A new analysis reveals that the majority of foundations funding campus dialogue initiatives also support conservative policy networks or pro-Israel organizations, casting doubt on the political neutrality of these programs. The Uncivil consortium found that 20 out of 23 top foundations in the pluralism space back groups like the Manhattan Institute and the Anti-Defamation League.
Conservative Donors Dominate Civility Funding
The Koch brothers' foundations have been pivotal to the growth of the civility industry, which some estimate is now a $200m-a-year business. The Trump administration redirected $60m in federal funds toward civil discourse initiatives, explicitly linking them to student activism and the killing of Charlie Kirk. Critics argue these efforts offer a backdoor for conservatives to impose their will on universities.
Bethany Moreton, a historian at Dartmouth College, said: 'At a surface level, who could be against civility?' But she noted that the industry's underlying intent may be to suppress political activism. The Uncivil group found that 70% of campus discourse initiatives had been accused of suppressing pro-Palestine activism.
From Activism to Listening
The focus on civility marks a shift from traditional campus activism. Nicholas Longo, a facilitator with the Constructive Dialogue Institute (CDI), said the emphasis has moved from encouraging students to 'raise their voices' to getting them to 'listen' with curiosity. Conservative backing of dialogue work, he added, shows 'bipartisan agreement' on the need for it.
Marcel LaFlamme, an academic librarian who attended a CDI webinar, appreciated practical tips like 'starting from commonalities.' He said: 'To me, the role of the university is absolutely to encourage us to lean into curiosity.'
Student Skepticism and Repression
Students have been skeptical of dialogue initiatives, especially when they ignore central issues like Israel and Palestine. At the City University of New York, a workshop on constructive dialogue made no mention of Gaza, and participants were told dialogue is only a 'post-conflict tool.' Leila Markosian, a graduate student, said: 'Everyone was dancing around the central concern. It felt like it was being done to suppress protest.'
Nancy Thomas, executive director of the Institute for Democracy and Higher Education, said: 'Suddenly dialogue is all the rage. It's become a money-making industry.' She now prefers the term 'discussion' as dialogue has been co-opted.
Moreton, who took a dialogue training at Dartmouth, challenged facilitators who referred to campus protests as evidence of deteriorating skills. She asked them to name a 'single improvement' in US history that involved no protest. 'Polarization is actually something that's perhaps necessary in a society,' she said.
