Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, a student at Grinnell College in Iowa, was, on Nov. 6, told to ask Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton a scripted question at a live debate. Sadly, but not without remorse, the student did indeed ask the pre-formed question. At debates where we the people are supposed to be receiving full exposure to candidates and their platforms, it is a true disappointment to democracy that scripted questions-to which there are already answers-are being asked, when hard-hitting, honest and important questions should be asked.
The spirit of democracy is not to be found in prewritten questions that do not offer the true bite that honest and impromptu questions seem to require. Questions that are composed and thought of by the students or other members of the voting community should be questions of integrity. When a citizen in a democratic state is told not to ask a question, but is instead directed to the pre-scripted, pre-answered form question, the integrity of the debate process is lost.
What a fresh and new act it would be to see presidential candidates accept truly unscripted questions and admit, without remorse or guilt, that they are not informed enough to give a thorough answer to a genuine question. It is the questions that are not answered that will tell the average person more about a candidate.
Students are often known as the rabble-rousers and finicky rebels of American society, and politicians are often nervous about giving a student an open-microphone or unscripted debate. The issue is not so much that students should be allowed to say anything they want to a candidate in a structured debate-that would be time inefficient and more than likely unproductive-but rather that all students and citizens should be allowed to engage political candidates, and even serving politicians, in the free, democratic, open debate that embodies the ideals of the U.S. governing system.
Accepting the practice of scripted questions and equally scripted answers for political candidates is accepting a practice subversive to American democracy. By forcing candidates to know the issues they are debating and the stance on issues that other candidates are taking, we may finally see a political race that is based on true knowledge of the issues, the other candidates and the people.
A candidate uninformed enough to understand the differing stances of opposing candidates speaks much more to that candidate’s character and work ethic than scripted answers that sound like press releases instead of impromptu answers. Only by forcing the candidates to speak honestly and not planting people in scripted question-and-answer sessions will we finally see a political race based on truth.