Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Columbia's firestorm is just the beginning. Here’s how philanthropy can respond.

A young nonprofit leader argues that there’s a brief window of opportunity to ensure that hate won’t thrive on college campuses.

Man in a crowd yelling at police

A pro-Palestinian supporter clashes with police outside Columbia University, where students have been protesting Israeli's war against Hamas.

Alexi Rosenfeld/Getty Images

Meel us CEO of BridgeUSA.

While the firestorm at Columbia University is the latest instance of campus protests sliding into hostility and personal attacks, it will certainly not be the last. Given the past seven months, it is clear that we will continue to see colleges become lighting rods for broader societal conflicts. In fact, the month between the one-year anniversary of the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel and November’s presidential election might test universities and colleges to an even greater degree than what we are seeing now.

This is not the first time that political and social tensions on college campuses has sparked protests and even violence. The uproar over the Vietnam War is the most obvious example, but you don’t even have to go that far back.


In 2017, I was a freshman at the University of California at Berkeley, when far-right provocateur and commentator Milo Yiannopoulos was invited to speak on campus. The protests that followed Milo’s speech were some of the most violent at Berkeley since the 1960s. I remember just how helpless I felt as people’s worst instincts took over. The next day, as I surveyed the damage on Sproul Plaza in the heart of campus, a tree still smoldered, an ugly reminder of the total failure to build a campus culture that honored intellectual freedom while fostering pluralism and respect.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

In the immediate aftermath, my friends and I hosted student-led discussions on campus to create some semblance of mutual understanding between people locked in seemingly mortal combat. More importantly, we wanted to show that violence is never the answer. What we learned through the process led us to launch BridgeUSA, a student-led organization empowering young people to create spaces for conversation and healthy disagreement.

In our journey building BridgeUSA, one observation stood out. We found that there is a loud minority of voices on campus — what I would call the “temperamentally extreme” — defining the narrative. These voices exist across the political spectrum and are united in their rigid, zealous commitment to an ideology. They share an absolutist’s certainty in their beliefs and an unwillingness to entertain any challenge to their opinion. Their views vary, but they are united in their extremism.

Once we at BridgeUSA looked past the temperamental extremists, we found that, honestly, most students — what I would call the “temperamental moderates” — are ideologically diverse, want to freely debate the difficult issues of our time, and disagree productively. In this, they share the perspective of the large number of Americans known as the “exhausted majority.” And when we fail to meet the silent demand of this group of Americans, we cede the microphone to a small, yet vocal cadre of temperamentally extreme voices.

Herein lies the opportunity for philanthropy and universities to proactively engage the majority of students across the country who believe in a more tolerant, pluralistic, and open-minded culture on college campuses. In the months before the big events this fall that likely will roil the country, we have a window of opportunity to prepare and adopt a forward-looking strategy that centers students. We can start by empowering students to create civic spaces on campus where people of different viewpoints can build trust and engage in productive dialogue. Philanthropy should fund student-based dialogue programs at scale, and universities should uplift and support student bridge builders. If we are successful in scaling up and sustaining student-led efforts, we will have laid the groundwork for a student movement that can transform norms on campus and beyond.

What would student-led bridging and civic spaces on campus look like? And what would happen in these spaces?

The work of courageous student leaders following the tragic events of October 7 offer an example. In the aftermath, BridgeUSA college chapters facilitated discussions on 21 campuses about the Israel-Palestine conflict. Students led these discussions, supported by faculty and administration. Their blueprint boils down to three elements.

The first is norm-setting in which student leaders clearly outline the goal of difficult conversations grounded in good-faith disagreement and mutual respect toward each other. By emphasizing that disagreement is not only OK but important, we try to create an environment that encourages healthy conflict. Have all these discussions resulted in resolutions for peace in Gaza? Of course not, because these dialogues don’t aim to create false compromise. Nor is the goal to create an environment where those affected by the conflict must defend their existence. Instead, setting the right norms establishes a foundation for uncovering solutions that are unthinkable today.

Additionally, each discussion features student moderators who frame questions and enforce norms to foster trust between participants before diving into points of serious disagreement. Every discussion begins with our four norms of discussion:

  • Listen to listen rather than to respond.
  • Try not to interrupt or have side conversations.
  • Address the statement, not the person.
  • Participants represent only themselves and are not representatives of social groups.

Call it a warm-up to the big game. Importantly, having students moderate helps to eliminate power dynamics that may exist between students and faculty or administrators.

