You have /5 articles left.
Sign up for a free account or log in.
In 1933, the Oxford Union held one of the most famous debates in its storied history. The resolution before the student organization could scarcely have been more controversial: “This House Will under no circumstances fight for its King and its Country.” Following a bitter debate, the motion passed, with 275 of 428 members supporting the resolution.
A 1965 debate at the Cambridge Union pitted James Baldwin against William F. Buckley Jr. The contested question: Is the American dream at the expense of the American Negro?
Other questions that the unions have debated include these:
- Whether nuclear weapons are morally defensible;
- Whether (in 2018) the two-state solution in Israel and Palestine is dead; and
- Whether “humanitarian intervention is a contradiction in terms.”
Founded in 1815, the Cambridge Union is the oldest debating society in the world. The Oxford Union was established eight years later. A number of future U.K. prime ministers, including William Gladstone and Boris Johnson, honed their debating skills at the unions.
Interrupting a speech using a point of information (to clarify or question a speaker’s argument) and heckling are distinctive features in these debates. Members of the audience are encouraged to interject with witty remarks, questions or rebuttals during speeches—though personal attacks and offensive comments are discouraged. This engagement challenges speakers to think on their feet and prevents the debates from becoming too formal or monotonous.
Why, I’ve wondered, are there no true American equivalents to the Oxford and Cambridge Unions and the debates that they hold? Sure, some campuses, including Harvard and Yale, have political unions as well as competitive debate teams, guest lectures, forums and symposia. But, the status of these unions is far outstripped by other extracurriculars, including football and basketball.
I find it a terrible shame that American campuses place little emphasis on public speaking, oral communication, debate and dialogue. With the exception of cultivating clear and compelling writing, it would be hard to imagine a more important skill. Public speaking is a skill that is vital for professional success and civic participation, yet, oratory, verbal give-and-take and debate have no formal place in the curriculum at any school that I’ve ever seen.
Indeed, at my campus the disabilities office recently instituted a new accommodation for a not insignificant number of undergraduates: barring faculty members from calling on those students in class unless they are informed of the specific question in advance. Colleagues have told me that this accommodation has derailed their attempts to use the Socratic method in their courses and has made it extremely difficult to call on students to take part in discussion.
Why have colleges failed to prioritize public speaking? Partly, this reflects an emphasis on written over oral communication. The traditional liberal arts education model has prioritized essays, research papers and exams over presentations and debates.
Also, college professors are trained primarily as researchers and writers, not as public speakers or debate coaches, and their teaching methods reflect their own training and strengths. In addition, large lecture classes, common in many universities, do not lend themselves well to individual student presentations or debates. Then, too, evaluating public speaking is more subjective than grading written work. This can lead to inconsistencies in grading and concerns about fairness.
There are, however, strategies to elevate the role of public speaking in a college education:
- Integrate public speaking across the curriculum. Incorporate oral presentations and debates into existing courses across various disciplines.
- Leverage technology to facilitate public speaking assignments by hosting online discussion forums.
- Incentivize students to participate in debate clubs, public speaking workshops and competitions.
- Highlight the importance of public speaking in graduates’ professional and civic lives in orientation programs and career services workshops.
Effective public speaking is a key component in any meaningful dialogue, and campuses, now more than ever, need to prioritize conversations on divisive issues.
***
It’s high time to for colleges to change course and incorporate a more formal approach to prompting dialogue on their campuses. Informal efforts have failed, and few, if any, faculty members receive any formal instruction into how to make dialogue work in their classrooms.
Some of our students do recognize the value of dialogue. In the face of the bitter campus divisions over Gaza and Israel, a number of undergraduates at my school and elsewhere have tried to foster dialogue between Arab and Jewish students. But on my campus, those students have concluded that “their colleges and peers are obstructing civil discourse on the Middle East,” with “social pressures pos[ing] the main barriers to dialogue.”
Meanwhile, promoting dialogue in the face of deep campus divisions strikes many senior administrators as a fool’s errand, and many have offered no leadership in trying to promote the serious exchange of ideas. Certainly, some religious studies and Middle Eastern studies programs have sponsored debates and dialogues that specifically seek to foster constructive conversations and civil discourse, with the most successful featuring subject matter experts and diverse perspectives. But student disinterest has been high.
If campuses truly wish to live up to their claim to be institutions that support open dialogue and a commitment to understanding differing perspectives, they must adopt a fresh approach. To achieve meaningful and productive dialogue, a good starting point is an essay entitled “On Dialogue” by the theoretical physicist David Bohm, published four years after the author’s death.
Although Bohm made significant contributions to quantum theory and plasma physics, his writings extended into philosophy and psychology, addressing the nature of consciousness and the transformative potential of dialogue in human relationships. Accused of being a communist during the McCarthy era, he refused to name names and was suspended from a position at Princeton. He subsequently moved to Brazil and later to Israel and the United Kingdom, where he continued his research and teaching. His holistic view of nature influenced fields as diverse as systems theory and cognitive science. His approach to dialogue remains influential in such areas as conflict resolution and organizational management, providing tools for more meaningful and productive communication.
