In a forum featuring two polished all-male debate teams and a collection of high-profile speakers, the Harvard Law School (HLS) last night traded jabs with the Harvard Business School (HBS) in an hour-long debate.

Organizers said that the debate and its topic--"What is good for the company is good for the country"--was an effort to broaden the perspectives of students at Harvard's graduate schools.

The event was headlined by a keynote address from Rev. Jesse L. Jackson and was moderated by Lt. Gov. A. Paul Cellucci. The panel of judges was a Who's Who at Harvard, including Dean of the Kennedy School Joseph S. Nye Jr., IBM Professor of Business and Government Roger B. Porter and Undergraduate Council President Lamelle D. Rawlins '99.

Although the judges acknowledged that the Law School, which debated the affirmative, faced a more dificult task, they proclaimed the HBS team the overall victor.

While most were pleased with the event's sucess, some, like Rawlins, felt that the absence of women was a mistake.

"Women's voices could have added a lot to the debate tonight," Rawlins said.

Rawlins said that while she was "sure" the lack of female presence was unintentional, she hopes that future panels are more balanced.

Members of both teams were also troubled by the lack of gender balance.

"It was very ironic," said Arlo Devlin-Brown, a first-year law student and captain of the HLS team.

Devlin-Brown added that he was not involved in the selection process but hopes to see women involved in future debates.

Business School students insisted that while their team may have had an abundance of testosterone, there were plenty of women who could have competed.

"I can't speak for the Law School, but at the HBS we had several members who could have kicked butt today," said Ken Murray, a second-year student at the Business School.

More than a discussion of policy, the debate was an exercise in logic and rhetorical strategy.

Arguing the negative, the HBS team said it is impossible to categorically state that what is good for the company must be good for the government.

In their opening statement, HBS students pointed out that there are some instances when what is good for the country is bad for the company and other instances where what is good for the company may be bad for the country.

"Has anybody here ever taken a swim in the Charles River?" Murray asked. "Is it in the interest of those companies to poison the [water]?"