Shannon Watkins of the James G. Martin Center discusses student self-censorship, viewpoint diversity, campus debate, political hostility, and what colleges can do to rebuild civil discourse.
Many debates about free speech on college campuses focus on dramatic protests or speakers being shouted down. But a quieter problem may be just as important: students who decide it is safer not to speak at all.
In this Saving America interview, Dr. David D. Schein speaks with Shannon Watkins of the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal about civil discourse, student self-censorship, viewpoint diversity, campus debate, and what colleges can do to create a culture where disagreement does not become hostility.
Watkins defines civil discourse as a respectful exchange of ideas, observations, and arguments aimed at understanding the other person and pursuing truth rather than simply winning. She emphasizes intellectual humility, a willingness to ask sincere questions, openness to learning, and respect for the dignity of the person on the other side of an argument.
That definition matters because disagreement is not the same thing as incivility. A productive campus should be able to accommodate strong differences of opinion while still preserving respectful dialogue.
The conversation highlights a less visible threat to open debate: self-censorship. Students may believe their political or social views place them in a minority, and some fear being isolated by peers or judged negatively by professors.
Watkins points to research on North Carolina universities showing that students have meaningful concerns about expressing political views and often worry about the reactions of their peers. The result can be silence before a debate even begins.
That issue is central to broader questions involving Higher Education and the role universities play in preparing students to test ideas rather than avoid them.
Peaceful protest is part of American civic life. The problem, Watkins argues, comes when protest is used to prevent another person from speaking at all.
The interview distinguishes between disagreeing with a campus speaker and attempting to shut down the event. It also explores the consequences of an environment where students see ideological conflict as a reason to withdraw from conversation rather than participate in it.
The discussion also turns to political violence as the most extreme breakdown of civil discourse. Dr. Schein and Watkins discuss the fatal 2025 shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk at a college event and use it as an example of what can happen when political disagreement becomes dehumanization rather than argument.
The purpose of civil discourse is not to erase disagreement. It is to preserve a shared commitment to human dignity even when views are sharply opposed.
Watkins points to professors Robert P. George and Cornel West as a model. The two scholars disagree on major political and philosophical questions but have maintained a friendship built around intellectual seriousness, respect, and a shared commitment to seeking truth.
That example challenges the idea that political disagreement must become personal hostility. It also gives students a practical model of how intellectual conflict can coexist with mutual respect.
The interview discusses several initiatives designed to create more structured opportunities for disagreement, including campus debate programs and organizations that facilitate conversations across ideological lines.
Watkins also points to programs at universities in North Carolina and argues that institutions should make viewpoint diversity and civil debate visible parts of campus life rather than occasional special events.
Her broader recommendation is that universities should create regular forums where students know in advance that serious debate will take place and where disagreement is expected rather than punished.
The conversation also touches on proposed state-level approaches that would require or encourage public universities to organize debates and promote intellectual diversity.
That raises an important public-policy question: should institutions develop these norms voluntarily, or should lawmakers create formal requirements when campuses fail to provide enough opportunities for open debate?
The issue intersects with Civil Rights and Civil Liberties because the ability to speak, disagree, associate, and participate in public debate remains central to democratic life.
One practical lesson from the interview is that civil discourse requires practice. Students need opportunities to hear arguments they dislike, ask genuine questions, defend their own views, and sometimes argue a position they do not personally hold.
Universities can help by creating predictable forums for debate, protecting viewpoint diversity, and making clear that intellectual disagreement is part of education rather than a threat to it.
The goal is not agreement. The goal is a culture in which disagreement can occur without fear, intimidation, or violence.
Read Shannon Watkins’s Blueprint for Reform: Civil Discourse from the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal.
© Copyright 2026 Claremont Management Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved. No copyright asserted over US Government material or the copyrighted material of others.
