“Should SLU strive to be the finest Catholic university in the nation?” This was the question the Philosophy Club sought to answer at its ninth annual debate.

Junior Linsey Dieckmeyer came up with the prompt, saying it was based off of University President Lawrence Biondi S.J.’s University goal.

“I spent the summer studying at Cornell University and traveling the west coast,” Dieckmeyer said. “So, essentially, I was experiencing another type of educational institution and diverse communities which got me to thinking about SLU’s strengths and weaknesses as it’s grounded in the St. Louis region.”

Eight student participants were divided into two groups of four, one side taking a positive stance toward the question and the other, a negative.

Each side was left to give their take on the issue for the remainder of the debate.

Senior Eileen Baker, Philosophy Club President, gave the opening remarks.

She began with a detailed history of Jesuit debates and setting a context for the discussion.

Each participant was given about five minutes to present their defense of their position.

Each student had a different approach to the question despite their assigned side in the debate.

Senior Bilal Naji took a negative stance to the question. He spoke from a political stand point, pointing out the lack of a “Billiken’s for Choice” group on campus and the shutting down of Una, SLU’s feminist group to show that the Catholic aspect of the question becomes a limiting force.

Matt Von Rueden utilized religion as a positive in his argument for striving to be the finest institution by referencing the four characteristics of Jesuit theology.

Von Rueden stated that these are essential for a working definition of what it means to be a Jesuit Catholic university. He stressed heavily a commitment to the service of God and that through pursuing this goal we could achieve our goal of becoming the best.

Avoiding debate involving the definitions in the question, senior Steven Barnett was concerned with how the goal could be made to be a good thing.

Barnett was of the opinion that the University’s goal should be more about promoting academic excellence and developing strong skills, rather than improving statistical successes.

Dieckmeyer felt that competition to be the best distracts from the school’s Jesuit and University goals, and that trying to compete creates “a façade,” making concern with ranking and marketing campaigns more permissible.

“These things would hurt the academics of the school,” Dieckmeyer said.

She pointed out that the discourse of the night was not for competition but for sharing insight, which is what universities should look to do.

All of the students’ speeches were followed up by a response from Michael Barber S.J., a professor of philosophy and interim dean of the College of Arts & Sciences and the dean of the College of Philosophy and Letters. Barber provided commentary on each argument with the intent of inspiring further conversation and bringing more insight into each student’s position.

“[Barber’s] willingness to offer us constructive criticism on the spot was fantastic and really opened the floor for audience members to ask us their own questions,” Dieckmeyer said.

The floor was then opened to questions from the audience and requests for further debate between participants. Naji’s presentation was a prime focus during the conversation, as his examples inspired a lot of conversation.

An audience member asked the students to discuss what they thought a “holy rivalry” was, building on an idea brought forth by Barber.

“I thought the event was wholly successful,” said Dieckmeyer. “It encouraged precisely the type of open dialogue out club strives for.”