The Civic Hub: Reimagining the University Mission

Is civic education a fundamental duty of higher education or a dangerous political risk? Alex Kappus of Carnegie Higher Education Consulting and the Democratic Knowledge Project to discuss the growing institutional fear of being labeled "partisan" for simply teaching the mechanics of democracy. Kappus shares a decade of firsthand accounts (blocked voter registration drives, administrative pushback, etc.) to reveal how the quest for "neutrality" often results in student disillusionment. Together, they explore why colleges must move beyond the "optics" of fear to cultivate an informed, active citizenry that can navigate a polarized world. 

Tell us your argument stories! 

• Email guest and topic suggestions to us at whenwedisagree@gmail.com
• Follow us on Instagram

Transcript

Michael Lee : [00:00:00] When we disagree is a show about arguments, how we have them, why we have them, and their impact on our relationships and ourselves. When you're calm, you can't imagine how you'll feel when you're angry. When you're full, you can't fathom desperate hunger. This is the hot cold empathy gap. Our inability to predict or remember emotional states different from our current one.

The psychologist George Lowenstein documented how this gap makes us terrible at understanding other emotions or even our own future feelings. In disagreements, the empathy gap makes calm people dismiss others' emotions and emotional people unable to access logic. The empathy gap destroys relationships during conflicts in the heat of an argument.

You can't even remember why you love this person when the fight ends. You can't understand why you said such hurtful things. Your partner tries to discuss issues when they're upset, but you can't comprehend their intensity because you're calm. Later [00:01:00] when you're upset about something else, they can't understand your feelings because they're now calm in political discourse.

The empathy gap creates mutual incomprehension. Those feeling economically secure, can't fathom the desperation of financial instability. Those who have experienced discrimination can't understand others who don't see systemic problems. Those who feel safe can't grasp others' fear. We debate from different emotional planets wondering why others can't see what's obvious from where we stand.

Understanding the empathy gap requires intentional perspective taking. When calm, remember that you always won't be when emotional. Recognize that you're not seeing clearly in disagreements. Acknowledge this gap. I know I can't fully understand how you're feeling right now. Sometimes the best thing is to wait and let emotional states align before trying to resolve conflicts.

I'm Michael Lee, professor of Communication and Director of the Civility Initiative. At the College of Charleston, our [00:02:00] guest today on When We Disagree is Alex Kappus. Alex advances institutional strategy and student success at Carnegie, the Student Connection Company. He also serves as a fellow with Harvard's Democratic Knowledge Project, where he is building upon his work through the uc National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement.

Alex, tell us an argument story. 

Alex Kappus : Thank you for having me, Michael. Great to be with you and your listeners. I actually would like to weave together three specific arguments over the course of about 15 years working on college campuses in three different states. I found myself having the same or a similar argument over and over again with different people in different roles, and each time the disagreement was truly about whether helping young people learn about how to participate in democracy.

Was our responsibility as educators or a political risk that we should avoid? So the first time it happened, it was pretty early in my career. I was [00:03:00] helping organize. University's new student orientation, and this was a program where thousands of incoming students and families would come. And as part of the check-in process for the program, I wanted a simple station where students could learn about their options for registering to vote staying registered in their hometown or registered where they now live for school.

Nothing partisan, no candidates, no issues, just information. And I even had. Trained non-partisan volunteers ready to go. I then got called into a senior level administrator's office and was told that the idea violated a political activity policy for the building that we were hosting the orientation in.

And I remember being really confused. I said, there's nothing politically partisan about this. It's non-partisan civic education. We're not telling students who to vote for or what to believe or even where to register to vote. We're just helping them understand how voting works, the mechanics of it.

And the answer was still [00:04:00] no. At the time I thought, Michael, this is just a misunderstanding. I assumed that once people saw the care that is put into this kind of work, that maybe the concern would go away. And so a few years later, I was at a different institution and a similar argument came up. This time I had the opportunity to bring.

External funding to the campus to hire peer educators, students who would be able to help their classmates register to vote, understand what would be on their ballot, and have access to voter guides, nonpartisan voter guides that just directed people to the candidate's statements and their own websites.

