The Courage to Disagree

College is an academic environment meant to challenge our existing knowledge. We enter college with our own unique set of knowledge, beliefs, and goals that have been marinating in the same environment for nearly twenty years. The nature of college is to surround yourself with new people from new backgrounds and collaborate on what you know. Classes should be an arena for contested ideas; professors should serve as referees, not players. However, during my time at Tulane as a Political Science major, I have predominantly experienced agreement in the classroom. That level of consensus does not exist in reality. We are afraid of controversy.

We don’t avoid debate because we’re lazy. It feels like a personal risk. Nobody wants to be “that person” who said something awkward in class or risk their grade to voice an opinion. But when we avoid controversy, we avoid education. Hearing opposing views is how you become smarter; it involves thinking critically, problem-solving, building empathy, and understanding scope. You can’t learn about something that hasn’t been tested before.

Our habit in the classroom is one of performance for approval, rather than inquiry and revision. I wish we could separate ideas and identities. Argue for something if, and especially if, it does not align with your personal beliefs. Thinking just for the sake of rebuttal shows high intellectual capabilities. You don’t need to lose your moral compass to do so. Professors should mediate between heated debate and inherently evil speech. Analyzing controversies, nuances, or opposing values will prepare you for future trials and tribulations.

How to make it concrete

For Professors:

Add a “disagreement policy” to the syllabus: critique arguments, not people, distinguish hate speech, require evidence and analysis. Grade based on logic, clarity, and composition; not your position. Create a structure for class: require a two-minute steelman (helping opponent build the strongest version of the argument) before allowing rebuttal. Reward the best rebuttal argument to create an incentive.

For Students:

Cross-Analyze and compare arguments with other classes, data, and readings; find missing pieces to the claim. Ask one brave question every class, one that risks an honest answer. If an argument feels personal, name it: “While I do not morally agree with this industry, fast fashion has made clothing much more affordable worldwide.”

The assassination of Charlie Kirk served as an exposé of the climate on campuses: our instinct in the face of controversy is to eliminate rather than confront. This murder solidifies a culture where disagreement is terrifying; it risks lives. I loved Charlie Kirk despite firmly disagreeing with nearly everything he said and believed. As an aspiring lawyer, Kirk’s work instilled in me passion, curiosity, and intense motivation to turn my convictions into transformation. His arguments challenged my way of thinking, something I crave in the classroom. We must not make this a left versus right, Democrat versus Republican debate. It is about preserving the most remarkable element of the United States of America: pluralism. Our pluralistic government allows different laws, opinions, and values to exist within states, while simultaneously protecting them at the federal level. Americans can peacefully coexist despite deep disagreements.

If you disagree with this, tell someone why. Bring back controversy in our classrooms!