Over the past twenty years, our nation and the University have become more and more polarized. Students would rather engage with those who share the same societal and political views and, well, why not? If you are a true believer of your party then you ought to stand away from those with different opinions. To debate with someone who has such drastically different beliefs than you would be a waste of time in the current era of U.S. politics. A step to the left or a step to the right could mean faltering on all you find moral.
In March of 2020, a study on the levels of Free Expression and Constructive Dialogue at UNC found that the majority of students engage in self-censorship, harbor divisive stereotypes about one another and a substantial minority of students reported being unwilling to socially engage with those who do not share their political views. You will also find that the majority of UNC students want more opportunities to engage in constructive dialogue.
How can these things be true and yet UNC students still aren't engaging with each other? Could it be that there are not enough real opportunities to have these conversations on campus?
UNC has attempted to offer services and programs to facilitate this dialogue. For instance, the School of Civic Life and Leadership, established in 2023 and hosting its inaugural semester in the fall of 2024, offers courses on free speech and protected debate. However, this school, much like many other opportunities at UNC, has faced strict criticism from faculty and students for feeling that it does not satisfy its original goals of civil discourse.
In lieu of this, I believe we have two prominent options:
The first option is an anonymous and regulated forum of debate, similar to what online forums such as Reddit offer, but specifically for Chapel Hill students. This forum would need to be moderated by an unbiased third party, perhaps a non-profit or something similar.
The second option is an open lecture hall or seating area that is moderated by guidelines that are already established for us and topics laid out prior. Something like that of LivingRoomConversations.org, a website that sets rules and standards to meaningful and calm debate. This has been proven to work and is endorsed by many new outlets such as CNN, BBC, The New York Times and more.
There are clear pros and cons to each method of discourse. In the online forum option an obvious pro is that your opinions would hold anonymity; being moderated by a third party would prevent malicious content from being spread and enforce a set of rules for debate. However, the need for censorship and anonymity, while prevalent in these tense times, move toward the idea that we cannot have real human conversations about our political values.
The second option, while it risks assumptions on opinion and potentially false information being spread, you gain the ability to connect on a level that you might otherwise not be able to on an online forum. Though not as moderated, this option allows people the opportunity to really understand each other rather than read up on their views online.
