Regents briefed on campus programs that teach constructive dialogue and reduce polarization

Mission Fulfillment Committee of the University of Minnesota Board of Regents · December 12, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A panel presented programs — including Braver Angels workshops, UMD’s constructive‑dialogue modules, and the Bridging Beliefs project in partnership with Interfaith America — aimed at preparing students for civic engagement by building listening, reflection and structured‑dialogue skills.

The Mission Fulfillment Committee heard a multi‑campus presentation on efforts to prepare students for civic engagement and to reduce political polarization through structured dialogue and skill‑building.

Provost Ritter introduced a panel including Professor Emeritus Bill Doherty, who described nine years of volunteer work with Braver Angels and structured 'Red‑Blue' workshops that bring students of differing political views together to share life stories and build mutual understanding. ‘‘What he was really saying was he was gonna stop assuming malicious intent,’’ Doherty said, recounting a student takeaway from a workshop.

Mitra Imad, the Duluth campus lead for collaborative learning, described UMD’s work integrating constructive dialogue into residence life, first‑year courses (UST 1000), student leader training and campus debate events. She said the campus trained residence assistants in disagreeing better and embedded dialogue modules in first‑year programming so students learn listening, empathy and reflection.

Mercedes Ramirez Fernandez, vice president for equity and diversity, outlined the Bridging Beliefs project and an ongoing partnership with Interfaith America to cultivate pluralism and belonging. Ramirez Fernandez cited student reflections showing that structured dialogue helped participants feel heard and better able to engage across differences.

Regents questioned how deep such programs can go when confronting moralized issues and what metrics the board should use. The panel recommended starting with life‑stories and building measurable outcomes such as pre/post surveys of students’ sense of efficacy in discussing complex topics; Provost Ritter said such surveys and scaffolded skill development could be used to track progress.

The committee did not take action on these initiatives at the meeting; presenters said the programs are examples under the university’s Elevate Extraordinary 2030 plan and will be integrated into campus‑level implementation work.