The Tradition We Loved is Dead, Who Killed the Philodemic?

(The great Bari Weiss and other journalists have chronicled in a series of articles in The Free Press, how the appearance of woke ideology tolls a death knell for cultural and civil society organizations. Georgetown’s Philodemic Society is such a story.)  

By Manuel A. Miranda

In his visionary play, Fuenteovejuna, written during Spain’s golden century, the playwright Lope de Vega leaves us with a haunting scene signifying, among other things, an entire community taking responsibility for a murder in which they all had a hand. 

“Quien mato el Comendador?,” the inquisitors ask repeatedly, and every man and woman answers alike, even under torture, one at a time: “Fuenteovejuna, Señor.”  

They are admitting their shared guilt, whether of act or omission, regardless of who struck the lethal blow. But no one is taking the blame. Ever since I saw the play performed almost 50 years ago, I have repeated those words in my mind when I have encountered instances of diffused responsibility or shared neglect; where many can be faulted but some are more to blame.

So, I ask: “Who killed the Philodemic?”  

I had not been back to a weekly Philodemic debate for 20 years, even though, beginning 34 years ago I helped to revive the great Georgetown tradition and founded its Alumni Philodemica.  Last fall semester, I started attending debates and, at first, it was an interesting time-capsule experience. I was gladdened at how much of what we had put in place in the 90s had survived. In 1990, we were told by Georgetown administrators, the predecessors of today’s Patrick Ledesma and Erika Cohen-Derr, that the traditional debate format could not take root in the modern campus. We successfully slayed that dragon and jumped other hurdles that leveling university administrators placed in our way.  I have now written five pieces describing the thoughtfulness that went into that six-year-long revival effort. 

In 1789, Georgetown opened its doors and received its first student.  As with all colleges and universities, Georgetown 's founding had a very particular pedigree. For almost 100 years, English Catholics in Maryland had been treated as second class citizens; one writer described it “as if they were a different race.”  They could not vote, they could not run for or hold office, they could not educate their children, and they could not have public Masses, among other indignities. We know of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, the prominent Catholic who signed the Declaration of Independence, and did much more than that.  It is lost to history that his father had, a generation before, travelled to Paris to ask the French King, Louis XV, for a land grant in the Louisiana territory where Maryland’s Catholics, who lived mostly in a state of poverty and degradation, could resettle and enjoy religious liberty.  Twenty years later, the Carrolls would cut a path to another solution.

Such was the world in which Archbishop John Carroll, Georgetown’s founder, envisioned a great university where Catholics together with others could acquire the ennobling education needed to lead the new American project in the liberty that he and his family had made their concerted business. Together, John, his cousin Charles, and his brother Daniel, are the three men of the founding era most responsible for the three religious liberties embedded in the Constitution (Article 6) and the First Amendment.  Georgetown College, in the new national capital, was just part of the mosaic foundation that together they laid.  

It was in this context that in 1830 at Georgetown, the newly-entrusted Jesuits and their students founded the Philodemic Debate Society, dedicated to the “cultivation of eloquence.” Its sister, the Philonomosian Society, would follow in 1839. Birthed in America’s republican era and in the oppressed Catholic experience, their founders sought to create a society where once-silenced Catholics could learn the art of oratory and rhetoric “in the defense of liberty” so as to prepare them for the democratic project of the new nation that the University’s founder, John Carroll, had been prominent in securing.  

The Philodemic was the first collegiate debating society in the Western Hemisphere, but it was its location in the nation's capital that made the Philodemic an American gem. It's debates and other public events and initiatives were open to the public, including the fast-growing population of Georgetown alumni in the federal city. In a city where attending Congressional debates and Supreme Court oral arguments was the shared pass-time of the citizenry, the Philodemic was a sensation.  

Recently, woke illiberals and racialist profiteers have faulted the Philodemic for debating slavery topics in the 1800's. In fact, such debates should be applauded for their significance. Early in the republic's history, Congress had gagged anything close to a slavery debate in either the House or Senate. The Philodemic’s public debates on questions of slavery were an act of rebellion and civic virtue. And even when the anti-slavery proponents lost the debate, the Philodemic served to hone arguments against the great moral stain that would motivate men in a just war, and be needed in reforming the Constitution and commencing the "national reconciliation" that led to the decades of progress toward equality and justice that continues today. 

It was for good reason then that when Philodemic alumni gathered for their 40th anniversary after the crucible of civil war; they would not only “eat and drink as friends do,” but would give leadership to all of the necessary steps that would lead to Georgetown’s greater entry into American higher education. Philodemic alumni founded the University’s alumni association, established a fund raising board of regents, retired debt and raised funds for sports teams and new buildings, well into the 1900s. 

In 1881, the two great debating societies, the Philodemic and the Philonomosian, were rewarded by Father Healy, a man born a slave, with a privileged room in the “New Building” that their alumni helped to fund - now a national historic landmark, Healy Hall. Circa 1910 their debate hall was ornately decorated and portraits of its distinguished alumni encircled the walls, all 34 of them accomplished Catholics of the time.  

