by Georgina Gamble ’29 on November 20, 2025

---

Opinion

---

I had the pleasure of attending Father Sicard’s panel, With Mutual Respect: Discussions on Contemporary Challenges, this past Thursday, Nov. 13. Although honestly, my primary motivations for showing up were to receive extra credit for some classes, this year’s discourse on the nuances of free speech left me thoroughly engaged, pondering, and in the best way, patriotic. 

We’ve all learned about them at some point in our lives: the Constitution. The First Amendment. I am almost certain that most of us can rattle off our Miranda Rights to some extent. Except for tedious history classes and the occasional trip to an American history museum, have we ever stopped and taken a minute to actually appreciate what these old documents mean? 

We are living in an era of severe turmoil in America. That’s not necessarily something to be proud of. To me, the bickering itself is something of a miracle. We live in a special country: our founders, in their antiquity, were ahead of their time. These 300-year-old dead guys were probably more liberal than some of our own grandparents. Their goal was simple: they wanted their citizens to discuss, debate, and yell for what they cared about, no matter who or what was being called out in the process. We have the ability to hold our leaders accountable without penalty. We can organize, assemble, petition, and write about issues that we care about, without a catch. There are no consequences. Many countries didn’t have this right back then, and a good handful still aren’t even close to achieving it now. 

Despite the chaos in today’s political climate, the pure idea of democracy instilled in America’s founding brings me a spark of hopeful patriotism. What’s even more of a privilege than the First Amendment on its own is our freedom of speech to discuss our freedom of speech, as our college has done during this panel. To be so at ease with our civil liberties that we can critique, praise, and question them is very telling of our American identity. Despite our polarization and divisions, we are still united through the strands of democracy we care about the most. We all want to shout our grievances, protest injustices, and fume over politics at the dinner table, no matter our side of the battle. We know that there are no ramifications to these uses of our voices—our only enemy is each other. 

I have faith that we will realize the privilege we have to live in this nation, to argue for what we think needs to be heard without fear of arrest or capital penalty, only fear that our neighbors might throw us a dirty look at the grocery store. A collective refresher on the rights embedded in the threads of our nation would not (and should not) stop the fighting, but would maybe bring the fighting a little closer together. I think what America needs right now is something of a Constitutional group hug.

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.