Is debate dead? Not if tourism students have a say
In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s shocking and very public murder, millions of followers mourned (and continue to mourn), a few extremists celebrated (and continue to celebrate), while many shrugged and pointed to why it was Mr Kirk’s fault.
Still others, like Saverio Francesco Bertolucci, worry about the state of debate in the West, where one’s sincerely-held opinions can literally get one killed.
It’s a “Good Tourism” Insight. (You too can write a “GT” Insight.)
Debate is a source of success
Debate is a source of breakthrough, innovation, and success across every field, including tourism and hospitality. Where two or more points of view collide in the spirit of discovery, they can generate a multitude of new opinions, ideas, and conclusions, some of which may be better adapted to the world and its challenges than those that came before.
When a culture that gives people a sense of freedom to speak out and express themselves loses its way, or is undermined, debate dies, rifts widen, and we see a dramatic polarisation of ideas. This can escalate quickly into distrust, censorship, intolerance, and violence.
We know that totalitarian regimes assert a one-and-only truth and oppress all other perspectives. Their culture of oppression inhibits the social, cultural, and economic development of their societies.
What does totalitarianism look like in an interpersonal context? A family? A workplace? A school? A university?
The state of debate at universities
Universities in the West have historically been state-of-the-art places wherein freedom of expression, differences of opinion, and frank and open debate are encouraged and celebrated. This can’t be said nowadays in two key Western societies if these two 2023 reports are to be trusted:
- In the UK, 57% of students who say they’d vote Conservative report feeling unable to express their views because they are scared of disagreeing with peers (versus 31% of Labour-voting students).
- In the US, polarisation is even worse. Conservative students are much more likely to self-censor than their counterparts. 64% of self-declared ‘very conservative’ students say that concerns about offending peers make them hold back their opinions, compared to 30% of ‘very liberal’ students. The same study shares that students who claim to be offended are disproportionately liberal, non-binary, and black.
The political skew reflects the times. Illiberalism always has this effect whether it comes from ‘left’ or ‘right’.
Alarming trends
More recently, a 2024 Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) report shows a deeply alarming trend in the US:
- Students cancelling speakers. Student opposition to allowing controversial conservative speakers on campus ranged from 57% to 72%, depending on the speaker. In contrast, student opposition to controversial liberal speakers ranged from 29% to 43%, depending on the speaker.
- Students blocking other students. More than 2 in 5 students (45%) said that students blocking other students from attending a speech is acceptable to some degree, up from 37% in 2023.
- Students justifying violence. More than a quarter of students (27%) said that using violence to stop a campus speech is acceptable to some degree, up from 20% in 2023.
The situation in the European Union is luckily not at this stage yet, but the American influence on my continent persists. If we want to continue growing as a society, we should look closely at the state of debate in our schools and universities, and at how we portray each other online and in real life.
Charlie Kirk
The recent homicide of Charlie Kirk, CEO of the conservative movement Turning Point and an important figure for millions of young voters, is a striking example of the consequences of polarisation, and the proliferation of hate and misinformation towards those who have different opinions.
It goes something like this: Repeated false narratives about the opposing side of the political spectrum — including moderate viewpoints — spread as memes on social media and in discussion fora, stir up hysteria to the detriment of healthy conversation, and foster hate to the extreme extent of cold-blooded murder.
This was the process that led to Mr Kirk’s permanent deplatforming.
No matter your views and thoughts on the individual and his Christian conservative outlook, Mr Kirk was a firm believer in civil debate, and helped many young conservatives find their voice in the face of a hostile culture.
His annual visits to American campuses became an opportunity for different ideas to finally collide, leading to mutual understanding and sometimes common agreement.
“Prove me wrong” was a belief in people’s good faith and a way to correct false narratives in a civilised way. He believed that when people stop talking, bad things happen.
Mr Kirk was literally murdered on a debate stage at a university campus.
