For more than 6 years, the extent of the relationship between the Cornell Republicans and Cornell Democrats was hosting an occasional 9/11 flag planting. That changed on March 2nd, when both clubs agreed to come together for an hour-long, two-resolution debate hosted by the Cornell Political Union. The topics were “Resolved the University should abstain from political controversies” and ‘Resolved, implement universal voter ID,” with CRs arguing in favor of both, and CDems dissenting.
Institutional Neutrality Debate
Nicholas Gonzalez ‘27 of the Cornell Republicans opened the debate on whether Cornell should abstain from political controversies. He alleged that abstaining from political controversies didn’t mean abstaining from politics but abstaining from partisanship. He furthered his argument by claiming that Cornell is meant to be a place for free inquiry, where any student can find instruction in any study (as Ezra intended). He said that when the university starts taking sides, “scholars and students begin to weigh the cost of dissent.”
Spencer Krenk ‘29 of the Cornell Democrats opened with the assertion that, ‘for any issue directly related to student and university well-being, the university must weigh in.’
He started with the example of the recent controversy at Columbia, where a student (in the US illegally according to the DHS) was detained and later released after Mamdani spoke with Trump. He asked (after alleging that “Cornell may be next”), “When there are students potentially arrested, do we expect the university to just stand by? Is that not political involvement?” He continued by saying that political controversies are unavoidable for a university and that they are “fundamentally political organizations.” Krenk then mentioned lobbying as an example of Cornell getting involved in politics, “Lobbying- It’s a wonderful thing. Millions of dollars of lobbying returns 10 if not 100 fold” he furthered his argument by making the following claim (paraphrased):
“Last semester, Cornell hosted ICE and DHS; supporting those institutions is an act of political involvement, not related to criticism. If support is allowed, so too is criticism allowed (when agencies are cutting funds to lifesaving research).”
Finally, he asked: “If everything the university stands for rests on political processes, how can you expect them to abstain from politics?”
Yosef Herrera reiterated that “the purpose of any university is inquiry, not political commentary.” He also argued that “If the University comments as an institution, it risks signaling that dissenting faculty or students hold views inconsistent with institutional orthodoxy. Institutional restraint protects internal pluralism by refusing to take sides in contested federal policy disputes.” Yosef presented the following example: in 2024, 20% of Cornell students voted for President Trump, knowing full well what his platform was. If the administration were to take a political stance against Trump, it would undermine internal pluralism at Cornell.
Brayden Handwerger argued that cooperation and appeasement of the federal government would not stop their crackdown on Cornell. Building upon the DHS arrest of a Columbia student, Brayden asked: “If a student gets abducted, should we appease the government?” He likened universities’ cooperation with the federal government to appeasement of Nazi Germany, and reiterated that when students are directly affected by federal policy, the university has the obligation to protect them.
Brayden additionally cited Cornell’s historic commitment to inclusion as a political statement in itself. Indeed, Cornell was the first Ivy League institution to admit women, and a pioneer for fair admissions for black students in a time of rampant racial discrimination. Brayden went on to say, “If enfranchising women, black students, and international students was not a political statement, I don’t know what is.”
Benedict Segrest concluded for the Republicans by posing a simple question of what happens when the shoe is on the other foot? He argued that Democrats may currently wield power in universities, but perhaps not in ten or twenty years, when society has inevitably changed on a political and cultural level.
Benedict argued Democrats feel tempted to end Institutional Restraint now that they can “vanquish their enemy,” but asked what would happen if the “sceptre” was used against them. He said that the Democrats, in sparing their enemy, would also spare themselves.
In Max Ehrlich’s (‘26) conclusion for the Democrats, he further emphasized the need for the university to advocate on behalf of its students. “Last week (at Columbia), a woman was abducted from her dorm by agents who snuck in. If that happened at Cornell, right now, and our administration said nothing because we needed to abstain? It would be the biggest mistake our university could make.”
Max went on to say that the federal government believes that Cornell, as an institution, with its commitment to free inquiry and diversity, is wrong. “We don’t want… a liberal university, we want a university that defends our research funding, that defends ‘any person, any study.’”
Max ended by asking the audience, “Do you want the university to defend you, or not?”
Voter ID Debate
Max Ehrlich ‘26 opened with the claim that it is more likely for a random person to be struck by lightning than to commit voter fraud, citing a database from the Heritage Foundation, which found a voter fraud rate between 0.0000294% and 0.0001522%. “A policy is supposed to solve a problem. The problem of voter fraud does not exist.”
Max continued by claiming that “there has not been 1 election in US history that has been at threat of being overturned due to voter fraud,” and that the true reason for Voter ID is and always has been to suppress voting. “Voter ID makes it harder for people to vote for no reason… the right to vote is one of the most important; to give that up for even 1 person is one of the most disappointing things we will ever discuss.”
