Dozens of students, faculty, and visitors gathered in the Social Sciences Building on Wednesday evening to engage in a dialogue about free speech. While facilitator Joseph Bubman joked that students came for the free pizza, participants not only left with a meal but were introduced to new tools for navigating disagreement through what Bubman called “constructive conversation.”

Students, faculty, and visitors gathered for an interactive discussion hosted by the USC Center for the Political Future. The workshop encouraged participants to discuss whether hate speech should be considered free speech and to what extent banning it would harm democracy, among other questions.

This event was the second of three sessions organized by the CPF as part of the University’s newly launched Open Dialogue Project. Kamy Akhavan, the managing director of the CPF, said the program arose because some USC students did not feel like they could speak their minds. 

“Many of us on this campus feel like you can’t really say what you think on whatever the topic is, for some reason or another, and that it’s not conducive to what a university should be about. You should be able to say what you think respectfully,” Akhavan said. 

To start the session, Bubman, executive director of Urban Rural Action, led a brief “selling exercise.” In pairs, one student had 90 seconds to sell an item or idea while the other simply listened. Bubman explained that the exercise demonstrated how dominating the conversation is often the least effective way to persuade.  

“In most conversations, we are trying to sell a perspective, an idea of value to someone else,” Bubman said. “If we’re talking 88% of the time in the conversations where we’re trying to communicate or sell our ideas … we don’t know if our ideas are resonating with them. We don’t know what’s important to them. We don’t know what their concerns are.”

Bubman then introduced the ABCs of constructive conversation: ask questions, break down their argument, check their understanding of the opposing argument, and listen. Bubman said balancing all of these options was the key to a successful conversation.

“In the least productive conversations, we end up breaking down our view, and we do it more assertively, more aggressively, more loudly, because we think the problem is they haven’t heard us. And of course, they typically reciprocate,” Bubman said. 

In small groups, participants reflected on how free speech and hate speech are defined, noting how these boundaries can blur. Some referenced examples from social media and current events, while others voiced concerns about self-censorship in response to what could be perceived as hate, especially in a college setting. 

“You don’t have to agree — that’s not the point,” Akhavan said. “The point is learning, growing, and connecting.” 

As the discussion progressed, the attendees were asked to move to different areas of the room based on their stance toward questions about speech restrictions and the potential harms caused by certain forms of expression. After the exercise, Bubman noted that this dialogue encouraged the participants to recognize the “nuance” in how speech can be perceived and interpreted.

The first topic was “banning hate speech does more harm to democracy than hate speech itself.” The participants moved to different sides of the room to symbolize their level of agreement, and the group utilized the ABCs in a larger discussion. 

Sivan Liss, a sophomore majoring in architecture, agreed with the specific wording of the statement, but he was interested in hearing the perspectives of other participants and how they understood the topic. 

“I originally was going to stand more toward the middle. And then I read the question again, and I thought about the implications of banning something versus limiting it and ended up going more to [the agreement] side,” Liss said. “I wonder if we had more similar opinions, but the way we interpreted the wording in the question was different.”

Bubman wrote on the board as a discussion topic, “If speech causes real harm, it stops being just words.” Most attendees stayed where they were, as the conversation turned to how speech can escalate into real-world harm or even physical violence. 

“I think words don’t exist in a vacuum,” Liss said. “They have layers and layers of context, especially when threaded into a conversation or a speech. Words may not necessarily in themselves be violence, but they can constitute violence by inciting it.”

In addition, he noted that constructive conversation should not aim to persuade but rather to facilitate an understanding between two people. In order to find this common ground, Bubman said it is smart to acknowledge that disagreements often arise from differences in interpretation rather than intent.

“A single word can prompt very different reactions. And for some people, that word might be a proxy for other words. And for other people, that word might be completely different,” Bubman said. 

The Open Dialogue Project will conclude with its final session, “AI: A Constructive Conversation,” on Nov. 5. Co-led by Bubman and Christy Vines, the workshop will examine how artificial intelligence shapes human connection and will help students engage thoughtfully across differences through empathy.