Hofstra University students debate federally mandated COVID-19 vaccinations

Picture courtesy of Annabel Hofmann. // Phil Dalton, director of the Center for Civic Engagement and Leah Libresco Sargeant from Braver Angels pictured above.

“Has anyone in the room had a frustrating conversation about COVID vaccines?” Dozens of Hofstra students threw their hands into the air in the Cultural Center Theater.  

 Hofstra University’s Center for Civic Engagement (CCE) hosted Day of Dialogue on Wednesday, Oct. 27, which included an event called “Resolved: The U.S. Government Should Mandate COVID-19 Vaccinations.” The event was structured as an organized, parliamentary-style debate, moderated by Leah Libresco Sargeant, chief of staff for debates and public discourse at Braver Angels.  

 Braver Angels is a national nonprofit organization that works to facilitate discussion on controversial topics, especially politically charged ones. They partner with different universities to organize debates on campuses around the country.  

 “We provide a way of bringing people together across partisan divides,” Sargeant said.  

 The goal of this event was “as much about speaking as it is about hearing, listening and contemplating,” said CCE executive director Phil Dalton, a Hofstra associate professor of writing studies and rhetoric.  

 The initial arguments were provided by a panel of four Hofstra students in four-minute speeches that alternated between being for or against COVID-19 vaccine mandates. After each speech, the audience was allowed to ask the speaker up to two questions. 

 Two of the panelists spoke in favor of federal mandates: Raisse Cisse, a sophomore pre-health major, and Patrick McCabe, a junior political science major. They argued that vaccines are the quickest and most effective way to put this pandemic behind the nation. McCabe presented the idea that without vaccines, new variants will continue to emerge and cause spikes in COVID-19 cases. The speakers also emphasized that it is an individual’s responsibility to protect the community and those around them by getting the vaccine. 

 The other two panelists: Ben Morawek, a senior political science major, and Suzanne Razeq, a senior psychology major, spoke against vaccine mandates. Their arguments stated that it is a violation of citizens’ individual freedoms and that mandating vaccinations constitutes government overreach. Morawek said that, constitutionally, the federal government is not given the power to require every citizen to get the vaccine. 

 After the panelists spoke, the debate was opened to those in the audience who wished to give a speech. 

 Seven audience members stood up to give their opinions, with four speaking in the affirmative and three in the negative. The argument that if the government were to combat vaccine misinformation more effectively, more people would be willing to get the vaccine, sparked much discussion.  

 After the event, many students felt that it was important to have these types of debates and attempt to understand the way others think.  

 “It shows that everybody does have a voice,” said Kelsey Villatoro, a senior health science major. “There is no right or wrong answer.”  

 “Some people are left to the side [and] shunned. They’re labeled as conspiracy theorists … and that leads to resentment,” said Suzanne Vivian, a senior psychology major. She added that discussion is needed for people of opposing opinions to realize that they are not entirely different after all, which will minimize resentment.  

 “I was interested to see what other people’s opinions would be,” said Olivia Wisse, a senior English creative writing major. Wisse felt that she left the event with a “broadened understanding” of others’ opinions on vaccine mandates.  

 A key takeaway from this discussion-based event was to help people see “the person behind the position,” Sargeant said.