My family and I moved to Oxford in the summer of 2017. The decision took more than a year of discernment. I was tenured elsewhere. Leaving meant trading security for uncertainty. What made the leap possible were conversations with administrators at the University of Mississippi who assured me that the work I cared about would be supported.
It did not take long to discover something even more decisive: a community that shows up for one another. As Winter Storm Fern reminded us, neighbors check on neighbors. In lived experience, Oxford is a good place to live, and the university is a good place to work.
None of that means everything is perfect, and a recent MFP Voices commentary on the firing of Lauren Stokes reminds us of that.
That commentary argued that the firing of Lauren Stokes reveals the “price of civility,” suggesting that the language of civility is merely a pretext for suppressing unpopular political speech and signaling institutional alignment with a divisive ideology. The concern beneath that argument deserves careful attention. Calls for civility have, at times, been used to quiet dissent. Those calls have historically suppressed the speech of marginalized voices most often. The word can certainly operate like a velvet rope placed in front of uncomfortable truths. It is reasonable, then, for some to suspect that something is amiss.
When civility means shielding those in power from criticism, it merits resistance. When it elevates comfort above justice, it falls short. When it affirms the dignity of all persons, fairness in process, and respect across difference, it reflects aspirations many in our community share.
The deeper issue is that many of the conflicts animating our campus are what scholars Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber called “wicked problems.” Wicked problems cannot be solved in the traditional sense because they contain tensions between competing goods: safety and free expression, inclusion and intellectual freedom, community standards and individual conscience. Disputes about employee speech and institutional responsibility live squarely in this territory.
Framing the narrative as firing a public employee for exercising her First Amendment rights is one perspective. In the context of the university hosting an event associated with Turning Point USA following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, some interpreted that decision as endorsement rather than neutrality. Others saw it as evidence that the institution values open speech even when the message is unpopular. The tension in those interpretations is hard to miss.
As thousands lined up for that event, others organized an alternative framed around a similar theme of honoring democratic values. What emerged from both events, however, was less deliberation or engagement and more parallel performance. Microphones amplified conviction. Participants rarely encountered those who disagreed with them. We invited people to declare positions more than to exchange perspectives.
Neither our campus nor our community lack passion. What we lack is sustained infrastructure for deliberation. The work of deliberation, as the Center for Public Deliberation at Colorado State University describes it, helps groups understand the values and tensions shaping shared problems so that tough choices can be made with eyes and ears open. This does not require agreement. It requires that disagreements be structured rather than staged.
There are promising examples. During last year’s National Week of Conversation, campus partners hosted a structured debate asking whether the university deserved a “good grade” for balancing free speech with protecting community members from harm. Participants came with passionate reasons to affirm or oppose the resolution, and they were also able to summarize opposing arguments before advancing their own. Disagreement was expected. Dignity was preserved. Strawmanning gave way to steelmanning. In this way, the difference between performance and engagement became visible.
If we are serious about protecting unpopular voices, the work extends beyond defending or condemning a single administrative decision. The harder task is building durable spaces where disagreement does not collapse into spectacle or silence. Communities are measured not by the absence of conflict, but by how they structure it.
Oxford is capable of that work. The university is capable of that work. The question is whether we will build the habits and institutions to sustain it.
This MFP Voices opinion essay reflects the personal opinion of its author(s). The column does not necessarily represent the views of the Mississippi Free Press, its staff or board members. To submit an opinion for the MFP Voices section, send up to 1,200 words and sources fact-checking the included information to voices@mississippifreepress.org. We welcome a wide variety of viewpoints.