by Courtney Wight '26 on November 20, 2025
Opinion
On Thursday, Nov. 13, Providence College held the next installment of the series, With Mutual Respect: Discussions on Contemporary Challenges. This installment sought to discuss the topic of “Freedom of speech in crisis: What has gone wrong, and is there hope for civil discourse in America?” While the student panelists were expertly prepared, I believe the format did not allow for productive discussion.
The format was a six-minute position statement from each panelist, followed by a three-minute response or question. The six-minute position statements, while informative and full of great discussion material, were boring as an audience member, especially by the final panelists, as the statements started to blend together in my head. Many of the panelists identified a need for students to better discuss issues on campus, particularly through active listening. Yet, this very debate format encourages passive, rather than active listening. As an audience member, I was trying my best to follow along with each panelist’s statements, but I was easily lost in the statements due to their length.
I believe the format needs the most reform in the question section at the end. Students were encouraged to ask questions; however, these questions were not able to be fully answered. The panelists’ answers were limited to one minute, which is not enough time to unpack the complicated questions posed. Additionally, questions were either for a specific panelist, two panelists, or all four panelists. This format created scenarios where there was no opportunity for a panelist to directly respond to an answer by a fellow panelist, since certain questions were targeted towards a specific panelist. This format left numerous questions largely undiscussed, as they were very passively answered and dismissed without any following response or contradiction from a fellow panelist.
I believe the struggles of the debate rest most in the framing of the topic. The actual heart of the debate regarding free speech, in my opinion, was rarely touched. Issues such as hate speech or censorship were briefly mentioned and never really explored. I believe this was not the fault of the panelists, but the structure and topic itself.
Finally, I believe there is a future need for diversity of majors on the panel. As a history and finance double major myself, I know the history classes I’ve taken involve reading and discussions based on analyzing and interpreting sources, while also connecting them to the context in the past and the present. On the other hand, my business classes are lecture-based with minimal discussion. To have a productive debate on these topics, the student panelists should be those who do not have these discussions on a normal basis. Students who may not be experts on the topic but are willing to work with a professor to learn and prepare for the debate should be chosen over students regularly engrossed in discussing these topics. I personally feel a panel composed of STEM or business majors would be more impactful, as it would provide students with an opportunity to have discussions they may not normally have. Providence College prides itself on offering a liberal arts education, particularly through the Development of Western Civilizations program; therefore, every student on this campus should be able to prepare and deliver a concise argument on the selected topics.
Overall, the debate accomplished the purpose of mutual respect. There was no coarse language, and all the responses were well prepared, but I’m largely left wanting more. A whole debate on hate speech protections would have been enough, instead of being stuffed as an afterthought into the larger debate on free speech. Furthermore, the structure of the event needs improvement, particularly in the question section, to allow for greater discourse between the panelists.