Nicholas Gonzalez countered with the claim that the data from Heritage Foundation pertains to impersonation convictions, and that “impersonation is extremely difficult to detect at the moment and leaves almost no documentary trail.” He continued by saying that ”the absence of judicial proof that in-person impersonation alone has determined close elections in the past in no way removes the real possibility that it has.” Nick went on to cite Crawford v. Marion (2008), which acknowledged the lack of evidence of voter impersonation in conviction data and yet continued to uphold Voter ID laws.
Nick additionally cited several close elections, most notably, the 1974 Senate Race in New Hampshire, which was determined by 2 votes, to highlight the risk that Voter fraud poses to democracy. “The aforementioned cases suffice to show that in our nation’s recent history, voter fraud poses real risks to the right of the People to self-determine their political representatives.”
Nick concluded by suggesting that Voter ID laws do not impede voting rights and that they pose minimal burdens to prospective voters. “Universal Voter ID is a common-sense safeguard for a functioning democracy. Any successful democracy must do two things: reduce the margin of error in close elections and prevent post-election instability.”
Brayden Handwerger countered with the rhetorical question, “Do we think this next presidential election will be decided by 2 votes?” He went on to counter that Nick’s listing of close elections is not a relevant argument, and that there is “not enough tangible evidence of voter fraud on a large scale” to warrant Voter ID requirements.
Brayden challenged Nick’s claim regarding minimal burdens on prospective voters. He presented rural America, where residents often drive hours to visit the DMV, as a counterexample to argue that Voter ID laws disenfranchise rural communities. “The majority of people are already apathetic, and you’re going to make it even harder for them to vote?”
Brayden also took some time to attack the Trump administration, suggesting that they are ‘on the ropes’ and that Voter ID serves to prevent their downfall in the upcoming midterms. He also said that we’re at war with Iran because approval ratings jump when we go to war. He also mentioned that the wealth gap is higher than ever before.
Yosef Herrera opened by reiterating that the idea of ‘disenfranchisement’ is a ‘ridiculous talking point.’ “Study after study concludes that voter ID does not reduce turnout rates.”
When Yosef argued that voter impersonation is nigh undetectable without Voter ID, it sparked some back-and-forth questioning with the Democrats.
Max asked that if 50% of voters show up to vote, isn’t there a good chance of being caught trying to impersonate them?
Yosef responded, “Only if the other person shows up, and 50% of registered voters don’t show up.” In essence, impersonators can victimize 50% of all registered voters if they determine that those voters are likely not to show up.
Brayden later asked, “Why is Voter ID such a pressing issue?”
Yosef responded, “Don’t you want to protect democracy?” Referencing the aforementioned New Hampshire Senate Race, Yosef retorted, “I wouldn’t call a Senate race a ‘little race.’” This was a response to some Democrat sentiments that the many close elections in need of Voter ID safeguards are insignificant in the grand scheme of things.
In his follow-up speech, Spencer Krenk argued that disenfranchisement is a bigger issue than voter fraud. “Disenfranchisement has always been the biggest threat to democracy.” He also challenged the studies (finding no effect on turnout due to Voter ID laws) posed by the Republicans. Spencer claimed that studies that improperly define voter ID as just a sworn declaration of identity conclude no decrease in voter turnout, but studies that properly define Voter ID conclude that it decreases voter turnout.
Spencer also asked, “Who would risk committing voter fraud?” He claimed that the harsh punishments for voter fraud, combined with the low benefit of 1 fraudulent vote, serve as an effective deterrent against voter impersonation.
Nick then inquired, “what can a poll watcher do to detect voter impersonation now, apart from Voter ID?”
Spencer responded that modern digital systems can detect issues such as these. He also questioned the purported effectiveness of Voter ID due to the prevalence of fake IDs in America.
Final Results
The audience voted 56:44 percent in favor of the Republican position on University neutrality, and 52:48 % in favor of the Democrat position on Universal Voter ID. But regardless of anyone’s opinion on the resolutions, or on which side presented more convincing arguments, the broader takeaway was clear: the debate marked a significant shift in both CRs’ and CDems’ willingness to engage with one another. After the tension and chaos in 2020, the Cornell Republicans and Democrats suspended their previously annual tradition of debate for 6 years. Hopefully, this debate may spark a new series of debates between them and perhaps a shift towards campus political depolarization. Only time will tell.
Eric Chen is a freshman at Cornell in the College of Arts and Sciences
Eben Hill is a junior in the College of Engineering and is the Editor-in-Chief of the Cornell Review
