When Open Dialogue Has Its Limits
Studying in Madrid and Paris revealed stark differences in how political discussions unfold in the classroom.
Both SLU Madrid and AUP emphasize critical thinking and open discourse, yet my experiences in their classrooms told a different story. While Madrid encouraged debate across the political spectrum, Paris often feels like a place where certain viewpoints aren't just challenged but dismissed. This contrast raises a larger question: How open is academic discussion when only some perspectives are truly welcome?
I was lucky enough to experience both. As a Spanish student who had never lived in Spain before college, I arrived in Madrid with no real expectations of university life. Later, I met Matilda, an American from Pittsburgh who studied psychology at SLU Madrid and is now pursuing a master's in Global Communications at AUP. We quickly realized we had a lot in common, especially when it came to how political discussions shaped the university environment. The differences between the two institutions were striking.
At SLU Madrid, classroom discussions embraced a wide range of perspectives. Professors often facilitated debates, encouraging students to challenge ideas and engage critically with different viewpoints. There was no pressure to conform to a particular ideology, instead, the focus was on critical thinking and defending one's position with well-structured arguments.
However, I did face moments of pushback from other students. In one instance, after receiving criticism for my views, I told my politics professor in a private conversation that I planned to step back from class discussions. His response stuck with me. He urged me not to stay silent, reminding me that diverse viewpoints are essential for growth. He shared that while he personally leaned left politically, his closest friend held opposing views, yet their debates strengthened their understanding of the world. Even though he disagreed with many of my opinions, he encouraged me to keep speaking up, reinforcing that real learning happens when ideas are tested and not when they are left unchallenged.
Paris is different.
I am not sure whether it is the student body or the professors, but in Paris, I have often felt the need to be cautious about what I say. At first, I hesitated, knowing that expressing a different opinion could lead to judgment, not just in class but beyond it.
One assignment made this especially clear. In a course that required us to analyze and critique an opinion column, I selected a piece that condemned Trump's presidency, arguing that everything he had done was a failure. I took the opposing view and defended him, presenting my argument with the same analytical approach the assignment required.
When I met with my professor during office hours, he dismissed it almost immediately. He said it was not particularly strong, even though I had followed the instructions exactly. It was difficult to ignore the feeling that the real issue was not the quality of my work but rather the position I had taken. This experience made me question how closely AUP's classroom environment aligns with its stated values.
AUP promotes the ideals of open dialogue and global citizenship, with its mission statement emphasizing the importance of fostering “an academic culture of engagement” and encouraging “a critical sense of commitment to and responsibility for a world of interdependence.” However, in practice, perspectives that do not align with campus norms are often dismissed, making it difficult to engage in meaningful debate without the risk of being shut down, insulted or simply not taken seriously.
I experienced this firsthand in one of my classes when, as I was sharing my opinion, a student openly laughed, dismissing my argument without even attempting to engage with it. I immediately called her out, telling her she should show some respect. She quickly apologized but justified her reaction by saying my view had simply shocked her. That moment made it clear that certain perspectives aren't just challenged but treated as absurd, not because they lack reasoning but because they fall outside of what is deemed acceptable.
Matilda also shared a striking example, recalling how professors at AUP were vocal about their political views, particularly after Trump's election. "All my professors in separate classes made a point to apologize and discuss how Trump’s ‘regime’ is terrifying and widely upsetting. One professor even scheduled a walk-out during class to protest the unchangeable win."
She contrasted this with her experience in Madrid, where professors spanned the ideological spectrum. "I had professors from all over—from a British Communist to a Hungarian Anarchist. All of which offered me different perspectives on history, life, and politics." One even gifted her The Coddling of the American Mind, a book critiquing how certain academic cultures discourage resilience and intellectual growth. This contrast reinforced how exposure to varied viewpoints fosters deeper critical thinking.
How well does the university uphold its commitment to embracing diverse perspectives? If students are only willing to engage with ideas they already agree with, it's difficult to argue that the environment truly fosters intellectual exchange.
This tension isn’t unique to AUP. It reflects a broader challenge facing liberal arts institutions worldwide. As political polarization intensifies, many universities struggle to balance open debate with the desire to create inclusive, respectful environments.
Universities are meant to be spaces where students challenge ideas, sharpen their arguments and grow intellectually. But that only happens when all perspectives, whether popular or not, are given the chance to be heard. My time in Madrid and Paris showed me that open dialogue is not just about what institutions claim to value but about how willing students and professors are to engage with views they may not agree with. Without that, true intellectual exchange remains an ideal rather than a reality.
If we want academic spaces to truly emphasize critical thinking, we have to be more open to discomfort and debate. This means listening before dismissing, questioning before voicing judgment and engaging with ideas in good faith, especially when they challenge our own. A commitment to intellectual exchange isn't just about defending our own beliefs, it is about creating an environment where every student feels encouraged to think, speak and grow.
