated
Inside Variety
Mixing Up Matcha Myths
JASA hosts event with Town Center Cold Pressed to spotlight Japanese roots of matcha. page 9
that the individuals committing political violence are oddballs at the outskirts of their party and are not the norm in the United States, nor are they necessary for a functioning democracy. “That's what’s so great about democracy,” LSL member Joseph Favale ’26 said. “We don't need violence to change our leadership.” While the discussion remained largely respectful, occasional partisan jabs were thrown. The LSL and the YI tended to blame the right for extremist violence, while the WMCR debaters pointed to the left. “No one on the right has ever, in terms of a broad culture, celebrated anything like this,” WMCR member Philip Vayntrub ’26 said regarding national reactions to Charlie Kirk’s death. “[Public violence] has a source, and that source is, regrettably, the left.” READ MORE AT FLATHATNEWS.COM
Inside Opinion
Land acknowledgements insufficient without action
Lucia Reyes '29 reviews College's land acknowledgements. page 12