Amid concerns about academic freedom and rising political polarization on college campuses across the country, leaders at Duke and other universities have adopted new rhetoric to prioritize ideological diversity, coined “civil discourse.”
The University has implemented a slew of programs and initiatives designed to foster constructive dialogue on controversial issues. These include the September-launched Provost’s Initiative on Free Inquiry, Pluralism and Belonging and the Provost’s Initiative on the Middle East. Both series invite speakers to campus to share different perspectives on the topics at hand — some of which have faced protests from student groups.
These recent efforts are part of a decade-long process aimed at shaping civil discourse on campus. However, some see these initiatives — with a heavy focus on speaker events — as leaving students to be “passive participants” as opposed to actively engaging in the discourse themselves.
As civil discourse becomes a buzzword in the higher education landscape, The Chronicle spoke with faculty to understand what the term means to them and why it has figured prominently in recent debates surrounding higher education.
‘A way to communicate without drawing swords’
Provost Alec Gallimore, who heads the Provost’s Initiatives, defined civil discourse as “dialogue in which people with different opinions and perspectives are able to engage with each other thoughtfully and respectfully” in a Jan. 21 email to The Chronicle.
Faculty agree that civil discourse begins with respecting human differences.
Many people share the misunderstanding that engaging in civil discourse entails “flatten[ing] your disagreements” and “weaken[ing] your moral conviction,” said Abdullah Antepli, professor of the practice at the Sanford School of Public Policy and the director of Polis: Center for Politics.
Noting that concepts of homogeneity and uniformity are out of touch with reality, Antepli said he believes that civil discourse ideally takes place when people with strong beliefs seek to understand the opposing side and reconcile their differences.
For some, the phrase “civil discourse” does not accurately reflect this idea.
Luke Powery, dean of Duke Chapel and professor of homiletics and African and African American studies, prefers the phrase “humanizing discourse” since he said it captures shared humanity. He further pointed to criticisms of the adjective “civil” as “quieting,” referring to alternative phrases like “vibrant discourse” used by scholars at Stanford University.
In a report submitted by The Muslim, Arab and Palestinian Communities Committee at Stanford, administrators and faculty challenged the phrase “civil discourse,” with one staff member noting that “[Stanford] used to want students who would change the world. Now we want students who can politely disagree.”
For Nasser Hussain, postdoctoral assistant and associate director of Civic Life and Thought at Duke, civil discourse offers “a way to communicate without drawing swords.”
To him, the “civil” component of the phrase means recognizing that “there is a possibility that you might be wrong,” adding that “human beings evolve … and your mind, your opinions and positions might change.”
Kerry Abrams, James B. Duke and Benjamin N. Duke dean of the School of Law, also emphasized the importance of mutual respect.
“Fundamentally, civil discourse is a form of respect for the other person — you are genuinely interested in hearing what someone thinks and why, even if you disagree, and open to making room for that idea in your own understanding,” she wrote in a Jan. 31 email to The Chronicle.
Universities’ role in promoting civil discourse
Even as vocabulary has evolved over the past century, the notion of respectful dialogue has surfaced repeatedly throughout the University’s history. As higher education institutions search for an answer to bridge political divides, civil discourse has become a popular response.
Antepli and Gallimore noted that civil discourse has been part of Duke's mission since its founding, as the University's bylaws call for the pursuit of “a respectful spirit of dialogue and understanding.”
Over the past seven years, Duke has launched the Civil Discourse Project in 2018, which sponsors courses, events and seminars on respectful disagreement, and the Transformative Ideas program in 2021, which provides a space for sophomores to speak freely about “life’s important questions.”
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Sign up for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.
According to Antepli, universities have a moral responsibility to identify and constructively address pressing questions in society. However, Hussain noted that higher education institutions have sometimes struggled to live up to that promise.
Hussain suggested that civil discourse has garnered attention in higher education debates in the past decade as universities have increasingly weighed in on contentious issues amid the current political climate.
He also shared his belief that in the past 10 years, the public has noticed the impact of universities hiring many ideologically progressive faculty, cultivating what he says is characterized as “woke academia.” Hussain suggested that those hiring practices created a culture in academia that “no longer … tolerat[ed] or respect[ed] difference.”
In the wake of a rise in student protests and political polarization in response to the Israel-Hamas war, many universities have adopted a policy of institutional neutrality, promising to refrain from issuing official statements on issues not related to their academic mission. Duke has not announced plans to implement such a policy, though 140 faculty have signed a petition urging administrators to do so. However, the University has committed to conducting a review of academic freedom as well as institutional policies and practices.
In Hussain’s opinion, as the ideological tide at universities has turned to the left, heterodox voices have struggled to find a platform of expression. The Chronicle’s faculty survey, which collected data on the political leanings of faculty at Duke last April, found that 61.73% of respondents identified as very liberal or somewhat liberal, while only 13.79% identified as very conservative or somewhat conservative. Some faculty have voiced concerns that this lopsided showing has limited students’ abilities to think critically and engage with differing viewpoints.
Civil discourse in the classroom
Antepli, Hussain and Abrams emphasized the role the classroom plays in cultivating civil discourse.
“If you want to lower the temperature [and] lower the levels of polarization, our long-term, real solution to this is going to start in the classroom, meaning engaging with the ideas,” Antepli said.
Hussain sought to do just this in his fall 2024 seminar Public Policy 290S, The Presidential Election. Throughout the semester, he encouraged his students to think like campaign strategists by analyzing the 2024 presidential race.
Hussain stressed that classrooms should accommodate a range of voices without discrediting any particular perspective.
“Many of the students, if they think more deeply and dig down into themselves, they themselves are not easy to pigeonhole,” he said. “They're not completely left wing; they're not completely conservative. And that complexity needs to be reflected in the faculty and the kinds of courses that they teach.”
Antepli credited initiatives such as Transformative Ideas and the Civil Discourse Project for supporting civil discussion and free expression on campus, though he acknowledged that civil discourse needs to be a “university-wide commitment” to succeed.
Abrams credited the Civil Discourse and Difficult Decisions program, a federal initiative in which students conduct hearings and deliberate cases, with helping law students develop the skills to manage debates and engage with different points of view.
“[Mutual respect is] something in short supply in our world today, and if we can help create a space at Duke Law to practice the skills of productive dialogue and disagreement, I think we should,” she wrote.
Powery agreed, expressing optimism that initiatives and policies to promote civil discourse at the University can “move the institution forward.” To him, the question is what Duke seeks to achieve.
For Powery, the goal is building genuine “relationships across differences,” and he believes that “civil discourse could be … a potential pathway towards that.”
Editor’s note: Powery writes a biweekly column for The Chronicle’s opinion section.
Lucas Lin is a Trinity sophomore and a university news editor of The Chronicle's 120th volume.