With a profound appreciation for all of this, students, faculty and alumni revived the Philodemic between 1989 and 1995, and with that same inspiration, the Society prospered for over a generation.  One Philodemic president imagined filming and posting Philodemic debates online; an example of perhaps the greatest difference between the Society that most Philodemicians have loved and what we have now. For a generation, we aimed to scale the Society toward the Oxford Union, today the Society is scaling toward Romper Room. 

* * * * **

Around 2014, Philodemic alumni started hearing that the infantilist jargon of feminist and safe-space victimhood activists was being introduced into the Society. It was alarming but most of it has now dissipated.  Debaters still refer to each other as “members” and “guests” rather than more elegantly as “Mr. Smith” or “Ms. Jones” or “the lady in blue,” contributing to a cold and less friendly culture.  Censorship was introduced and debaters could be sanctioned for saying something that was “unbecoming.” Debates often fell into sub-debates and recriminations about whether a word or argument was racist, sexist, pro-colonizer and such.  On a debate over “Character,” one young man lauded Winston Churchill and was rebutted by the next five speeches for having dared to mention the old "colonizer." He was thereafter blackballed from membership for two semesters!

Did all those undergraduates who fomented this disgraceful reduction kill the Philodemic?  Yes, and especially those who disagreed but allowed the ugliness to happen, in silence.

In the Spring of 2018, senior Dan Ernst (‘18) keynoted a debate on whether the University should change its colors, removing the gray. As he stood in the privileged place, Ernst pointed around the room at the 1910 portraits noting, “and some of these faces may also need to go.”  A committee was formed to study the portraits, resulting in a botched research product full of errors. It recommended the removal of seven portraits, six of whom had briefly been Confederates, most in their teens.  By 2022, the effort had transmogrified into a racist scheme under the leadership of racists who openly called for the removal of all the “white faces.”  

The Philodemic not only joined Georgetown President DeGioia’s slavery virtue-signaling apology tour, they amended their bylaws to incorporate slavery guilt as a central part of their continued identity.  At that moment, the great debating society ceased to be a debating society. They became an advocacy group in the victim diaspora, going so far as to recommend a bevy of mostly African American extremist activists like this one to replace the alumni portraits around the storied Philodemic Hall.  

In 2022, in hysterical defense of the racist scheme, the Society introduced ouster and banning and the practice of shunning of dissident voices during debates.  At one debate, the racists simply got up and left the room when a keynoter rose to speak.  He had dared to object publicly to the portrait removal, for which former president Aida Ross (‘22) had taken to social media to call him a racist. University administrator Erica Cohen-Derr even offered victimhood-monger Niles Blass (‘22) to send uniformed guards to a Philodemic event for fear there would be a dissenting voice! 

Among other things, the removal of portraits was yet another act of Catholic erasure at Georgetown. Not only were the 34 portraits all of accomplished Catholics, many were of Jesuits, including former University presidents.  

The great irony in all this is that in the academic year 2002-2023, and still, the Philodemic has not had one African-American member! But each guilty white suburban kid in the Philodemic carries a cell phone in their pocket and thereby does more to promote current African slavery than anyone ever did whose photograph was on the wall.

Did the left-wing race-hustlers or racists from Dan Ernst, Aida Ross, Niles Blass and Max Zhang kill the Philodemic? Yes, as did all who stayed silent or fell for the grift, including alumni. 

Once the Society had joined the woke choo-choo train, unrestrained appetite naturally took over. Last year the Society scheduled a women and femmes-only debate on the topic of cosmetic surgery! In May, the Society again amended its bylaws to make a “woman and femmes debate” an annual affair, thereby taking a position on gender ideology. They also cancelled a regular Thursday night debate so that the officers could conduct a sensitivity training of members. It was, of course, poorly attended. Amidst all this, one conscientious and highly-regarded Catholic leader (a former officer) resigned his Society membership. After attempting to put it into the bylaws, the officers have promised to make DEI indoctrination training a regular thing.  

Together with all this, I suspect nothing turns members and prospective members off more than the abuse of valuable time that the general campiness of Officers represents, particularly at the end of each regular debate.  Guests and members have to listen to as much as 20 minutes of announcements in campy performances that bring you back to high school or pajama parties.  It is interesting to watch the first time.  

Did woke illiberals like Lily Howard ’23 kill the Philodemic? Yes, they failed to respect the views and, as they would put it, the “lived experience” of others.  They thought that a debate society could serve their training in consciousness-raising, at best.  Howard justified her segregated, ideological debate by suggesting that it was a reparation for the fact that the Philodemic was once all-male! As was Georgetown, whose invitation she accepted.  Of course, the revived Philodemic was never all-male and had women members even before that.   

In 1995, as a result of a complaint of blackballing, the Society amended its bylaws ostensibly to create an objective and fair process to become a member. In recent semesters, every discretionary turn in that process has been abused to effect wholesale blackballing in becoming a member.  Prospective members who make the mistake of saying anything in open debate that is contrary to the accepted ideology, whether it relates to affirmative action or DEI ideology, will be blackballed in their membership aspirations, contrary to University policy. As a result, the Society has only one conservative woman.  The former Vice-President, Elena Martinez ‘25, even keeps a private list of who she personally wants to keep out.   

