I arrived at last night’s Campus Political Society-sponsored gay marriage debate expecting something that would be termed, by the average college student, a “shit-show.” I was ready to witness a veritable smackdown between the Harvard Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters’ Alliance (BGLTSA) and the College Democrats versus the Harvard Salient and the Catholic Students Association (CSA). What I got instead was a renewed faith in the culture of intellectual discourse on the college campus.

When I first came to Harvard, I was one of those overeager freshmen who attended every debate, meeting, and political discussion I came across. Then, November hit. Deterred by the cold and my tendency towards sloth, I started to pick and choose my events wisely, and largely based on their location and the availability of food.

Last night’s debate might not have ordinarily made my cut. But I was lured to this event by two things. One was the fact that the topic of this debate was unequivocally salient for many members of the campus community. The other factor was the representative groups chosen. The Campus Political Society ought to be commended for not making the artificial distinction between political groups and lifestyle-oriented groups.

Despite their fundamental differences, conservative and liberal groups on campus share a common woe: Many students find partisan political sentiments difficult for the moderate mouth to swallow. A die-hard liberal throughout high school, I often feel as if my reluctance to write-off final clubs as dens of sin or bang a drum in a throbbing mass of protesters precludes me from identifying as a left-winger at Harvard. On the other hand, no part of me wishes to identify with the posh and elitist “ancient principles” of “Western civilization” propagated by the Salient.

By polarizing and radicalizing debate to such a great extent, many political organizations at Harvard have pushed away people they might very well have recruited: those who wish to engage in bipartisan dialogue. Without mutual respect or some degree of common ground, constructive political debate is too often crushed before it can even begin to grow.

Last night’s event renewed my hitherto-dwindling faith in the possibility of productive debate between rival political groups. The loud whoops and cheers for the BGLTSA and College Democrats debaters were accompanied by polite and enthusiastic applause for the largely out-supported Salient and CSA. The questions asked of both sides by the audience were concise, respectful, and honest. No traps were laid, and no jeering interrupted speakers from either side. The mood was curious, not combative, and although everybody must have disagreed with at least one idea put out by the debaters, the air of civility and mutual respect was maintained.

At one point, a debater made an off-handed reference to a stereotypical family culture of “Mommy makes the pie, and Daddy puts on the pants.” The unlikely wording and hilarious image that this phrase brings to mind elicited laughter from the entire lecture hall.

However, it didn’t ring of condescension but served as a common recognition of something amusing. Everyone was truly laughing with the debater, and not at him. And in the great playground of collegiate political debate, maybe that’s the best we can hope for.

Emma M. Lind ’09, a Crimson editorial editor, is a social studies concentrator in Winthrop House.