When I pitched the idea, a senior leader told me. We're in a red county and this will be perceived as partisan activity. We can't do it. That moment really struck me. It was concern no longer about policy. It was about optics. It was about the fear that we might cross, not just cross the line but that somebody might think.

We're [00:05:00] crossing a line. And again I pushed back, I said Civic ed is not partisan based on geography. Helping students understand how elections work doesn't favor one party over another. Again, the answer was no. And the third and final argument Michael came a bit later at a different institution, and this time I was successful in organizing some activities on campus, a campus-wide civic education program.

When I shared about the success of that work I was told plainly that this was a distraction from my job in student engagement. And that was the moment that I realized, you know what, this is a disagreement that is not just about funding or, county politics. It's more ex existential than that.

What I was really hearing in that moment was that helping students learn how to participate in democracy. Is optional, it's extra, it's peripheral. And that's when I started to see these three particular encounters, not as [00:06:00] isolated arguments, but expressions of the same underlying underlying fear.

Michael Lee : Thanks for that summation, and they do seem immediately intertwined to me. Just so that I'm clear and our listeners are clear, in this world of dialogue, debate free expression, pluralism, viewpoint, diversity, civic education, democratic participation, sometimes they get a little buzzwordy. So just so we understand the purview of what we're talking about.

Tell me more about what civic education slash democratic participation training means as it relates to student affairs or anybody else on the college campus teaching students anything about democracy. 

Alex Kappus : Absolutely. It is of course it is a range of activities that, can be. Very narrowly defined as, helping students specifically with voter education.

So learning about the process of registration, how to [00:07:00] update the registration having reminders about when to vote. It could be more mechanical like that, but it could also be more programmatic where you're. Bringing students together across political differences for constructive conversation.

For example, it could be bringing in external candidates to have a debate on the campus, right? My push has been to really think about this work, in a nonpartisan fashion. When the education is looked at, by and from people across the political spectrum that they can't accuse the school of indoctrination or of, you're favoring one candidate or party over another.

I think that's really key to the. To the success of the work. Because as soon as people start to lose trust that we're in some way trying to influence the way people think how they vote, that kind of thing, then yeah, it shouldn't be owned by the university, especially a publicly funded entity and institution.

So [00:08:00] hopefully that gives you a little bit of definition, but lots of activities that would fall under that. But all in the name of helping students. Learn about their democracy, how they see themselves in it, and ways that they can engage in it, even beyond voting. Yeah. Where else can they participate in democracy, go to a school council meeting, go to city hall write there, senator, those kinds of things.

It 

Michael Lee : strikes me that this argument, as you have talked about it, about whether democratic education is central to the university. I think there's two possible objections. We've heard both of them, but one more, more forcefully. The one is, this is inter interjects political bias, and the second one is that this is irrelevant and those can work together.

But I think you could say that this is irrelevant to university life and not make the argument that it's politically biased. Let's take on the political bias, oppositional argument first. Of course, this is explicitly nonpartisan. You're not saying that everybody who's here should register for the Republican [00:09:00] or Democratic Party.

It's not directly funded by any of the parties, to my knowledge. But there's something about getting young people to vote that could be read if we're just taking a devil's advocate point of view. For instance, if a conservative organization said, as a nonpartisan effort, we're gonna get a lot of rural voters to register to vote.

Of course they're not telling them who to vote for, but given the last election cycle, you might have that supposition. So young voters always stereotypically seem to lean one direction. Now, I don't think that's necessarily true. The last election, especially with young men in 2024, certainly didn't bear that out.

But you at least understand where some of that potential objection that this is biased comes into play. 

Alex Kappus : Absolutely. Absolutely. Institutions are worried about being accused of indoctrination. There have been studies of faculty and staff and largely politically leaning left.

And as you noted, some indication that. Young student voters tend to lean [00:10:00] left politically, but again, as you noted in the last election, some notable gains among the conservatives. Again I think the concern is in the wrong place.

Michael Lee : Yeah. 

Alex Kappus : If institutions are worried about indoctrination, I think the answer is not to avoid civic learning.

