John Corgan
Staff Writer
DESIGNED TO supplement the education of the student body, the Notre Dame Forum seeks to be “not just a 2-hour flashy event, but the centerpiece of a campus-wide conversation during this academic year,” said its lead organizer, Professor Timothy Matovina. Given this year’s topic of immigration, an issue about which many Notre Dame students and faculty have strong and often contrasting opinions, Matovina suggested that this year’s event separated itself from the previous two in that it provided grounds for meaningful conversation on an issue of already heated national debate.
Some, however, such as Professor William Evans, were disappointed by the way in which the debate was framed. The Keough-Hesburgh Professor of Economics at Notre Dame, Evans felt that because the invited panelists were three politicians and a cardinal, “there was lots of posturing and little context to the presentations.”
Evans particularly noted the “lack of any social science presence in either the forum or in the suggested readings for the forum. The moderator did a good job of asking tough [economic and sociological] questions… yet none of the panel members had a clue what the data actually say.”
Ray Suarez, a senior correspondent for the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, served as moderator for the event, while Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida, Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona, Mayor Louis Barletta of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, and His Eminence Roger Cardinal Mahoney of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles were the featured panelists.
Evans said that this was apparent when Saurez posed questions about the impact of illegal immigration upon the wages and employment of native citizens and legal immigrants, the relative gain or drain of illegal immigration on the treasury, and the proportion of crimes committed by illegal immigrants relative to the rest of the population. These are all areas that a social scientist could have capably addressed, while the panelists simply noted the difficulty of making such determinations.
Still, others believe that the choice of politicians was the right one. Junior and Colombia native Camila Escallon said that it was important to have politicians speaking because they are the ones who will ultimately make decisions about immigration. Her fellow classmate Valerie Gadala-Maria expressed similar support for the choice of panelists, but suggested that the moderator should have been equipped with more economic and sociological facts and data before the Forum, in order to better direct a discussion or provide a clearer answer to the audience.
For his part, Matovina defended the choice of a predominantly political panel, stating, “You can’t do everything in two hours, and I think we made a good choice to have a diverse panel representing church leadership and three levels of government, [especially] since the political debate and enactment of legislation is occurring on all three levels.”
Matovina also stressed that various other immigration-related events with “a more scholarly base” are taking place around campus throughout the year, and encouraged students to check the Forum website (forum.nd.edu) for more details.
Yet the choice of three politicians was not the only thing drawing criticism. Many in the audience expressed frustration over the dynamics of the discussion itself. According to Escallon and Gadala-Maria, the perspectives of each panelist quickly became apparent during the Forum. They both said that Martinez and Mahoney represented the more liberal and “welcoming” side, while Barletta represented the more conservative or “hard line” approach. Meanwhile, Napolitano remained the most objective and “realistic” of the four, according to Gadala-Maria.
If anything, said Escallon, Barletta’s side was under-represented. “It almost seemed like there was no real debate … The mayor was outmatched. He only argued by examples.”
Gadala-Maria agreed, stating that at times “it seemed like three on one.” However, she attributes this more to the mayor’s “bad attitude toward cooperation” than to his particular perspective or actions as mayor of Hazleton. As a consequence of his attitude, she said, Barletta appeared “narrow minded.”
Gadala-Maria said she was also “frustrated” by the range of topics discussed, saying that certain issues were neglected. She specifically would have liked to see more focus on the reasons why immigrants come to the United States. A resident of Miami, she cited the large Cuban population whose motivation to come to this country was far more political than economic. “It’s more than just higher paying jobs,” she said.
Despite these criticisms, however, Escallon and Gadala-Maria both said that the Forum was a success and a benefit to the student body. Stating that the Forum was “very helpful for the students,” Escallon commented that overall the discussion was “realistic and down-to-earth.”
As for the lasting influence of the Forum, Gadala-Maria remarked that while it opened her eyes a bit more, “among my friends, we talked for a few days, but not much more after that. … That’s normal, though.”
Additionally, Escallon noted the difficulty of attending the various other immigration events on campus. While she felt that the Forum itself was very accessible to the students because classes were cancelled, she has struggled to find time to attend other events associated with the Forum.
This is an issue of schedules rather than opportunity. As Matovina emphasized, “I think one of the most important messages is that the Forum discussion is not over. There are still events planned into the spring, courses to be taught on immigration, and opportunities for students to get involved with immigration-related activities. My hope is that the energy of the Forum and related activities will move from discussion and debate to action.”
As the Forum itself made clear, the need for action is one thing upon which all parties can agree.
Contact John at jcorgan@nd.edu.
| 