The final set of practices focuses on building community. After all, it’s much easier to disagree productively with someone you already know. Our chapters normalize an environment in which friendships between students of diverse viewpoints are not only encouraged but necessary. The key is to incentivize dialogue and bridging while disincentivizing unhealthy conflict and personal attacks. Admittedly, a call for dialogue and community building might sound naive given the existential nature of conflicts on campuses today. And yet the key to understanding how we got here rests on a simple observation about human nature: If we fail to create opportunities for people of divergent viewpoints to build trust, conflict is almost certain when their respective identities come into tension.

Are these student-led discussions enough? Certainly not, but they are a start that can complement existing university-created civic dialogue efforts. This presents a top-down and bottom-up theory of change that can transform campus norms. Time and time again, young people have demonstrated a unique capacity to influence culture through activism. My experience has shown me that students can turn pluralism and dialogue into exciting and revolutionary ideas that have the same cultural resonance as issue-based activism.

If we want to prevent the next firestorm on campus and strengthen higher education, it’s time to support student-led bridging efforts across the country. If we don’t do it for campus culture, let’s do it for the sake of our democracy, which rests on the notion that we thrive because of our differences.

This writing was originally published in The Commons.

Read More

Red elephants and blue donkeys
Carol Yepes

America's two-party system is failing us

Cooper is the author of “How America Works … and Why it Doesn’t.

Are Kamala Harris and Donald Trump really the two best candidates for America's most demanding and important job? Hardly. Trump tried to reverse the last election. And while Harris would be a reversion toward the mean — after an unfit Trump and an aging Joe Biden — she's far from the most talented executive in the country.

So why, then, are they the two candidates to be president?

The answer is America's two-party political system. While third parties occasionally make some noise, they never threaten the Democratic-Republican duopoly.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand waving an American flag

"Freedom, a word that should inspire, has been distorted to justify the unchecked pursuit of individual interests at the expense of collective well-being," writes Johnson.

nicoletaionescu/Getty Images

Redefining America's political lingua franca

Johnson is a United Methodist pastor, the author of "Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community" and program director for the Bridge Alliance, which houses The Fulcrum.

A seismic shift has occurred in America's race, identity and power discourse. Like tectonic plates beneath the Earth's surface, long-held assumptions are adjusting and giving way to a reimagined lingua franca for civic engagement. This revived language of liberation redefines the terms of debate. It empowers us to reclaim and reinvigorate words once weaponized principally against marginalized communities.

Keep ReadingShow less
Blue donkey and red elephant facing off
kbeis/Getty Images

Why Democrats hate Texas and Republicans detest California

Klug served in the House of Representatives from 1991 to 1999. He hosts the political podcast “Lost in the Middle: America’s Political Orphans.”

A few years ago, a class of senior honors students at the University of Louisville learned firsthand the harsh reality of political stereotypes. They developed an ad for a hypothetical candidate running for Congress to get the reaction of 1,500 randomly selected people across the country. Two versions were created from the same script, using two different actors. One with a Southern accent, the other with the flat Midwestern delivery.

The students asked a couple of questions: Do you think this person is trustworthy, intelligent? Would you vote for this person? What political viewpoint would you ascribe to this person?

The students were taken aback when the Southern speaker got trashed.

Keep ReadingShow less
Caleb Christen

Meet the change leaders: Caleb Christen

Nevins is co-publisher ofThe Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of theBridge Alliance Education Fund.

A lawyer by trade, Caleb Christen has served in the U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps since 2007, including two deployments to the Middle East. He is now a senior officer in the Navy Reserve. Attending seminary and an executive education program in organizational leadership helped Christen identify that communities are not thriving as they were intended and that people must work together to transform American democracy and civic health.

As a result, Christen co-founded the Inter-Movement Impact Project to promote organizing for collective impact. His new focus is on “Better Together America,” a collaborative network providing support to the local democracy hubs that are emerging in communities across the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
Mismatched letters speelling out "respect"
Thinglass

The power of disrespect: Introducing the Return2Respect movement

Marinace is the coordinator of the Return2Respect movement.

My first thought was to extol the virtues of respect. However, we all know respect is good and right and necessary. But do we really know the impacts of disrespect on individuals and our democratic principles?

Disrespect manifests itself through incivility, impacting how people relate to one another. A 2012 survey conducted by PRRI showed 82 percent of Americans believed lack of civil discourse among politicians was a serious problem. By 2023, a Pew study showed it still at 84 percent.

Keep ReadingShow less