From the Center
College is supposed to be transformative—a place where young people learn, explore, and grow into their own skin.
Before applying, students are told that college will help them find themselves, that they will be exposed to new ideas and be free to express their own opinions without judgment.
If only that were true.
College campuses claim to be centers of diversity and inclusion, yet many students today are less diverse and feel more excluded than ever. And I’m not talking about race, gender, or sexuality—I’m talking about political thought, as almost 60% of college students identify with a strict liberal or conservative ideology rather than a landscape of unique ideas. Because of this, over half of all students are afraid to speak freely, fearful that one wrong word could ostracize them from their peers.
Recent events taking place on college campuses like Columbia University, with the revocations of degrees from pro-Palestinian students and the occupation of campus buildings by protestors, have conveyed a serious and recent divide among students, exemplary of the growing challenges colleges face in maintaining balanced discourse.
As a third-year student at a liberal arts college, I see protests and polarization dividing my classmates, forcing many into either silence or radicalism. The consequence? Radicals (in both parties) dominate the conversation, moderates disappear, and real discussion dies.
The Pressure to Assimilate
One of the most important aspects of human development is finding a sense of community. But for students with political interests, this search can be dangerous.
In political science classrooms, engagement is common, but so is the viciousness of radical believers. My definition of ‘radicals’ would refer to individuals who are dogmatically entrenched into political ideas/affiliations, making them unwilling to face challenging conversation or areas of compromise.
In my own experience, Liberal students tend to dominate discussions, often overpowering opposing voices, while conservative students may make bold, provocative statements that ignite tense, emotional debates. Meanwhile, moderates, independents, and non-partisan students sit in silence, hesitant to speak, fearing backlash, embarrassment, or even social exile.
In fact, a Harvard‑sponsored poll in spring 2024 found that one‑third of students feel unsafe expressing political beliefs, especially moderates and conservatives who are reluctant to speak publicly. However, a growing younger Gen Z cohort shows rising Republican leanings — reflecting a campus that’s more ideologically fractured than it appears.
The choice for students is clear: disengage entirely or assimilate into a more extreme political group.
Legal scholar Cass Sunstein conducted a study in which he placed Democrats and Republicans in separate groups to discuss controversial political topics. His findings were chilling: moderates in each group “squelched private doubts” and aligned with the most extreme voices in the room. This is exactly what happens on college campuses. Moderates and ideologically developing students suppress their true beliefs, fearing rejection from their peers. Over time, this leads to an illusion of consensus — where radical voices become the perceived norm even though they are far from the majority.
Sunstein further noted that polarization may worsen when radicals groupthink — discussing only with other radicals whom they agree with. “The problem is especially severe for groups of like-minded people,” he says, “who typically get more extreme as a result of deliberation.”
The Death of Idea-Driven Politics
Radicalism tends to disrupt discourse as it shifts the conversation from ideas to identity.
Rather than discussing issues — gun rights, abortion, healthcare, free speech — students are quickly categorized into rigid political identities. You are either with us or against us. The result is a campus culture where partisanship takes priority over independent thought.
A student who supports gun rights but is also pro-choice may find themselves in political limbo. If a left-leaning peer hears only their stance on gun restrictions, they may label them as a conservative. If a right-leaning peer hears only their pro-choice stance, they may be labeled a liberal. Either way, that student is placed into a box, defined not by their full range of beliefs but by a single stance that deviates from the expectations of one group or the other.
This dynamic discourages students from thinking freely. Instead of engaging in nuanced discussions, students suppress their views, adapting to fit into the radicalized groups that will accept them. The potential for students to develop independent political ideas is slowly disappearing, replaced by rigid ideological camps where deviation is punished.
We’ve seen similar reactions within movements and protests historically, particularly Black Bloc style of protest utilized by the Occupy Wall Street Movement, Antifa, or groups like the Proud Boys. Moderate activists who feel intrigue or included in these groups, even though the totality of their views do not entirely align with the agenda of these movements, ultimately may become victims to group polarization, developing more extreme anti-state views after prolonged engagement with anarchist organizers.
The real danger isn’t just that political debate is dying — it’s that students are being forced into extremes, making polarization worse on campuses, and even worse for the country.
The Manufactured Crisis of Radicalism
Reaching unprecedented heights, college students are some vulnerable victims to radicalism. This isn’t accidental.
Exposed to social media almost all their lives, younger generations have been compromised through the filtering processes/extreme tailoring of algorithms. Dr. Manoel Ribeiro from Princeton University dissected how YouTube’s recommendation algorithm, much like Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook, often leads users from moderate content to more extreme content over time.
Manipulative political campaigns and media propaganda thrive on this division. The more polarized the electorate, the easier it is to control. The rhetoric we hear today is designed to stoke division, painting every issue as a battle between good and evil. Social media certainly amplifies this, rewarding outrage and silencing nuance. Every political disagreement is framed as an existential crisis.
We are told that we are either a defender of democracy or a threat to it. We are either on the right side of history or the wrong one.
None of this needs to be true. It’s all a manufactured strategy to polarize the electorate and control political discourse. And on college campuses, where young people are still forming their worldviews, this strategy is outrageously successful.
Reclaiming Real Political Discourse
If students are going to reclaim their voice, they must break free from this cycle. Radicalism is not the norm, and it shouldn’t define campus politics.
Colleges must return to being marketplaces of ideas. Free expression must be protected, and students must be encouraged to challenge ideas rather than silence those who hold them. Non-partisan discussion, where students can engage in open dialogue without fear of social exile, is the only way to restore real political discourse.
These reasons are why I founded a non-profit organization, Pathway America, which aims to spearhead this crisis, establishing chapters across schools and colleges, providing a platform for the disenchanted youth – those who feel confused, afraid, or isolated from political debates.
This generation will be one of the largest voting blocs in American history. Continuing down this path will raise a generation that values tribal loyalty over critical thinking. It is indeed our responsibility to push back against the false narrative that radicalism is the norm - it isn’t.
Radicals are the loudest voices in the room — but that doesn’t mean they should be the only ones heard.
