Reflections of a Former Member of The Orange Wave

Calla Jean

I spent more of my time at college in the basement of Hardin than I did almost anywhere else on campus.  It’s quiet, the seats are comfortable, and there wasn’t anyone who cared if I practiced my Ethics Bowl presentations over and over.   Ethics Bowl is a national debate competition in which teams of students are presented with 15 cases outlining a wide range of ethical dilemmas. Each team member is usually responsible for three cases, but everyone has to know about every case.  In the two years that I was on the team, I had topics ranging from prison labor to new media to in vitro fertilization. 

We met at least twice a week, where we would discuss, debate, object, and bring up new angles on each case.  I not only had a chance to discuss these issues with my teammates and members of the Rutland Institute, but also chose to contact faculty members from all over campus.  I met professors from sociology, education, biology, and anthropology.  They were people who I had never had a class with and never would have met otherwise.  I gained a better perspective not only on my cases, but also on the Clemson family.  Of the professors that I contacted, almost all were eager to help a student they had never met for a team they had nothing to do with.


With so many people bringing in diverse opinions and information, it is inevitable that our response to each case evolved, and sometimes changed entirely.  Other than the requisite libertarian year when I first came to college, I am a life-long liberal.  When I took on a case about the citizenship of the children of illegal immigrants, my immediate response was “Of course!” but the more I talked the issue over, the deeper into the issue I got.  I had to look past the ridiculous “anchor baby” debate that immediately came to mind upon reading the case, and instead look at what it means to be a citizen.  One of my teammates asked me why it had to be one or the other, citizen or anchor baby, and he was right.  There was more to it than that.  Through that lens and given a few conditions, it is completely justifiable for these children to be legal residents until they are old enough to apply for citizenship. This is a position I would never have defended initially, but it’s one that I still stand by today.  At competition, the team we competed against never went beyond the “Of course!” response.  Thanks to my team, our coaches, and other Clemson faculty members, I was able to present a more nuanced position.  We won that round on our way to our second consecutive regional championship.


The worst thing I could have done in that situation and in Ethics Bowl in general would be to assume that I was right.  The cases are all designed so that reasonable people can disagree, and the teams that seemed to think theirs was the only possible answer were the ones that didn’t do well.  What made me a successful team member and what makes Clemson’s team so good year after year, is that we don’t think we have all the answers.  I can bring what I know and what I think, but unless I am willing to change my mind and to really listen to the people around me, my arguments and my team will never be great.

Calla Jean
Class of 2011