Gerardo Guadarrama (right) makes a point during immigration discussion. (Photo by Tom Coyne)
Two panels of Culver Academies students gathered on back-to-back nights on campus to discuss how they think the country should handle the politically charged questions of gun violence and immigration.
The students were picked for their opposing viewpoints yet managed to conduct the hour-long discussions civilly without being confrontational, argumentative or dismissive of any other student’s opinion. The discussions drew on Culver’s theme for this school year of “E Pluribus Unum,” a Latin expression that means “Out of Many, One,” where the school encourages students to talk about contentious issues and listen respectfully to differing viewpoints.
There have been mandatory and optional programs for faculty and students to take part in these discussions. The panel discussion for students was optional.
The discussion Thursday started with students on the panel, who are all seniors, expressing their contrasting views on immigration.
The panel generally agreed that some level of allowing immigrants into the country is needed. They disagreed on how many should be allowed in and what to do about undocumented immigrants already in the country.
“What frustrates me a lot is that I have family members who have been here over 20 years and still haven’t gotten their citizenship but there’s people who come into the U.S. and they lie and exaggerate their situation and they get the documentation sooner than people who actually deserve it,” Lilly Anwarzai said.
Aila Moshe said her father came to the United States undocumented and her mother, who is an immigration attorney, helped her father get asylum.
“I think there is a problem with the system, and I think the government should decide a program to a better pathway to legalized citizenship. I just think it needs to be easier and better,” she said.
Charlie Mock said he agreed, saying right now it take three years for someone to become a U.S. citizen and costs on average $8,000.
“A lot of people coming into this country don’t have the time and resources. We need to make it a lot easier. That way they can start paying taxes and qualify for things like Social Security and Medicare,” he said.
Ravi Gaba asked the other panelists if they think politicians will make good on their threat to undertake massive deportation efforts if they are elected.
Anwarzai said she did think they would.
Mock disagreed.
“I don’t think we can do it. The most immigrants this country has ever deported in one year is 400,000 people. And what they’re calling for is 11 million, 12 million, whatever number. We physically cannot deport all those people. It also would cripple our economy, in my opinion. It would crush agriculture sectors of our economy. I don’t know too many kids who are aspiring to pick lettuce.”
A student from the audience said that one problem is that movies and television shows often portray immigrants through colored lenses in the shows they produce, for example Mexicans are frequently linked with cartels.
“This has a huge negative impact on immigrants and how people around them look at them daily,” the student said.
After the discussion ended, a couple of the students on the panel were asked about whether the civil discourse changed their perspectives on immigration.
“It definitely brought new ideas and perspectives I’ve not considered before,” said Gerardo Guadarrama.
Students calmly discuss immigration isssues. (Photo by Tom Coyne)
Mock said the conversation affirmed his belief that there is a problem at the border that needs to be fixed.
“However, there is no sole policy people could agree on that will solve the problem once and for all. To solve the issue, cooperation between different parties and different nations around the world is needed,” Mock said.
On Wednesday, the topic for the panel was gun violence. Everyone agreed gun violence is a terrible problem. However, they had different opinions about how the issue should be solved.
Those involved listened closely and considered what those around them had to say. In this way, the conversation wasn’t simply a presentation of the opinions of each member of the panel, but rather one where each participant was responding to the comments made.
Audience member Brogan Borst said he had never thought about limiting where bullets could be stored, such as a shooting range, which was discussed by the panel. He said he would be OK with the idea as long as there weren’t significant limitations on the amount of bullets that could be stored in a home.
“That would be an impactful thing,” he said, “to encourage them to buy rounds in the range so they’re not buying as many and keeping as many at their house.”
Tyler Stephenson said the discussion didn’t change his mind. He also said he didn’t think it would be constitutional to limit where bullets could be stored.
Shae Fesai ’26 said he liked there were opposing sides on the panel and that the students were well-prepared. Fesai said that his mind wasn’t changed, but the statistical information presented through the discussion helped him understand the context of gun violence a little bit more.
Don Fox ’75, a senior instructor and the Richard W. Freeman chair of the leadership education department, Becky Strati, the library director, and Rebecca Hodges, Ph.D., a senior humanities instructor and the director of the Global Studies Institute, are organizing the panel discussions.
Fox said he was pleased with the discussion. He said they decided to focus on issues selected by students rather than events that were candidate focused or partisan focused “because I don’t think that does anything to bring people together.”
“These issues are so much more important than are you wearing a Trump button or are you wearing a Harris button,” Fox said. “When they leave here, we want civil discourse implanted on their brains.”
Strati said another key thing is they can have a civil discussion because they know one another.
“You can have these discussions because you already respect each other as human beings,” Strati said.
Hodges said she was impressed by the students’ ability to speak and to listen and to respect others’ experiences.
“I thought it was a successful civil discourse experience, showing it can be done and we can all learn something from each other,” she said.
There will be another panel discussion Wednesday at Roberts Auditorium. After the presidential election, there will be panel discussions on climate change, cost of living and higher education and civil rights.
Hodges said she would like to hold more student panel discussions on global issues.
Students listen to Aila Moshe (left) talk about immigration. (Photo by Tom Coyne)