A Second Chance for Universities

By creating and enforcing policies that protect free speech while facilitating hard conversations across ideological divides, universities can meet the current moment with the maturity it demands

Pro-Palestinian and Pro-Israel demonstrators clash with each other on the campus of the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) on April 25, 2024 in Los Angeles, California. Qian Weizhong/VCG via Getty Images

As students return to school this fall, universities have a second chance at managing difficult conversations about the Israel-Palestinian conflict. This past spring, we saw news and social media videos showing groups pitted against one another. Violent images, like those that surfaced out of UCLA, included students battering each other with sticks, using chemical sprays, and launching fireworks as weapons. Hateful rhetoric like “F--- you, Jew” and “take off your hijab and get a job” have further fueled these firestorms. Students were being attacked for their identity and beliefs, causing them to feel unsafe on the campuses they called home. Did it have to be this way? Is this the only vision for free speech on college campuses? 

Recently, I participated in a Braver Angels Common Ground Workshop on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Braver Angels, a nonprofit organization dedicated to bridging America’s partisan divide, teaches Americans of all ages how to share their perspectives in a healthier, more productive way. Our core approach is built on structured dialogue. In my workshop, we had five people who leaned pro-Israel and five who leaned pro-Palestine sitting across a table from one another. Two trained Braver Angels moderators led the conversation and established explicit norms and ground rules. Throughout the workshop, I felt safe to share my most honest opinions and always felt heard despite disagreements.

What stood out most was a moment during our post-workshop reflection when an Israeli woman shared how this experience helped her see her own emotional responses to the conflict—and how her passion for the issue might overwhelm others and prevent them from sharing what they think. Committed to tempering her approach in future discussions, she expressed a desire to engage constructively and seek solutions. Her vulnerability in a setting that included staunch supporters of the Palestinian cause deeply moved me. And it’s an experience like this—coupled with the hope it creates—that can catalyze the innovative solutions we once thought unimaginable. 

But many college campuses don’t have spaces like this where healthy conflict can be surfaced and navigated. I was a graduate student at Columbia University during the onset of the May 2021 Israel-Palestine conflict that resulted in significant casualties and destruction. Similar to October 7, 2024, the conflict sparked widespread protests and heightened tensions globally, dividing people into pro-Palestine and pro-Israel tribes. My university WhatsApp group erupted into a virtual boxing match. Classmates whom I’d seen previously acting civilly towards one another suddenly exploded with anger and hatred. I thought, do I need to pick a side? Which side do I choose?

The situation's complexity weighed heavily on me—If I chose a side, did that mean I hated the other? Unable to shake off the heightened emotional climate on campus, I messaged the president of our student organization, expressing my concerns and asking if we should call on a college professor for help or hold a student town hall. He read it immediately, and the response was swift: “Beri, it isn’t going to happen. I know you have good intentions. NO ONE wants to get involved and have their name entangled in this mess.” I stared at the screen, halted by his words. Without a support group, I felt too scared to move forward and take action on my own.  

This example shows that the decision of university leaders and faculty members to disengage stems from fear. Many believe that taking a stand in favor of facilitating contentious discussions might damage their reputation or invite backlash. Additionally, there is a lack of institutional support and investment in structured dialogue. Universities often do not allocate funds to such initiatives, and while some professors may have experience moderating such conversations, there are no specific roles dedicated to this on campus. Structured dialogue just isn’t a part of campus culture. 

Imagine if university leadership and faculty members let go of their fears and instead created open spaces for students to discuss heavy, complicated issues. If they had done that years ago, maybe it could have mitigated the cataclysmic firestorm that erupted after October 7th. Instead, they gave way to conflict avoidance. Unaddressed tensions escalated into volatile protests. These demonstrations were characterized by student and faculty arrests and the cancellation of university commencements.  Moderated student-led discussions have the power to encourage the respectful exchange of diverse viewpoints. Such dialogue could evolve into town halls—an alternative form of public demonstration. Unlike protests, town halls do not pit one side against the other, but foster public community debate aimed at finding common ground. This approach creates a safer space to practice free speech. It also builds trust and bridges divides among groups, laying the groundwork for peacebuilding and coexistence. 

Creating spaces for structured dialogue on college campuses requires change. Firstly, there needs to be a shift in institutional culture towards valuing and prioritizing open discussions. This includes training faculty and staff in conflict resolution and dialogue facilitation by providing them with the necessary resources and support. Secondly, there should be a commitment to structural reform, including establishing dedicated offices or roles focused on promoting dialogue and helping navigate conflicts. Policies should encourage staff to engage in debates without fear of repercussions, creating guidelines that ensure safety in facilitating and participating in controversial dialogues. Universities could also partner with organizations like Heterodox Academy, FAIR, BridgeUSA, and Braver Angels to bring their expertise in facilitating constructive disagreement at universities to their campuses. 

Finally, moral clarity and leadership are crucial for this endeavor’s success. University leaders must be willing to model the values of open dialogue and mutual respect. This commitment to the merits of free expression embodies the core purpose of a university: to seek truth. For example, in his speech at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) 2024 inaugural address, American political scientist and author Ian Bremmer emphasized the importance of engaging with and respecting those who think differently and how listening to their perspectives can enrich our own. His message felt like a second chance for fostering a culture of tolerance on campuses that many of us wanted from university leaders this past spring. It served as a glimmer of hope for what university life at Columbia—and universities around the country—have the potential to look like next school year if they create spaces for bridge-building as an alternative to divisiveness. 

Universities teach students to think critically, analyze information, and navigate complex realities, from geopolitical issues to the hard sciences like astrophysics. By creating and enforcing policies that protect free speech while facilitating hard conversations across ideological divides, universities can meet the current moment with the maturity and fortitude it demands, and ultimately deepen students’ understanding of higher education's purpose: to seek the truth, even when it’s hard.

We welcome you to share your thoughts on this piece in the comments below. Click here to view our comment section moderation policy. 

The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism or its employees.

In keeping with our mission to promote a common culture of fairness, understanding, and humanity, we are committed to including a diversity of voices and encouraging compassionate and good-faith discourse.

We are actively seeking other perspectives on this topic and others. If you’d like to join the conversation, please send drafts to submissions@fairforall.org.