On April 15, pro-life activist Kristan Hawkins hosted a tabling event outside of Newcomb Hall, followed by a three-hour question-and-answer session in Wilson Hall. The two events, part of Hawkins’ campus tour entitled “Abortion is Human Sacrifice,” attracted considerable attention from students across the political spectrum. While the purported purpose of these events was to further political dialogue on an emotionally-charged and controversial issue, many students felt that the events instead facilitated counterproductive shouting matches designed to elicit social media attention. Encounters like this do not foster civil discourse — rather, they undermine it. Instead of cultivating an environment of understanding, the one-on-one standoffish format hawked by camera crews creates a war zone. Nor is this problem unique to the University. Across the country, campus activists engage with students in short-form question-and-answer sessions on a range of political issues. These events may turn out large crowds and generate TikTok clicks, but these formats are inadequate at facilitating genuine intellectual intercourse.
On a surface level, it is easy to understand why so many right-leaning political activists wish to facilitate more debate on college campuses. Universities, in large part, tend to lean left, and many conservative students segment and factionalize rather than interacting with their liberal peers for fear of being cancelled or marginalized. Self-censorship at universities is becoming increasingly prevalent, and this is especially true among conservatives in perceived liberal environments. Pro-life activists like Hawkins may sense that, because students themselves are not engaging with the issues, debate instead must be artificially facilitated. This is not necessarily wrong, but it misses the mark by focusing on the wrong problem. The issue is not that students are lacking opportunities or forums to engage with ideas — the issue is that students simply refuse to take advantage of the forums available to them.
At our University, there is no shortage of resources for students who wish to actively engage with hot-button political issues. Organizations like the Blue Ridge Center and Think Again U.Va.. routinely host events where students can engage directly and cordially with guest speakers and University faculty on a wide range of controversial issues. The Civil Discourse Initiative even allows students to participate in student-led panels and debate with their peers on pressing topics ranging from foreign policy to immigration. This only scratches the surface. The University regularly hosts ambassadors, prominent politicians and myriad students passionate about the issues. The options and resources are nearly limitless. If there is an issue that students are passionate about, there is almost certainly an existing forum at the University where students can debate it.
Unfortunately, these forums are chronically underutilized and underappreciated. While attendance at Blue Ridge and Think Again U.Va. events is typically respectable, it generally does not compare to the massive crowds that congregate eagerly around controversial agitators like Hawkins. This is by design. While a Blue Ridge debate may be more intellectually-rigorous and politically-productive, it does not induce the same adrenaline rush or social media attention that engaging in shouting matches generates. While the University provides ample opportunity for honest discussion, revealed preference suggests that more students would seemingly rather participate in chaotic verbal clashes. This is the political environment that today’s heated dialogue sometimes facilitates. Students, though, do not have to embrace such tribalism.
Students should aspire to be not merely participants in public discourse, but its stewards — individuals who recognize that the health of a democratic society depends on the quality of conversations. When discussions devolve into hostile sparring matches and disagreement is treated as antagonism rather than an opportunity for growth, the very purpose of dialogue is lost. No one is persuaded, and no common ground is discovered. Such turmoil may feel momentarily cathartic, but it is ultimately counterproductive. Instead, more students at the University should take advantage of the plethora of opportunities and forums on Grounds to actively and respectfully engage with their classmates and colleagues in professional and cordial settings.
Ultimately, the University is not merely an institution of higher education, but also a town square for the marketplace of ideas to flourish. It is high time that students treat it as such. Free speech is not sustained by law alone — it is sustained by a culture that supports a shared commitment to reason, tolerance and mutual respect. If the next generation of Americans grows to be acclimated to a political environment defined by visceral hostility and charged language, then the norms that make free societies possible will potentially come to erode. The consequence will not simply be louder arguments and more YouTube views, but a diminished capacity to govern, compromise and simply to coexist.
The answer is not simply to be more civil, but to consciously cultivate a higher standard of discourse. Students should choose honest engagement over performance and seek understanding before victory. The University community deserves civility. Treat disagreement as an invitation to think more critically, not as a license to dismiss or attack. In doing so, students can preserve the conditions to allow free thought and open inquiry to flourish, ensuring the next generation of leaders inherits not a fractured arena of vitriol, but a resilient culture of dialogue worthy of a free people.
The Cavalier Daily Editorial Board is composed of the Executive Editor, the Editor-in-Chief, the two Opinion Editors, two Senior Associates and an Opinion Columnist. The board can be reached at eb@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
HAWKINS: Virginia deserves better than gerrymandering
By Joshua Hawkins | YesterdayRather than addressing real concerns like the rising cost of living and economic uncertainty, Democrats seem hellbent on destroying Virginia’s institutions and violently muzzling half of the state.
TAYLOR: AI integration with Charlottesville parking garages is an invasion of privacy
By Nat Taylor | YesterdayBut beyond just these technical issues, the new automated parking system should seriously concern Charlottesville residents about exploitative company data brokering, and immediately be reconsidered.
SEGARNICK: Albemarle County School Board’s new policy hinders free speech in education
By Mason Segarnick | 2 days agoThe new distinction between “co-curricular” and “non-curricular” clubs creates vague and deleterious gray areas that risk undermining student expression.
