For the Record: The Philodemic Society’s Second Founder

By Manuel A Miranda, F’82

(This is the fourth of five pieces that recount the revival of Georgetown University’s historic Philodemic Debate Society approaching its 200th?year.??Here you can find?Part 1 ?and?Part 2 .)?

Eric George first “met” Fr. Durkin as many of us had, in the Pierce Reading Room at Lauinger, through the commemorative plaque depicting the aged Jesuit, surrounded by his American history library.??He assumed the priest-scholar had died ages ago.??

“Not long afterwards,” writes George, “I encountered the real article - not merely alive but racing across Healy lawn in his trademarked head-first, urgent speed-walk mode, impervious to his advanced years.?I stopped him. I introduced myself and was rewarded with an invitation to meet him at the old Jesuit residence.??Eventually he told me about his upcoming Bicentennial tutorial course, where each student would research a topic and write a possible chapter for a book to be published as part of Georgetown’s Bicentennial celebration. In our conversation, Fr. Durkin introduced me to what had been the Philodemic Debate Society.”

I asked Eric when and how he came to decide that he would restore the on-campus debate tradition???This is his story:

“From its creation in 1830 through most of its life, the Philodemic gathered each week, eventually in its storied debate hall to clash on all manner of topics.??Unfortunately, that long tradition ended over twenty years before my time, and a standard collegiate debate-style team - just a few students - picked up the Philodemic’s mantle and did their thing - focusing on how to debate both sides of a single topic, and traveling throughout the year to compete with other college campuses.??No disrespect here, but this had zero appeal to me.??

Meanwhile, for Fr. Durkin’s course, as I leafed through years’ worth of Philodemic minutes at Georgetown’s archives, I encountered something totally different.??Successive generations of Georgetown undergrads had, in their time, addressed the same topics their counterparts in Congress were debating - wars being fought, foreign policy, was the president better than his predecessor, judicial decisions, etc.??But “Philodemicians” were also debating much more - just about anything from?‘is the pen mightier than the sword?’ to the relative merits of the statesmen of antiquity.??They were earnest; I’m sure they saw this as practice for the callings they saw for themselves.??But their debates were equal parts style and persuasion to logic and reasoning.??I could also discern personalities, teasing and humor from the brittle copies of 19th century minutes.?

My reaction to all this???Nostalgia - here was a society I’d have loved to join, but that was long dormant before I’d ever set foot on campus.??And also, I felt frustration - I vaguely knew that at some point in my life, I might be called on to speak publicly.??I hoped I’d figure out how to think on my feet, and not humiliate myself too often.

After sharing this lament with Fr. Durkin as well as my then-housemates and friends, we realized there was really just one question that needed to be answered in order to move forwards - or back in time, in a sense - with a revived Philodemic debate society:??would students be interested???Fr. Durkin - several generations older than me - asked me rhetorically whether we were 'putting new wine into old skins.'??Well, there was just one way to find that out.”

Eric George and I are both INTJs on the Miers Briggs personality scale and quite naturally I asked Eric what the key steps were that he had taken before he convened the first debate in the Fall of 1989? This is instructive for anyone who aims to leave their mark on Georgetown:

“I went to the President’s office.??With Fr. Durkin’s?imprimatur, they were more than accommodating and gave us the key to the Philodemic Hall.?As to the first debate itself, the Philodemic had figured out during more than a century of debating what protocols worked.??For what hadn’t been written down, we?ad libbed.??

For example, for the first debate we wanted to make sure we had someone presenting the principal arguments for - and then against - the resolution. We decided to have a few ‘keynote’ speakers to start off the debate.??But the big issue was attendance.??

I’m sure there had always been competing ways over centuries to spend a Thursday night, but in 1989 - what we were trying to revive was competing with the Pub just down the stairs, M Street bars, and the Cosby Show, etc.??So, we first got hard commitments from everyone we thought might be interested, and in fact had a terrific draw for the first debate.??Still, over the ensuing year, and before we got a steady group of any regard, there were plenty of nights in the great room when attendance was light.”

I asked Eric what significance he gave to having debates in the Philodemic Hall, and what the features, decor, and history of the Philodemic Hall speak to him?

"I can’t overstate it – for me it was no Philodemic Hall, no Philodemic Society.??It wasn’t just about preserving tradition - an idea that, without more, has zero appeal to me.??Years later I was counsel to the US Senate Judiciary Committee.??I always felt the Senate chamber was a sort of hallowed ground.??It never needed to be said - but always was the case - that when you walked on to the Senate floor, you did your level best.??But I first experienced this with the Philodemic Hall.??

The room itself did the work of “telling” everyone to put on hold any bad manners, or crass language, or sloppy thinking.??No matter how hot under the collar someone may have gotten at any debate, I don’t recall the kind of?ad hominem slings that are part of a dorm room debate.??Part of this is probably the artifice of an elegant room, but there’s also the feeling of being privileged to be able to step briefly into a long history, evident in portraits of long-gone Philodemicans who went on to distinguish themselves.??So, substitute, say, an auditorium in the ICC building for the Philodemic Hall, and that is gone."

I asked Eric,?Philodemic Room aside, what he put in place at the start that he considered to have been the essential ingredient for the success of the??Society for 34 years? He wrote:

“At college age, we’re deluded into thinking our generation is confronting problems no other generation has.??What spared us this delusion was having a group of friends and mentors that included faculty (not just Fr. Durkin, but Fr. Frank Winters) and also alums.??This helped enormously with starting and then running the Philodemic - especially when several Georgetown administrators started interfering - no other word will do - with what we were doing.??

