Maxwell professors David Bennett and Bob McClure co-taught a citizenship course years ago that alumni still vividly remember. At its center was a recurring exercise: The two would take opposing positions on timely issues and debate before students. The energy created powerful learning moments—so much so that a student once expressed concern that McClure had been too tough on Bennett, not realizing they were close friends who had carefully planned each debate.

Their goal was to widen perspectives, stretch students’ ability to understand multiple viewpoints, and model how substance and respectful disagreement can coexist productively

That spirit remains central to Maxwell today, and it requires our continued commitment. Free speech and academic freedom are distinct but equally essential. Free speech protects our right to express ideas—including unpopular ones—without government censorship. Academic freedom protects scholars’ ability to pursue research and teach without political interference, grounded in evidence and disciplinary standards. Both face pressure.

Federal agencies are reconsidering research priorities, threatening funding for topics deemed politically sensitive. Some elected officials question whether universities deserve public support if faculty research challenges preferred narratives. These external pressures test our resolve to defend scholarly independence and rigorous inquiry regardless of political winds.

At Maxwell, we work to ensure that students know they can think, question and engage without fear that disagreement with prevailing views—whatever those views might be—will cost them academically or socially. Creating this environment is everyone’s responsibility. It means welcoming questions even when they challenge our expertise. It means engaging opposing views seriously rather than dismissively. It means recognizing that our role is to teach students how to think, not what to think. And it means modeling the intellectual humility we expect from students: defending positions with evidence, acknowledging uncertainty and distinguishing between disagreement and disrespect.

Maxwell faculty span the ideological spectrum and bring diverse lived experiences, methodological approaches and disciplinary perspectives to their work. Our students come from families that vote differently in elections, from communities with fundamentally different views about government’s role, and with distinct experiences that shape how they see the world. This diversity is essential to our mission. When students encounter peers and faculty with a range of perspectives, they build capacity for the work our alumni do every day: problem-solving and leading in a pluralistic democracy where progress requires engaging people whose values and priorities differ from their own.

The Bennett-McClure debates were planned and between friends. Real commitment to free inquiry is tested when we’re uncomfortable—when research yields findings we didn’t expect or prefer, when speakers make arguments we find wrong, when student groups organize around causes that challenge us. These moments reveal whether we value intellectual freedom genuinely or only when it aligns with our preferences.

Maxwell’s founders understood that citizenship requires more than knowledge. It requires the capacity to engage across differences constructively, deliberate across divides and lead in environments when consensus is elusive. In a moment when many forces—from government pressure to campus polarization to social media dynamics—work against this capacity, Maxwell’s commitment matters more than ever.

We remain focused on preparing students to navigate complexity, engage evidence rigorously, listen generously, disagree respectfully and lead with humility and integrity. We will continue defending faculty academic freedom, protecting student speech, maintaining excellence as our standard and preparing leaders who can work across differences.