Newspaper Op-Eds

The greatest threat to American democracy today is neither terrorism nor nuclear proliferation — but intellectual torpor and civic disengagement. And our first, best line of defense is the college campus.

Consider this depressing story: At a recent dinner party, a friend's husband uttered an opinion about the current presidential campaign. Another guest flared into a rage, ranting for several minutes until, finally, standing up from the dinner table and marching from the room, he exclaimed, ''You're so stupid I can't even stay in the same room with you!''

Extreme? Perhaps. But also, I fear, representative of the state of political discourse today. Consider the presidential debates: reciprocal volleys of market-tested slogans and attack rhetoric; personal demonization rather than discussion. Listen to political talk radio — you will hear nothing but sharply honed ridicule.

Or, consider events in our own community: political signs ripped from yards, houses, and businesses by those who can't tolerate visual evidence that their fellow citizens back opposing candidates. We seem increasingly unwilling to concede that we have anything to learn from hearing other points of view. What's worse, we seem incapable of questioning the statements of the candidates we've decided to support. This is tragic, because the only way to develop first-rate responses to the challenges facing our nation is to listen to those who disagree with us.

I have said that college campuses are democracy's first and best line of defense. How are we doing? I cannot speak for every campus, but if Muhlenberg is representative, I think we are doing pretty well. Our students have thrown themselves into non-partisan voter-registration drives. Our Polling Institute has won national media attention for its research and analysis on undecided voters. Our Young Republicans and Young Democrats have invited candidates to campus and conducted membership drives. Our faculty have organized lectures and film series on the issues of the day. As both the law and principle require, Muhlenberg has provided forums for a broad spectrum of viewpoints, while endorsing no party, candidate, or political orthodoxy. More importantly, our curriculum demands that students think critically, base conclusions in objective research, and articulate their opinions with clarity. These are the intellectual habits that make democracy strong.

At the beginning of this semester, I challenged Muhlenberg's freshman class to acknowledge ''that those who disagree with you about religion, about politics, about the great issues of our day have something important to teach you; that changing your mind may represent a course correction along the path toward understanding.'' I urged them, ''If you come here as a conservative, open your mind to the arguments of liberals, and, if you arrive as a liberal, learn from the arguments of conservatives.'' I am hopeful that these bright young men and women will undertake my challenge.

Yet, we can do better. It is widely believed that college campuses are hotbeds of liberalism. In my experience it is true that the great majority of faculty (though by no means all) are politically liberal. However, complaints that liberal faculty brainwash the young ignores academe's commitment to shaping independent thinkers. Despite decades of so-called liberal ''indoctrination,'' the American electorate frequently produces conservative majorities in Congress, and has, over the last 40 years, elected three Democratic and four Republican presidents. Faculty members (like all citizens) should be free to develop and express their own political opinions and positions, though they must make it clear that they speak as private individuals, not on behalf of their institution. And of course they should not use the classroom as a partisan pulpit when political issues are irrelevant to the material they are teaching.

Given this defense of the faculty, why do I say we can do better? Because political homogeneity is more likely to lull a campus into uncritical complacency than it is to stir up vigorous debate. Fortunately, debate, discussion, and disagreement are held in much higher regard on college campuses than intellectual or political orthodoxy. As we guide our campuses through this political season and beyond, we must redouble our commitment to keeping them free marketplaces of ideas. Training citizens to listen to the views of others, to change their minds occasionally, and even to compromise, is essential to the survival of democracy.

Democracy can thrive only when its citizens are thoughtfully engaged in the important issues that confront us. Democracy does not permit us to storm from the room, or cover our ears, or rip up signs so that we can be spared the difficult but important work of listening to our opponents and thinking about the issues. Democracy does not thrive when we hear only our own voices — and those of the candidates we support.

Peyton R. Helm, Ph.D., is president of Muhlenberg College in Allentown.