Debate Teams Talk Future Health Care Policy

Controversial abortion policy, shared governance discussedNicolas SonnenburgTHE SANTA CLARAMay 15, 2014[dropcap]S[/dropcap]tudents filed into an O’Connor Hall classroom Tuesday evening to witness a century-old Santa Clara tradition.The Ryland Debate has pitted Santa Clara students against each other in spirited discourse since since 1897, and is held by the Santa Clara University Philalethic Debating Society.The topic of this year’s debate addressed the university’s controversial decision to remove coverage for elective abortions from the faculty and staff insurance plans.Junior Troy Estes and senior Julie Herman, arguing in the affirmative for abortion coverage, focused on what they called a “violation” of the shared governance policy at Santa Clara, stating President Michael Engh, S.J., changed the policy without consulting the school’s policy committees, department heads or faculty.“This departure from the shared governance model could threaten (Santa Clara’s) accreditation as a university,” said Estes.Another main argument centered around a perceived breach of the law, particularly the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975. The state law oversees, licenses and promotes the proper delivery and quality of health care service plans for the people of California.“Furthermore, the California laws regarding abortion do not distinguish between an elective abortion or a therapeutic abortion or any other type of abortions,” said Estes.The duo bolstered their opinion with public letters of discontent written by faculty members including Nancy Unger, a history professor, and Steve Diamond, an associate law professor.Junior Austin Freitas and freshman Michael Harris argued the negative side of the issue, making an appeal to Santa Clara’s Jesuit identity.Freitas and Harris accepted that the law may have been violated, but explained it was important for Engh to challenge the law if he perceived it as unjust. According to Freitas and Harris, it was his obligation as the leader of the corporate identity of the university to make this decision.“The faculty loves to talk about this topic,” said Melan Jaich, director of the debate program. “But I think a lot of the students are overwhelmed by the complexity of the issue. It was a good discussion to have.”When Engh made the announcement last fall, many faculty members expressed concerns vocally. The change itself was alarming to many, but, as reflected in the debate, the issue of shared governance also sparked anger.“I, like many other faculty members, consider the process by which the decision was made to have violated Santa Clara’s system of shared governance, which provides a very specific set of procedures for involving faculty in crucial decisions affecting them and the academic life of the university,” said William Sundstrom, professor of economics.Though he felt that Engh did not follow correct procedure, Sundstrom is encouraged by Engh’s willingness to discuss and strengthen shared governance.As the university community continues to address this issue, discussions such as the Ryland Debate can be beneficial.According to Robert Scholla, S.J., Bannan Faculty Fellow at the Ignatian Center for Jesuit Education. “Debate is important. It leads to clarification. But what we need to get away from is typical, derisive crossfire.”Judged by an alumna of Santa Clara’s debate team and two law school students, the panel voted in favor of  the affirmative position. Herman and Harris were honored as the best debaters that evening.“This event harkens back to a time when debating was very popular on college campuses,” said Jaich. “We try to keep the topic of the debate relevant to campus and student interest.” Contact Nicolas Sonnenburg at nsonnenburg@scu.edu , or call (408) 554-4852.Correction: May 18, 2014The author's name was incorrectly spelled.