On Monday, November 8th at six in the evening, my roommate Thia and I made the long walk to the Alfond Forum to attend President Herbert’s forum, a debate on “Policing in America”. As the room was brightly lit and there was a highly professional vibe to the room, I chose to not snap a picture of the event.
The debate was moderated by on of UNE’s own professors from the Morocco campus. The debate centered on the topic of policing in America and it was argued by Neil Gross, defending the position that police reform is the best course of action for solving the issues involved in policing in America, and by Brendan McQuade, who argued the position in favor of abolition of the police. Gross and McQuade were both provided the opportunity to offer a five-minute opening statement about their position and some of the facts that support it. Both Gross and McQuade went long on their opening statement and I noticed the tension grow in the room whenever the moderates face indicated that they did. This set the debate up to be uncomfortable, which was fitting for the topic. Neil and Brendan responded to questions in a way that addressed and conveyed their information to the audience. The moderator offered questions referencing books and pieces that Neil and Brenden have written on the subject and anytime the conversation shied away from the focus on policing in America, Neil let us know. After almost an hour of debate, the moderator opened up the conversation to the audience members for questions for Neil and Brenden. Due to their lengthy responses, only five or six questions were able to be answers by the end of the debate. Concluding with the response to a question from President Herbert himself, Thia and I were free to head back, and as we did, discuss the controversial viewpoints we had just listened to.
I personally found myself agreeing with Neil from the opening statements. While Neil tended to be more combative with both Brenden and the moderator throughout the debate, I respected how knowledgeable, prepared and present he was in the discussion. Brenden conducted himself in a way to be unprofessional and simply not respectable, as he seemingly refused to look at his opponent and held an uncaring disposition. I agreed with Neil’s position that police reform is doable and something we can put our hope in because of instances across the country were new strategies have worked. Brenden, in favor of police abolition, didn’t offer much of an alternative besides the repetitive statement “we need to create new systems”. One thing that Brenden suggested that I really disagree with is his position that “we need to at least get the police out of schools”. As a student who has attended a high school with students who have given multiple bomb threats, multiple school shooting threats as well as a known sex offender walking around our school, I personally felt a lot of comfort in knowing there was one police officer always present and ready to deal with any potential threats or issues that arise.
Hearing such vastly different viewpoints from Neil and Brenden, as well as all the viewpoints in between from the questions in the audience, I was able to develop a better understanding of the issue and educate myself on multiple perspectives and better develop my own perspective. This debate was intellectually challenging as well as fascinating, and is definitely an event I would attend again.


