Davidson wins 21st Everett Oratory Competition

Sophomore Andrew Davidson won first prize at the 21st annual Edward Everett Oratory Competition Tuesday.

The five finalists, juniors Jean-Luc and Mattis Belloncle, sophomores Andrew Davidson and Ethan Tong, and newcomer Caleb Sampson, responded to the challenge of the competition: “The right role of government in a pandemic.” Sophomore Rachel Warren was offered as an alternative selected and recognized as a finalist during the competition.

Students looked at various aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the American government’s response to it, as well as their idea of ​​a conservative pandemic response.

The speakers each made 10-minute memorized speeches to Hillsdale College President Larry Arnn, Professor of English, David Whalen, and Paul Oehlke, a visiting judge from Saint Cloud State University.

The event is named after Edward Everett, an American statesman and public speaker best known for his two-hour speech at Gettysburg National Cemetery. The first prize was $ 3,000, the second was $ 2,000, and the third was $ 1,000.

The jurors rated the finalists according to various criteria: time management, clarity of ideas, adaptation to the audience, logical sequence, presentation, appearance and persuasiveness. At the awards ceremony, Arnn noted that the competition was particularly fierce this year as the top speakers’ scores were only separated by three points, with Davidson taking first place, Tong second and Sampson third.

“I think the best qualities of the oratorio perfectly contradict the larger mission of Hillsdale College itself: it is open to everyone, and the most successful speakers are those who put most of the work into the oratorio,” said Davidson.

One of the factors that contributed to his success was the presence of his family during the finals.

“I was pleased with my own performance, but my greatest comfort while waiting to hear from the judges was the presence of my family in the room,” said Davidson. “More for them than for myself, I was overjoyed to win and to offer them something exciting.”

Davidson’s speech focused on the economic impact and regulatory overshoot of the US COVID-19 response. He explored the unsound science behind a statewide lockdown and explored the larger philosophical question of the role of government in deciding the balance between freedom and security.

“Nobody should live in a society where the government gives and the government takes away, blessed be the name of the government,” said Davidson, causing laughter from the audience.

Davidson went on to describe that it is a government’s responsibility to take an active role in a pandemic, but that ultimately “the government should be the best and most honorable servant of the people. Our leaders have no right to capitalize on our fear. ”

He then suggested that the government’s ideal response to a pandemic would be to assess the threat, provide people with intelligence on safety, and allow people to make their own decisions while using regulatory powers to protect the vulnerable . Davidson also suggested that the federal government should have used the funds from the second and third rounds of stimulus controls to advance vaccine research and protect the most vulnerable.

Tong’s speech took a different approach, citing theological and philosophical responses to a pandemic. He suggested the idea that nationwide lockdowns are inefficient and unnecessary, citing scholars who fear lockdowns would be used for social and political control rather than citizen security.

Ultimately, Tong said the government’s response to a pandemic is to provide TLC: Truth, Freedom, and Containment. He said the government “needs to bridge the gap between fear and indulgence, and that is the truth”. Good government should enable citizens to know the facts, make a decision about their personal well-being, and use consent appropriately to regulate the situation.

Sampson’s speech focused on the concept of integrity and the dual purpose of government: to protect citizens and to ensure their happiness and prosperity. He cited research that showed citizens were dissatisfied with the pandemic guidelines and how politicians were violating their own guidelines.

Mattis Belloncle’s speech looked at the negative mental, emotional, and economic side effects of government lockdowns. He claimed that the government should “inform, not enforce”.

“If we want to be a truly free nation with freedom and justice for all, there is a responsibility to do so,” he said. “That means trusting people that they are free.”

During a pandemic, according to Jean-Luc Belloncle, there is an inherent conflict between protecting life and protecting freedom. He contrasted freedom and license using the analogy of the known risk associated with driving a car.

“There is a difference between a risk you accepted and a risk you did not accept,” he said.

Kirstin Kiledal, professor of public speaking and public address and director of the competition, noted that the events of the past year affected the tone of the competition.

“While the competition went as usual, there was a difference in the atmosphere,” said Kiledal. “The importance of the pandemic for every audience deepened the discussion with the speeches and the speakers themselves.”