But no flying fists.
It takes no small courage to take a public stand on a controversial issue. This has always been true — let the history of the “era of debate” in the U.S. Senate bear witness — but each generation has its own twist on things.
Many of these students, digital natives all of them, know all too well what can happen when bullies, haters and angry mobs — virtual or not — attack a person instead of an idea. Scorn and derision can be powerful suppressors of free speech, especially if the one standing has not learned helpful ways to withstand such attacks.
Efforts to develop, expand and refine such training are increasing in many arenas within academia and beyond.
The Braver Angels program is meant to help all students give voice to their views, think carefully through their reasons for those views, learn how to engage with others — even those who disagree strongly — and have the confidence to change their minds if they encounter better arguments or important information that was previously unknown to them.
“Some students tend to self-censor their political viewpoints,” Sprei said. “They think there will be a backlash. Lately, I think conservative students especially feel that way. Here, we encourage students to speak their truth.”
That can make for uncomfortable stretches, and sometimes that discomfort reveals previously unrecognized realities.
Sprei recalled a debate he attended about transgender athletes.
“We had students say that transgender was the worst thing ever and not real,” he said. “Then another student stands up and says, ‘I am transgender’ — looking the previous speaker right in the eye, lovingly.”
The debates do not avoid such white-hot topics. The resolutions express the challenging questions of our day: Abortion, government-sponsored healthcare, whether college loans should be forgiven.
To see what a Braver Angels experience was like, UD hosted a debate in the fall of 2022 with the theme: “Should Greek life be eliminated?”
Students chose the topic and more than 60 students attended, Hoffman said.
“It was cool to see how excited the students were about it,” Hoffman said. “It produced more light than heat, and people were able to hear things they might not have otherwise.”
The conversations are vigorous, civil and respectful, Sprei said.
“This is an exercise in civil discourse,” he told the UD class in April. “And our country needs it…. I’m inviting you to a collective search for truth and a way to express your own viewpoints in an atmosphere where all viewpoints are respected. No student’s opinion cancels out another.”
Debate experience
UD hosted two debates in April — one in a classroom, limited to Hoffman’s students, and one open to the entire campus community.
The theme was provocative: “Resolved: Social Media Is a Threat to Democracy.”
Students brought plenty of experience with social media and plenty of insight on both sides of that debate.
Those who agreed social media is a threat to democracy listed many perils, including:
Rapid dissemination of conspiracy theories and misinformation
Easy deception of gullible followers
Rapid mobilization for purposes of violence or insurrection, as witnessed in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol
Profit motives that use algorithms to manipulate people and steer them to things they want to see, whether it is true or false, with increasingly hostile and deceptive content
Power to produce intense, violent backlash
Those who disagreed listed the benefits of social media, including:
Giving voice to many who would otherwise not be heard
Allowing like-minded people to connect and mobilize, as happened in the Arab Spring
Allowing marginalized groups to raise issues not addressed by mainstream media or government
Allowing people to communicate faster than ever
Making it easy to connect and stay up to date with regions, issues, people of interest to you
As the discussion continued and questions were raised, several speakers found themselves agreeing with points they hadn’t considered before and suggesting that social media presented complexities that could sometimes strengthen democracy and sometimes threaten it.
Such nuance is often lost in shouting matches or anonymous social media-based debates. The hope is that students who have participated in these structured debates will take what they have learned and apply it in other settings.
Bennett said she experienced that after participating in a debate that was part of a National Agenda class. The topic, chosen by students, was whether “cancel culture” represents a kind of accountability. She went in with a strong opinion that “cancel culture” was more an infringement of free speech than a form of accountability. But, she said, she found merit in arguments that it was a way to call out unkind treatment of others.
“It was interesting to talk to friends afterwards,” she said. “We were able to deconstruct the conversation and find some common ground. The debate started the conversation and we were able to further explain our points of view in a smaller group.
“I think that is the really beautiful part — the conversations that these debates foster outside of the space,” Bennett said.
Bennett said the Braver Angels debates have helped her value the insights of those who are not full-time students or credentialed experts, too.
“When I’m on campus, I’m thrown into important conversations,” she said. “I’m always discussing the news and the topic of the day. I’m always talking to people with different opinions.
“When I’m at home, there’s a different atmosphere. Being part of this program has made me want to listen to them more than I did before. I used to say, ‘You’re not in college like I am.’ Now I say, ‘You’re coming from a different set of life experiences and values. I need to appreciate that and understand that.’ I didn’t do that previously.”
After each Braver Angels debate, students had the opportunity to talk about the experience if they wish to. All who spoke after the UD debates this spring said they were helpful and a good way for people to speak their minds, change their minds and talk about hard questions with respectful, reasoned exchanges.
Do respectful words have power? Is the program working? Hoffman’s analysis will help to shape that debate.
About the researcher
Lindsay Hoffman is an associate professor of communication at the University of Delaware, with a joint appointment in the Department of Political Science and International Relations. She is associate director of the Center for Political Communication and director of UD’s annual National Agenda Speaker and Film Series. She earned her doctorate in communication at Ohio State University and joined the UD faculty in 2007. Her primary research areas include political communication, public opinion, political campaigns, media effects, and technology and politics.
Article by Beth Miller
Photos by Evan Krape
July 03, 2023