In a community-wide message to the University on Monday, interim President Beong-Soo Kim announced the launch of the new USC Open Dialogue Project, an initiative to guide campus debate on controversial issues in a more civil direction.

“Every day across our campuses, Trojans are teaching, learning, and debating complex ideas,” Kim wrote. “The many perspectives and viewpoints across our Trojan Family are a tremendous strength — especially when we approach our differences with openness, engagement, and mutual respect.”

Neeraj Sood, director of the Open Dialogue Project, said the project’s goal is to strengthen campus culture around the University’s core principles. He said its mission is to cultivate the human mind and spirit. 

“We want students to be unafraid to have discussions about different sensitive or controversial topics on campus,” said Sood, also a professor at the Price School of Public Policy, as well as a special advisor to the president. “We want students to be critical thinkers. So think about, ‘What is the evidence here? What does the evidence say?’ And then make their arguments based on evidence. We want students to be open-minded.”

One of the project’s first programs is You Decide, a platform for students and faculty to submit ideas for debates, workshops, exhibitions or speakers through a proposal form available on the Open Dialogue Project website. 

Another initiative of the project is Speak Free USC, a workshop series meant to equip students with the tools for navigating hot-button political conversations, such as climate change, gun control, affirmative action and abortion. The project is also hiring student workers to serve on Sood’s advisory committee and speak for the student body. 

The Trump administration recently sent a compact to USC, as well as eight other universities, with a list of demands that included abolishing “institutional units” that belittle conservatism and adopting strict university-wide definitions of gender, in exchange for preferential federal funding access. 

When asked if the project would take steps to protect free speech if the compact infringed on it, Sood said he would not take a position on federal issues that do not constitute an “egregious violation of free speech.”

“There is this principle of institutional neutrality which means that for most things, I’m not going to take a position on federal policy, because me taking a position as a director of this project could chill speech,” Sood said. “If I say, ‘Hey, I’m for this,’ then students or other faculty members might feel uncomfortable expressing an opposing position on it.” 

When asked, Sood said he was aware that “institutional neutrality” was one of the 10 demands in the compact, and that it was a principle that has existed at other universities — including USC — prior to the compact’s creation. 

In Spring 2024, the University barred valedictorian Asna Tabassum from giving the traditional speech at USC’s main stage commencement ceremony, citing safety concerns. This decision faced backlash from many groups on campus. When asked about how the Open Dialogue Project would have handled the situation today, Sood said he would be opposed to hindering her speech. 

“I don’t know all the details behind the student valedictorian event,” Sood said. “But, in principle, speech should be allowed unless there is an imminent threat to violence or something serious like that.”

Kamy Akhavan, associate director of programs for the Open Dialogue Project, said that the policy of institutional neutrality and the project itself have been in the works since before the compact’s reveal. 

“We need to do more to connect to each other,” said Akhavan, also managing director of the Dornsife Center for the Political Future. “We’re Trojans; we’re Angelenos; we’re Californians; we’re Americans. We have these many things in common, and if we agree or disagree about certain issues, that’s really irrelevant. The point of a democracy is for clashing ideas to compete, so that we can go forth with the best of ideas.”

Akhavan said one of the largest roadblocks for the project is the same one that faces those outside of the University: a reluctance to talk about controversial topics. He said most people do not want to talk about current controversies because they do not want to offend a relative or hurt a relationship. 

“Students are reluctant to ruin relationships — to put themselves at risk of being doxxed or trolled on social media or losing social capital with their friends and peer groups,” Akhavan said. “[They could be] shamed just for having an opinion, maybe even having an uninformed opinion that they haven’t had an opportunity to really develop.” 

When asked if the project was launched in response to widespread pressure on higher education from the Trump administration, Akhavan said the problem is on a societal level. 

“The issues that academia and higher ed are facing with regards to people not being able to communicate across difference is not unique to academia and higher education,” Akhavan said. “It is not unique to any industry. … The problem of workplace conflict over issues and current events is a tens-of-billions of dollars problem, and is not at all unique to USC.”

Akhavan said that one of the project’s first upcoming workshops — covering whether hate speech should be free speech — will take place on Oct. 15 in Taper Hall.