How does blackballing happen?  First, the president, Jonah Miller ’24, uses his ability to call on people in a debate and does not call on those being targeted for exclusion, thereby slowing their eligibility and discouraging their attendance.  I have seen targeted freshmen ignored for a whole night even though they raised their hand every single time.  Then the Secretary, Abby Rich ‘25, loses records of who has spoken for purposes of eligibility.  One targeted woman’s record was entirely wiped though she had spoken four times and her friends could vouch for it.  Eligible students have had to beg the Secretary for a mentor, another step toward membership, and one student who has been eligible for two semesters has yet to be assigned a mentor. One aspirant was assigned a hostile mentor and still waits after three semesters.  Meanwhile Miller and Rich freely jumped the queue to admit those they favored. 

The ultimate proof of the blackballing is in the Spring induction list.  It is plain to see.  As a result, while in December 2022, the ideological breakdown of the membership stood at 1:1, the current president was elected only after a number of tie votes, but when the Philodemic returns in the Fall semester, the ideological breakdown of the membership will be 2:1, liberals to conservatives.  This result was obtained by systemic use of blackballing tactics by the Officers.

This is the natural outcome of becoming a D.E.I. advocacy group in the victim diaspora, and no longer a debating society where diverse friends could cheerfully appreciate and argue both sides.  

If I were a Georgetown parent and my child were blackballed, i would sue Georgetown for breach of contract and I would win.

The exclusion of viewpoint diversity has become so bilious that in May the Society even amended its bylaws with the approval of University administrator, Patrick Ledesma, I assume, to allow the President to close debates to non-undergrads for months at a time.  Further separating the Society from alumni and sheltering its woke ideologies from criticism. 

Did the ethically-challenged Officers, Miller, Martinez and Rich, involved in this blackballing kill the Philodemic? Yes, and also all those who allowed it and benefitted from it, including most new members of the Class of 2026.  But perhaps most responsible are University administrators Erika Cohen-Derr and Patrick Ledesma, who failed the obligations of their paycheck to give adult supervision and teach right from wrong.  

Of course, the net of all this is that Georgetown has no great public, University- grade debate society. Debate topics are picked with an ideological filter ensuring that some things never get debated, with the outcome that topics are frivolous and not relevant, and designed for ideologues to lecture or harangue on anti-capitalist or other crit and cultural marxist agenda, -- interesting only as a caricature performance.

After the last annual Merrick debate, I saw a post from a friend noting how much he had enjoyed it.  But even Merrick has been tainted, voting for debaters is convoluted and lacks transparency, in an age when it can occur easily online.  Judges are selected from the administration and faculty most active in the victim diaspora.  Consequently, it is not surprising that the last two Merrick medalists rate higher on their intersectionality than on their debate skill – the former head of GU Pride and the former Black Survivors Coalition leader (that is the group that covered the John Carroll portrait with masking tape.)  Another tradition tarnished by woke ideology. 

******

The Philodemic portraits, both the historic photographs and the inherited oils, have been down for three whole semesters now. The Society has not had access to its room for one whole semester. Its membership is now counted along ideological lines, with the consequent unpleasantness that causes.  The officer corps are all woke illiberals, almost all exclusionary bigoted women who treat the Society like the high school cafeteria. There is only one conservative woman in the entire membership. It's alumni are now divided into two associations. And no one is willing to fix things who can or is paid to do so.    

The spirit of the Philodemic’s revival and our highest aspirations have been killed.   So, who killed the Philodemic?  

So much blame to go around, but the ones most to blame, after University administrators Cohen-Derr and Ledesma, are Dan Ernst, now President of Alumni Philodemica, and his enablers and codependents, and not just for being ideological activists who do not have the wisdom and maturity to know that not every part of your life has to be like every other part of your life.  

When I wrote the bylaws of the Alumni Philodemica in 1989, I purposely named the governing board, “Board of Advisors.” It could not be more clear what alumni were called to do.  But when undergrads demanded that portraits come down in 2022, Ernst and his enablers, accepted also their demand that Philodemic alumni have no voice, and many prominent alumni, including friends, accepted the principle that the alumni should follow the lead of undergrads. Just reckless. Just cowards.  

Dan Ernst also secretly amended the Alumni Philodemica bylaws to oust and disenfranchise revival-era members, and notably removed “loyalty” from the association’s purpose. Unforgiveably, in a low character manner, he also caused the undergrads to use ouster, banning, and exclusion of those who merely disagree with him. Ernst started the slavery cult in 2018 but he promised to survey all alumni opinion on the portraits in 2022. He never did.  

Dan Ernst (’18) killed the Philodemic…the most.     

The question now is will anyone revive the Philodemic, again?  If that were possible. 

Manuel A, Miranda, F’82, was the first national president of the Cardinal Newman Society for Catholic Higher Education and a regular columnist for the Wall Street Journal.