Eric Beerbohm believes disagreement — whether with people or texts — fuels research and brings out the best in teaching. “It’s really the lifeblood of a university,” says the inaugural Alfred and Rebecca Lin Professor of Government.

Beerbohm was engaged with similar work as faculty director of the Edmond & Lily Safra Center for Ethics when Hopi Hoekstra, Edgerley Family Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, tapped him to lead her new Civil Discourse initiative. The Quincy House Faculty Dean and affiliate with the Department of Philosophy has spent the last year guiding a wide-ranging exploration of strategies to foster more open, respectful dialogue across campus.

“These conversations need to be handled in ways that affirm others with empathetic listening,” Beerbohm said. “As a first step, what we’ve done is to set out the conditions for, model, and then provide opportunities to practice civil discourse.”

As the Civil Discourse initiative enters its second year, we asked Beerbohm about first-year successes and challenges around the effort. He also previewed its next generation of programming. The interview was edited for length and clarity.

What have you learned over the past year about the FAS community’s ability to engage with civility on ethically charged topics?

We’ve learned that many students are eager to jump right in, but they’re not always sure how. In interviews I did with Tomiko Brown-Nagin for the University’s open inquiry report and in the listening sessions David Laibson and Maya Jasanoff led for the FAS Classroom Social Compact Committee, students kept telling us the same thing: They want to speak up in class, but they need clearer norms. They want more explicit frameworks and a better sense of what’s expected when they share deep convictions versus when they offer a knee-jerk conjecture.

And it’s not just students. Faculty and graduate students — myself very much included — bring a lot of smuggled assumptions into the classroom. Many students think that any argument they make will be seen as a deep reflection of who they are. Some believe that disagreeing with peers or professors is rude, when in fact it’s often exactly what good learning looks like. We need to flip that script. Open disagreement isn’t a roadblock; it’s a sign we’re doing our jobs. Helping everyone see that even contentious contributions are welcome and productive has been central to our efforts this year.

“Open disagreement isn’t a roadblock; it’s a sign we’re doing our jobs.”

How exactly can faculty go about setting the explicit frameworks you mentioned?

Some Law School faculty use the Chatham House Rule to create a space for candid discussion, while faculty from other Schools have emphasized co-creating norms with students at the start of the semester.

We’ve hosted several workshops and events where faculty shared the norm-setting strategies they use in their classrooms. One was a webinar featuring Meira Levinson, Archon Fung, and Janet Halley, who shared how they set the tone for open dialogue in their classrooms, offering practical methods like fostering intellectual humility, establishing structured participation guidelines, and modeling respectful disagreement.

The Ethics Center has been collecting these strategies and consolidating them into a database that faculty can draw from to tailor approaches to their teaching needs. We have also modeled constructive engagement through our “Ethics Monday” and “Ethics in Your World” lunchtime talks. These events tackle pressing issues — from legacy admissions to political threats to democracy — using a format that showcases open, structured dialogue. The strong attendance at these sessions shows that our community is eager for better ways to disagree productively.

We are also working with the Bok Center and the Intellectual Vitality initiative to bring innovative tools into classrooms. One of our key efforts involves piloting simulations where teaching fellows tackle challenging scenarios, such as managing a class in which students are reluctant to take on assigned roles. By combining faculty insights, curated resources, and live demonstrations of these techniques, we’re equipping educators with the tools they need to foster inclusive and dynamic discussions in any classroom. 

How does this work carry into House life?

We are breaking down walls between the classroom and the House communities, fostering richer, ongoing conversations. For example, in the 800-student course “Justice: Ethical Reasoning in Polarized Times,” many sections met in the Houses just before dinner. This scheduling encouraged debates to spill over into mealtime discussions, creating a seamless flow between academic learning and communal life. 

The Ethics Center’s Fellows in Values Engagement (FiVE) program has further deepened this connection. Proctors and tutors have hosted intimate sessions on topics ranging from moral dilemmas in public service to the ethical implications of living forever and questions of animal status and veganism. Looking ahead, they are planning live podcasts in the Houses this spring. Imagine a lively conversation on a hot-button topic unfolding right in a common room — students can watch, jump in with questions, and shape the direction of the dialogue.

What more can we expect in the initiative’s second year?

This fall, Dean Hoekstra assembled an FAS-wide advisory group on civil discourse, which I co-chair with Director of the Bok Center Karen Thornber. We have students, staff, and faculty all working together to scale up last year’s pilot programs. With help from the Harvard Initiative for Learning & Teaching (HILT), we are planning to convene Harvard’s experts on negotiation and facilitation, whose teaching doesn’t always travel beyond our professional Schools. The idea is to connect the dots among the Ethics Center, the Bok Center, the College’s Intellectual Vitality initiative, and the Office of Undergraduate Education. We want to weave civil discourse practices through every layer of campus life.

This spring, we’ll launch two new event series. The first pairs longtime FAS faculty friends who passionately disagree — across disciplines and within them. The second spotlights faculty whose research challenges basic assumptions about disagreement. We’ll learn from poets and social scientists alike, digging into depolarization, exploring the differences between “civil” and “civic,” and even looking at the fight-or-flight neuroscience behind conflict.

We’re also kicking off an interdisciplinary research lab focused on civil disagreement and hosting a February conference to highlight new research and evidence-based practices. Plus, we’ll hold a roundtable on listening — both the theory and the practice.

Were there any public events from year one that you found particularly successful in modeling or inviting civil discourse?

Philosopher Emily McTernan’s talk on “Taking Offense” was a standout. She tackled the tough question of what to do when conversations get uncomfortable. Her message: “Don’t run away. Lean in.”

Another high point was “Who Wants to Be a Trillionaire?” — a panel on extreme wealth featuring scholars with wildly different viewpoints. It got heated, but never crossed the line. The result? A deeper, more illuminating conversation that revealed new insights and strategies.

Which ethically charged topics will you tackle in 2025?

We’ve got a full slate, including the ethical dilemmas raised by social media, the manipulative power of generative AI, and the nuances of academic freedom. We look for issues that don’t fit neatly into left/right binaries but instead open space for unexpected agreements and creative solutions. Curiosity and empathy will remain at the core, along with the know-how to push back constructively when we disagree. 

This year, we’re also piloting a new format inspired by the original PBS “Ethics in America” series at Harvard Law School. In this approach, a moderator will guide participants through a labyrinth of ethical dilemmas, assigning roles — sometimes unsettling ones — on the spot. A journalist might find themselves stepping into the shoes of a legislator, or a student might be asked to think like the dean of the College.

Our belief, supported by robust research, is that the ability to engage in empathetic disagreement is like a muscle — it grows stronger with deliberate practice. These kinds of scenarios, where participants are challenged to inhabit new perspectives and make tough calls, provide exactly that kind of exercise. 

I see you have a new title — Alfred and Rebecca Lin Professor of Government — named for two alumni who specifically set out to support civil discourse.

I’m honored and grateful. It shows how closely my scholarship has merged with this initiative. With support from this professorship, I planned to write a book about how formal parliamentary rules can be misused to manipulate decisions. But after a year of watching how people navigate tough topics in classrooms and House lounges — even testing ideas with Quincy House students in their weekly Big Questions gathering — I’m starting at a more personal level: everyday disagreements among friends and family. The working title is “How to Disagree.” It will draw on all the lessons we’re learning here and hopefully help foster a braver, more open discourse culture far beyond Harvard’s gates.