VMI Center for Leadership and Ethics To Host Debate on U.S. Constitutional Crisis

On Tuesday, September 30, 2025, at 7:00 PM, the VMI Center for Leadership and Ethics, in collaboration with The Steamboat Institute, will host a debate between two distinguished legal scholars who will be squaring off on a question that cuts to the heart of American democracy: "Be it resolved, the U.S. is experiencing a constitutional crisis." As future military officers sworn to defend the Constitution, cadets will witness a fundamental disagreement about whether that very document, and the democratic system it enshrines, is under existential threat or merely experiencing growing pains. Daniel Farbman, arguing for the resolution, brings the perspective of a legal historian and constitutional law professor who sees America's foundational systems crumbling under unprecedented stress. A former federal clerk and civil rights attorney, Farbman teaches at Boston College Law School and has emerged as a prominent voice warning of democratic backsliding. Jonathan Turley, taking the opposing view, counters with the experience of a George Washington University professor who has testified in presidential impeachment hearings and served as a legal analyst for major networks. Author of the forthcoming book The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, Turley dismisses crisis claims as "panic politics" by those unhappy with election outcomes. The Core Divide In exclusive interviews with The Cadet, both scholars revealed fundamentally different diagnoses of America's condition. Farbman identifies multiple symptoms of constitutional breakdown: Congress's inability to legislate effectively, erosion of civil discourse, threats to judicial independence, and the collapse of "checks and balances" when branches of government avoid confrontation out of fear rather than principle. "We seem to have lost the ability to disagree vigorously while retaining an insistent faith in each other's humanity and good faith," Farbman told The Cadet. For him, this represents more than political polarization—it signals systemic failure of constitutional governance. Turley observes the same divisions but draws opposite conclusions. "The U.S constitutional system is the oldest and most stable in the history of the world," he emphasized. "It has survived conflicts that reduced other countries to a fine pumice." Even the January 6th riot, which Turley called "disgraceful," ultimately proved the system's resilience when Congress reconvened and certified the election. Military Implications The debate carries special resonance for VMI's unique mission. Farbman warns that military legitimacy depends on democratic legitimacy—that orders lose their moral force when they come from leaders who "don't seek to represent everyone." This directly relates to the military's apolitical tradition and the chain of command that VMI cadets will enter upon commissioning. Turley counters that America's military strength actually demonstrates constitutional durability. Unlike most nations where "the military is feared," the U.S. armed forces maintain public trust precisely because they've remained above partisan politics, even during periods of intense division. Further resonance exists for VMI, as Farbman noted, "VMI gets its money from the state government. The state government operates through politics." When political norms erode at the federal level, state institutions, including military colleges, inevitably feel the effects. The Free Speech Crucible Both scholars addressed VMI's struggles with student journalism and campus speech—issues that have drawn warnings from national free speech organizations. Farbman sees campus speech restrictions as symptomatic of the broader crisis: "The inability to have vigorous disagreement on campuses is a sign of our political crisis." He argues that when institutions suppress speech rather than facilitate robust debate, they reveal the constitutional system's failure to provide safe spaces for democratic discourse. Turley frames the same issues differently. While acknowledging that "we are in a crisis" of free speech, he insists this represents a "political crisis, not a Constitutional crisis." The system still functions; the question is whether citizens will use it properly. His message to VMI: "I'm hoping that VMI will recognize that a diversity of opinion strengthens a community." Historical Fortitude vs. Necessary Adaptation The scholars' differing historical frameworks shape their contemporary assessments. Turley's forthcoming book examines how the Constitution survived America's founding era of rage and violence, comparing Philadelphia's eventual stability to Paris's descent into revolutionary terror. His confidence stems from institutional precedent: the system worked before and will work again. Farbman draws different lessons from crises like Reconstruction, Watergate, and the Civil Rights era. Rather than returning to previous stability, he sees transformative moments that required building "something new." He believes America cannot go backward and must work together to construct new forms of democratic governance. Looking Forward Perhaps most provocatively, Turley warned that the real constitutional test lies ahead: technological disruption from AI and robotics that could leave large portions of the population "unemployed and unproductive." This economic and social tsunami, he argued, will dwarf current political divisions in its challenge to democratic governance. Farbman's concern centers on the present moment, particularly what he sees as attempts to build new systems "without it being a thing we're building together"—imposed rather than democratically constructed change. The debate evening offers more than academic entertainment. For future military officers, understanding whether the resolution they swear to defend is in crisis could very well define their service. Furthermore, promised is civil discourse between principled opponents—itself a rarity worth witnessing. As political violence escalates nationwide, including the recent assassination of political commentator Charlie Kirk, the ability to disagree respectfully becomes both more precious and more necessary. Essential Reading: The Full Interviews Before stepping into the Center for Leadership and Ethics on September 30th, cadets should read The Cadet's complete interviews with both scholars, published in this edition. These extensive conversations reveal the intellectual depth behind their opposing positions and provide crucial context for understanding the complexities of the debate. The interviews delve into questions the debate format may not allow: How does Farbman define the precise threshold between political conflict and constitutional crisis? What specific examples does Turley cite to prove the system's resilience? How do both scholars view the role of state governments like Virginia in either perpetuating or solving these problems? What is the impact on VMI and Cadets? The interviews also explore uncomfortable questions about military legitimacy in divided times, the historical precedents both scholars invoke, and their strikingly different predictions about America's future challenges. Farbman's warning about the breakdown of democratic discourse and Turley's concern about technological disruption offer competing visions of where constitutional stress will emerge next. The debate begins at 7:00 PM on September 30, 2025, at the VMI Center for Leadership and Ethics. Admission is free, but registration is required at steamboatinstitute.org/event/virginia-military-institute. Can't attend? Watch the livestream at this link. Please help keep The Cadet independent by DONATING AT: www.thecadetfoundation.org