Civil dialogue that surpasses 150 characters

Social media wields significant influence on university campuses. Has this technology facilitated new connections across ideological divides? Or has it merely funneled students into discussions with those holding similar perspectives?

This was the focal point of last Thursday’s inaugural Ethics IRL (short for, in real life), a novel series orchestrated by the Edmond and Lily Safra Center for Ethics. Drawing inspiration from the 1980s PBS series “Ethics in America,” the format employs the Socratic method to engage members of the Harvard community on urgent topics.

Commencing the session, moderator Nien-hê Hsieh, the Kim B. Clark Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School, set forth a hypothetical scenario: Assigned reading for a general education course addresses immigration, with students mandated to share their reactions on a class discussion board.

One student expresses: “I can’t comprehend why individuals wishing to protect their country are labeled as racist or xenophobic nationalists. Since when did it become an offense to safeguard the borders of your nation?”

“I fail to see how one can reside in a country where federal officials are separating children from their parents and families,” counters another. “This essentially amounts to state-sanctioned trauma.”

Joining the panel were a dean, an activist, a journalist, an influencer, and an undergraduate who primarily distances herself from technology. Hsieh directed the group to envision themselves as students.

“I believe this prompt lacks a crucial contextual aspect regarding whether the responses published are anonymous.”

Soleil Golden ’24

“Would you express your genuine thoughts regardless of what reactions those posts might elicit? Or would you meticulously construct a neutral stance to avoid drawing your classmates’ scrutiny?” he inquired.

“I think this prompt lacks a crucial contextual aspect regarding whether the responses published are anonymous,” replied Soleil Golden ’24, a premedical neuroscience student at Boston Children’s Hospital with over 70,000 Instagram followers, who noted using social media to sharpen her rhetorical abilities. “If it’s anonymous, I believe individuals would feel considerably freer in articulating their views.”

What if the instructor brought those remarks into the lecture, urging both students to elaborate on their viewpoints?

“I believe I’d be more willing to voice my thoughts,” responded Brody Douglass ’27, an economics major and Navy ROTC midshipman who noted he restricts social media in preference of face-to-face interactions. “I believe that, generally, better conversation occurs when it’s truly a dialogue rather than merely a sequence of discussion posts where words can be misconstrued more easily.”

Panelists provided a blend of deeply personal and evidence-based perspectives regarding the contemporary state of discourse. The series was launched with the backing of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences’ Civil Discourse initiative.

“Can we envision how this would have unfolded on social media?” Hsieh pondered.

“Perhaps there might have been some intriguing elements of conversation,” suggested researcher and activist Yaёl Eisenstat, a policy director at the Cybersecurity for Democracy project at New York University, who highlighted the platforms’ role in shaping the assignment itself. “However, it’s likely that, given how social media is structured today, it would have been overshadowed by more emotionally charged reactions.”

What if both students encountered harassment online? What if the ensuing anxiety compelled one to withdraw from the university altogether?

“I would find it immensely disheartening if the first student departed,” remarked Sewell Chan ’98, executive editor of the Columbia Journalism Review. Addressing the assertion that institutions have become distressed environments for conservatives, he added: “We exist in a society in which 40 percent or more of the population not only resonates with student number one but would articulate even harsher views. If we react as though we’re so offended or disturbed by student number one that we can’t tolerate what they articulated, that should indicate something about us.”

As the dialogue advanced, panelists repeatedly returned to the friction between the objectives of higher education and algorithm-driven platforms.

“Universities have a specific role,” clarified Rakesh Khurana, Danoff Dean of Harvard College. “Their charge is to seek Veritas, as close as possible. They achieve this by introducing diverse perspectives and viewpoints into an environment. They foster conditions that differ from those of free speech, which include the freedom to express views, but with the expectation that one must support them with rationale and evidence.

“I have the right to stand outside and proclaim, ‘The Earth is flat;’ it’s entirely within my free speech rights,” he added. “I can express it in the classroom, but do not expect it to be graded correctly in my Earth and Planetary Sciences course.”

However, Eisenstat argued that social media algorithms actively compromise the pursuit Khurana described.

“The environment that social media has helped forge impacts how students interact with each other on campus,” she contended. “What social media has accomplished is render it increasingly simple to choose your echo chambers while simultaneously being funneled into silos you’re unaware of … It’s the personalization. It’s leveraging all your behavioral data to subsequently direct information your way that speaks most to your primal instincts.”

The event concluded with panelists imparting recommendations for community members keen on nurturing an atmosphere more favorable to open exchange.

“Challenge yourself to engage with individuals who differ from you ideologically,” Eisenstat encouraged. “But do not thereby assume that it is overly challenging to cultivate the social media landscape we desire and advocate for the legislation that would assist.”

“I have dedicated hours to conversing with individuals online,” Golden mentioned. “Although those discussions can be exasperating and may feel like I’m losing the argument, I have not participated in any online interaction where I haven’t gained a new insight.”

“I now strive to maintain self-discipline,” Khurana remarked. “When I find myself in opposition to someone, I assume we’re each subjected to different algorithms.”