Countdown to 200: The University of Toronto’s role in Canada and a changing world
President Woodin welcomes Princeton’s Christopher Eisgruber for conversation on civil discourse
University of Toronto President Melanie Woodin welcomed Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber to campus for a wide-ranging discussion on civil discourse, free speech and the role of universities in an increasingly polarized public climate
Held at U of T’s Jackman Law Building and moderated by English professor and Provostial Advisor on Civil Discourse Randy Boyagoda, the discussion brought together the presidents of two of North America’s leading research universities to reflect on how higher education institutions can foster meaningful disagreement while maintaining inclusive academic communities.
Introducing Eisgruber as a leading voice on free expression and academic culture, Woodin emphasized the responsibility universities have to model thoughtful dialogue.
“At a time when debate and disagreement so often lead to division, universities have both a responsibility and an opportunity to model something better,” she said. “Our campuses should be places where difficult questions can be explored, where differences can be engaged meaningfully, and where the search for understanding matters more than the impulse to win an argument.”
Eisgruber, author of Terms of Respect: How Colleges Get Free Speech Right, argued that universities are often unfairly defined by a small number of highly publicized conflicts, even though most campus life is built on respectful exchange and collaboration.
“Civil discourse, or reasoned and respectful conversation that pursues truth, deepens understanding, builds relationships and advances knowledge, is the core of what universities do,” he said.
Randy Boyagoda and Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber.
Throughout the discussion, Woodin and Eisgruber addressed rising polarization, self-censorship, social media pressures, the challenge of sustaining open inquiry in democratic societies and the subtle differences in how Canadian and American universities approach these issues. Both stressed that civil discourse is not simply about politeness, but about maintaining dialogue across differences.
“When people debate issues they care about, emotions naturally rise,” Woodin said. “The challenge is learning how to navigate those moments constructively.”
The conversation also explored the relationship between free speech and inclusion, with Eisgruber arguing that universities must protect both open expression and equal participation in academic life.
“A healthy university conversation requires both,” said Eisgruber. “If we abandon either principle, we lose something essential both to democracy and to learning.”
Questions from the audience steered the conversation toward artificial intelligence, online echo chambers and the limits of speech on campus. Eisgruber focused on the structural risks posed by algorithm-driven media, warning that increasingly personalized digital environments are fragmenting public discourse. “The risks only grow as AI systems become more conversational and personalized,” he said, arguing that democratic societies may ultimately need stronger regulation of social media and AI platforms.
Woodin emphasized the institutional role universities can play in countering those pressures by creating spaces for face-to-face engagement, open inquiry and sustained debate.
Boyagoda noted that fear increasingly shapes public conversation and institutional life. “Too often, fear rather than curiosity seems to govern encounters,” he said. “We become afraid to find out what others think, and even afraid to discover what we ourselves think.”
The discussion underscored a theme both presidents returned to repeatedly: civil discourse is not a fixed achievement, but an ongoing practice that universities must continue to protect and renew.
President Eisgruber echoed that theme, describing civil discourse as an ongoing democratic responsibility. “Civil discourse is not consensus,” he said. “It is the willingness to remain in conversation, especially when the conversation becomes difficult.”