“On Dialogue” is a 48-page essay in a book of the same name that I wish all faculty members in the humanities and social sciences would read. In his essay, Bohm distinguishes dialogue from discussion, debate and negotiations. The objective is not to bat ideas back and forth, win, persuade, exchange opinions, forge a consensus, achieve a compromise or even get at an underlying truth. Rather, the aim is to question the assumptions, opinions and thought processes that make disagreement so vehement, emotional and firmly held. He wants participants in a Bohm dialogue to take counterarguments seriously, ask themselves why they cling so strongly to a particular position and examine how their self-interest, identity and positionality influence their point of view.
Nor is a Bohm dialogue a therapy group or an encounter session. Its purpose is not to vent emotions or offer adversaries an opportunity to confront one another. It is to expose underlying or tacit assumptions and share information, with the aim of promoting greater awareness and understanding. Bohm does acknowledge that participation in such a dialogue can have a therapeutic effect.
In Bohm’s view, effective dialogue over fraught issues requires intentionality, structure and a commitment to understanding different perspectives. Unlike traditional debates or discussions, Bohm dialogue emphasizes collective thinking and exploration without trying to reach a quick consensus or solution. Here, briefly, are the key steps toward implementing a Bohm dialogue:
- Create a safe space. Dialogue requires a safe, respectful environment where participants feel free to express their thoughts and feelings without fear of ridicule or aggressive criticism. Establish ground rules for respectful communication, ensure there is a neutral facilitator and create an atmosphere where all voices are valued.
- Suspend presumptions. Bohm’s book emphasizes the importance of suspending assumptions, judgments and preconceptions and listening deeply and openly to others without immediately evaluating or categorizing what is said. This means temporarily setting aside judgments and preconceived notions in order to understand the perspectives of others fully. In practice, this requires participants to acknowledge their biases at the outset and consciously choose to listen without immediate rebuttal.
- Identify shared goals and values. The goal of a Bohm dialogue is to create shared meaning rather than win an argument. This involves a collective exploration of ideas where understanding is prioritized over agreement. Participants need to focus on common goals and values and find areas of convergence before addressing points of divergence. This involves sharing thoughts and ideas openly and exploring them collectively without the pressure to agree or disagree.
- Engage in collective inquiry. A Bohm dialogue is a process of collective inquiry in which participants explore complex issues or questions together, asking questions and reflecting on differing viewpoints. The dialogue needs to be structured around open-ended questions, with the participants encouraged to explore these questions collaboratively. The focus is on understanding and insight rather than reaching a decision or achieving a consensus.
- Listen and speak effectively. Participants are encouraged to listen deeply and speak honestly, contributing to a space where all voices can be heard and considered.
- Encourage reflection. As the dialogue progresses, participants are asked to share their observations about what has been said and acknowledge any shifts in their understanding.
Unlike a discussion, which often seeks to solve problems or persuade others, a Bohm dialogue is about exploring and understanding the underlying aspects of divisive issues. It is more about thinking together rather than thinking alone.
The group taking part in a Bohm dialogue can’t be too large or too small, since in intimate settings participants tend to accommodate even those ideas that they abhor. A group between 20 and 40 is ideal. That’s large enough to include opposing perspectives but small enough to allow each participant a chance to speak.
A Bohm dialogue isn’t free form; it is a structured conversation that is respectful and open. First steps involve defining the purpose and goals of the dialogue and establishing ground rules to ensure mutual respect, active listening and confidentiality if needed. Participants need to agree not to interrupt one another and to allow everyone a chance to speak.
The facilitator’s role is to initiate and guide the conversation, ensuring that it remains productive and focused and not to control it. The facilitator needs to ensure that all participants have an opportunity to contribute. This might entail inviting shier or quieter participants to share their thoughts and intervening if the dialogue becomes disrespectful or off-topic.
All participants are encouraged to make an opening statement to outline their perspective.
The facilitator then uses focused questions to steer the conversation. For instance, “What are the underlying values driving your position on this issue?” The facilitator should also encourage participants to reflect back what they have heard before responding.
In order to further build common ground, the facilitator needs to help the participants identify areas of agreement and shared values. This helps build a foundation of mutual respect and understanding.
When discussing differences, the focus should be on understanding the reasons behind different viewpoints rather than debating who is right or wrong.
At the end of the dialogue, the facilitator should summarize the key points of agreement and disagreement and help the participants agree on next steps and plans for future conversations.
A key goal of a Bohm dialogue is to enhance understanding among participants by exploring different perspectives and uncovering deep insights. But a related purpose is to build stronger relationships through respectful and empathetic communication and foster a sense of community and shared purpose. By engaging in this type of dialogue, participants can experience transformative shifts in their thinking and perceptions, leading to greater personal and collective awareness.
A Bohm dialogue is an effective tool in conflict resolution, helping parties understand each other’s perspectives and find common ground. It can contribute to more meaningful and productive interactions in various contexts, but it is especially important on college campuses.
The past few months have revealed a fact that should be a source of great distress. Our colleges and universities have failed at their most important civic responsibility: promoting civil discourse in an era of deep division.
Our inability to nurture open-mindedness and critical thinking about highly fraught, profoundly divisive ideological, political and foreign policy issues bodes poorly for our nation’s future. Our institutions have a duty to engage with polarizing issues and hold conversations that count. Our campuses need to facilitate productive and respectful dialogue and enable meaningful and constructive debate.
To paraphrase an aphorism attributed to the first century Jewish sage Hillel: If not here, where? If not now, when?
