Christian Cintron ’28

by Christian Cintron ’28 on November 20, 2025

---

Last Thursday, Nov. 13, the most recent installation of the With Mutual Respect: Discussions on Contemporary Challenges series was held, centered around the question of “Freedom of speech in crisis: What has gone wrong, and is there hope for civil discourse in America?” The panelists included Shannon Kelly ’26, Isabelle Camoin ’26, Carlie Burns ’27, and Zachary Stoyer ’27, with Carl Picerno ’26 serving as the panel’s moderator. This series was established by the College’s president, Father Kenneth R. Sicard, O.P. ’78, ’82G, in 2022. The overarching purpose of the series has been to promote mutually respectful dialogue between students and faculty with opposing viewpoints, seeking to prove that “individuals who hold very different opinions about controversial topics can engage in fruitful and respectful dialogue.”

Kelly was the first panelist to provide her opening statement. She asserted that speech is an integral human device, and by losing it, we lose our outlet for critical thought and ability to hold those in power accountable. She mentioned recent limitations on free speech, including bans on Diversity Equality and Inclusion initiatives, banning of books in states such as Florida, Texas, and Tennessee, pro-Palestinian protests, and limits on academic freedom. She addressed systemic issues that are inherent to some institutions, such as the amplification of white male voices, silencing the voices of people of color in the process. She claimed these practices are seen at Providence College, with the required Development of Western Civilization focusing on white- and male-centered topics and authors. She concluded by saying that the pursuit of truth has intrinsic value and all voices must be allowed to be heard.

Burns gave the next opening statement. She highlighted the unwillingness of people to listen to those who hold other viewpoints and gave free speech a definition of anything that brings forth argumentation, although hate speech is not protected under this concept. She pointed to the lack of educational equity as a problem regarding free speech, with the left dominating the educational sphere. Stating that she finds problems of inequality and intersectionality to be important to her, Burns believes inequalities cannot be solved without civic dialogue and reframing hostile conversations to find commonalities. In regard to the issue of comfort, Burns concluded by declaring that citizenship is about debating the common good, and citizens need to be willing to engage uncomfortably to avoid ideological homogeneity.

Stoyer shared his opening statement by quickly engaging with the issue of polarization; he observed that polarization now expands not only to politics, but also to an individual’s character. The majority of Americans are exposed to diverse viewpoints, especially through social media, but are unwilling to listen to or engage with them, which he believes encourages such polarization and is not productive. Stoyer stated that he is a proponent of “free speech that gets somewhere”––positive, forward-thinking, and productive in nature. He suggested that we should “argue less” and “debate more” to build empathy, along with depoliticizing spaces that don’t need to be politicized to control polarization. 

Camoin began the final opening statement by posing free speech as a human issue. She noted that in the current political climate, liberals are perceived to limit free speech while conservatives are viewed as advocates of it; meanwhile, political institutions and parties profit from this combat. She viewed the cancellation of the With Mutual Respect panel on immigration not as a hindrance to free speech, as the issue was still discussed in a way that did not enable this combat between political ideologies. She addressed how deeming civil debate, as she has previously been told, “too unreasonable and unexciting” obstructs ideals of free speech. She claimed that professors often do not live up to the standards of allowing students to come to ideas on their own terms, which limits free thinking; classrooms should focus on “co-creating truths on a subject.” Camoin also tackled the issue of political apathy, where people are uninformed and not passionate, another problem that restricts civic dialogue. She encouraged people to “stop debating” and “start talking to one another,” proclaiming that free speech is not simply saying whatever one wants whenever they want.

The session for rebuttals then began, with Burns offering the first response to other panelists. She disagreed with the notion that we need to “argue less” and “debate more” that was presented by Stoyer, claiming that “everything is political” and that dialogue is needed, even if it becomes an argument. She believes that by assuming people speak a certain way or take a certain position based on their political ideology, they are limited in their outlet of free speech.

Kelly challenged Burns’s view on debate, stating that democratic listening is passive; active listening entails asking questions, reciprocal curiosity, and engaging in conversation, and “true listening demands accountability from all parties involved.” Camoin aligned with Kelly’s ideals and refuted Stoyer’s stance about debate, questioning how debate can embody free speech while others are boxed into being opposition, inherently resulting in hostility. Disagreeing with Burns’s statement, she claimed to not see the same left-leaning domination in academia, especially not at Providence College. Stoyer disputed Burns’s claim that “everything is political,” disagreeing that politics is inherent to free speech. He also opposed Camoin’s viewpoints, stating that people need to be interested in meaningful conversations for them to matter, citing the success of presidential debates in having people invested, and that the clash of ideas is inevitable.

The panelists then moved on to the question-and-answer session, answering several questions selected by Picerno from the panel’s audience. Some of the most notable questions included the issue of the proposed Turning Point USA chapter at the College, and how its rejection can be viewed as anything other than an impediment of free speech. Burns responded, saying the chapter was hypocritical for representing an organization promoting a Professor Watchlist, while claiming to promote free speech, and also stated that its presence on campus could have created positive tension. Kelly argued that the chapter solely reaffirmed conservative voices and that its existence on campus is unnecessary because its name is associated with hatred, which suppresses dialogue. She thought that the club would have been more fruitful as a conservative debate club. Camoin also mentioned that given Student Congress’s option to vote by ballot on the issue, students were fearful of having their vote on the chapter’s passage being made public, which speaks to the implication that the chapter would have had for free speech on campus.

Another question posed was regarding the controversy on campus regarding the inability to use the word “pride” in event programming, a decision upheld by the College’s administration, and how this decision impedes free speech. Camoin maintained that the College has the right to implement this rule, but that does not make it morally sound, and the College should reconsider this issue. Burns also responded, stating that this decision suppresses comfort within the College as a residential community. She asserted that the college experience is a pivotal time for exploring identity, and the omission of “pride” in messaging limits growth, even for those not a part of the LGBT community who feel pride in other ways.

The question of students’ fear of speaking up and how to address it was asked to all panelists. Kelly agreed that students are afraid to speak up, especially in core curriculum classes such as theology and philosophy, as students often align their values with those of the professor teaching the class. Furthermore, she suggested telling a trusted professor about their concerns. Burns proposed that professors can create comfortable classrooms by looking at topics objectively and being willing to listen to different perspectives. Stoyer attested that a larger problem is students being scared to share their views with their peers, while Camoin valued challenging professors by asking questions.

The final question was what the panelists hope for on campus following this discussion regarding free speech. Burns hoped that students would get tired of being so partisan and be willing to consider social factors of why people think the way that they do, even when their views can be seen as offensive. Camoin encouraged students to say less on social platforms such as Yik Yak and more in class. She also talked about the importance of expressing oneself using the Diversity, Inclusion, and Dialogue walls and for professors to be aware of how they can create a classroom conducive to dialogue. Kelly hoped that students would learn from one another, especially those with opposing viewpoints. She challenged students to be engaged in the classroom, focus on learning rather than their devices, and greet one another in person. Closing the panel, Stoyer simply pressed students to “get off political Twitter.”