News

Pro-Palestine Encampment Represents First Major Test for Harvard President Alan Garber

News

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu Condemns Antisemitism at U.S. Colleges Amid Encampment at Harvard

News

‘A Joke’: Nikole Hannah-Jones Says Harvard Should Spend More on Legacy of Slavery Initiative

News

Massachusetts ACLU Demands Harvard Reinstate PSC in Letter

News

LIVE UPDATES: Pro-Palestine Protesters Begin Encampment in Harvard Yard

Intercollegiate Debates.

NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED

On Saturday Messrs Leete and Gillespie of the Yale Union, McDowell and Campbell of Princeton, the former of the Olio, the latter of the American Whig Society, and H. C. Lakin, representing the Wendell Phillips Club and the New Harvard Union, met at the Fifth Avenue Hotel, New York, to arrange for intercollegiate debates. Harvard will debate with Yale at Cambridge about January 20, 1894, and with Princeton at Princeton about March 20. Yale and Princeton will debate at New Haven about May 10. Thus each college will have annually one debate at home and one abroad.

A letter was received from Columbia proposing a quadrangular league, but arrangements between Harvard, Yale and Princeton were too far advanced to consider it this year. As it is, there is no league, but the colleges are mutually agreed.

There will be three speakers on a side. The society which debates at home will select the question, the other society the side, as last year. There will be three judges, not connected with either college concerned in a given debate. The home club will recommend six judges, from which the visiting club will select three. Each club will pay its own expenses and arrange the debates at home.

There was only one point of disagreement, on the manner of speaking. Princeton insisted that every debater should be allowed two speeches, the second one being for rebuttal. Harvard and Yale claimed that this would detract from the unity of the debate, would cause complications, and would take more time than the public care to give to listening to a debate. They suggested that only the first speaker on each side be allowed a second speech, on the ground that they had no chance for rebuttal, while the other speakers could save time for this from their regular speeches. The meeting broke up without any settlement. There will be some compromise, as all parties are bent on debating.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Tags