CR's November 14, 2025 Times Standard Education Matters Article--Agonism: Is Conflict Integral to our Path Forward?

Published on Nov 11 2025

The United States Senate and the House of Representatives passed a resolution on September 18, 2025 that established October 14 as a National Day of Remembrance to publicly honor Charlie Kirk, the conservative political activist who helped propel President Trump to a second term and was murdered at Utah Valley University on September 10. 2025. After the resolution’s passage, our Redwoods’ 180 Bible Student Club requested permission to host a prayer vigil themed “Faith, Family, and Freedom” on the Eureka Campus. 

I approved the club’s request, knowing that Kirk has been credited for inspiring young conservatives to fight against what he called dangerous liberal ideas, while at the same time outraging millions with his extreme hardline views on DEI, abortion, civil rights, gender issues, and gay marriage. I agreed to the club’s request, not because I support the Senate’s resolution or Kirk’s political and social perspectives, but because I believe in the First Amendment. Where would I be today if Civil Rights leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcom X, Angela Davis, Rosa Parks, and John Lewis had not used their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and protest to challenge the status quo?

My decision drew considerable attention and comments from many faculty, staff, and students expressing anger and fear over the event. In my mind, their anger raised important questions about the limits of expression and the extent to which it should be protected during a time of heightened tension and conflict and of whether we can, or should, limit a person’s free speech based on whether or not we agree with them. 

These questions prompted CR to hold a collegewide conversation exploring where the line between free speech and hate speech ideally lies, facilitated by CR faculty Dr. Ryan Emenaker and Dr. Austin Roberts. Dr. Emenaker maintained that, while the First Amendment protects offensive or disturbing speech, those protections are not absolute, and that, over time, the legal boundary has shifted. The result is that the line blurs and evolves with changes in our social and political climate. The First Amendment protects a broad array of speech, including expressions that we may find offensive or hateful. But those protections are not absolute. Some categories of speech can lose constitutional safeguards if they cross specific legal thresholds like defamation, incitement to violence, or true threat. 

So, how do we create spaces where constructive dialogue can blossom in a time where increasing political polarization has affected our ability to hold rational conversations between people who hold different political views? The problem is that our conversations often collapse into contests of domination, where the goal is to prove others wrong rather than seeking to understand them. 

Dr. Roberts’ lecture introduced the idea of agonism as a possible way forward. A framework that treats disagreement as a vital part of democracy, agonism invites us to engage our opponents not as enemies to defeat, but as partners in a shared struggle for deeper understanding, recognizing that truth and meaning emerge not from consensus, but from the ethical engagement of difference.

It seems to me that this is different from our current culture of antagonism. Antagonism seeks to destroy or silence the opponent, while agonism recognizes conflict as inevitable but channels it into respectful, productive engagement that strengthens democratic dialogue rather than undermines it.

Agonism can help people understand each other better by acknowledging that disagreement can be creative. It can encourage our humility by accepting that our own understanding is partial and can be refined through challenge and build empathy by seeing the other person as a fellow participant in the human struggle toward truth, not as an opponent to be silenced or dominated.

In short, agonism can help us reframe the argument as a respectful and honest argument that can deepen both conviction and compassion.

What’s at stake for all of us right now if we do not start to engage with one another? I believe it could be  America as we’ve known it. Do we want an America with diverse people holding different views willing to work together? Or do we want an America siloed into tribalism, unwilling to treat each other with respect and love, even in times of great struggle? 

To meet that challenge, we might recall the words of someone who never gave up on America’s promise. A 2018 tweet from civil rights icon John Lewis should strengthen us as we move into a challenging future: 

"Do not get lost in a sea of despair. Be hopeful, be optimistic. Our struggle is not the struggle of a day, a week, a month, or a year, it is the struggle of a lifetime. Never, ever be afraid to make some noise and get in good trouble, necessary trouble."