A college debate about cancel culture where no one gets canceled

On a sticky September evening in St. Joseph, dozens of undergraduate students from the College of St. Benedict and St. John’s University, as well as the the University of St. Thomas, gathered to debate and ponder a big question: Is cancel culture limiting free speech in America? 

The answer to that question is yes, according to Antonio Thompson, a Johnnie.

“Cancel culture is limiting free speech in America because it silences others, paralyzes open discussions and creates fear in dialogue,” Thompson said.

But Cecilia Volk, a Bennie, disagreed.

“If people get hurt by it, it should probably not be said,” she argued. “Altogether, no, cancel culture is not limiting free speech in America.”

The point of this debate is not to determine a winner — the point is to introduce students to a new way of understanding people they disagree with. It’s part of a bigger, year-long initiative at St. Ben’s and St. John’s called Disagreeing Better.  

“Our hope is that everyone walks out of this debate tonight thinking about this topic in a couple different ways that maybe they didn’t before,” said St. Ben’s and St. John’s scholar-in-residence Carol Bruess, who is heading up the initiative.

“Part of the goal of disagreeing better is we’re in dialogue,” she said. “If I can really listen to you and you feel seen and heard, maybe you can walk away with the seed of something else to think about.” 

For the debate moderator, Bernie Armada, the topic of the debate — cancel culture — was personal. Armada teaches communications at St. Thomas and said sometimes it feels like he’s walking on eggshells around thorny topics.

“A university must be a place where people can feel safe to express themselves no matter what those views are,” Armada said. “We just need more of that. And that has really come under fire and been compromised, especially in the last 10 years.”

Armada’s concern with open discussion and learning on campus has spurred him to receive training in debate and discussion methods that allow for students to both listen and express themselves better when disagreeing.

The methods — which include timed discussions, questions from the audience directed at a moderator instead of debaters, and a time at the end of a discussion to debrief — were developed by the national nonprofit, Braver Angels, which is working to depolarize Americans.

Braver Angels is also MPR News’ partner on our Talking Sense project. 

Seeing this debate style in action resonated with Morgan Whiting, a junior at the University of St. Thomas. 

“The most important thing to do is focus on the topic, and don’t turn your energy towards the other person and who they are,” Whiting said. “I think that’s where a lot gets lost in a lot of discussions, especially in our extremely polarized political climate right now.”

Other students, including Alex Hawks from St. Thomas, agreed.

“Tonight was a great example of discussion and disagreement going really well, because you heard a lot of different opinions and you heard a lot of different sides,” he said. “I feel like I actually felt some of my opinions change based on what I heard.”

The next debate for the fall semester will take place Oct. 7 at the University of St. Thomas. 

Does political rhetoric have you down? Are you so sick of polarization - or so unimpressed with the candidates - that you've decided not to vote this year? Or maybe you're still deciding if you'll go to the polls on Nov. 5. If so, MPR News wants to hear from you as part of our Talking Sense series. Share your thoughts in the form below, or email Catharine Richert at crichert@mpr.org.

• Can Winona County turn around its lagging voter turnout? These people are working to do that
• Ready to Depolarize? Try ‘Walk a Mile in My News’
• Introducing Talking Sense: Have hard political conversations, better.