🕵️ The Paladin Report

What is “On Discourse” with Dr. Brent Nelsen – A closer look at Furman’s plan to foster civil debate.

Welcome to The Paladin Report — a new monthly publication investigating key aspects of Furman’s administration, academic culture, and student life. Each issue will feature exclusive interviews, sharp analysis, and stories you won’t find anywhere else. Our goal is simple: to keep you—the Furman alumni—informed about what’s happening at your alma mater.

This month, we focus on On Discourse, an initiative Furman launched in Fall 2023 to support dialogue across differences, rebuild trust, and foster a campus culture where disagreement is not just tolerated—but embraced.

The following is an edited version of an exclusive interview with Dr. Brent Nelsen, Jane Fishburne Hipp Professor of Politics and International Affairs and Director of the Tocqueville Center. Dr. Nelsen also served as co-chair of On Discourse during the 2024–25 academic year.

We hope you enjoy the insight. But first,:

---

*Editor’s note: You may have noticed that several of our recent posts appeared in your inbox under the names of individual authors (like Evan Myers or Jeff Salmon) instead of the Furman Free Speech Alliance. That was a technical oversight on our part, and we apologize for any confusion.

Moving forward, all of our communications will come clearly labeled from: Furman Free Speech Alliance.

Thank you for reading and for supporting free expression at Furman.

---

---

What Is On Discourse? 🎯

On Discourse is an initiative created by President Davis to highlight the ways Furman supports viewpoint diversity, and to address areas where it falls short. The goal is simple: promote “discussion across difference.”

---

What Does On Discourse Do? 🛠️

• We're focused on curricular initiatives—courses—that have On Discourse elements. An instructor has to meet a certain set of criteria for a course to count as an On Discourse class. Instructors have to spend class time encouraging discussion across differences. For example, Dr. Liz Smith (politics) taught an entire course on civil discourse last spring.

• CLPs (cultural life program) now allow you to add On Discourse as a co-sponsor, if your program incorporates some obvious element of discussion across difference. What we really encourage is having a part of the CLP dedicated to students talking to each other after hearing a range of views on anything from tariffs to the DOGE effort.

• We have an advisory council consisting predominantly of faculty members, and an On Discourse Student Ambassador Council which draws members from student organizations. Both are useful for gathering community feedback and testing new ideas. The Student Ambassadors will be taking On Discourse into the student organizations in creative ways.

---

What Problems Was On Discourse Meant to Address? 🚨

There were several free-speech controversies in the spring of 2023 involving guest speakers Scott Yenor and Mary Eberstadt, which attracted attention from alumni and donors. I think a lot of the information communicated publicly about the controversies was not entirely correct, with some of those involved framing the facts in the worst possible light, but still, it touched a nerve of a very real free-speech problem at Furman.

---

---

What Needs to Happen to Foster a Wider Culture of Free Speech? 🌱

1. First, we need to increase awareness among the students. Most have probably heard about On Discourse, but not enough know what it is or what it does.

2. Second, and most important, we need to get conservative students—students who know their ideas buck the progressive ideology that dominates liberal-arts campuses—feeling comfortable enough to speak their minds. We have lots of survey data now on how our students perceive the openness of culture on campus—the culture is accepting of progressive identity groups

   (LGBTQ, racial minorities, but the culture is not always welcoming of conservatives. Conservatives feel least comfortable. There's slight progress in that area, but we haven't seen dramatic progress yet.

---

How Do More Progressive Faculty Feel About On Discourse? 🤔

I think it's important to say that there is some low-level opposition to On Discourse from the progressive side because they don't like the origin story. The biggest hurdle we face among progressives is the charge that the program came from pressure from right-wing donors. That the president is just reacting, and, in the end, it will undermine efforts toward justice for oppressed groups.

That said, many of my very progressive colleagues have noted this data about conservative students—because the evidence is clear—and they say they are trying very hard to make their classrooms open to conservative ideas. When we talk to students, they believe that professors are encouraging and would not penalize conservative views. They're more concerned about their peers. They're concerned about social media, they're concerned about Yik Yak, and they're concerned about being shunned.

There is, again, good survey evidence that says that progressive students are more likely to cut off relationships with conservative students and don't want conservative friends, whereas conservatives know they’re coming to a campus that isn't going to be that supportive, and seem more willing to be friends with anybody.

For most of my progressive colleagues, the idea that Furman is inhospitable to conservative students is embarrassing. Unfortunately, some of them embrace it. This is where the most progressive elements can really dampen free speech. I have been in groups where people will say, “I don't want to talk to somebody who undermines my dignity, who questions my identity.”

---

---

What Are the Biggest Risks That Could Torpedo On Discourse? ⚠️

I think the big risks are fairly obvious from other campuses.

• A political issue—the one I would think most likely to cause real problems would be the Palestinian issue, along with the question of anti-Semitism—can become so divisive as to make conversation extremely difficult. (By the way, we have some big donors who are concerned about anti-Semitism on campus. These people would not be considered conservative at all, but they're concerned about that particular issue.) If political tensions got so high that we couldn’t really talk anymore to one another, that would undermine On Discourse. And frankly, at Furman, we really haven't opened the Israel/Gaza/Palestine conversation very much. We had a couple of vigils early on in the war, but last year was really quiet.

• The other thing, as I mentioned before, is identity issues. That's where the culture war gets really hot, but people tend to avoid those issues. It's much easier to discuss across differences when you're talking about climate change or vaccines. I think we can deal with a lot of the culture-war issues, but the most emotional ones—those are the things that keep me awake at night.

---

Is There Anything Else You’d Like to Say? 💭

The other big concern I have is apathy among conservative students. Those who just aren’t interested in sticking their necks out by engaging on these issues. They decide to play a different role on campus than at home to avoid controversy. Or they're just not that interested in engaging on political topics. I think that will be a main obstacle to the success of On Discourse.

I applaud the administration for going out and actually opposing some of the most progressive groups on campus and really sticking to their guns. If things get really heated though, the administration’s reaction might be different. I don't think it's been tested yet. I'm hopeful and I'm encouraged—I think Furman could really be a place where these things happen. But I still think it's early years yet.

---