Andrea Diaz
Reporter
Content Warning: Strong Language
Idaho State University students with varying political views came together to have an open discussion over Zoom. Questions covering a variety of political topics were asked and the students were free to give their opinions on each question.
The students who participated in the discussion included senior corporate communications major, Nyele Alvarez, senior electrical instrumentation major Camron Martinez, senior electrical energy systems engineering major, Elijah Whitecar and senior political science major, Eizaak Jordan.
The first question that was asked was “As college students what is your opinion on tuition costs?”
A variety of answers were given and all participants agreed that the cost of tuition was inflated. However, there were some disagreements on whether tuition should be free.
“I do think we should be striving towards having free education available for those in need. That threshold would be determined actually on a statewide basis, depending on the cost of living and things like that,” said Jordan.
“I gotta disagree with the free part. To be honest…. When it comes to free education, though. It has to be paid for somewhere at some level. So if you’re looking at taxing people to pay for this free education, what about people like my father and my brother, who didn’t go to college, but they have to pay for us to go to college? That’s not fair,” said Martinez.
The topic of who would pay for free tuition was also discussed by Whitecar who said, “I had to really kick my butt and go off and work. A college education is not some fundamental human right that it should be demanded to give us this, this college education.”
Jordan then responded, “I mean, there, there are people with exorbitant amounts of money, who really aren’t in need of that amount of money. I don’t think with many of these billionaires who have more money than many countries in the world, I don’t think that there’s any justification for that amount of assets in one person’s hands. And if it could benefit so many people, I think of the notion of sacrifice, right?”
The next question that the group discussed was “What is the word that comes to your mind when I say climate change?”
Whitecar started the conversation off by saying, “I’d say, the first word would be misconception. The left tries to point at us on the right as conservatives and saying we’re, you know, some science-denying environment killing ogres. We don’t believe in climate change if we’re denying all this. In fact, that’s not true at all.” Whitecar also went onto say, “I mean, you look at these are all conservatives leading the charge in this where we differ is when the government tries to impose their green energy initiatives on the private sector, crippling whole industries, just like President Biden did on his first day of office, killing 10s of 1000s of jobs in one stroke of his pen, in the private sector has always been better at conserving conservation and lowering carbon emissions.”
Jordan then responded to Whitecar by saying, “I’ll first do my one word. So I would say a threat. That’s what climate change poses, a threat. And I first wanted to address this notion of the private sector being able to fix environmental problems. I’m sorry, the track record is just not there. Our problems have continued to get worse as time has gone on.”
Jordan also went on to explain that we need to transition from oil and gas to renewable energy and that there is an excessive amount of money going into the oil and gas industry.
With the topic of renewable energy being brought up, Martinez agreed that there was an excessive amount of money going to the oil and gas industry and said, “The technology is not there. And I’m all about green energy. I’ve done wind and solar farms in three different states. It’s not a wind, it’s not sustainable yet….But it needs to be. But let’s say we have 100 years of fossil fuels. Why? Why would we wait till 95 years go by? Like, oh, shit, we only have five years left? Maybe we should figure out these wind farm things? No, let’s, let’s get it done now.”
The conclusion of this topic was what Alvarez said, “Look, the whole world, every single leading nation, every single country affected by climate change is agreeing that this is an immediate threat that we not as Americans, not as a Chinese, but as human beings need to come together to solve, that’s not going to come easy….We’re all one race. I’m the darkest one here, but I feel connected to each one of you. Regardless, so I think at the end of the day, the polarization is gonna be the downfall of this potentially beautiful progression that we could all come to as humanity.”
The next question for discussion was “What are your thoughts on the event that happened on Jan. 6, 2021?”
The main consensus from the participants was that what occurred was wrong and Whitecar began the discussion by saying he renounced it the day it happened and thinks that everyone involved should be prosecuted. He then brought up the topic of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests and said that they should renounce what happened during those protests.
“It was like a slap in the face, especially to watch it transform live over social media and for me to be protesting the unjust killings and police brutality against black and brown people, which does happen even here in Pocatello…” said Alvarez replying to Whitecar’s comments. “That kind of sucks to see the other side, storm the Capitol building, the highest honor in this country, storm it and get away with a year or less of probation. I think that was like the most like eye-opening.”
Jordan responded to Alvarez by saying he agreed with her and said, “ I mean, the BLM movement, I mean, that’s a movement for equality, that’s a movement for working towards American principles. I, I think one was, what happened on the sixth was working against the decision of the American people. And what BLM was trying to do was work for equality. So I think it’s a very, very false comparison, to bring those two together in any way, shape or form.”
The group did have some disagreements about whether violence was a good thing in the BLM protests and about whether the police in these situations started the violence or if it was the protestors that did.
The final question to end the interview was “Who/what would be an event, an organization, or a person that you think could unite us as a nation?” Martinez started the discussion by saying, “I think the person that would bring this country back together, is us. It’s people like us, just talking to each other. To be honest, it’s not a politician. It’s not a law. It’s not a new anything. It’s just regular people getting back to doing what regular people do, and talking to each other.”
Jordan also added that everyone seems to like small businesses and we can all come together to support them and ended by saying, “And the final thing that could possibly bring us together, which I think, you know, at least brings me together with anyone I am frustrated with, is a good plate of fried chicken and cold slop. I gotta say. Y’all got a big pile. We can figure anything out.”
With some final remarks, Alvarez added, “Since like the beginning of the BLM protest rising, who is going to be the next MLK? Like who’s going to, like, organize, take charge, be that shining light be that beacon? I don’t necessarily think it’s gonna be a person or an organization, I think it’s gonna be the threat of a very serious problem that we all have to overcome ourselves to deal with.”
Overall even though the group was filled with people with differing opinions, views and affiliations they were more often than not able to see each other’s point of view and come together on an agreement on what they thought would be best for the country. Every participant was civil and the discussion was productive in learning about other people’s views.
Watch the full interview online at isubengal.com/videos.
