At 6 colleges, admissions now consider how students discuss divisive topics

In a national reckoning with the breakdown of civil discourse on college campuses, several top-tier institutions including Columbia University and the University of Chicago have begun incorporating “Dialogues portfolios” into their admissions process. 

The portfolios, an optional part of admissions at six universities, are a project of Schoolhouse, a nonprofit online peer tutoring platform established by Khan Academy founder Sal Khan. 

Khan told The College Fix that he came up with the idea after speaking with Jim Nondorf, dean of admissions at the University of Chicago, about bringing in more ideologically diverse, passionate students who have the skills to channel their beliefs into constructive conversations. 

“When we showed the pilot results [of Dialogues] to Jim, that kids weren’t holding back and were bringing so much ideological diversity to their discussions, he thought it was awesome, and introduced us to more universities who were just as enthusiastic to bring this into their decision-making process,” Khan said in a recent phone interview.  

Currently, the Dialogues portfolios are accepted as supplemental materials at six schools: Columbia University, University of Chicago, Johns Hopkins University, Colby College, Northwestern University, and Washington University in St. Louis. 

Introduced in May, the free program has students ages 14-18 practice discussing cultural and political issues in a respectful, open-minded manner, with an emphasis on understanding each side of a topic, rather than trying to convert or persuade.

Students sign up for a discussion topic that interests them, then submit their views before the discussion in order to be paired with another student that shares the opposing view. During the discussion, students join a Zoom call with a moderator and then break out into pairs, unmoderated, to discuss the topic. Potential topics include free speech versus hate speech, the U.S. presidential election, abortion, and gun control.

Students are provided guidelines to promote understanding and maximize the productivity of the conversation. For example, the guidelines recommend each student spend time “steelmanning,” or communicating their opponent’s strongest argument. 

Each student fills out a reflection survey after the discussion and provides feedback on their partner’s conversation skills. Once a student completes three discussions, a portfolio is created with the topics discussed, the number of hours and sessions, feedback from conversations, and a self-reflection section. It does not show the student’s personal views. 

This portfolio can then be submitted to universities as part of their college application.

However, the new admissions project has been met with skepticism. 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Vanderbilt University recently backtracked on their decision to accept the Dialogues portfolios, MIT’s student newspaper The Tech reported recently. 

Neither university responded to The College Fix’s requests for comment regarding their decision.

Vanderbilt did issue a statement on July 31: “In May, we initiated a pilot project with Schoolhouse Dialogues, a third-party organization, to explore its potential to complement Vanderbilt’s existing programming to foster meaningful dialogue, respectful disagreement, and intellectual curiosity. After careful consideration and hearing some concerns, we have decided to end this pilot project at this time.”

But a spokesperson with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression expressed optimism when asked about the new project.

“Seeking out prospective students who are intellectually curious and interested in engaging in dialogue across lines of difference may result in a student body that is more willing to engage in conversations about difficult issues with their peers down the road,” Laura Beltz, director of policy reform at FIRE, told The College Fix. 

However, it’s important that colleges communicate clearly with prospective students, she said.

“Colleges should clearly explain and prioritize free speech values in admissions processes so there isn’t a mismatch between expectations for students and the reality of the college environment, where students will necessarily encounter views with which they disagree,” Beltz said.

Meanwhile, others have voiced concerns about the portfolios, arguing that they might act as an ideological filter, or be another method of gaming the college admissions system through inauthentic virtue-signaling.   

Harvard University student Alex Bronzini-Vender criticized the effort in a recent op-ed in The New York Times, calling it an attempt to “screen out incivility at the gate.” He wrote that universities can’t and shouldn’t do this, and should instead look internally to engage with the issue of civil discourse in their classrooms. 

Khan pushed back on the criticism in his interview with The Fix. 

“This isn’t an ideological test. I was very surprised when people, especially on the right, were skeptical, because I think the whole intent of this is to just have more ideological diversity on college campuses, which is missing,” Khan said. 

“This gives more space to minority points of view, even those that might be on the left side of the spectrum. I think it’s necessary that we do what we can to get colleges to a balanced point of view,” he said.

Speaking about the problem of “inauthentic civility,” Khan said, “I think the authenticity of these discussions is very hard to fake. And even if you really do struggle with being civil in conversations like these, being able to pretend to be civil for the sake of the conversation ultimately benefits everybody, too.”