At the Healthcheck on Constitutional Governance event in Quinnipiac University’s Carl Hansen Student Center Piazza, political violence and how to avoid it was the main topic of discussion.
On Sept. 16 from 12:30-1:45 p.m., a board of three panelists and one moderator answered constitution-related questions that students had submitted in advance, as well as questions asked on the spot. According to political science Professor and moderator for the event Scott McLean, the event was meant to serve as “an opportunity to raise our concerns about the U.S. Constitution.”
The event fell on National Voter Registration Day, and at the back of the piazza, there was a table where students could register to vote and pick up a free, pocket-sized Constitution.
Students from a variety of majors attended the event, excited to learn more and hear from the panelists.
“I think it’s important for students who are not immersed in majors like legal studies, or law in society or criminal justice or anything like that,” sophomore criminal justice major Anastasia Souikidis said before the speakers began. “It’s (important) to get (students) more aware of things that do affect them.”
The discussion started with an introduction of the panelists from McLean and an outline of the ground rules. He asked the audience not to make generalizations, to avoid judging people’s questions and to give each other time to speak to build a safe space.
He ended his introduction with an acknowledgment of recent violent events. He said all of the panelists “soundly and vocally reject” all forms of political violence, before passing the mic to the panelists to introduce their goals for the discussion.
Visiting Assistant Professor of political science Candice Travis was the first panelist to speak, giving a brief summary of how the Constitution came to be and its many imperfections.
“So the result is a compromise,” she said when explaining debates between federalists and anti-federalists surrounding the ratification of the Constitution.
This idea of the Constitution being imperfect and contradictory due to the compromises within it came up frequently for the rest of the “Healthcheck.”
Panelist and Professor of political science Genevieve Quinn explained how she focuses more specifically on issues around the Second Amendment and discussed the difficulty of making new amendments in general.
Connecticut Senator and Associate Professor of legal studies Sujata Gadkar-Wilcox stressed the importance of separating “policy, partisan debates from other kinds of foundational, constitutional debates.”
She expressed her belief that parties should be able to disagree, but thinks a line should be drawn when it comes to constitutional violations.
“It’s okay to talk about the violation of due process,” she said, “because we should have a loyalty as elected officials…to (The Constitution). Not to the party first, to the document.”
The first question asked if the recent increase in political violence worried speakers about where the country is headed, setting the tone for the rest of the discussion. Travis answered first, highlighting “the connection between language and violence,” and pointing out how lots of recent language is stereotypical and misrepresents the truth of our polarization.
“There’s no place in the democracy for political violence. It eradicates the possibility of the very conversation you need to have in order to do politics,” she added.
Gadkar-Wilcox brought up how violence is risky because it makes people afraid to get involved in politics, while McLean talked about how the current constitutional system promotes two major political parties that “thrive on fueling antagonism towards the other side.”
He went on to reference a 2024 Marist University poll in which 20% of the national sample agreed that we may have to resort to violence to get the country back on track. He condemned this line of thinking.
“Party leaders should be speaking out against agitators of their own party, as well, and not excuse them cause they’re on our side,” McLean said.
The next question asked how the Constitution should adapt to modern issues, and Quinn answered first by tying the question to debates around the Second Amendment.
“If we’re going to deal with the root issues of gun violence, the Constitution and the Second Amendment (are) not going to be the answer, even if we amend it,” Quinn said. “This is going to require social movements and activism beyond what we’ve seen.”
Gadkar-Wilcox agreed, adding, “We need to start thinking more creatively about how we work around those structures, because just saying ‘we can amend the constitution to do that’ is not really an option.”
McLean suggested adjusting the traditional two senators for every state rule, allowing states with larger populations to get an extra senator, as a solution for “unlocking a lot of opportunities to change” within the government.
The rest of the discussion focused on the effectiveness of political action, the opportunities for change allowed by the Constitution, separation of powers, political language, being critical of social media and of course, political violence. A point pressed often was the necessity of citizens to hold their government accountable.
“It’s not just up to the other branches,” Gadkar-Wilcox said. “What we are doing here is what holds all three branches accountable, because it’s public and social movements that constrain the federal executive, plus your congressional representatives, state representatives, the governor…it’s up to grassroots movements.”