So, an essential ingredient to ensure the Philodemic would keep its momentum was codifying a role for faculty and alumni to offer guidance as needed.??To that end we created an alumni association right off in 1989, which was quickly put to use after I graduated when University administrators reneged on promises and took back the Philodemic Hall to in pursuit of some expensive scheme.?

Managed by our?Alumni Philodemica, you and I and our indomitable first president Rita Jankovich (B’91) launched a sustained campaign.??Richard Alan Gordon, a Philodemic alum and a Georgetown law professor who was nothing short of legendary, picked up the fight - as did many other alumni Philodemicians including Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and Democratic political advisor Bob Shrum.?The effort lasted over four years.??And the Hall came back.??

But ensuring sustained success is a delicate thing, and other than aspects of the Philodemic that are truly existential - not just preserving the Hall as the Philodemic’s home, but maintaining weekly debates, or ensuring inclusivity for all who want to seriously participate, we need to guard against administrators prone to micromanage what they don’t understand.”

I asked Eric how he had aimed to ensure that the Philodemic membership would be at once selective and inclusive?

“Never once in researching the history of the Philodemic, or in reviving it, did I ever encounter any practice or tradition that was discriminatory by religion, race, gender, politics or viewpoint, or otherwise.??It’s too obvious to need repeating that Georgetown existed at a time of - and itself engaged in - unspeakable exclusions.??But as to the Philodemic itself???Nothing about it, or the debates it hosts, or its protocols or practices, did or logically would exclude anyone.??

To the contrary, the Philodemic hews to concepts that I regard are universal.??After all - consider its motto - in Latin, as translated:??“cultivate?eloquence in the defense of liberty.”??And as an institution it has been a vehicle by which any interested person can show up at a debate and out-debate, our-persuade, out-wit, any other person, regardless of identity or viewpoint, or otherwise.??If someone wants to say otherwise - and to be clear I’ve not heard so - they should first ask the pioneers of the revived Philodemic - a cast of characters who were diverse by race, ethnicity, gender, religion - how they felt.??Brian Jones (C’90), who was President of the Georgetown College Democrats, joined the revived Philodemic as its first Black member, would have a thing or two to say. He would go on to be a leader and hero of the African American community as a lawyer and educator.?

I asked Eric what had been his greatest obstacle, and what were the obstacles that the university administration put in his way that you had to overcome?

“The University’s professional administration - let’s exclude the few Jesuits then remaining in positions of authority - were a hindrance.??Their motives struck us as not just as bizarre but as feigned.??It never made sense to us why they’d want to interfere with what we were doing.??One intermeddler said that requiring “appropriate dress” for those to attend a debate was too exclusive; that somewhere on campus was a young man who didn’t own a tie and would feel excluded!??“Thank you,” we immediately responded, and volunteered to use meager collective dues to ensure that was never the case.??So, the administrator went on to offer some other speculative reason why we were a problem to her.??Witnessing this nonsense from people old enough to know better, I probably shed a lot of naivete at the time.??My advice here to future Philodemic leaders:?be on the watch; administrators will try this again; they have agendas other than yours, and can readily outlast your brief stay on campus to accomplish them.”

I asked Eric what were his most enjoyable memories of the revival?

“Drama, in the best sense of the word, was a big part of it.??These debates develop skills but can’t help but be fun.??As undergrads we’re still trying to figure out who we are, and you could see a lot of that process unfolded in the Philodemic Hall.??“Who was brilliant?”??“Who laid an egg?”??“Could you believe when Ed slowly built up to what he promised us would be his fundamental thesis . . . and then suddenly fell silent.??Obviously he was improvising and his mind hadn’t caught up to his words.

Then there were the friendships - not just with students who were Philodemic’s leaders - principally Tom Fisher (C’90) and Ted McMullan (C’91).??But also with alumni I’d never have had met but for the Philodemic.??Richard Alan Gordon stands above all others here.??As I mentioned, he was a legendary law professor, and he’d been Philodemic president in 1950.??He had a brilliant mind and roaring voice, was never agnostic or tepid on any subject, and was beloved by the literally thousands of law students he’d taught.??While I was speaking at an event shortly after the revival, I heard his distinctive voice shouting out:??‘True son of the Philodemic!’”

I asked Eric what his aspirations for the Philodemic were and what aspirations he had now??

“Same then as now.??That any Georgetown student can walk into the Philodemic Hall any night there is a debate, grab a seat to watch and listen, overcome their nerves, raise their hand, get called on, and stand and speak.??The worse their performance, the sooner they’ll be back - to try again, and next time to do better.??It doesn’t matter what profession a student is headed toward - arts, medicine, technology, government service.??Clarity of thought and speech is irreplaceable.??My 40th reunion will be coming up in a few years coincident with the Society’s 200th year, and I’ve still never come across a better teacher in how to speak than the Philodemic.”?

* * * * * *

Eric George graduated from the College in 1990 and then from the Law School in 1993. He went on to have an illustrious legal career, including as counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee and then to the Governor of California, where he became expert in the rights of Native Americans among other matters. He served the state of California as a key leader in the non-partisan judicial nominations process and other civic duties. He is a partner?at?Ellis George Cipollone O’Brien Annaguey LLP?.??Eric is considered one of California’s leading litigators, taking on an eclectic variety if issues, as he did in the Philodemic, seem often before microphones beside his clients.

The revival of the Philodemic came in the Bicentennial year of 1989 but it wasn’t complete until the Merrick Medal Debate in the Spring of 1995.??In the revival, the Philodemic had to overcome three obstacles. These are discussed in Part 4 here , and in the climactic Part 5 of the revival history.??Coming soon.?

Manuel Miranda is the 1989 founder of the?Alumni Philodemica?and secretary of?The Sodality for the Historic Preservation of Philodemic Hall, an association of Philodemic students, alumni and supporters.?