Jackson Leads HBS, HLS Debate

In a forum featuring two polished all-male debate teams and a collection of high-profile speakers, the Harvard Law School (HLS) last night traded jabs with the Harvard Business School (HBS) in an hour-long debate.

Organizers said that the debate and its topic--"What is good for the company is good for the country"--was an effort to broaden the perspectives of students at Harvard's graduate schools.

The event was headlined by a keynote address from Rev. Jesse L. Jackson and was moderated by Lt. Gov. A. Paul Cellucci. The panel of judges was a Who's Who at Harvard, including Dean of the Kennedy School Joseph S. Nye Jr., IBM Professor of Business and Government Roger B. Porter and Undergraduate Council President Lamelle D. Rawlins '99.

Although the judges acknowledged that the Law School, which debated the affirmative, faced a more dificult task, they proclaimed the HBS team the overall victor.

While most were pleased with the event's sucess, some, like Rawlins, felt that the absence of women was a mistake.

"Women's voices could have added a lot to the debate tonight," Rawlins said.

Rawlins said that while she was "sure" the lack of female presence was unintentional, she hopes that future panels are more balanced.

Members of both teams were also troubled by the lack of gender balance.

"It was very ironic," said Arlo Devlin-Brown, a first-year law student and captain of the HLS team.

Devlin-Brown added that he was not involved in the selection process but hopes to see women involved in future debates.

Business School students insisted that while their team may have had an abundance of testosterone, there were plenty of women who could have competed.

"I can't speak for the Law School, but at the HBS we had several members who could have kicked butt today," said Ken Murray, a second-year student at the Business School.

More than a discussion of policy, the debate was an exercise in logic and rhetorical strategy.

Arguing the negative, the HBS team said it is impossible to categorically state that what is good for the company must be good for the government.

In their opening statement, HBS students pointed out that there are some instances when what is good for the country is bad for the company and other instances where what is good for the company may be bad for the country.

"Has anybody here ever taken a swim in the Charles River?" Murray asked. "Is it in the interest of those companies to poison the [water]?"

Murray said that the capitalist system nations and firms from necessarily sharing common interests.

"The competition between companies creates a situation where it is highly unlikely that there will be a situation which is good for both the country and the company," Murray said.

Law School speakers rebutted HBS attacks with a broader definition of a company's interest.

HLS students insisted that a company's interest is not defined by the desires of cost-cutting CEOs, but instead by the company's shareholders.

Responding to HBS assertions that Texaco is an example of a company acting against the interest of the country, HLS students said that stockholders and customers have been able to change the major corporation's policy. HBS debaters had cited the Texaco racial-harassment suit as an instance of corporate irresponsibility.

"Once the market was able to get its hands on the situation...Texaco changed its act pretty quickly," said Chris Paolella, a first-year Law School student.

In his keynote address following the debate, Jackson blazed a path down the middle of the two positions.

"Somewhere between the extremes is something called judgment and personal integrity," Jackson said.

Jackson acknowledged that while governments may at times be forced to protect themselves from the pure self-interest of companies, under the right circumstances those same companies can be constructive.

At time Jackson displayed a wit that fit right into a tone set by the aggressive debates teams.

The former presidential candidate prefaced his comments by noting how Harvard policies often prevents speakers from receiving honorariums.

"Speaking of business, what is good for Harvard is not good for the speaker," Jackson said.

As the debate teams were announced at the start of the Ames Courtroom event, the atmosphere seemed like a tennis match as suited onlookers cheered their teams.

And as the dialogue got rolling, the jabs started flowing.

"I have to admit I have a certain amount of initial skepticism about an organization that has the initials B.S. in its name," Paolella said.

While HBS students weathered a copious quality of references to their manicured campus and the whirlpool in their athletic facility, they threw a few of their own punches.

Judged by the sound of the crowd, they won the following brief exchange:

HBS: How does a company reallocate its resources?

HLS: Bankruptcy law--which you can take here as an elective.

HBS: We won't be needing it.

When a Kennedy School delegation challenged the victorious Law School team to a second debate in the fall, it seemed to many that a new tradition was in the making.

"I suspect that bragging rights are far from settled," Cellucci said

"Has anybody here ever taken a swim in the Charles River?" Murray asked. "Is it in the interest of those companies to poison the [water]?"

Murray said that the capitalist system nations and firms from necessarily sharing common interests.

"The competition between companies creates a situation where it is highly unlikely that there will be a situation which is good for both the country and the company," Murray said.

Law School speakers rebutted HBS attacks with a broader definition of a company's interest.

HLS students insisted that a company's interest is not defined by the desires of cost-cutting CEOs, but instead by the company's shareholders.

Responding to HBS assertions that Texaco is an example of a company acting against the interest of the country, HLS students said that stockholders and customers have been able to change the major corporation's policy. HBS debaters had cited the Texaco racial-harassment suit as an instance of corporate irresponsibility.

"Once the market was able to get its hands on the situation...Texaco changed its act pretty quickly," said Chris Paolella, a first-year Law School student.

In his keynote address following the debate, Jackson blazed a path down the middle of the two positions.

"Somewhere between the extremes is something called judgment and personal integrity," Jackson said.

Jackson acknowledged that while governments may at times be forced to protect themselves from the pure self-interest of companies, under the right circumstances those same companies can be constructive.

At time Jackson displayed a wit that fit right into a tone set by the aggressive debates teams.

The former presidential candidate prefaced his comments by noting how Harvard policies often prevents speakers from receiving honorariums.

"Speaking of business, what is good for Harvard is not good for the speaker," Jackson said.

As the debate teams were announced at the start of the Ames Courtroom event, the atmosphere seemed like a tennis match as suited onlookers cheered their teams.

And as the dialogue got rolling, the jabs started flowing.

"I have to admit I have a certain amount of initial skepticism about an organization that has the initials B.S. in its name," Paolella said.

While HBS students weathered a copious quality of references to their manicured campus and the whirlpool in their athletic facility, they threw a few of their own punches.

Judged by the sound of the crowd, they won the following brief exchange:

HBS: How does a company reallocate its resources?

HLS: Bankruptcy law--which you can take here as an elective.

HBS: We won't be needing it.

When a Kennedy School delegation challenged the victorious Law School team to a second debate in the fall, it seemed to many that a new tradition was in the making.

"I suspect that bragging rights are far from settled," Cellucci said