Universities need real debate, not relabeled DEI

OPINION:

On Sept. 10, I debated school choice at Susquehanna University in Pennsylvania. The date was the first anniversary of Charlie Kirk’s assassination at Utah Valley University, where he had gone to debate publicly with students and the community.

Susquehanna’s business school hosted the event in partnership with the school of education and the Open Discourse Coalition. The auditorium was full, with about 300 students in the seats, and the crowd stayed engaged from start to finish.

I argued for school choice. David DeMatthews, a professor of educational leadership and policy at the University of Texas at Austin, argued against it. We did not use timed rounds, formal rules, or a scorecard. A moderator steered the conversation when needed. The back-and-forth ran about 40 minutes, then about 20 minutes of audience questions. So many students stood up to ask questions that we had to cut them off since time ran out.

The disagreement was sharp, and the auditorium stayed lively. Midway through, I told the students they couldn’t see what was happening on stage: Mr. DeMatthews and I were winking and smiling at each other. We liked each other and could fight about the issue without turning the night into a grudge match. Before the questions started, I stood up, said “I like this guy,” and shook his hand. Faculty later said they were glad two people could clash and still treat each other like adults.

I have won formal Oxford-style debates hosted by the Soho Forum. Those contests have their virtues. The audience votes, and the video lives online. The incentive is to land a line that sticks and goes viral on social media.

I asked the Susquehanna organizers in advance to record our exchange, but they did not, and the unrecorded discussion had a different effect. Without a camera hunting for a clip, both of us could drop our guard, enjoy the contest, and talk to the students in front of us instead of performing for the livestream.

Before the forum, the university asked me to lecture a microeconomics class. The education school asked Mr. DeMatthews to lecture some of its fourth-year students heading into teaching.

Afterward, we stood outside the hotel for about 15 minutes. I told Mr. DeMatthews I meant what I said on stage. He said too many universities have become echo chambers that no longer foster debate. He also said he had been hesitant to accept the first invitation — because of pushback from people on his side — but would now be glad to do another.

Advertisement Advertisement

Attempts to ban DEI and other Marxist propaganda in universities are a worthwhile goal. But many professors and administrators keep moving the goalposts to avoid accountability. This week, I released an undercover video by Accuracy in Media in which a University of Missouri professor said colleagues “found clever ways to continue to have DEI centers but not call them that.” He also said the changes were “mostly cosmetic.” Simply changing the names will not repair a campus that trains students to treat dissent as a threat.

We need stronger enforcement of laws prohibiting DEI that have real consequences for bad actors.

But the deeper work is to break the echo chamber by debating in the open. That means letting our guards down, walking into the lion’s den, and trying to reach some opponents with kindness. A university is supposed to be the place that hosts a friendly argument. Too many now function as ideological machines aimed at producing left-wing voters.

Kirk had that diagnosis right. The country needs open discourse, or the alternative is a slide into chaos. Universities have a responsibility to host real debates, with real disagreement, in front of students. That atmosphere is part of providing a rigorous education.

Groups already doing the work need more rooms like the one at Susquehanna. The Open Discourse Coalition funds and organizes programming so students can hear competing viewpoints in a civil setting. The group began around Bucknell and has sponsored programs at campuses like Susquehanna, the University of Pennsylvania, and Villanova.

Advertisement Advertisement

The model is straightforward. Put two people who disagree on a stage. Let students ask questions. Do not sanitize the argument in advance.

Mr. DeMatthews and I proved the audience will come. The students were ready. The faculty who booked the event were ready. The missing ingredient on most campuses is the will to schedule the fight and then shake hands when it is over.

• Corey DeAngelis is a research fellow at The Heritage Foundation and a senior fellow at Americans for Fair Treatment.