Genuine Conversations

The aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s shocking murder on the campus of Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025, was met with an outpouring of grief and sympathy for Kirk’s family, as well as concern over what the tragedy signaled for the future of open inquiry and dissent in American democracy. In a rush to judgment, the loudest voices that emerged—amplified on the airwaves and social media—reflected escalating polarization in the United States. The expansiveness of the political divide was evident in the vitriol across party lines and demonstrated just how easily public debate can devolve into outrage and recrimination. 

Along with the deplorable loss of life, another casualty of this act of violence in the public square was freedom of expression. From both inside and outside of the academy came the knee-jerk suppression of speech. In the two weeks after the incident, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression reviewed eighty-seven cases involving faculty or students being investigated or disciplined over social media posts, posters, or comments related to Kirk’s death. The Chronicle of Higher Education simultaneously tracked dozens of instances in which faculty members, students, and staff at colleges and universities across the country were fired, suspended, or expelled for expressing viewpoints on Kirk’s death that were deemed offensive and antithetical to the values of their institutions.

Of course, the most publicized effort to chill speech and silence critics occurred when ABC suspended Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night talk show. The host had performed a monologue suggesting that in an act of political opportunism, President Trump’s supporters were doing everything they could to distance themselves from Kirk’s accused killer. The suspension came after the Federal Communications Commission chair, Brendan Carr, alleged that Kimmel had misled the public. Carr pressured Disney, ABC’s parent company, to act, saying, “We can do this the easy way or the hard way.” These comments illustrate how easy it is to blur the lines between accountability and suppression in a charged political environment and to equate dissent with disloyalty.   

Liberal education’s emphasis on critical thinking, ethical reasoning, and the abilities to engage across differences and with civic responsibility offers a powerful antidote to the current cycle of fear, intimidation, and efforts to silence dissenters in times of crisis. Central to these liberal learning outcomes is the capacity for critical listening—the ability to listen with openness, care, empathy, and both intellectual rigor and humility, even when the perspectives are unsettling. At a moment when public discourse is increasingly fractured and politicized, higher education must reaffirm its role as a space where ideas can be tested, challenged, and refined without fear of retribution and where students, from their first to final semesters and across the curriculum, practice dialogue aimed at finding common ground and mutual understanding.  

The week of Kirk’s funeral, I participated in Missouri State University’s Conversation Series. The program offers a model for teaching students the habits of heart and mind that sustain engaged pluralism. Under the leadership of Christopher Lynch, professor of political science, the series is devoted to fostering genuine conversations about issues of fundamental importance to the nation and to democracy. According to Lynch, “We distinguish conversation not only from monologue presentations but also from the kind of debate in which the goal is victory by means of persuasion of an audience.” Instead, each conversation of the series seeks to promote the fullest understanding of the issue at hand by exploring in good faith the perspectives of those who fundamentally disagree on the topic.        

My conversation partner, Jacob Howland—a fellow philosopher—was the inaugural dean of the Intellectual Foundations Program and later provost at the University of Austin before stepping down in summer 2025. Despite our different approaches to the discussion topic of whether the Trump administration’s criticisms of and actions against higher education are justified, Howland and I share an abiding commitment to liberal education and the essential role of academic freedom in resisting ideological conformity and promoting civil discourse.   

Academic freedom safeguards not only the pursuit of knowledge but also the cultivation of civic capacities essential to our shared future. It protects the right of faculty to teach controversial material, the right of students to voice dissenting opinions, and the right of campus communities to wrestle openly with the complexity of our shared civic life. Silencing critics, no matter how unpopular their views may be, undermines the capacity for genuine dialogue and erodes the conditions for democratic inquiry. When faculty are free to surface complexity and teach contested issues, students are invited into the very process of democratic inquiry. Now, more than ever, it is essential to ensure that students learn to discern arguments from demagoguery, truth from sensationalism, and reality from rhetoric. 

If the liberal education we offer our students is to fulfill its promise, campus leaders and governing boards must meet this moment with courage by protecting academic freedom and promoting classroom environments and campus cultures that foster critical listening. Together, these commitments bolster the public purposes of higher education by preparing our graduates to participate in and strengthen our pluralistic society.

Illustration by Paul Spella