Lessons from Harvard and the College of Charleston

At the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) Annual Meeting in Washington, DC, the Constructive Dialogue Institute convened leaders from Harvard University and the College of Charleston to explore CDI’s new, five-pillar framework for campus culture change and discuss lessons from their efforts leading dialogue work in a charged political climate.

Led by Kaleigh Mrowka, CDI’s Director of Campus Culture Change, last week’s panel brought together Camila Nardozzi, Director of Intellectual Vitality Initiatives at Harvard University, and Michael Lee, Professor of Communication and Director of the Civility Initiative at the College of Charleston, to candidly examine what it takes to build a culture of dialogue and inquiry in practice.

Overcoming silence and disengagement

At Harvard, Camila Nardozzi described how the work began in 2020, when a group of undergraduates approached their dean with a concern that surprised some administrators: not that campus conversations were too heated, but that they were too quiet. Students reported classrooms marked by silence, premature consensus, and fear of speaking up—conditions that felt at odds with Harvard’s educational mission.

Students joined with faculty to issue a ground-up call for renewed “intellectual vitality,” which began with outdoor discussions during COVID and, three years ago, the formal institutionalization of the initiative. Today, the model has become robust enough that some of Harvard’s graduate schools are looking to embed the principles of Intellectual Vitality within their graduate communities.

At the College of Charleston, interest in dialogue efforts intensified in 2020, prompting reflection on how campuses help students and communities navigate conflict and make decisions together. From the outset, Michael Lee’s focus was not on civility for its own sake, but on dialogue as a practical tool for handling disagreement and complexity—and how to build a sustained effort that would connect campus to the surrounding community.

Moving beyond one-off events

At Harvard College, “intellectual vitality” is now embedded across orientation, curriculum, faculty development, and student life. Dedicated staff roles, advisory boards, and training for teaching fellows and TAs signal that dialogue is not optional enrichment—it is part of how students learn and participate in academic life.

At Charleston, the Civility Initiative used its podcast, When We Disagree, and speaker series to build visibility and establish a public voice, then deliberately shifted toward pedagogy and sustained training at all levels of the university including programs aimed at faculty, staff, and students. High-visibility engagement helped model the approach; deeper investments helped bake it into classroom practice and campus systems.

Reaching skeptics—and those on the extremes

Audience questions raised a familiar challenge: dialogue efforts often reach people already inclined to participate, while those on the extremes remain disengaged or hostile.

Both panelists rejected the idea that institutions can afford to only talk to the “already willing.” Camila emphasized the importance of tying dialogue to current events and ongoing campus controversies—issues students already disagree about—rather than abstract conversations about polarization, or current events outside campus, which can be too big for students to feel comfortable openly discussing. Using on-campus events as a starting point for dialogue helps attract students who might otherwise be skeptical or afraid of sharing their perspectives on some bigger issues.

Mike was explicit: shunning people on the extremes doesn’t work. At Charleston, the Civility Initiative has intentionally modeled engagement across difference through its “Impossible Friendships” series to show audiences actual examples of unlikely partnerships to model against-the-odds bridge-building. The goal is to reach people where they are and demonstrate that dialogue across difference is happening—and worth attempting.

Dialogue as a campus-wide culture, not a student program

Kaleigh Mrowka underscored that these examples point to a larger lesson: dialogue must be understood as a cultural intervention, not a set of discrete engagements. The same principles apply to faculty-faculty conversations, communication within deans’ offices, and interactions among staff.

The group acknowledged that internal governance spaces can be difficult environments for constructive dialogue in themselves, and both institutions are experimenting with peer-led faculty workshops and leadership-focused training to shape internal decision-making processes according to evidence-based practices for constructive dialogue.

Sustainability, evolution, and care for the work

The session closed with a focus on sustainability. Many institutions launched dialogue efforts after 2016, only to see them fade. Building resilience requires a comprehensive cultural approach and Kaleigh emphasized that CDI’s model depends on continual evolution: as campus conditions change, so must the strategies.

Mike and Camila also spoke to the human dimension of sustainability—how to combat exhaustion, maintain motivation, and make argument feel “joyful” rather than obligatory— and Camila added a critical reminder: dialogue requires individual introspection. Building a culture of inquiry means not only engaging others, but examining one’s own assumptions and reactions as well.

A shared takeaway

Across institutions and approaches, the panelists converged on a clear conclusion: constructive dialogue cannot be sustained by goodwill alone. It requires shared language, skill-building, leadership alignment, and systems that reinforce participation over time.

CDI’s Five Pillars of a Culture of Open Inquiry and Dialogue offer a research-based roadmap—but as this session made clear, the real work happens when those principles are embedded into daily campus life. At Harvard and the College of Charleston, that work is already underway.