Charlie Kirk was assassinated while speaking on a college campus. This is a grim moment for higher education, for our country and for freedom of speech. Violence is never a legitimate means of disagreeing with a speaker on a college campus. Mr. Kirk was a controversial and polarizing figure, but that doesn’t matter.
A commitment to nonviolent disagreement should be an obvious part of the fabric of our campuses, just as it is obvious that students need oxygen to breathe. Colleges and universities need to reconfirm our commitment to nonviolent forms of disagreement — even when we are confronted with voices that disparage or dismiss identities and worldviews. This is also a time to foster more disagreement, not less.
In an increasingly polarized country, where social media algorithms make it easier than ever to operate in an echo chamber, it’s not surprising that almost 1,000 people signed a petition calling for Utah Valley University to rescind Mr. Kirk’s invitation to speak on campus. The university rightly responded by issuing a statement affirming its “commitment to free speech, intellectual inquiry and constructive dialogue.”
Colleges and universities have long resisted polarization and monolithic thinking by invoking these commitments to open discussion and inquiry, and we must continue to do so. College campuses must remain places where students are able to ask and grapple with hard questions, especially those that are uncomfortable and even hurtful. Higher education’s role is not to erase conflict but to channel it into dialogue, debate and learning. To do so, educators and students must face ideas we find offensive and speakers whose words cause pain.
Yet new strategies are also needed. Some on social media have attempted to minimize the broader implications of Mr. Kirk’s assassination by pointing to his extreme views, such as his arguments that some gun deaths are an acceptable price to pay for the right to bear arms. These attempts are like blaming a victim of sexual assault for going to a party wearing provocative clothing.
Instead of demonizing or valorizing any individual viewpoint, we must focus our energies on combating the groupthink that shifts us away from intellectual exploration and discourse — and, sadly, toward violence. To do so, we must critically examine how our campus cultures have evolved and need to change. Recent conversations about higher education have focused primarily on undue government interference. But we must also acknowledge the ways higher education is under attack from within.
Throughout the country and on many campuses, it is too easy to retreat into silos, reject nuance and seek out only those courses, speakers, colleagues, friends and environments that buttress our existing worldviews. The campus disruptions I’ve seen over the past two years — disruptions that have interrupted classes, destroyed property and restricted access to libraries — reflect this siloed mind-set. Protest should not silence others, and advocacy of political views should not undermine our academic mission.
To pave a different path forward, many colleges are now offering courses and programs on civil discourse and dialogue. At Barnard, we have started a new multiyear initiative of workshops and study groups to cultivate curiosity, broaden inquiry and help students engage others holding differing views with empathy and open minds.
But we all must do more. We must have the courage to explore ideas that diverge greatly from our own. That will mean inviting a diverse range of outside speakers to campus. We do not need to create a specific balance of views; we must simply engage with the widest possible spectrum of views respectfully, without disruption or violence.
When I was a professor of law, I made it a point to foster such openness by requiring my students to argue positions with which they disagreed. This included making students who supported abortion rights argue against them, and vice versa. At first, many resisted. But by the end of the semester, they recognized the value and importance of articulating and defending contrasting views.
This skill is not and should not be limited to law schools; instead it is a lesson that belongs in every classroom and throughout our campuses. The purpose of higher education is not to advance one viewpoint over another, but to provide our students with the tools and training they need to examine and challenge all beliefs, including their own. That is the core of a liberal arts education: teaching students how to think, not what to think.
We must commit to disagreeing better by fostering campus dialogue where differences in perspective and opinion remain differences. We cannot allow our dialogues to devolve into violence or absolutism. If we cannot keep that peace, we risk undermining the very purpose of higher education.
Laura Ann Rosenbury is the president of Barnard College.
Source photographs by 4×6, EyeEm Mobile GmbH and koya79/Getty Images.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.
The post Barnard President: Now Is the Time for Colleges to Host Difficult Speakers appeared first on New York Times.