The answer is to create spaces for explicitly. Nonpartisan civic education and to teach students about democracy. About, the foundations of what makes government work. When a first time voter opens the ballot and if they've not done their homework, it can be a really negative.

First voting experience. 

And the likelihood is they might not return because they felt ill prepared. So how do we help the folks who are supposed to be the leaders of tomorrow are, college and university students? How do we really help prepare them for that responsibility? And again, I think if we're worried about indoctrination, that fear is already out there.

So how, what would it look like if we created more [00:11:00] opportunities for people to come together across political differences for students to have constructive dialogue? Even debates structured debates I think could be really helpful and healthy. And again it's not necessarily. Just voting it.

It is about, understanding all the ways that they can contribute to their communities. There's research out there that shows if you're, in the sciences. You tend to young people tend to vote less than if you're, of course, in the social sciences or if you're like studying government, of course, you're gonna probably 

Be more motivated and want to vote and those kinds of things. And so how do we help students understand that no matter what field you go into, politics will be a constant in your life and you can either, either avoid it or you can be an active. Participant in your democracy in all the ways that you can express yourself.

And the vote, of course is just one of those ways.

I hope that addresses the counter argument there. 

Michael Lee : We, we've dealt with the political bias argument. Now let's deal [00:12:00] with the relevancy argument. So on two scores, one. You could argue that democratic participation training, civic ed training voter drives is irrelevant to university life because university life should be primarily about skill building towards job training, towards usefulness in your private life as opposed to your public pursuits.

A second different version of the university would say that knowledge, regardless of where that knowledge goes, is essential. We're not really in the business of action training, and so therefore, getting registered to vote, that's on you. We are here to philosophize and think about the function of these things more generally as opposed to.

Training community activists, voters or anything of the light. So at least that's a bumper sticker version of those two arguments. Me playing devil's advocate, Alex, make the case for us that civic education broadly and voter [00:13:00] registration specifically should be central to the university mission.

Alex Kappus : Absolutely. I would say pull up the mission statement of. I would argue pretty much any college or university, and you're gonna see something in there that points out some aspect of contributing to the greater good to community. And to do that void of the political dimension of civic life, I think is a gross disservice.

To young people and their preparedness for engaging in civic life. If you want to help the unhoused or, solve create a cure for cancer, certainly you can pursue an apolitical life, one that doesn't activate and you don't ever vote and you don't participate in those structures.

But I would argue part of the role of an education is to create an informed citizenry that, has the the tools and the confidence to think for themselves and to engage fully in the [00:14:00] process. I think, the argument there that in education or a college education is simply to get a job misses out on, the values based education since our founding that colleges and universities have espoused at least, which is that we're here to help young people be prepared for the betterment of their communities. What I will also lift up here Michael is in my view, colleges and universities have failed miserably at this three decades or more of.

Promoting civic engagement work, and yet 18 to 29 year olds still show up as the lowest turnout at elections. And increasing dissatisfaction with politics, disengagement, disillusionment that really concerns me. We heard a lot, for example, about the mayoral election in New York City, 

Michael Lee : uhhuh 

Alex Kappus : and they, all the headlines, young people, influenced this election. What percentage of youth voted in the [00:15:00] 2025 New York City mayoral election? Approximately 28% of the eligible voter population, and that was celebrated. The top cities, the top 30 cities across the country for 18 to 29 year olds participating in the municipal elections is 9%.

So it's pretty abysmal. If we're thinking about the future of this country, we're thinking about whose responsibility is it to prepare students for democracy. One could argue it's K through 12 is responsibility to give students those foundational skills. But there's sizable research and growing research.

That, it's not relevant until you have the right to do and for many students, they don't turn 18. They're not eligible to vote well in K through 12. And their first real opportunity to engage in the political dimension of civic life is after K through 12. Colleges and universities, I think could play a really important role in making this part of the college experience, and I [00:16:00] think it helps.

Them as better employees as well, better engaged people because you're helping them develop critical thinking skills. You're helping them develop communication skills, which we're increasingly concerned about given, generations that are growing up on screens. And AI is increasingly thinking for a lot of people.

So if we could create more opportunities for, students to engage across political differences. I think it would be a really healthy thing for the workplace and for the communities that they serve. 

