Who buys a car at sticker price without haggling with the salesman? Who purchases a home without first touring the model or having the foundation checked? Who votes for officials without first hearing their platform and having them debate the issues?

The latter, as absurd as it may sound, is happening right now at De Anza College and quite frankly, this scares me.

Political debate allows us, the voters, a window to the candidate’s mind. It affords us an opportunity to test the mettle of their platforms through dialog, and an insight to their potential leadership.

Our vote is the proverbial stamp of approval. It declares that we support a candidate because he or she best represents our own personal philosophies on a variety of issues. Perhaps their platform is in line with your belief in change and progress, or perhaps you believe that he or she simply has the right attitude. In any case, your vote is based on a personal choice rooted in matters of substance and meaning which could only have been derived from meaningful dialog and critical thought.

When I inquired as to when candidate debates would be taking place, the answer shocked me. “No such event has been planned,” one candidate said. When I asked why, I was told it hadn’t been coordinated by the current DASB. With the election window closing on May 13, and many already taking to the ballot box (in your computer), on what, then, are voters making their decision?

Brian Murphy, president De Anza College, recently stated “Community Colleges have a responsibility to support students in developing their democratic engagement by providing opportunities for civic learning and engagement.” (La Voz, vol. 44, issue 24)

Unfortunately, the lack of candidate debates this election season only lessens engagement, not encourages it, and perpetuates the civic disengagement and apathy that plagues local and national politics today. We, the voters, only have the word of coalitions to go on. Their creative acronyms, though catchy and sound-bite worthy, are superficial at best, and speak to nothing of substance. Furthermore, these coalitions only serve to perpetuate the two-party mentality, leaving little to no middle ground for voters, and that, I assert, is the greatest misfortune of all.

Politics without debate is a very dangerous road, and a road I think De Anza students are growing more and more comfortable traveling every day. Politics without debate means we blindly put our trust in candidates to “do the right thing.” Politics without debate means we learn helplessness. The sobering reality of it all is that students at De Anza are loosing civic virtue and learning civic irresponsibility.

“In my opinion, we should have had a debate. It is important for students to know what we stand for as the candidates that will represent them” (Shaila Ramos).

“Unfortunately the only opportunity we have to dialog or discuss our values is when we voluntarily go into classrooms and make presentations. But that depends on how much the students participate in the discussion and it’s limited to those present in the classroom” (Emily Kinner)

Oscar Pangilinan

De Anza student