No surprising reactions, shockingly
With the FIRE report in mind, it does not come as a surprise that some people laughed and cheered upon learning of Mr Kirk’s tragic death; dehumanising a husband and father with young children; children who will never be able to remember their dad.
Many others shrugged, or made excuses, or were somehow able to say they understood or could justify why he was murdered. They were quick to point to his most controversial quotes, which, taken out of context and memeified, were the reason for the hysteria and hate in the first place.
If you do not see it this way, then you are part of the problem.
Tourism students are better than that
There are no statistical analyses at a specific degree level, but I can confidently say that tourism and hospitality studies enjoy a melting pot of cultures and ideas that come together in the same class.
With travel, tourism, and hospitality as a common thread, there was, in my experience, a general interest among fellow students in discovering each other’s points of view in regards to policies, values, traditions, and even political orientations. Students may have not liked someone’s response, but I never witnessed hate, censorship, or isolation.
This characteristic should position tourism and hospitality students at the forefront of good-natured debates, making them natural allies of a sane and healthy worldview tolerant of varied views and of widespread reciprocal respect.
Tourism academics, however …
My experience with academics is, on the contrary, very different.
I have had serious and passionate email exchanges and Linkedin conversations with a number of professors, many of whom, though established in their own careers, singled me out to disrespect my positions, thoughts, and contributions; even targeting me personally.
Of course there are others who congratulated me for my work and praised me for my solid and mature reaction to the critics. They know who they are and I thank them for it.
However, there are academic types who behave no better than childish activists, with far-from-polite commentary that openly calls for the censorship of my views, and even my exclusion. Such rhetoric raises questions about how (if) those professors are able to foster open and civil discussions with the impressionable young minds in their classes.
Perhaps the most egregious example of an aggressive and unapologetic academic is one Freya Higgins-Desbiolles who blocked me on LinkedIn immediately after dismissing my THTM / “GT” Insight interviews as featuring “only older white men” with “oldstyle views”.
If I were to be as uncharitable as she seems to be, I could point to the hate-filled racism, sexism, and ageism revealed by her very few words. But far beyond wordplay, the very act of blocking me for sharing people’s alternate points of view is not a great way to promote debate and openness.
I would like to ask her how she can feel proud to write something like that while at the same time dealing with students in a university environment. But of course her block prevents me from engaging in any form of constructive attempt at mutual understanding. At least it serves as an example of how polarisation happens.
Conflict is inevitable, but contention is a choice
Conflict is inevitable and healthy, but contention is a choice. Conviviality needs to be at the core of every aspect of modern society, where values and opinions are exposed in a democratic and fair discourse.
If the academic melting pot of ideas and discussions goes missing, then confidence in our own foundations, including literacy, knowledge, and sense of the future will quickly vanish.
Let’s protect what we have built and let people debate.
I would like to end my analysis and reflection with a meaningful quote by Ricky Gervais:
“Just because you’re offended, doesn’t mean you’re right.”
What do you think?
Share your own thoughts in a comment below on the state of debate in tourism, the universities, or the wider culture. (SIGN IN or REGISTER first. After signing in you will need to refresh this page to see the comments section.)
Or write a “GT” Insight or “GT” Insight Bite of your own. The “Good Tourism” Blog welcomes diversity of opinion and perspective about travel & tourism, because travel & tourism is everyone’s business.
“GT” doesn’t judge. “GT” publishes. “GT” is where free thought travels.
If you think the tourism media landscape is better with “GT” in it, then please …
About the author
Saverio Francesco Bertolucci studied international tourism & leisure at Università di Bologna, Italy and sustainable tourism development at Aalborg University, Denmark.
A business development specialist with VDB Luxury Properties in Barcelona, Spain, the quadrilingual Italian is interested in destination management, the experience economy, and customer care. Saverio says that he has a “personal passion for social sustainability, remote tourism, and co-creation”.
Featured pic (top of post)
Is debate dead? Image by Gemini AI. “GT” added the word “Deadly”.
