A Path Forward: Dialogue, respectful debate alive and well on college campuses

There seems to be a lot of pessimism about Generation Z and their readiness to lead our country, when the time comes. Gen Z includes people born between 1996 and 2010, meaning they’re 15 to 29 years old. This generation of “digital natives,” as it’s often called, has never known a world without the internet or smartphones.

If you read between the lines, you might infer that Gen Zers are screen-focused and social media obsessed. And you might guess they’re not skilled at communication basics, like dealing with conflict or even having a conversation.

But I’m pleased to say, there’s a movement underway to equip this next generation of leaders with these bygone skills. Colleges and universities around the country, in blue states and red, are offering students the opportunity to learn what it means to have a productive conversation with someone when you disagree or see the world differently.

It’s work the National Conflict Resolution Center has done for more than a decade. On the University of California San Diego campus alone, we have trained more than 12,000 student leaders to have these difficult conversations with confidence.

Last Monday, we had the opportunity to showcase what’s happening at other schools. NCRC, along with UC San Diego, hosted a national conference to showcase findings from a two-year study called “Building Next-Gen Leaders: Empowering Students to Navigate a Divided World.”

The study was led by a team of researchers under the auspices of the Applied Research Center for Civility, a joint initiative of NCRC and the university. Nearly 200 people were in attendance, representing 27 states and more than 60 universities, college campuses, partner organizations and foundations.

Shortly after its launch, the study’s context changed markedly. The Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel and subsequent war in Gaza led to turmoil on many campuses, involving students, faculty, staff and administrators who were hyper-focused on the situation – and hyper-polarized in their views. But while protests and encampments got the most attention, researchers observed that “tremendous work” was being done to bring campus communities together in productive dialogue, using the tools and resources that higher education is uniquely positioned to provide.

A second contextual shift occurred with the presidential election in November 2024 and inauguration of President Donald Trump in January 2025. Many colleges and universities remained steadfast in their commitments to civil discourse, creating opportunities for people to talk across political differences.

In their Impact Paper, the Center for Civility research team wrote, “Researching civil discourse at moments of heightened social conflict and political tension reveals two important lessons. One is that responding to current issues is easier with established and well-developed dialogue programs and a culture of dialogue already in place.” When their commitments are highly visible, campuses may be more likely to garner buy-in, even when the community is divided.

The second lesson is that civility is not a replacement for politics, even in its messiest forms. Researchers said, “Civil discourse programs cannot and should not replace political conflict, contestation, or activism. They are complementary and additive to other forms of civic engagement, ideally making that engagement more productive.”

At the University of Wisconsin-Madison, a pro-Palestine encampment – calling for university divestment from Israel – tested leadership. On day three, Chancellor Jennifer Mnookin authorized a police raid of the encampment; nine days later and the night before graduation, an agreement was reached to end it.

Mnookin was keynote speaker at the conference. Rather than lamenting the protests, she spoke with passion about the need to disagree productively. Mnookin shared her concern about a survey in which half of students said that someone with an offensive, counter point of view to theirs should not be invited to speak at the university.

“We don’t want to be a monoculture,” Mnookin said emphatically.

Utah Valley University was not a part of the study, but the school – which was the site of Charlie Kirk’s assassination – sees free expression as a way to strengthen community bonds. As Dr. Leana Wen noted recently in The Washington Post, “grief and reckoning are still unfolding there.”

But rather than responding with anger, the university’s president, Astrid Tuminez, is encouraging dialogue. No one should be afraid to speak, she believes; to that end, UVU is expanding its mediation and conflict management coursework. It will also host community-wide healing conversations and organize public forums to model civil disagreement.

As Wen concluded, “Courage doesn’t always take the form of confrontation; it can also be exemplified through care, empathy and respectful conversation.”

It’s a worthwhile message for everyone, from every generation.

Steven P. Dinkin is president of the National Conflict Resolution Center (NCRC), a San Diego-based organization that is working to create innovative solutions to challenging issues, including intolerance and incivility. To learn about NCRC’s programming, visit www.ncrconline.com.