Ducking democracy

What's an academic debate without controversial topics?\nThe principal and superintendent of Fort Mill High School in South Carolina believe it's the only way.\nPrincipal David Damm originally approved the eight-topic debate, which included issues such as gay marriage, stem cell research and abortion. But according to a report by www.cnn.com , Damm and the school's Superintendent Thomas Dowling pulled those topics from the debate to coalesce with a South Carolina law that prohibits health class discussions of abortion and homosexual sexual activity, the report said. \nThere are three problems with the administrators' logic. A discussion on same-sex marriage is not equivalent to a discussion on gay sexual activity; stem cell research is not in any way related to abortion or gay sexual activity; and the debate is not in any way related to health class. The decision is nothing more than a duck-out.\nAs proof, the chief counsel for South Carolina's school system, Dale Stuckey, said in the article that a debate would not violate the state's health class statute.\n"There is nothing in state law that prohibits in general discussion of any topic," Stuckey said in the report.\nDamm and Dowling's decision symbolizes a recent trend to shy away from important issues in fear of offending people. Just like the Clinton administration's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military and Ari Fleischer's comments warning citizens to "watch what you say," this debate debacle is not good for peacefulness, but rather, is bad for democracy.\nThe word "democracy," as we constantly need to be reminded, comes from Greek roots and means "rule by the people." If Americans wish to have an all-encompassing democracy -- which some people don't, but we do -- then all people's viewpoints need to be heard. High school students need to hear reasoned arguments on important issues like stem cell research and same-sex marriage, and if a school-sanctioned debate is not the place, then nowhere is. Where else are some of these students going to hear enough information to form their own opinions? C-SPAN? Not likely.\nA candidate's stance on issues like same-sex marriage and stem cell research is important because it tells voters something about the candidate as a person. If a candidate is opposed to developing stem cell research technology, what does that person value instead? If he or she is in favor of legal same-sex marriage, what does that say about him or her? \nIf students are prohibited from engaging in healthy debates regarding these issues, their classmates may never be appropriately informed and therefore left in the dark about the candidates for whom we ask them to vote. A healthy voter pool requires healthy dialogue, and Damm and Dowling, like many cowards before them, are hindering the most American process of all.\nOur democracy does not exist without able and willing participants. A system that stifles any kind of political conversation will go stale. A system that continues to do so will go corrupt.\nIf Damm and Dowling want to use their school to grow responsible citizens, these vital issues need to be fair game for debaters. After all, what's a healthy country without a little controversy?