Michael Lee : And to be clear, we're talking about, or maybe just to clarify, we're talking about a lot of what we might refer to as co-curricular programming.

Programming that happens outside of the classroom, but still on campus. They happen through clubs. Through in the quad, through student affairs at tables that students might pass through. Incentivize the events where we serve pizza and watch a debate? Or are you talking about [00:17:00] classroom interventions, p pedagogical pursuits, assignments related to this that, that professors embark on or perhaps a bit of both.

Alex Kappus : I think it should be a whole campus approach. Both the curriculum and the co-curriculum, because unless you, at most schools, unless you are, a major in political science, for example, you might not take it. Courses that help you learn about your government and about ways to influence it.

I would argue that it should be a full campus effort, both the curriculum and the co-curriculum, right? I do think there's great power in the co-curriculum in terms of a lot of it being student led and having the opportunity for students to practice democracy through student government and things like that, but also.

Through those kinds of activities that you referenced. Being involved in student org clubs and organizations is a big piece of that, but there certainly can be a curriculum to the co-curriculum. So what I mean by that is that the people who [00:18:00] structure campus life, the learning goals and outcomes that influence, for example, the kinds of.

Messages you might see throughout your residence hall building or, the ways that your resident assistants are trained. Wouldn't it be great if those resident assistants had some training in conflict resolution and things like helping students register to vote because they might have residents who 

Are panicked because I didn't update my voter registration and I really want to exercise my right. And I don't know how to do that. So I do think a whole campus approach would be what I would recommend Michael, those three arguments motivated me to, to study this. So I carried out a study in partnership with the campus vote project, studying peer educators who do this work during the 2020 election.

And what I found in that research is that overwhelmingly my experiences are shared across the country in that the students, the peer [00:19:00] leaders who were doing this work on their campuses felt like the universities didn't want to touch it. Out of fear of that indoctrination argument. And that was confirmed confirmed.

And then years later, I, as you indicated, had a research project through the uc National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement in California. They actually passed a law called the California Student Civic and Voter Empowerment Act. 

Which requires all California. Public colleges and universities to enact a number of provisions including having a designated coordinator, named coordinator for this work on your campus who interfaces with the Secretary of State office and distributes important information like dates and locations for, voting and those kinds of things.

In that research I was just shocked because here we had a state mandated law, and yet the people who were appointed those coordinators felt like their universities were going through the motions about it. So again, it is [00:20:00] still on the periphery at a lot of institutions, and my argument is, again, if higher ed wants to earn back the trust.

Of a great deal of Americans, it would be wise of them to do things that help instill trust. And I think part of that is helping convey to the public that indeed we are here to help students think critically for themselves. And we're gonna provide opportunities for. Students across the ideological spectrum to come together in constructive ways where they can practice democracy.

On our campus. 

Michael Lee : Last question is about your trajectory. You were, as I understand it, a practitioner of civic education who became a researcher, whose research then now informs your practice as well as the practices you recommend to others. What's next? 

Alex Kappus : Oh, thanks for that question. An opportunity to share.

So I'm working in Dr. Danielle Allen and Adam [00:21:00] Mond's demo democracy Knowledge Project at Harvard. And what I'm working on is. Convening a cross ideological group of leaders and scholars from all across the country. And coming up with a set of recommended practices that secretaries of state and election officials can build, strengthen partial partnerships with post-secondary education.

So really leveraging. Election officials as the source of non-partisan information. And really making sure that institutions have really strong ties to to that, those resources. So that's what's next. And the hope there is that we get red, blue, and purple states on board with this idea that post-secondary education can be a powerful vehicle to advancing our democracy in healthy ways, and that colleges and universities can serve.

Not just the students that they're working with, but the communities in which they're [00:22:00] located serving as civic hubs. So that's the vision. 

Michael Lee : Alex Kappus, thank you so much for being on when we disagree. 

Alex Kappus : Thank you, Michael, for having me. Take care. 

Michael Lee : When we Disagree is recorded at the College of Charleston with creator and host Michael Lee.

Recording and sound engineering by Jesse Kunze and Lance Laidlaw. Reach out to us at When We disagree@gmail.com.